United States	Office of Science and Technology
Environmental Protection	Standards and Applied Science Division
Agency	(4305)
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
ACADEMY
&EPA
Basic Course
REFERENCE
MANUAL
1993 Edition
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology

-------
BASIC COURSE REFERENCE MANUAL
CONTENTS
Reference
Number Title
1.	Clean Water Act. Public Law 92-500, as amended. 33 U.S.C.A. 1251 et seq.
2.	Water Quality Standards Regulation. 48 Federal Register 51400, November 8,
1983.
3.	Introduction to Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. September 1988. EPA 440/5-88-089.
4.	Water Quality Standards Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 1983.
5.	Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards
on Indian Reservation. 56 Federal Register 64876, December 12, 1991.
6.	Reference Guide to Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. January 1990. EPA 440/5-
90-002.
7.	Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Communications and Public Affairs. December
1989.
8.	Bibliography of Water Quality Standards and Criteria Documents; including
order forms for documents and videos.
9.	Directory of State Agencies and Indian Tribal Representatives Responsible for
Water Quality.
10.	Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic
Pollutants; States' Compliance. 57 Federal Register 60848, December 22, 1992.
iii

-------
ft
S9
3
s
o

-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
AS AMENDED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977
(Commonly referred to as Clean Water Act)
(Enacted by Public Law 92-500, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.; Amended by PL 93-207, Dec. 28,1973; PL 93-243, Jan. 2, 1974; PL 93-592, Jan.
2,1975; PL 94-238, March 23, 1976; PL 94-273, April 21, 1976; PL 94-558, Oct. 19,
1976; PL 95-217, Dec. 28, 1977; PL 95-576, Nov. 2, 1978; PL 96-148, Dec. 16, 1979;
PL 96-478, PL 96-483, Oct. 21, 1980; PL 96-510, Dec. 11, 1980; PL 96-561, Dec. 22,
1980; PL 97-35, Aug. 13, 1981; PL 97-117, Dec. 29, 1981; PL 97-164, April 2,1982;
PL 97-440, Jan. 8, 1983; PL 100-4, Feb. 4, 1987; PL 100-202, Dec. 22, 1987; PL
100-236, Jan. 8, 1988; PL 100-581, Nov. 1, 1988; PL 100-653, Nov. 14, 1988; PL
100-688, Nov. 18, 1988; PL 101-380, Aug. 18, 1990; PL 101-596, Nov. 16, 1990)
[Editor's note: The Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
PL 92-500, replaced the previous lan-
guage of the Act entirely, including the
Water Quality Act of 1965, the Clean
Water Restoration Act of 1966, and the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970,
all of which had been amendments of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act first
passed in 1956. The 1977 amendments,
PL 95-217, further amended PL
92-500.]
§2
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended to read as follows:
TITLE I—RESEARCH AND RELAT-
ED PROGRAMS
§101 [33 U.S.C. 1251) Declaration of
Goals and Policy
(a) The objective of this Act is to re-
store and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters. In order to achieve this objective
it is hereby declared that, consistent with
the provisions of this Act—
(1) it is the national goal that the dis-
charge of pollutants into the navigable
waters be eliminated by 1985;
(2)	it is the national goal that wherever
attainable, an interim goal of water quali-
ty which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation in and on the
water be achieved by July 1, 1983;
(3)	it is the national policy that the dis-
charge of toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts be prohibited;
(4)	it is the national policy that Federal
financial assistance be provided to con-
struct publicly owned waste treatment
works;
(5)	it is the national policy that area-
wide waste treatment management plan-
ning processes be developed and imple-
mejjted to assure adequate control of
sources of pollutants in each State;
(6)	it is the national policy that a major
research and demonstration effort be
made to develop technology necessary to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into
the navigable waters, waters of the contig-
uous zone, and the oceans; and
(7)	it is the national policy that pro-
grams for the control of nonpoint sources
of pollution be developed and implement-
ed in an expeditious manner so as to en-
able the goals of this Act to be met
through the control of both point and
nonpoint sources of pollution.
[§101 (a)(7) added by PL 100-41]
(b)	It is the policy of the Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the pri-
mary responsibilities and rights of States
to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollu-
tion, to plan the development and use (in-
cluding restoration, preservation, and en-
hancement) of land and water resources,
and to consult with the Administrator in
the exercise of his authority under this
Act. It is the policy of Congress that the
States manage the construction grant pro-
gram under this Act and implement the
permit programs under sections 402 and
404 of this Act. It is further the policy of
the Congress to support and aid research
relating to the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of pollution, and to provide
Federal technical services and financial
aid to State and interstate agencies and
municipalities in connection with the pre-
vention, reduction, and elimination of pol-
lution.
(c)	It is further the policy of Congress
that the President, acting through the
Secretary of State and such national and
international organizations as he deter-
mines appropriate, shall take such action

-------
as may be necessar> to insure that to the
fullest extent possible all foreign countries
shall take meaningful action for the pre-
vention, reduction, and elimination of pol-
lution in their waters and in international
waters and for the achievement of goals
regarding the elimination of discharge of
pollutants and the improvement of water
quality to at least the same extent as the
United States does under us laws
(d)	Except as otherwise expressK pro-
vided in this Act. the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (here-
inafter in this Act called "Administra-
tor") shall administer this Act.
(e)	Public participation in the develop-
ment. revision, and enforcement of any
regulation, standard, effluent limitation,
plan, or program established by the Ad-
ministrator or any State under this Act
shall be provided for. encouraged, and as-
sisted by the Administrator and the
States The Administrator, in cooperation
with the Slates, shall develop and publish
regulations specifying minimum guide-
lines for public participation in such
processes
(f)	It is the national policy that to the
maximum extent possible the procedures
utilized for implementing this Act shall
encourage the drastic minimization of
paperwork and interagency decision pro-
cedures, and the best use of available
manpower and funds, so as to prevent
needless duplication and unnecessary de-
lays at all levels of government.
(g)	It is the policy of Congress that the
authority of each State to allocate quanti-
ties of water within its jurisdiction shall
not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise
impaired by this Act. It is the further poli-
cy of Congress that nothing in this Act
shall be construed to supersede or abro-
gate rights to quantities of water which
have been established by any State. Fed-
eral agencies shall co-operate with State
and local agencies to' develop comprehen-
sive solutions to prevent, reduce and elim-
inate pollution in concert with programs
for managing water resources.
§102(33 U.S.C. 1252] Comprehensive
Programs for Water Pollution Control
(a) The Administrator shall, after care-
ful investigation, and in cooperation with
other Federal agencies. State water pollu-
tion control agencies, interstate agencies,
and the municipalities and industries in-
volved. prepare or develop comprehensive
programs for preventing, reducing, or
eliminating the pollution of the navigable
waters and ground waters and improving
the sanitary condition of surface and un-
derground waters In the development of
such comprehensive programs due regard
shall be given to the improvements which
are necessary to conserve such waters for
the protection and propagation of fish and
aquatic life and wildlife, recreational pur-
poses, and the withdrawal of such waters
for public water supply, agricultural, in-
dustrial, and other purposes For the pur-
pose of this section, the Administrator is
authorized to make joint investigations
with any such agencies of the condition of
any waters in any State or States, and of
the discharges of any sewage, industrial
wastes, or substance which may adversely
affect such waters.
(b) (1) In the survey of planning of any
reservoir by the Corps of Engineers. Bu-
reau of Reclamation, or other Federal
agency, consideration shall be given to in-
clusion of storage for regulation of
streamflow. except that any such storage
and water releases shall not be provided
as a substitute for adequate treatment or
other methods of controlling waste arthe
source.
(2)	The need for and the value of stor-
age or regulation of streamflow (other
than for water quality) including but not
limited to navigation, salt water intrusion,
recreation, esthetics, and fish and wildlife,
shall be determined by the Corps of Engi-
neers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other
Federal agencies.
(3)	The need for. the value of. and the
impact of, storage for water quality con-
trol shall be determined by the Adminis-
trator, and his views on these matters
shall be set forth in any report or presen-
tation to Congress proposing authoriza-
tion or construction of any reservoir in-
cluding such storage.
(4)	The value of such storage shall be
taken into account in determining the eco-
nomic value of the entire project of which
it is a part, and costs shall be allocated to
the purpose of regulation of streamflow in
a manner which will insure that all pro-
ject purposes, share equitably in the bene-
fits of multiple-purpose construction.
(5)	Costs of regulation of streamflow
features incorporated in an\ Federal res-
ervoir or other impoundment under the
provisions of this Act shall be determined
and the beneficiaries identified and if the
benehts are widespreac r national in
scope, the costs of such features shall be
nonreimbursable.
(6) No license granted by the Federal
Power Commission for a hydroelectric
power project shall include storage for
regulation of stream flow' for the purpose
of water quality control unless the Admin-
istrator shall recommend its inclusion and
such reservoir storage capacity shall not
exceed such proportion of the total stor-
age required for the water quality control
plan as the drainage area of such reservoir
bears to the drainage area of the river
basin or basins involved in such water
quality control plan.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall, at the
request of the Governor of a State, or a
majority of the Governors when more
than one State is involved, make a grant
to pay not to exceed 50 per centum of the
administrative expenses of a planning
agency for a period not to exceed three
years, which period shall begin after the
date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, if such agenc> provides for ade-
quate representation of appropriate State,
interstate, local, or (when appropriate) in-
ternational interests in the basin or por-
tion thereof involved and is capable of de-
veloping an effective, comprehensive wa-
ter quality control plan for a basin or
portion thereof
(2) Each planning agency receiving a
grant under this subsection shall deuelop
a comprehensive pollution control plan for
the basin or portion thereof which—
(A)	is consistent with any applicable
water quality standards, effluent and oth-
er limitations, and thermal discharge reg-
ulations established pursuant to current
law within the basin:
(B)	recommends such treatment works
as will proude the most effective and eco-
nomical means of collection, storage,
,treatment, and elimination of pollutants
and recommends means to encourage
both municipal and industrial use of such
works:
(C)	recommends maintenance and im-
provement of water quality within the ba-
sin or portion thereof and recommends
methods of adequately financing those fa-
cilities as may be necessary to implement
the plan, and
(D)	as appropriate, is developed in co-
operation with, and is consistent with anv
comprehensive plan prepared by the Wa-
ter Resources Council, any areawide

-------
waste management plans developed pur-
suant to section 208 of this Act, and any
State plan developed pursuant to section
303(e) of this Act.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection
the term "basin" includes, but is not limit-
ed to, rivers and their tributaries, streams,
coastal waters, sounds, estuaries, bays,
lakes, and portions thereof, as well as the
lands drained thereby.
(d) The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with the States, and River Basin
Commissions established under the Water
Resources Planning Act, shall submit a
report to Congress on or before July 1,
1978, which analyzes the relationship be-
tween programs under this Act, and the
programs by which State and Federal
agencies allocate quantities of water.
Such report shall include recommenda-
tions concerning the policy in section
101(g) of the Act to improve coordination
of efforts to reduce and eliminate pollu-
tion in concert with programs for manag-
ing water resources.
§103 [33 U.S.C. 1253] Interstate Coopera-
tion and Uniform Laws
(a)	The Administrator shall encourage
cooperative activities by the States for the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of
pollution, encourage the enactment of im-
proved and, so far as practicable,uniform
State laws relating to the prevention, re-
duction, and elimination of pollution; and
encourage compacts between States for
the prevention and control of pollution.
(b)	The consent of the Congress is here-
by given to two or more States to negoti-
ate and enter into agreements or com-
pacts, not in conflict with any law or trea-
ty of the United States, for
(1) cooperative effort and mutual as-
sistance for the prevention and control of
pollution and the enforcement of their re-
spective laws relating thereto, and (2) the
establishment of such agencies, joint or
otherwise, as they may deem desirable for
making effective such agreements and
compacts. No such agreement or compact
shall be binding or obligatory upon any
State a party thereto unless and until it
has been approved by the Congress.
§104 [33 U.S.C. 1254] Research, Investi-
gations, Training, and Information
(a) The Administrator shall establish
national programs for the prevention, re-
duction, and elimination of pollution and
as part of such programs shall—
(1)	in cooperation with other Federal,
State, and local agencies, conduct and
promote the coordination and accelera-
tion of, research, investigations, experi-
ments, training, demonstrations, surveys,
and studies relating to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimi-
nation of pollution;
(2)	encourage, cooperate with, and ren-
der technical services to pollution control
agencies and other appropriate public or
private agencies, institutions, and organi-
zations, and individuals, including the
general public, in the conduct of activities
referred to in paragraph (1) of this sub-
section;
(3)	conduct, in cooperation with State
water pollution control agencies and other
interested agencies, organizations and
persons, public investigations conerning
the pollution of any navigable waters, and
report on the results of such investiga-
tions;
(4)	establish advisory committees com-
posed of recognized experts in various as-
pects of pollution and representatives of
the public to assist in the examination and
evaluation of research progress and pro-
posals and to avoid duplication of re-
search;
(5)	in cooperation with the States, and
their political subdivisions, and other Fed-
eral agencies establish, equip, and main-
tain a water quality surveillance system
for the purpose of monitoring the quality
of the navigable waters and ground wa-
ters and the contiguous zone and the
^ oceans and the Administrator shall, to the
extent practicable, conduct such surveil-
lance by utilizing the resources of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion, the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, the Geological
Survey, and the Coast Guard, and shall
report on such quality in the report re-
quired under subsection (a) of section
516; and
(6)	initiate and promote the coordina-
tion and acceleration of research designed
to develop the most effective practicable
tools and techniques for measuring the so-
cial and economic costs and benefits of
activities which are subject to regulation
under this Act; and shall transmit a report
on the results of such research to the Con-
gress not later than January 1, 1974.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section the Adminis-
trator is authorized to—
(1)	collect and make available, through
publications and other appropriate means,
the results of and other information, in-
cluding appropriate recommendations by
him in connection therewith, pertaining to
such research and other activities referred
to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
(2)	cooperate with other Federal de-
partments and agencies, State water pol-
lution control agencies, interstate agen-
cies, other public and private agencies, in-
stitutions, organizations, industries
involved, and individuals, in the prepara-
tion and conduct of such research and oth-
er activities referred to in paragraph (1)
of subsection (a);
(3)	make grants to Slate water pollu-
tion control agencies, interstate agencies,
other public or nonprofit private agencies,
institutions, organizations, and individu-
als, for purposes stated in paragraph (1)
of subsection (a) of this section;
(4)	contract with public or private
agencies, institutions, organizations, and
individuals, without regard to sections
3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes
(31 U.S.C. 529; 41 U.S.C. 5), referred to
in paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
(5)	establish and maintain research fel-
lowships at public or nonprofit private ed-
ucational institutions or research organi-
zations;
(6)	collect and disseminate, in coopera-
tion with other Federal departments and
agencies, and with other public or private
agencies, institutions, and organizations
having related responsibilities, basic data
on chemical, physical, and biological ef-
fects of varying water quality and other
information pertaining to pollution and
the prevention, reduction, and elimination
thereof; and
(7)	develop effective and practical
processes, methods, and prototype devices
for the prevention, reduction, and elimina-
tion of pollution.
(c) In carrying out the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section the Adminis-
trator shall conduct research on. and sur-
vey the results of other scientific studies
on, the harmful effects on the health or
welfare of persons caused by pollutants.
In order to avoid duplication of effort, the
Administrator shall, to the extent practi-
cable, conduct such research in coopera-
tion with and through the facilities of the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.

-------
(d)	In carrying out the provisions of
this section the Administrator shall devel-
op and demonstrate under varied condi-
tions (including conducting such basic
and applied research, studies, and experi-
ments as may be necessary:
(1)	Practicable means of treating mu-
nicipal sewage, and other waterborne
wastes to implement the requirements of
section 201 of this Act;
(2)	Improved methods and procedures
to identify and measure the effects of pol-
lutants including those pollutants created
by new technological developments; and
(3)	Methods and procedures for evalua-
ting the effects on water quality of aug-
mented streamflows to control pollution
not susceptible to other means of preven-
tion, reduction, or elimination.
(e)	The Administrator shall establish,
equip, and maintain field laboratory and
research facilities, including, but not lim-
ited to, one to be located in the northeast-
ern area of the United Stales, one in the
Middle Atlantic area, one in the south-
eastern area, one in the midwestern area,
one in the southwestern area, one in the
Pacific Northwest, and one in the State of
Alaska, for the conduct of research, inves-
tigations, experiments, field demonstra-
tions and studies, and training relating to
the prevention, reduction and elimination
of pollution. Insofar as practicable, each
such facility shall be located near institu-
tions of higher learning in which graduate
training in such research might be carried
out. In conjunction with the development
of criteria under section 403 of this Act,
the Administrator shall construct the fa-
cilities authorized for the National Ma-
rine Water Quality Laboratory estab-
lished under this subsection.
(0 The Administrator shall conduct re-
search and technical development work,
and make studies, with respect to the
quality of the waters of the Great Lakes,
including an analysis of the present and
projected future water quality of the
Great Lakes under varying conditions of
waste treatment and disposal, an evalua-
tion of the water quality needs of those to
be served by such waters, an evaluation of
municipal, industrial, and vessel waste
treatment and disposal practices with re-
spect to such waters, and a study of alter-
nate means of solving pollution problems
(including additional waste treatment
measures) with respect to such waters.
(g) (1) For the purpose of providing an
adequate supply of trained personnel to
operate and maintain existing and future
treatment works and related activities,
and for the purpose of enhancing substan-
tially the proficiency of those engaged in
such activities, the Administrator shall fi-
nance pilot programs, in cooperation with
State and interstate agencies, municipali-
ties, educational institutions, and other or-
ganizations and individuals, of manpower
development and training and retraining
of persons in, on entering into, the field of
operation and maintenance of treatment
works and related activities. Such pro-
gram and any funds expended for such a
program shall supplement, not supplant,
other manpower and training programs
and funds available for the purposes of
this paragraph. The Administrator is au-
thorized under such terms and conditions
as he deems appropriate, to enter into
agreements with one or more States, act-
ing jointly or severally, or with other pub-
lic or private agencies or institutions for
the development and implementation of
such a program.
(2)	The Administrator is authorized to
enter into agreements with public and pri-
vate agencies and institutions, and indi-
viduals to develop and maintain an effec-
tive system for forecasting the supply of,
and demand for, various professional and
other occupational categories needed for
the prevention, reduction, and elimination
of pollution in each region. State, or area
of the United States and, from time to
time, to publish the results of such fore-
casts.
(3)	In furtherance of the purposes of
this Act, the Administrator is authorized
to—
(A)	make grants to public or private
agencies and institutions and to individu-
als for training projects, and provide for
the conduct of training by contract with
public or private agencies and institutions
and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised
Statutes;
(B)	establish and maintain research fel-
lowships in the Environmental Protection
Agency with such stipends and al-
lowances, including traveling and subsis-
tence expenses, as he may deem necessary
to procure the assistance of the most
promising research fellows; and
(C)	provide, in addition to the program
established under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, training in technical matters
relating to the causes, prevention, reduc-
tion, and elimination of pollution for per-
sonnel of public agencies and other per-
sons with suitable qualifications.
(4) The Administrator shall submit,
through the President, a report to the
Congress not later than December 31,
1973, summarizing the actions taken un-
der this subsection and the effectiveness
of such actions, and setting forth the num-
ber of persons trained, the occupational
categories for which training was provid-
ed, the effectiveness of other Federal,
State, and local training programs in this
field, together with estimates of future
needs, recommendations on improving
training programs, and such other infor-
mation and recommendations, including
legislative recommendations, as he deems
appropriate.
(h)	The Administrator is authorized to
enter into contracts with, or make grants
to, public or private agencies and organi-
zations and individuals for (A) the pur-
pose of developing and demonstrating new
or improved methods for the prevention,
removal, reduction, and elimination of
pollution in lakes, including the undesir-
able effects of nutrients and vegetation,
and (B) the construction of publicly
owned research facilities for such pur-
pose.
(i)The	Administrator, in cooperation
with the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating,
shall—
(1)	engage in such research, studies, ex-
periments, and demonstrations as he
deems appropriate, relative to the removal
of oil from any waters and to the preven-
tion, control, and elimination of oil and
hazardous substances pollution;
(2)	publish from time to time the re-
sults of such activities; and
(3)	from time to time, develop and pub-
lish in the Federal Register specifications
and other technical information on the
various chemical compounds used in the
control of oil and hazardous substances
spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Ad-
ministrator may enter into contracts with,
or make grants to, public or private agen-
cies and organizations and individuals.
(j) The Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall
engage in such research, studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations as he deems

-------
appropriate relative to equipment which is
to be installed on board a vessel and is
designed to receive, retain, treat, or dis-
charge human body wastes and the wastes
from toilets and other receptacles intend-
ed to receive or retain body wastes with
particular emphasis on equipment to be
installed on small recreational vessels.
The Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating shall report
to Congress the results of such research,
studies, experiments, and demonstrations
prior to the effective date of any regula-
tions established under section 312 of this
Act. In carrying out this subsection the
Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating may enter into
contracts with, or make grants to, public
or private organizations and individuals.
(k) In carrying out the provisions of
this section relating to the conduct by the
Administrator of demonstration projects
and the development of field laboratories
and research facilities, the Administrator
may acquire land and interests therein by
purchase, with appropriated or donated
funds, by donation, or by exchange for
acquired or public lands under his juris-
diction which he classifies as suitable for
disposition. The values of the properties
so exchanged either shall be approximate-
ly equal, or if they are not approximately
equal, the values shall be equalized by the
payment of cash to the grantor or to the
Administrator as the circumstances re-
quire.
(1)	(1) The Administrator shall, after
consultation with appropriate local, State,
and Federal agencies, public and private
organizations, and interested individuals,
as soon as practicable but not later than
January 1, 1973, develop and issue to the
States for the purpose of carrying out this
Act the latest scientific knowledge avail-
able in indicating the kind and extent of
effects on health and welfare which may
be expected from the presence of pesti-
cides in the water in varying quantities.
He shall revise and add to such informa-
tion whenever necessary to reflect devel-
oping scientific knowledge.
(2)	The President shall, in consultation
with appropriate local. State, and Federal
agencies, public and private organiza-
tions, and interested individuals, conduct
studies and investigations of methods to
control the release of pesticides into the
environment which study shall include ex-
amination of the persistency of pesticides
in the water environment and alternatives
thereto. The President shall submit re-
ports, from time to time, on such investi-
gations to Congress together with his rec-
ommendations for any necessary legisla-
tion.
(m) (1) The Administrator shall, in an
effort to prevent degradation of the envi-
ronment from the disposal of waste oil,
conduct a study of (A) the generation of
used engine, machine, cooling, and simi-
lar waste oil, including quantities generat-
ed, the nature and quality of such oil, pre-
sent collecting methods and disposal prac-
tices, and alternate uses of such oil; (B)
the long-term, chronic biological effects of
the disposal of such waste oil; and (C) the
potential market for such oils, including
the economic and legal factors relating to
the sale of products made from such oils,
the level of subsidy, if any, needed to en-
courage the purchase by public and pri-
vate nonprofit agencies of products from
such oil, and the practicability of Federal
procurement, on a priority basis, of prod-
ucts made from such oil. In conducting
such study, the Administrator shall con-
sult with affected industries and other
persons.
(2) The Administrator shall report the
preliminary results of such study to Con-
gress within six months after the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, and
shall submit a final report to Congress
within 18 months after such date of enact-
ment.
(n) (1) The Administrator shall, in co-
operation with the Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Water
Resources Council, and with other appro-
priate Federal, State, interstate, or local
public bodies and private organizations,
institutions, and individuals, conduct and
promote, encourage contributions to, con-
tinuing comprehensive studies of the ef-
fects of pollution, including sedimenta-
tion, in the estuaries and estuarine zones
of the United States on fish and wildlife,
on sport and commercial fishing, on recre-
ation, on water supply and water power,
and on other beneficial purposes. Such
studies shall also consider the effect of
demographic trends, the exploitation of
mineral resources and fossil fuels, land
and industrial development, navigation,
flood and erosion control, and other uses
of estuaries and estuarine zones upon the
pollution of the waters therein.
(2)	In conducting such studies, the Ad-
ministrator shall assemble, coordinate,
and organize all existing pertinent infor-
mation on the Nation's estuaries and estu-
arine zones; carry out a program of inves-
tigations and surveys to supplement exist-
ing information in representative
estuaries and estuarine zones; and identi-
fy the problems and areas where further
research and study are required.
(3)	The Administrator shall submit to
Congress, from time to time, reports of
the studies authorized by this subsection
but at least one such report during any
six-year period. Copies of each such re-
port shall be made available to all inter-
ested parties, public and private.
(4)	For the purpose of this subsection,
the term "estuarine zones" means an en-
vironmental system consistting of an estu-
ary and those transitional areas which are
consistently influenced or affected by wa-
ter from an estuary such as, but not limit-
ed to, salt marshes, coastal and mtertidal
areas, bays, harbors, lagoons, inshore wa-
ters, and channels, and the term "estua-
ry" means all or part of the mouth of a
river or stream or other body of water
having unimpaired natural connection
with open sea and within which the sea
water is measurably diluted with fresh
water derived from land drainage.
(o)(l)The Administrator shall con-
duct research and investigations on de-
vices, systems, incentives, pricing policy,
and other methods of reducing the total
flow of sewage, including, but not limited
to, unnecessary water consumption in or-
der to reduce the requirements for, and
the costs of, sewage and waste treatment
services. Such research and investigations
shall be directed to develop devices, sys-
tems, policies, and methods capable of
achieving the maximum reduction of un-
necessary water consumption.
(2) The Administrator shall report the
preliminary results of such studies and in-
vestigations to the Congress within one
year after the date of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, and annually there-
after in the report required under subsec-
tion (a) of section 516. Such report shall
include recommendations for any legisla-
tion that may be required to provide for
the adoption and use of devices, systems,
policies, or other methods of reducing wa-
ter consumption and reducing the total
flow of sewage. Such report shall include

-------
an estimate of the benefits to be derived
from adoption and use of such devices,
systems, policies, or other methods and
also shall reflect estimates of any increase
in private, public, or other cost that would
be occasioned thereby.
(p) In carrying out the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section the Adminis-
trator shall, in cooperation with the Secre-
tary of Agriculture, other Federal agen-
cies, and the States, carry out a compre-
hensive study and research program to
determine new and improved methods
and the better application of existing
methods of preventing, reducing, and
eliminating pollution from agriculture, in-
cluding the legal, economic, and other im-
plications of the use of such methods.
(q)(l)The Administrator shall con-
duct a comprehensive program of re-
search and investigation and pilot project
implementation into new and improved
methods of preventing reducing, storing,
collecting, treating, or otherwise eliminat-
ing pollution from sewage in rural and
other areas where collection of sewage in
conventional, community-wide sewage
collection systems is impractical, un-
economical, or otherwise infeasible, or
where soil conditions or other factors pre-
clude the use of septic tank and drainage
field systems.
(2)	The Administrator shall conduct a
comprehensive program of research and
investigation and pilot project implemen-
tation into new and improved methods for
the collection and treatment of sewage
and other liquid wastes combined with the
treatment and disposal of solid wastes.
(3)	The Administrator shall establish,
either within the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, or through contract with an
appropriate public or private non-profit
organization, a national clearinghouse
which shall (A) receive reports and infor-
mation resulting from research, demon-
strations, and other projects funded under
this Act related to paragraph (1) of this
subsection and to subsection (e)(2) of sec-
lion 105; (B) coordinate and disseminate
such reports and information for use by
Federal and Staie agencies, municipali-
ties, institutions, and persons in develop-
ing new and improved methods pursuant
to this subsection: and (C) provide for the
collection and dissemination of reports
and information relevant to this subsec-
tion from other Federal and State agen-
cies, institutions, universities, and per-
sons.
(4) Small Flows Clearinghouse. —
Notwithstanding section 205(d) of this
Act, from amounts t.iat are set aside for a
fiscal year under section 205(1) of this Act
and are not obligated by the end of the
24-month period of availability for such
amounts under section 205(d), the Ad-
ministrator shall make available
$1,000,000 or such unobligated amount,
whichever is less, to support a national
clearinghouse within the Environmental
Protection Agency to collect and dissemi-
nate information on small flows of sewage
and innovative or alternative wastewater
treatment processes and techniques, con-
sistent with paragraph (3). This para-
graph shall apply with respect to amounts
set aside under section 205(i) for which
the 24-month period of availability re-
ferred to in the preceding sentence ends
on or after September 30, 1986.
[§ 104(q)(4) added by PL 100-41]
(r) The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to colleges and universities to
conduct basic research into the structure
and function of fresh water aquatic eco-
systems, and to improve understanding of
the ecological characteristics necessary to
the maintenance of the chemical, physi-
cal, and biological integrity of freshwater
aquatic ecosystems.
(s) The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to one or more institutions of
higher education (regionally located and
to be designated as "River Study Cen-
ters") for the purpose of conducting and
reporting on interdisciplinary studies on
the nature of river systems, including, hy-
drology, biology, ecology, economics, the
relationship between river uses and land
uses, and the effects of development with-
in river basins on river systems and on the
value of water resources and water relat-
ed activities. No such grant in any fiscal
year shall exceed SI,000,000.
(t) The Administrator shall, in coopera-
tion with State and Federal agencies and
public and private organizations, conduct
continuing comprehensive studies of the
effects and methods of control of thermal
discharges. In evaluating alternative
methods of control the studies shall con-
sider (1) such data as are available Hon
the latest available technology, economic
feasibility including cost-effectivness anal-
ysis, and (2) the total impact on the envi-
ronment, considering not only water qual-
ity but also air quality, land use. and ef-
fective utilization and conservation of
fresh water and other natural resources.
Such studies shall consider meLhods of
minimizing adverse effects and maximiz-
ing beneficial effects of thermal dis-
charges. The results of these studies shall
be reported by the Administrator as soon
as practicable, but not later than 270 days
after enactment of this subsection, and
shall be made available to the public and
the States, and considered as they become
available by the Administrator in carry-
ing out section 316 of this Act and by the
States in proposing thermal water quality
standards.
(u) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated (1) not to exceed $100,000,000 per
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, and the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1975, not to exceed
$14,039,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1980, not to exceed
$20,697,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1981, not to exceed
$22,770,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1982, such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1983 through
1985, and not to exceed $22,770,000 per
fiscal year for each of the fiscal years
1986 through 1990, for carrying out the
provisions of this section, other than sub-
sections (g)(1) and (2), (p), (r), and (t),
except that such authonzations are not
for any research, development, or demon-
stration activity pursuant to such provi-
sions; (2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for
fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975,
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 1977,
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1978,
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1979,
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1980,
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1981,
$3,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years
1983 through 1985, and $3,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of the fiscal years
1986 through 1990, for carrying out the
provisions of subsection (g)(1); (3) not to
exceed $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1973,
1974, and 1975. $1,000,000 for fiscal year
1977, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1978,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1979,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1980,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1981,
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1982, such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years
1983 through 1985, and $1,500,000 per
fiscal year for each of the fiscal years

-------
1986 through 1990, for carrying out the
provisions of subsection (g)(2); (4) not to
exceed J 10,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1973, June 30,
1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out
the provisions of subsection (p); (5) not to
exceed $15,000,000 per fiscal year for the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June
30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying
out the provisions of subsection (r); and
(6) not to exceed $10,000,000 per fiscal
year for the fiscal years ending June 30,
1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975,
for carrying out the provisions of subsec-
tion (t).
[§ 104(u) amended by PL 95-576; PL
96-483; PL 100-4]
[Editor's note: §105 of PL 100-4 re-
quired further research by the EPA. The
provisions follow.]
§105 Research on Effects of Pollutants
In carrying out the provisions of section
104(a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, the Administrator shall con-
duct research on the harmful effects on
the health and welfare of persons caused
by pollutants in water, in conjunction with
the United States Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, and other Feder-
al, State, and interstate agencies carrying
on such research. Such research shall in-
clude. and shall place special emphasis
on, the effect that bioaccumulation of
these pollutants in aquatic species has up-
on reducing the value of aquatic commer-
cial and sport industries. Such research
shall further study methods to reduce and
remove these pollutants from the relevant
affected aquatic species so as to restore
and enhance these valuable resources.
§105 [33 U.S.C. 1255] Grants for Re-
search and Development
(a) The Administrator is authorized to
conduct in the Environmental Protection
Agency, and to make grants to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or inter-
state agency for the purpose of assisting
in the development of—
(1) any project which will demonstrate
a new or improved method of preventing,
reducing, and eliminating the discharge
into any waters of pollutants from sewers
which carry storm water or both storm
water and pollutants; or
(2) any project which will demonstrate
advanced waste treatment and water puri-
fication methods (including the temporary
use of new or improved chemical additives
which provide substantial immediate im-
provement to existing treatment process-
es), or new, or improved methods of joint
treatment systems for municipal and in-
dustrial wastes; and to include in such
grants such amounts as are necessary for
the purpose of reports, plans, and specifi-
cations in connection therewith.
(b)	The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to any State or States or in-
terstate agency to demonstrate, in river
basins or portions thereof, advanced treat-
ment and environmental enhancement
techniques to control pollution from all
sources, within such basins or portions
thereof, including nonpoint sources, to-
gether with in stream water quality im-
provement techniques.
(c)	In order to carry out the purposes of
section 301 of this Act, the Administrator
is authorized to (1) conduct in the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, (2) make
grants to persons, and (3) enter into con-
tracts with persons, for research and dem-
onstration projects for prevention of pollu-
tion of any waters by industry including,
but not limited to, the prevention, reduc-
tion, and elimination of the discharge of
pollutants. No grant shall be made for
any project under this subsection unless
the Administrator determines that such
project will develop or demonstrate a new
or improved method of treating industrial
wastes or otherwise prevent pollution by
industry, which method shall have indus-
trywide application.
(d)	In carrying out the provisions of
this section, the Administrator shall con-
duct, on a priority basis, an accelerated
effort to develop, refine, and achieve prac-
tical application of;
(1)	waste management methods appli-
cable to point and nonpoint sources of pol-
lutants to eliminate the discharge of pollu-
tants, including, but not limited to, elimi-
nation of runoff of pollutants and the
effects of pollutants from inplace or accu-
mulated sources;
(2)	advanced waste treatment methods
applicable to point and nonpoint sources,
including inplace or accumulated sources
of pollutants, and methods for reclaiming
and recycling water and confining pollu-
tants so they will not migrate to cause
water or other environmental pollution;
and
(3) improved methods and procedures
to identify and measure the effects of pol-
lutants on the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of water, including those
pollutants created by new technological
developments.
(e)	(1) The Administrator is authorized
to (A) make, in consultation with the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, grants to persons
for research and demonstration projects
with respect to new and improved meth-
ods of preventing, reducing, and eliminat-
ing pollution from agriculture, and (B)
disseminate, in cooperation with the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, such information
obtained under this subsection, section
104(p), and section 304 as will encourage
and enable the adoption of such methods
in the agricultural industry.
(2) The Administrator is authorized,
(A) in consultation with other interested
Federal agencies, to make grants for dem-
onstration projects with respect to new
and improved methods of preventing, re-
ducing, storing, collecting, treating, or
otherwise eliminating pollution from sew-
age in rural and other areas where collec-
tion of sewage in conventional, communi-
ty-wide sewage collection systems is im-
practical, uneconomical, or otherwise
infeasible, or where soil conditions or oth-
er factors preclude the use of septic tank
and drainage field systems, and (B) in co-
operation with other interested Federal
and State agencies, to disseminate such
information obtained under this subsec-
tion as will encourage and enable the
adoption of new and improved methods
developed pursuant to this subsection.
(f)	Federal grants under subsection (a)
of this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations;
(1)	No grant shall be made for any pro-
ject unless such project shall have been
approved by the appropriate State water
pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Administrator;
(2)	No grant shall be made for any pro-
ject in an amount exceeding 75 per cen-
tum of cost thereof as determined by the
Administrator; and
(3)	No grant shall be made for any pro-
ject unless the Administrator determines
that such project will serve as a useful
demonstration for the purpose set forth in
clause (1) or (2) of subsection (a).

-------
(g)	Federal grants under subsections
(c) and (d) of this section shall not exceed
75 per centum of the cost of the project.
(h)	For the purpose of this section there
is authorized to be appropriated
S75,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal
year ending June 30. 1973, the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974, and the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1975, and from such ap-
propriations at least 10 per centum of the
funds actually appropriated in each fiscal
year shall be available only for the pur-
poses of subsection (e).
(i)	The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to a municipality to assist in
the costs of operating and maintaining a
project which received a grant under this
section, section 104, or section 113 of this
Act prior to the date of enactment of this
subsection so as to reduce the operation
and maintenance costs borne by the recip-
ients of services from such project to costs
comparable to those for projects assisted
under title II of this Act.
(j) The Administrator is authorized to
make a grant to any grantee who received
an increased grant pursuant to section
202(a)(2) of this Act. Such grant may
pay up to 100 per centum of the costs of
technical evaluation of the operation of
the treatment works, costs of training of
persons (other than employees of the
grantee), and costs of disseminating tech-
nical information on the operation of the
treatment works.
§106 [33 U.S.C. 1256] Grants for Pollu-
tion Control Programs
(a) There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated the following sums, to re-
main available until expended, to carry
out the purposes of this section—
(1)	$60,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1973; and
(2)	$75,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1974, and the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1975, $100,000,000 per fiscal
year for the fiscal years 1977, 1978, 1979,
1980, $75,000,000 per fiscal year for the
final years 1981 and 1982, such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal years 1983
through 1985, and $75,000,000 per fiscal
year for each of the fiscal years 1986
through 1990; for grants to States and to
interstate agencies to assist them in ad-
ministering programs for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of pollution, in-
cluding enforcement directly or through
appropriate State law enforcement of-
ficers or agencies.
[§ 106(a)(2) amended by PL 96-483; PL
100-4]
(b)	From the sums appropriated in any
fiscal year, the Administrator shall make
allotments to the several States and inter-
state agencies in accordance with regula-
tions promulgated by him on the basis of
the extent of the pollution problem in the
respective States.
(c)	The Administrator is authorized to
pay each State and interstate agency each
fiscal year either—
(1)	the allotment of such State or agen-
cy for such fiscal year under subsection
(b), or
(2)	the reasonable costs as determined
by the Administrator of developing and
carrying out a pollution program by such
State or agency during such fiscal year,
whichever amount is the lesser.
(d)	No grant shall be made under this
section to any State or interstate agency
for any fiscal year when the expenditure
of non-Federal funds by such State or in-
terstate agency during such fiscal year for
the recurrent expenses of carrying out its
pollution control program are less than
the expenditure by such State or inter-
state agency of non-Federal funds for
such recurrent program expenses during
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
(e)	Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the
Administrator shall not make any grant
under this section to any State which has
not provided or is not carrying out as a
part of its program—
(1)	the establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to monitor, and
to compile and analyze data on (including
classification according to eutrophic con-
dition), the quality of navigable waters
and to the extent practicable, ground wa-
ters including biological monitoring; and
provision for annually updating such data
and including it in the report required un-
der section 305 of this Act;
(2)	authority comparable to that in sec-
tion 504 of this Act and adequate contin-
gency plans to implement such authority.
(0 Grants shall be made under this sec-
tion on condition that—
(l)Such State (or interstate agency)
filed with the Administrator within one
hundred and twenty days after the date of
enactment of this section:
(A) a summary report of the current
status of the State pollution control pro-
gram, including the criteria used by the
State in determining priority of treatment
works; and
(B) such additional information, data,
and reports as the Administrator may re-
quire.
(2)	No federally assumed enforcement
as defined in section 309(a)(2) is in effect
with respect to such State or interstate
agency.
(3)	Such State (or interstate agency)
submits within one hundred and twenty
days after the date of enactment of this
section and before October 1 of each year
thereafter for the Administrator's approv-
al of its program for the prevention, re-
duction, and elimination of pollution in
accordance with purposes and provisions
of this Act in such form and content as
the Administrator may prescribe.
[§106(0(3) amended by PL 94-273]
(g) Any sums allotted under subsection
(b) in any fiscal year which are not paid
shall be reallotted by the Administrator in
accordance with regulations promulgated
by him.
§107(33 U.S.C. 1257] Mine Water Pollu-
tion Control Demonstrations
(a) The Administrator in cooperation
with the Appalachian Regional Commis-
sion and other Federal agencies is autho-
rized to conduct, to make grants for, or to
contract for, projects to demonstrate com-
prehensive approaches to the elimination
or control of acid or other mine water
pollution resulting from active or aban-
doned mining operations and other envi-
ronmental pollution affecting water quali-
ty within all or part of a watershed or
river basin, including siltation from sur-
face mining. Such projects shall demon-
strate the engineering and economic feasi-
bility and practicality of various abate-
ment techniques which will contribute
substantially to effective and practical
methods of acid or other mine water pol-
lution elimination or control, and other
pollution affecting water quality, includ-
ing techniques that demonstrate the engi-
neering and economic feasibility and
practicality of using sewage sludge mater-
ials and other municipal wastes to dimin-
ish or prevent pollution affecting water
quality from acid, sedimentation, or other
pollutants and in such projects to restore
affected lands to usefulness for forestry,
agriculture, recreation, or other beneficial
purposes.

-------
(b)	Prior to undertaking any demon-
stration project under this section in the
Appalachian region (as defined in section
403 of the Appalachian Regional Devel-
opment Act of 1965, as amended), the
Appalachian Regional Commission shall
determine that such demonstration pro-
ject is consistent with the objectives of the
Appalachian Regional Development Act
of 1965, as amended.
(c)	The Administrator, in selecting wa-
tersheds for the purposes of this section,
shall be satisfied that the project area will
not be affected adversely by the influx of
acid or other mine water pollution from
nearby sources.
(d)	Federal participation in such
projects shall be subject to the condi-
tions—
(1)that	the State shall acquire any
land or interests therein necessary for
such project; and
(2)	that the State shall provide legal
and practical protection to the project
area to insure against any activities which
will cause future acid or other mine water
pollution.
(e)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated 530,000,000 to carry out the provi-
sions of this section, which sum shall be
available until expended.
§108(33 U.S.C. 1258] Pollution Control
in Great Lakes
(a)	The Administrator, in cooperation
with other Federal departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities is authorized to
enter, into agreements with any State, po-
litical subdivision, interstate agency, or
other public agency, or combination
thereof, to carry out one or more projects
to demonstrate new methods and tech-
niques and to develop preliminary plans
for the elimination or control of pollution,
within all or any part of the watersheds of
the Great Lakes. Such projects shall dem-
onstrate the engineering and economic
feasibility and practicality of removal of
pollutants and prevention of any polluting
matter from entering into the Great
Lakes in the future and other reduction
and remedial techniques which will con-
tribute substantially to effective and prac-
tical methods of pollution prevention, re-
duction, or elimination.
(b)	Federal participation in such
projects shall be subject to the condition
that the State, political subdivision, inter-
state agency, or other public agency, or
combination thereof, shall pay not less
than 25 per centum of the actual project
costs, which payment may be in any form,
including, but not limited to, land or inter-
ests therein that is needed for the project,
and personal property or services the val-
ue of which shall be determined by the
Administrator.
(c)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated S20.000.000 to carry out the provi-
sions of subsections (a) and (b) of this
section, which sum shall be available until
expended.
(d)(1)	In recognition of the serious
conditions which exist in Lake Erie, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through
the Chief of Engineers, is directed to de-
sign and develop a demonstration waste
water management program for the reha-
bilitation and environmental repair of
Lake Erie. Prior to the initiation of de-
tailed engineering and design, the pro-
gram, along with the specific recommen-
dations shall be submitted to the Congress
for statutory approval. This authority is in
addition to, and not in lieu of, other waste
water studies aimed at eliminating pollu-
tion emanating from select sources
around Lake Erie.
(2) This program is to be developed in
cooperation with the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, other interested depart-
ments, agencies, and instrumentalities of
the Federal Government, and the States
and their political subdivisions. This pro-
gram shall set forth alternative systems
for managing waste water on a regional
basis and shall provide local and State
governments with a range of choice as to
the type of system to be used for the treat-
ment of waste water. These alternative
systems shall include both advanced
waste treatment technology and land dis-
posal systems including aerated treat-
ment-spray irrigation technology and will
also include provisions for the disposal of
solid wastes, including sludge. Such pro-
gram should include measures to control
point sources of pollution, area sources of
pollution, including acid-mine drainage,
urban runofT and rural runoff, and in
place sources of pollution, including bot-
tom loads, sludge banks, and polluted har-
bor dredgings.
(e) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated S5.000.000 to carry out the provi-
sions of subsection (d) of this section,
which sum shall be available until expend-
ed.
§109(33 U.S.C. 1259] Training Grants
and Contracts
(a) The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to or contracts with institu-
tions of higher education, or combinations
of such institutions, to assist them in plan-
ning, developing, strengthening, improv-
ing, or carrying out programs or projects
for the preparation of undergraduate stu-
dents to enter an occupation which in-
volves the design, operation, and mainte-
nance of treatment works, and other facil-
ities whose purpose is water quality
control. Such grants or contracts may in-
clude payment of all or part of the cost of
programs or projects such as—
(A)	planning for the development or ex-
pansion of programs or projects for train-
ing persons in the operation and mainte-
nance of treatment works:
(B)	training and retraining of faculty
members;
(C)	conduct of short-term or regular
session institutes for study by persons en-
gaged in, or preparing to engage in, the
preparation of students preparing to enter
an occupation involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works;
(D)	carrying out innovative and experi-
mental programs of cooperative education
involving alternate periods of full-time or
part-time academic study at the institu-
tion and periods of full-time or part-time
employment involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works; and
(E)	research into, and development of,
methods of training students or faculty,
including the preparation of teaching
materials and the planning of curriculum.
(b) (1) The Administrator may pay 100
per centum of any additional cost of con-
struction of treatment works required for
a facility to train and upgrade waste
treatment works operation and mainte-
nance personnel and for the costs of other
State treatment works operator training
programs, including mobile training units,
classroom rental, specialized instructors,
and instructional material.
(2) The Administrator shall make no
more than one grant for such additional
construction in any State (to serve a
group of States, where, in his judgment,
efficient training programs require multi-
State programs), and shall make such
grant after consultation with and approval
by the State or States on the basis of (A)
the suitability of such facility for training
operation and maintenance personnel for

-------
treatment works throughout such State or
States; and (B) a commitment by the
State agency or agencies to carry out at
such facility a program of training ap-
proved by the Administrator. In any case
where a grant is made to serve two or
more States, the Administrator is autho-
rized to make an additional grant for a
supplemental facility in each such State.
(3)	The Administrator may make such
grant out of the sums allocated to a State
under section 205 of this Act, except that
in no event shall the Federal cost of any
such training facilities exceed $500,000.
(4)	The Administrator may exempt a
grant under this section from any require-
ment under section 204(a)(3) of this Act.
Any grantee who received a grant under
this section prior to enactment of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 shall be eligible
to have its grant increased by funds made
available under such Act.
§110 [33 U.S.C. 1260] Application for
Training Grant or Contract; Allocation
of Grants or Contracts
(t) A grant or contract authorized by
section 109 may be made only upon appli-
cation to the Administrator at such time
or times and containing such information
as he may prescribe, except that no such
application shall be approved unless it—
(A)	sets forth programs, activities, re-
search, or development for which a grant
is authorized under section 109 and de-
scribes the relation to any program set
forth by the applicant in an application, if
any, submitted pursuant to section 111;
(B)	provides such fiscal control and
fund accounting procedures as may be
necessary to assure proper disbursement
of and accounting for Federal funds paid
to the applicant under this section; and
(C)	provides for making such reports,
in such form and containing such infor-
mation, as the Administrator may require
to carry out his functions under this sec-
tion, and for keeping such records and for
affording such access thereto as the Ad-
ministrator may find necessary to assure
the correctness and verification of such
reports.
(2) The Administrator shall allocate
grants or contracts under section 109 in
such manner as will most nearly provide
an equitable distribution of the grants or
contracts throughout the United States
among institutions of higher education
which show promise of being able to use
funds effectively for the purpose of this
section
(3) (A) Payments under this section
may be used in accordance wnh regula-
tions of the Administrator, and subject to
the terms and conditions set forth in an
application approved under paragraph
(i), to pay part of the compensation of
students employed in connection with the
operation and maintenance of treatment
works, other than as an employee in con-
nection with the operation and mainte-
nance of treatment works or as an em-
ployee in any branch of the Government
of the United States, as part of a program
for which a grant has been approved pur-
suant to this section.
(B) Departments and agencies of the
United States are encouraged, to the ex-
tent consistent with efficient administra-
tion, to enter into arrangements with in-
stitutions of higher education for the full-
time, part-time, or temporary employ-
ment, whether in the competitive or ex-
cepted service, of students enrolled in pro-
grams set forth in applications approved
under paragraph (1).
§111 [33 U.S.C. 1261] Award of Scholar-
ships
(1)The	Administrator is authorized to
award scholarships in accordance with the
provisions of this section for undergradu-
ate study by persons who plan to enter an
occupation involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works. Such
scholarships shall be awarded for such pe-
riods as the Administrator may determine
but not to exceed four academic years.
(2)	The Administrator shall allocate
scholarships under this section among in-
stitutions of higher educationwith pro-
grams approved under the provisions of
this section for the use of individuals ac-
cepted into such programs, in such man-
ner and accordance to such plan as will
insofar as practicable—
(A)	provide an equitable distribution of
such scholarships throughout the United
States; and
(B)	attract recent graduates of second-
ary schools to enter an occupation involv-
ing the operation and mainte nance of
treatment works.
(3)	The Administrator shall approve a
program of any institution of higher edu-
cation for the purposes ofthis section only
upon application by the institution and
only upon his finding—
(A)	that such program has a principal
objective the education and training of
persons in the operation and maintenance
of treatment works;
(B)	that such program is in effect and
of high quality, or can be readily put into
effect and may reasonably be expected to
be of high quality;
(C)	that the application describes the
relation of such program to any program,
activity, research, or development set
forth by the applicant in an application, if
any, submitted pursuant to section 110 of
this Act; and
(D)	that the application contains satis-
factory assurances that (i) the institution
will recommend to the Administrator for
the award of scholarships under this sec-
tion, for study in such program, only per-
sons who have demonstrated to the satis-
faction of the institution a serious intent,
upon completing the program, to enter an
occupation involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works, and (ii)
the institution will make reasonable con-
tinuing efforts to encourage recipients of
scholarships under this section, enrolled in
such program, to enter occupations involv-
ing the operation and maintenance of
treatment works upon completing the pro-
gram.
(4)	(A) The Administrator shall pay to
persons awarded scholarships under this
section such stipends (including such al-
lowances for subsistence and other ex-
penses for such persons and their depen-
dents) as he may determine to be consis-
tent with prevailing practices under
comparable federally supported pro-
grams.
(B) The Administrator shall (in addi-
tion to the stip ends paid to persons under
paragraph (1)) pay to the institution of
higher education at which such person is
pursuing his course of study such amount
as he may determine to be consistent with
prevailing practices under comparable
federally support programs.
(5)	A person awarded a scholarship un-
der the provisions of this section shall con-
tinue to receive the payments provided in
this section only during such periods as
the Administrator finds that he is main-
taining satisfactory proficiency and devot-
ing full time to study or research in the
field in which such scholarship was
awarded in an institution of higher educa-
tion, and is no engaging in gainful em-
ployment other than employment ap-

-------
proved by the Administrator by or pursu-
ant to regulation.
(6) The Administrator shall by regula-
tion provide that any person awarded a
scholarship under this section shall agree
in writing to enter and remain in an occu-
pation involving the design, operation, or
maintenance of treatment works for such
period after completion of this course of
studies as the Administrator determines
appropriate.
§112 [33 U.S.C. 1262] Definitions and
Authorizations
(a)	As used in sections 109 through 112
of this Act—
(1)	The term "institution of higher edu-
cation" means an education institution de-
scribed in the first sentence of section
1201 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (other than an institution of any
agency of the United States) which is ac-
credited by a nationally recognized ac-
crediting agency of association approved
by the Administrator for this purpose. For
purposes of this subsection, the Adminis-
trator shall publish a list of nationally rec-
ognized accrediting agencies or associa-
tions which he determines to be reliable
authority as to the quality of training of-
fered.
(2)	The term "academic year" means
an academic year or its equivalent, as de-
termined by the Administrator.
(b)	The Administrator shall annually
report his activities under section 109
through 112 of this Act, including recom-
mendations for needed revisions in the
provisions thereof.
(c)	There are authorized to be appro-
priated $25,000,000 per fiscal year for the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June
30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, S6,000,000
for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1977, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing September 30, 1978, $7,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending September 30,
1979, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing September 30, 1980, $7,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending September 30,
1981, $7,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing September 30, 1982, such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal years 1983
through 1985, and $7,000,00 per fiscal
year for each of the fiscal years 1986
through 1990, to carry out sections 109
through 112 of this Act.
[§112(c) amended by PL 96-483; PL
100-4]
§113 [33 U.S.C. 1263] Alaska Village
Demonstration Projects
The Administrator is authorized to
enter into agreements with the State of
Alaska to carry out one or more projects
to demonstrate methods to provide for
central community facilities for safe wa-
ter andelimination or control of pollution
in those native villages of Alaska without
such facilities. Such project shall include
provisions for community safe water sup-
ply systems, toilets, bathing and laundry
facilities, sewage disposal facilities, and
other similar facilities, and educational
and informational facilities and programs
relating to health and hygiene. Such dem-
onstration projects shall be for the further
purpose of developing preliminary plans
for providing such safe water and such
elimination or control of pollution for all
native villages in such State.
(b)	In carrying out this section the Ad-
ministrator shall cooperate with the Sec-
retary cf Health, Education, and Welfare
for the purpose of utilizing such of the
personnel and facilities of that Depart-
ment as may be appropriate.
(c)	The Administrator shall report to
Congress not later than July 1, 1973, the
results of the demonstration projects au-
thorized by this section together with his
recommendations, including any neces-
sary legislation, relating to the establish-
ment of a statewide program.
(d)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated not to exceed $2,000,000 to carry out
this section. In addition, there is autho-
rized to be appropriated to carry out this
section not to exceed $200,000 for the fis-
cal year ending September 30, 1978 and
$220,000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 1979.
(e)	The Administrator is authorized to
coordinate with the Secretary of the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, the Secretary of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, the
Secretary of the Department of the Interi-
or, the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture, and the heads of any other
departments or agencies he may deem ap-
propriate to conduct a joint study with
representatives of the State of Alaska and
the appropriate Native organizations (as
defined in Public Law 92-203) to develop
a comprehensive program for achieving
adequate sanitation services in Alaska vil-
lages. This study shall be coordinated
with the programs and projects autho-
rized by sections 104(q) and 105(e)(2) of
this Act. The Administrator shall submit
a report of the results of the study, togeth-
er with appropriate supporting data and
such recommendations as he deems desir-
able, to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and to
the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Represen-
tatives not later than December 31, 1979.
The Administrator shall also submit rec-
ommended administrative actions, proce-
dures, and any proposed legislation neces-
sary to implement the recommendations
of the study no later than June 30, 1980.
(0 The Administrator is authorized to
provide technical, financial and manage-
ment assistance for operation and mainte-
nance of the demonstration projects con-
structed under this section, until such
time as the recommendations of subsec-
tion (e) are implemented.
(g) For the purpose of this section, the
term "village" shall mean an incorporated
or unincorporated community with a pop-
ulation of ten to six hundred people living
within a two-mile radius. The term "sani-
tation services" shall mean water supply,
sewage disposal, solid waste disposal and
other services necessary to maintain gen-
erally accepted standards of personal hy-
giene and public health.
§114 [33 U.S.C. 1264] Lake Tahoe Study
(a)	The Administrator, in consultation
with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agen-
cy, the Secretary of Agriculture, other
Federal agencies, representatives of State
and local governments, and members of
the public, shall conduct a thorough and
complete study on the adequacy of and
need for extending Federal oversight and
control in order to preserve the fragile
ecology of Lake Tahoe.
(b)	Such study shall include an exami-
nation of the interrelationships and re-
sponsibilities of the various agencies of
the Federal Government and State and
local governments with a view to estab-
lishing the necessity for redefinition of le-
gal and other arrangements between these
various governments, and making specific
legislative recommendations to Congress.
Such study shall consider the effect of
various actions in terms of their environ-
mental impact on the Tahoe Basin, treat-
ed as an ecosystem.
(c)	The Administrator shall report on
such study to Congress not later than one

-------
year after the date of enactment of this
subsection.
(d) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to carry out this section not to exceed
$500,000.
§115133 U.S.C. 1265] ln-Place Toxic
Pollutants
The Administrator is directed to identi-
fy the location of in-place pollutants with
emphasis on toxic pollutants in harbors
and navigable waterways and is autho-
rized, acting through the Secretary of the
Army, to make contracts for the removal
and appropriate disposal of such materials
from critical port and harbor areas. There
is authorized to be appropriated
SI5,000,000 to carry out the provisions of
this section, which sum shall be available
until expended.
§116 [33 U.S.C. 1266] Hudson River PCB
Reclamation Demonstration Project
(a)	The Administrator is authorized to
enter into contracts and other agreements
with the State of New York to carry out a
project to demonstrate methods for the
selective removal of polychlorinated bi-
phenyls contaminating bottom sediments
of the Hudson River, treating such sedi-
ments as required, burying such sedi-
ments in secure landfills, and installing
monitoring systems for such landfills.
Such demonstration project shall be for
the purpose of determining the feasibility
of indefinite storage in secure landfills of
toxic substances and of ascertaining the
improvement of the rate of recovery of a
toxic contaminated national waterway.
No pollutants removed pursuant to this
paragraph shall be placed in any landfill
unless the Administrator first determines
that disposal of the pollutants in such
landfill would provide a higher standard
of protection of the public health, safety,
and welfare than disposal of such pollu-
tants by any other method including, but
not limited to, incineration or a chemical
destruction process.
(b)	The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to the State of New York to
carry out this section from funds allotted
to such State under section 205(a) of this
Act, except that the amount of any such
grant shall be equal to 75 per centum of
the cost of the project and such grant
shall be made on condition that non-Fed-
eral sources provide the remainder of the
cost of such project. The authority of this
section shall be available until September
30, 1983. Funds allotted to the State of
New York under section 205(a) shall be
available under this subsection only to the
extent that funds are not available, as de-
termined by the Administrator, to the
State of New York for the work autho-
rized by this section under section 115 or
311 of this Act or a comprehensive haz-
ardous substance response and clean up
fund. Any funds used under the authority
of this subsection shall be deducted from
any estimate of the needs of the State of
New York prepared under section 616(b)
of this Act. The Administrator may not
obligate or expend more than $20,000,000
to carry out this section.
[§116 added by PL 96-483]
§117 [33 U.S.C. 1267] Chesapeake Bay
(a)	Office. — The Administrator shall
continue the Chesapeake Bay Program
and shall establish and maintain in the
Environmental Protection Agency an of-
fice, division, or branch of Chesapeake
Bay Programs to—
(1)	collect and make available, through
publications and other appropriate means,
information pertaining to the environmen-
tal quality of the Chesapeake Bay (here-
inafter in this subsection referred to as
the 'Bay');
(2)	coordinate Federal and State efforts
to improve the water quality of the Bay;
(3)	determine the impact of sediment
deposition in the Bay and identify the
sources, rates, routes, and distribution
patterns of such sediment deposition; and
(4)	determine the impact of natural
and man-induced environmental changes
on the living resources of the Bay and the
relationships among such changes, with
particular emphasis placed on the impact
of pollutant loadings of nutrients, chlo-
rine, acid precipitation, dissolved oxygen,
and toxic pollutants, including organic
chemicals and heavy metals, and with
special attention given to the impact of
such changes on striped bass.
(b)	Interstate Development Plan
Grants.—
(1) Authority. — The Administrator
shall, at the request of the Governor of a
State afTected by the interstate manage-
ment plan developed pursuant to the
Chesapeake Bay Program (hereinafter in
this section referred to as the 'plan'),
make a grant for the purpose of imple-
menting the management mechanisms
contained in the plan if such State has,
within 1 year after the date of the enact-
ment of this section, approved and com-
mitted to implement all or substantially
all aspects of the plan. Such grants shall
be made subject to such terms and condi-
tions as the Administrator considers ap-
propriate.
(2)	Submission of Proposal. — A State
or combination of States may elect to
avail itself of the benefits of this subsec-
tion by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement
management mechanisms contained in
the plan which shall include (A) a de-
scription of proposed abatement actions
which the Slate or combination of States
commits to take within a specified time
period to reduce pollution in the Bay and
to meet applicable water quality stan-
dards, and (B) the estimated cost of the
abatement actions proposed to be taken
during the next fiscal year. If the Admin-
istrator finds that such proposal is consis-
tent with the national policies set forth in
section 101(a) of this Act and will con-
tribute to the achievement of the national
goals set forth in such section, the Admin-
istrator shall approve such proposal and
shall finance the costs of implementing
segments of such proposal.
(3)	Federal share. — Grants under this
subsection shall not exceed 50 percent of
the costs of implementing the manage-
ment mechanims contained in the plan in
any fiscal year and shall be made on con-
dition that non-Federal sources provide
the remainder of the cost of implementing
the management mechanisms contained
in the plan during such fiscal year.
(4)	Administrative costs. — Adminis-
trative costs in the form of salaries, over-
head, or indirect costs for services provid-
ed and charged against programs or
projects supported by funds made avail-
able under this subsection shall not ex-
ceed in any one fiscal year 10 percent of
the annual Federal grant made to a State
under this subsection.
(c) Reports. — Any State or combina-
tion of States that receives a grant under
subsection (b) shall, within 18 months af-
ter the date of receipt of such grant and
biennially thereafter, report to the Ad-
minstrator on the progress made in imple-
menting the interstate management plan
developed pursuant to the Chesapeake
Bay Program. The Administrator shall
transmit each such report along with the

-------
comments of the administrator on such
report to Congress.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations. —
There are hereby authorized to be appro-
priated the following sums, to remain
available until expended, to carry out the
purposes of this section:
(1)	S3,000,000 per fiscal year for each
of the fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, and
1990, to carry out subsection (a); and
(2)	$10,000,000 per fiscal year for each
of the fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, and
1990, for grants to States under subsction
(b).
[§l 17 added by PL 100-4]
§118 [33 U.S.C. 1268) Great Lakes
[§118 added by PL 100-4; amended by
PL 100-688]
(a) Findings, Purpose, and Defini-
tions.—
(1)	Findings. — The Congress finds
that—
(A)	the Great Lakes are a valuable na-
tional resource, continuously serving the
people of the United States and other na-
tions as an important source of food, fresh
water, recreation, beauty, and enjoyment;
(B)	the United States should seek to at-
tain the goals embodied in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978,
as amended by the Water Quality Agree-
ment of 1987 and any other agreements
and amendments, with particular empha-
sis on goals related to toxic pollutants;
and
[§118(a)(l(B) amended by PL 100-688]
(C)	the Environmental Protection
Agency should take the lead in the effort
to meet those goals, working with other
Federal agencies and State and local au-
thorities.
(2)	Purpose. — It is the purpose of this
section to achieve the goals embodied in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment of 1978, as amended by the Water
Quality Agreement of 1987 and any other
agreements and amendments, through im-
proved organization and definition of mis-
sion on the part of the Agency, funding of
State grants for pollution control in the
Great Lakes area, and improved account-
ability for implementation of such agree-
ment.
[§118(a)(2) amended by PL 100-688]
(3)	Definitions. — For purposes of this
section, the term—
(A)	"Agency" means the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency;
(B)	"Great Lakes" means Lake Onta-
rio, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including
Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan, and
Lake Superior, and the connecting chan-
nels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair Riv-
er, Detroit River, Niagara River, and
Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian
Border);
(C)	"Great Lakes System" means all
the streams, rivers, lakes, and other bod-
ies of water within the drainage basin of
the Great Lakes;
(D)	"Program Office" means the Great
Lakes National Program Office estab-
lished by this section;
[§ 118(a)(3)(D) amended by PL 101-596]
(E)	"Research Office" means the Great
Lakes Research Office established by sub-
section (d);
[§118(a)(3)(E) amended by PL 101-596]
(F)	'area of concern' means a geo-
graphic area located within the Great
Lakes, in which beneficial uses are im-
paired and which has been officially desig-
nated as such under Annex 2 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
[§118(a)(2)(F) added by PL 101-596]
(G)	"Great Lakes States' means the
States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylva-
nia, and Wisconsin;
[§118(a)(2)(G) added by PL 101-596]
(H)	'Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement' means the bilateral agree-
ment, between the United States and
Canada which was signed in 1978 and
amended by the Protocol of 1987;
[§118(a)(2)(H) added by PL 101-596]
(I)	'Lakewide Management Plan'
means a written document which embod-
ies a systematic and comprehensive
ecosystem approach to restoring and pro-
tecting the beneficial uses of the open wa-
ters of each of the Great Lakes, in accor-
dance with article VI and Annex 2 of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
and
[§118(a)(2)(I) added by PL 101-596]
(J) 'Remedial Action Plan' means a
written document which embodies a sys-
tematic and comprehensive ecosystem ap-
proach to restoring and protecting the
beneficial uses of areas of concern, in ac-
cordance with article VI and Annex 2 of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment.
[§118(a)(2)(J) added by PL 101-596]
(b)	Great Lakes National Program Of-
fice. — The Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office (previously established by the
Administrator) is hereby established
within the Agency. The Program Office
shall be headed by a Director who, by
reason of management experience and
technical expertise relating to the Great
Lakes, is highly qualified to direct the de-
velopment of programs and plans on a va-
riety of Great Lakes issues. The Great
Lakes National Program Office shall be
located in a Great Lakes State.
(c)	Great Lakes Management.—
(1)	functions. — The Program Office
shall—
(A)	in cooperation with appropriate
Federal, State, tribal, and international
agencies, and in accordance with section
101(e) of this Act, develop and implement
specific action plans to carry out the re-
sponsibilities of the United States under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment of 1978, as amended by the Water
Quality Agreement of 1987 and any other
agreements and amendments;
[§118(c)(1)(A) amended by PL
100-688]
(B)	establish a Great Lakes system-
wide surveillance network to monitor the
water quality of the Great Lakes, with
specific emphasis on the monitoring of
toxic pollutants;
(C)	serve as the liaison with, and pro-
vide information to, the Canadian mem-
bers of the International Joint Commis-
sion and the Canadian counterpart to the
Agency;
(D)	coordinate actions of the Agency
(including actions by headquarters and
regional offices thereof) aimed at improv-
ing Great Lakes water quality; and
(E)	coordinate actions of the Agency
with the actions of other Federal agencies
and State and local authorities, so as to
ensure the input of those agencies and au-
thorities in developing water quality strat-
egies and obtain the support of those
agencies and authorities in achieving the
objectives of such agreement.
[New §118(c)(2)—(5) added and former
(2)-(6) redesignated as new (6)—(10) by
PL 101-596]
(2)	Great Lakes Water Quality Guid-
ance.—

-------
(A)	By June 30, 1991, the Administra-
tor, after consultation with the Program
Office, shall publish in the Federal Regis-
ter for public notice and comment pro-
posed water quality guidance for the
Great Lakes System. Such guidance shall
conform with the objectives and provi-
sions of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, shall be no less restrictive
than the provisions of this Act and nation-
al water quality criteria and guidance,
shall specify numerical limits on pollu-
tants in ambient Great Lakes water to
protect human health, aquatic life, and
wildlife, and shall provide guidance to the
Great Lakes States on minimum water
quality standard, aniidegradation policies,
and implementation procedures for the
Great Lakes System.
(B)	By June 30, 1992, the Administra-
tor, in consultation with the Program Of-
fice, shall publish in the Federal Register,
pursuant to this section and the Adminis-
trator's authority under this chapter, final
water quality guidance for the Great
Lakes System.
(C)	Within two years after such Great
Lakes guidance is published, the Great
Lakes States shall adopt water quality
standards, aniidegradation policies, and
implementation procedures for waters
within the Great Lakes System which are
consistent with such guidance. If a Great
Lakes State fails to adopt such standards,
policies, and procedures, the Administra-
tor shall promulgate them not later than
the end of such two-year period. When
reviewing any Great Lakes State's water
quality plan, the agency shall consider the
extent to which the State has complied
with the Great Lakes guidance issued
pursuant to this section.
(3) Remedial Action Plans.—
(A)	For each area of concern for which
the United States has agreed to draft a
Remedial Action Plan, the Program Of-
fice shall ensure that the Great Lakes
State in which such area of concern is
located—
(i)	submits a Remedial Action Plan to
the Program Office by June 30, 1991;
(ii)	submits such Remedial Action Plan
to the International Joint Commission by
January 1. 1992; and
(iii)	includes such Remedial Action
Plans within the State's water quality
plan by January 1, 1993.
(B)	For each area of concern for which
Canada has agreed to draft a Remedial
Action Plan, the Program Office shall,
pursuant to subparagraph (c)(1)(C) of
this section, work with Canada to assure
the submission of such Remedial Action
Plans to the International Joint Commis-
sion by June 30, 1991, and to finalize such
Remedial Action Plans by January 1,
1993.
(C)	For any area of concern designated
as such subsequent to the enactment of
this Act, the Program Office shall (i) if
the United States has agreed to draft the
Remedial Action Plan, ensure that the
Great Lakes State in which such area of
concern is located submits such Plan to
the Program Office within two years of
the area's designation, submits it to the
International Joint Commission no later
than six months after submitting it to the
Program Office, and includes such Plan in
the State's water quality plan no later
than one year after submitting it to the
Commission; and (ii) if Canada has
agreed to draft the Remedial Action Plan,
work with Canada, pursuant to subpara-
graph (c)(1)(C) of this section, to ensure
the submission of such Plan to the Inter-
national Joint Commission within two
years of the area's designation and the
finalization of such Plan no later than
eighteen months after submitting it to
such Commission.
(D)	The Program Office shall compile
formal comments on individual Remedial
Action Plans made by the International
Joint Commission pursuant to section
4(d) of Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Wa-
ter Quality Agreement and, upon request
by a member of the public, shall make
such comments available for inspection
and copying. The Program Office shall al-
so make available, upon request, formal
comments made by the Environmental
Protection Agency on individual Remedi-
al Action Plans.
(4) Lakewide Management Plans.
—The Administrator, in consultation
with the Program Office shall—
(A)	by January 1, 1992, publish in the
Federal Register a proposed Lakewide
Management Plan for Lake Michigan
and solicit public comments;
(B)	by January 1, 1993, submit a pro-
posed Lakewide Management Plan for
Lake Michigan to the International Joint
Commission for review; and
(C)	by January 1, 1994, publish in the
Federal Register a final Lakewide Man-
agement Plan for Lake Michigan and be-
gin implementation. Nothing in this sub-
paragraph shall preclude the simulta-
neous development of Lakewide
Management Plans for the other Great
Lakes.
(5)	Spills of Oil and Hazardous Materi-
als.—The Program Office, in consultation
with the Coast Guard, shall identify areas
within the Great Lakes which are likely to
experience numerous or voluminous spills
of oil or other hazardous materials from
land based facilities, vessels, or other
sources and, in consultation with the
Great Lakes Slates, shall identify weak-
nesses in Federal and Slate programs and
systems to prevent and respond to such
spills. This information shall be included
on at least a biennial basis in the report
required by this section.
(6)	5-Year Plan and Program. — The
Program Office shall develop, in consulta-
tion with the States, a five-year plan and
program for reducing the amount of nutri-
ents introduced into the Great Lakes.
Such program shall incorporate any man-
agement program for reducing nutrient
runoff from nonpoint sources established
under section 319 of this Act and shall
include a program for monitoring nutrient
runoff into, and ambient levels in, the
Great Lakes.
(7)	5-Year Study and Demonstration
Projects. —
(A)	The Program Office shall carry out
a five-year study and demonstration
projects relating to the control and remov-
al of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes,
with emphasis on the removal of toxic pol-
lutants from bottom sediments. In select-
ing locations for conducting demonstra-
tion projects under this paragraph, priori-
ty consideration shall be given to projects
at the following locations; Saginaw Bay,
Michigan: Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin;
Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Ashtabu-
la River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New
York.
[§118(c)(7) designated as (A) by PL
101-596]
(B)	The Program Office shall—
(i)	by December 31, 1990, complete
chemical, physical, and biological assess-
ments of the contaminated sediments at
the locations selected for the study and
demonstration projects;
(ii)	by December 31, 1990, announce
the technologies that will be demonstrat-
ed at each location and the numerical

-------
standard of protection intended to be
achieved at each location;
(iii)	by December 31, 1992, complete
full or pilot scale demonstration projects
on site at each location of promising tech-
nologies to remedy contaminated sedi-
ments; and
(iv)	by December 31, 1993. issue a final
report to Congress on its findings.
[§118(c)(7)(B) added by PL 101-596]
(C) The Administrator, after providing
for public review and comment, shall pub-
lish information concerning the public
health and environmental consequences of
contaminants in Great Lakes sediment.
Information published pursuant to this
subparagraph shall include specific nu-
merical limits to protect health, aquatic
life, and wildlife from the bioaccumula-
tion of toxins. The Administrator shall, at
a minimum, publish information pursuant
to this subparagraph within 2 years of the
date of the enactment of this title.
[§U8(c)(7)(C) added by PL 101-596]
(8)	Administrator's Responsibility. —
The Administrator shall ensure that the
Program Office enters into agreements
with the various organizational elements
of the Agency involved in Great Lakes
activities and the appropriate State agen-
cies specifically delineating—
(A)	the duties and responsibilities of
each such element in the Agency with re-
spect to the Great Lakes;
(B)	the time periods for carrying out
such duties and responsibilities; and
(C)	the resources to be committed to
such duties and responsibilities.
(9)	Budget Item. — The Administrator
shall, in the Agency's annual budget sub-
mission to Congress, include a funding re-
quest for the Program Office as a separate
budget line item.
(10)	Comprehensive Report. — Within
90 days after the end of each fiscal year,
the Administrator shall submit to Con-
gress a comprehensive report which—
(A) describes the achievements in the
preceding fiscal year in implementing the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978, as amended by the Water Quality
Agreement of 1987 and any other agree-
ments and amendments, and shows by
categories (including judicial enforce-
ment, research. State cooperative efforts,
and general administration) the amounts
expended on Great Lakes water quality
initiatives in such proceeding fiscal year;
[§ 1 18(c)(6)(A) amended by PL
100-688]
(B)	describes the progress made in such
preceding fiscal year in implementing the
system of surveillance of the water quality
in the Great Lakes System, including the
monitoring of groundwater and sediment,
with particular reference to toxic pollu-
tants;
(C)	describes the long-term prospects
for improving the condition of the Great
Lakes; and
(D)	provides a comprehensive assess-
ment of the planned efforts to be pursued
in the succeeding fiscal year for imple-
menting the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978, as amended by the
Water Quality Agreement of 1987 and
any other agreements and amendments,
which assessment shall—
[§1 18(c)(6)(D) amended by PL
100-688]
(i)	show by categories (including judi-
cial enforcement, research, State coopera-
tive efforts, and general administration)
the amount anticipated to be expended on
Great Lakes water quality initiatives in
the fiscal year to which the assessment
relates; and
(ii)	include a report of current pro-
grams administered by other Federal
agencies which make available resources
to the Great Lakes water quality manage-
ment efforts.
(11) Confined Disposal Facilities.—
(A)	The Administrator, in consultation
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, shall develop and imple-
ment, within one year of the date of en-
actment of this paragraph, management
plans for every Great Lakes confined dis-
posal facility.
(B)	The plan shall provide for monitor-
ing of such facilities, including—
(i)	water quality at the site and in the
area of the site;
(ii)	sediment quality at the site and in
the area of the site;
(iii)	the diversity, productivity, and sta-
bility of aquatic organisms at the site and
in the area of the site; and
(iv)	such other conditions as the Ad-
ministrator deems appropriate.
(C)	The plan shall identify the antici-
pated use and management of the site
over the following twenty-year period in-
cluding the expected termination of
dumping at the site, the anticipated need
for site management, including pollution
control, following the termination of the
use of the site.
(D)The plan shall identify a schedule
for review and revision of the plan which
shall not be less frequent than five years
after adoption of the plan and every five
years thereafter.
[§ 118(c)( 11) added by PL 101-596]
(d) Great Lakes Research.—
(1)	Establishment of Research Office.
— There is established within the Nation-
al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion the Great Lakes Research Office.
(2)	Identification of Issues. — The Re-
search Office shall identify issues relating
to the Great Lakes resources on which
research is needed. The Research Office
shall submit a report to Congress on such
issues before the end of each fiscal year
which shall identify any changes in the
Great Lakes system with respect to such
issues.
(3)	Inventory. — The Research Office
shall identify and inventory Federal,
State, university, and tribal environmen-
tal research programs (and, to the extent
feasible, those of private organizations
and other nations) relating to the Great
Lakes system, and shall update that in-
ventory every four years.
(4)	Research Exchange. — The Re-
search Office shall establish a Great
Lakes research exchange for the purpose
of facilitating the rapid identification, ac-
quisition, retrieval, dissemination, and use
of information concerning research
projects which are ongoing or completed
and which affect the Great Lakes System.
(5)	Research Program. — The Re-
search Office shall develop, in cooperation
with the Coordination Office, a compre-
hensive environmental research program
and data base for the Great Lakes system.
The data base shall include, but not be
limited to, data relating to water quality,
fisheries, and biota.
(6)	Monitoring. — The Research Of-
fice shall conduct, through the Great
Lakes Environmental Research Laborato-
ry, the National Sea Grant College pro-
gram, other Federal laboratories, and the
private sector, appropriate research and
monitoring activities which address priori-
ty issues and current needs relating to the
Great Lakes.
(7)	Location. — The Research Office
shall be located in a Great Lakes State.
(e) Research and Management Coordi-
nation. —

-------
(1)	Joint Plan. Before October 1 of
each year, the Program Office and the
Research Office shall prepare a joint re-
search plan for the fiscal year which be-
gins in the following calendar year.
(2)	Contents of Plan. — Each plan pre-
pared under paragraph (]) shall —
(A)	identify all proposed research dedi-
cated to activities conducted under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978, as amended by the Water Quality
Agreement of 1987 and any other agree-
ments and amendments;
(B)	include the Agency's assessment of
priorities for research needed to fulfill the
terms of such Agreement; and
(C)	identify all proposed research that
may be used to develop a comprehensive
environmental data base for the Great
Lakes System and establish priorities for
development of such data base.
(3)	Health Research Report.—
(A)	Not later than September 30,
1994, the Program Office, in consultation
with the Research Office, the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
and Great Lakes States shall submit to
the Congress a report assessing the ad-
verse effects of water pollutants in the
Great Lakes System on the health of per-
sons in Great Lakes States and the health
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the Great
Lakes System. In conducting research in
support of this report, the Administrator
may, where appropriate, provide for re-
search to be conducted under cooperative
agreements with Great Lakes States.
(B)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Administrator to carry out this
section not to exceed 53,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 1992. 1993, and 1994.
[5118(e)(3) added by PL 101-596]
(0 Interagency Cooperation. — The
head of each department, agency, or other
instrumentality of the Federal Govern-
ment which is engaged in, is concerned
with, or has authority over programs re-
lating to research, monitoring, and plan-
ning to maintain, enhance, preserve, or
rehabilitate the environmental quality
and natural resources of the Great Lakes,
including the Chief of Engineers of the
Army, the Chief of the Soil Conservation
Service, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard, the Director of the Fish and Wild-
life Service, and the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, shall submit an annual re-
port to the Administrator with respect to
the activities of that agency or office af-
fecting compliance with the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as
amended by the Water Quality Agree-
ment of 1987 and any other agreements
and amendments,
[§118(0 amended by PL 100-688]
(g)	Relationship to Existing Federal
and State Laws and International Trea-
ties. — Nothing in this section shall be
construed to afTect the jurisdiction, pow-
ers, or prerogatives of any department,
agency, or officer of the Federal Govern-
ment or of any State government, or of
any tribe, nor any powers, jurisdiction, or
prerogatives of any international body
created by treaty with authority relating
to the Great Lakes.
(h)	Authorizations of Great Lakes Ap-
propriations.— There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Administrator to
carry out this section not to exceed S
11,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal
years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, and
S25,000,000 for fiscal year 1991. Of the
amounts appropriated each fiscal year—
(1)40	percent shall be used by the
Great Lakes National Program Office on
demonstration projects on the feasibility
of controlling and removing toxic pollu-
tants;
(2)	37 percent shall be used by the
Great Lakes National Program Office for
the program of nutrient monitoring; and
(3)	30 percent or S3,300,000 whichever
is the lesser, shall be transferred to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration for use by the Great Lakes
Research Office.
[§118(h) amended by PL 101-596]
§119 [33 U.S.C. 1269] Long Island Sound
(a)	The Administrator shall continue
the Management Conference of the Long
Island Sound Study (hereinafter referred
to as the "Conference") as established
pursuant to section 320 of this Act, and
shall establish an office (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "Office") to be located on
or near Long Island Sound.
(b)	Administration and Staffing of Of-
fice.—The Office shall be headed by a Di-
rector, who shall be detailed by the Ad-
ministrator, following consultation with
the Administrators of EPA regions I and
II, from among the employees of the
Agency who are in civil service. The Ad-
ministrator shall delegate to the Director
such authority and detail such additional
staff as may be necessary to carry out the
duties of the Director under this section.
(c) Duties of the Office.—The Office
shall assist the Management Conference
of the Long Island Sound Study in carry-
ing out its goals. Specifically, the Office
shall—
(1)	assist and support the implementa-
tion of the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan for Long Island
Sound developed pursuant to section 320
of this Act;
(2)	conduct or commission studies
deemed necessary for strengthened imple-
mentation of the Comprehensive Conser-
vation and Management Plan including,
but not limited to—
(A)	population growth and the adequa-
cy of wastewater treatment facilities,
(B)	the use of biological methods for
nutrient removal in sewage treatment
plants,
(C)	contaminated sediments, and
dredging activities,
(D)	nonpoint source pollution abate-
ment and land use activities in the Long
Island Sound watershed,
(E)	wetland protection and restoration,
(F)	atmospheric deposition of acidic
and other pollutants into Long Island
Sound,
(G)	water quality requirements to sus-
tain fish, shellfish, and wildlife popula-
tions, and the use of indicator species to
assess environmental quality,
(H)	State water quality programs, for
their adequacy pursuant to implementa-
tion of the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan, and
(I)	options for long-term financing of
wastewater treatment projects and water
pollution control programs.
(3)	coordinate the grant, research and
planning programs authorized under this
section;
(4)	coordinate activities and implemen-
tation responsibilities with other Federal
agencies which have jurisdiction over
Long Island Sound and with national and
regional marine monitoring and research
programs established pursuant to the Ma-
rine Protection, Research, and Sanctuar-
ies Act;
(5)	provide administrative and techni-
cal support to the conference;
(6)	collect and make available to the
public publications, and other forms of in-
formation the conference determines to be

-------
appropriate, relating to the environmental
quality of Long Island Sound;
(7)	not more than two years after the
date of the issuance of final Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management Plan
for Long Island Sound under section 320
this Act, and biennially thereafter, issue a
report to theCongress which—
(A)	summarizes the progress made by
the States in implementing the Compre-
hensive Conservation and Management
Plan;
(B)	summarizes any modifications to
the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan in the twelve month
period immediately preceding such re-
port; and
(C)	incorporates specific recommenda-
tions concerning the implementation of
the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan; and
(8)	convene conferences and meetings
for legislators from State governments
and political subdivisions thereof for the
purpose of making recommendations for
coordinating legislative efforts to facili-
tate the environmental restoration of
Long Island Sound and the implementa-
tion of the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan.
(d)	Grants.—
(1)	The Administrator is authorized to
make grants for projects and studies
which will help implement the Long
Island Sound Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan. Special em-
phasis shall given be to implementation,
research and planning, enforcement, and
citizen involvement and education.
(2)	State, interstate, and regional water
pollution control agencies, and other pub-
lic or nonprofit private agencies, institu-
tions, and organizations held to be eligible
for grants pursuant to this subsection.
(3)	Citizen involvement and citizen ed-
ucation grants under this subsection shall
not exceed 95 per centum of the costs of
such work. All other grants under this
subsection shall not exceed 50 per centum
of the research, studies, or work. All
grants shall be made on the condition that
the non-Federal share of such costs are
provided from non-Federal sources.
(e)	Authorizations.—
(1) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Administrator for the imple-
mentation of this section, other than sub-
section (d), such sums as may be neces-
sary for each of the fiscal years 1991
through 1996.
(2) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Administrator for the imple-
mentation of subsection (d) not to exceed
$3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
1991 through 1996.
[§119 added by PL 101-596]
§120 Lake Champlain Management
Conference
There is established a Lake Champlain
Management Conference to develop a
comprehensive pollution prevention, con-
trol, and restoration plan for Lake Cham-
plain. The Administrator shall convene
the management conference within ninety
days of the date of enactment of this sec-
tion.
(b)	Membership.—The Members of
the Management Conference shall be
comprised of—
(1)	the Governors of the States of Ver-
mont and New York;
(2)	each interested Federal agency, not
to exceed a total of five members;
(3)	the Vermont and New York
Chairpersons of the Vermont, New York,
Quebec Citizens Advisory Committee for
the Environmental Management of Lake
Champlain;
(4)	four representatives of the State
legislature of Vermont;
(5)	four representatives of the State
legislature of New York;
(6)	six persons representing local gov-
ernments having jurisdiction over any
land or water within the Lake Champlain
basin, as determined appropriate by the
Governors; and
(7)	eight persons representing affected
industries, nongovernmental organiza-
tions, public and private educational insti-
tutions, and the general public, as deter-
mined appropriate by the trigovernmental
Citizens Advisory Committee for the En-
vironmental Management of Lake Cham-
plain, but not to be current members of
the Citizens Advisory Committee.
(c)	Technical Advisory Committee.—
(1)	The Management Conference shall,
not later than one hundred and twenty
days after the date of enactment of this
section, appoint a Technical Advisory
Committee.
(2)	Such Technical Advisory Commit-
tee shall consist of officials of: appropriate
departments and agencies of the Federal
Government; the State governments of
New York and Vermont; and govern-
ments of political subdivisions of such
States; and public and private research
institutions.
(d)	Research Program.—
(l)The Management Conference shall
establish a multi-disciplinary environmen-
tal research program for Lake Cham-
plain. Such research program shall be
planned and conducted jointly with the
Lake Champlain Research Consortium.
(e)	Pollution Prevention, Control, and
Restoration Plan. —
(1)	Not later than three years after the
date of the enactment of this section, the
Management Conference shall publish a
pollution prevention, control, and restora-
tion plan (hereafter in this section re-
ferred to as the 'Plan') for Lake Cham-
plain.
(2)	The Plan developed pursuant to this
section shall—
(A)	identify corrective actions and
compliance schedules addressing point
and nonpoint sources of pollution neces-
sary to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of water
quality, a balanced, indigenous population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife, recreational,
and economic activities in and on the lake;
(B)	incorporate environmental manage-
ment concepts and programs established
in State and Federal plans and programs
in effect at the time of the development of
such plan;
(C)	clarify the duties of Federal and
State agencies in pollution prevention and
control activities, and to the extent allow-
able by law, suggest a timetable for adop-
tion by the appropriate Federal and State
agencies to accomplish such duties within
a reasonable perioid of time;
(D)	describe the methods and schedules
for funding of programs, activities, and
projects identified in the Plan, including
the use of Federal funds and other sources
of funds; and
(E)	include a strategy for pollution pre-
vention and control that includes the pro-
motion of pollution prevention and man-
agement practices to reduce the amount
of pollution generated in the Lake Cham-
plain basin.
(3)	The Administrator, in cooperation
with the Management Conference, shall
provide for public review and comment on
the draft Plan. At a minimum, the Man-
agement Conference shall conduct one
public meeting to hear comments on the

-------
draft plan in the Stale of New York and
one such meeting in the State of Vermont.
(4)	Not less than one hundred and
twenty days after the publication of the
Plan required pursuant to this section, the
Administrator shall approve such plan if
the plan meets the requirements of this
section and the Governors of the States of
New York and Vermont concur.
(5)	Upon approval of the plan, such
plan shall be deemed to be an approved
management program for the purposes of
section 319(h) of this Act and such plan
shall be deemed to be an approved com-
prehensive conservation and management
plan pursuant to section 320 of this Act.
(f)	Grant Assistance.—
(1)The	Administrator may, in consul-
tation with the Management Conference,
make grants to State, interstate, and re-
gional water pollution control agencies,
and public or nonprofit agencies, institu-
tions, and organizations.
(2)	Grants under this subsection shall
be made for assisting research, surveys,
studies, and modeling and technical and
supporting work necessary for the devel-
opment of the Plan and for retaining ex-
pert consultants in support of litigation
undertaken by the State of New York and
the State of Vermont to compel cleanup
or obtain cleanup damage costs from per-
sons responsible for pollution of Lake
Champlain.
(3)	The amount of grants to any person
under this subsection for a fiscal year
shall not exceed 75 per centum of the
costs of such research, survey, study and
work and shall be made available on the
condition that non-Federal share of such
costs are provided from non-Federal
sources.
(4)	The Administrator may establish
such requirements for the administration
of grants as he determines to be appropri-
ate.
(g)	Definition.—For the purposes of
this section, the term 'Lake Champlain
drainage basin' means all or part of Clin-
ton, Franklin, Warren, Essex, and Wash-
ington counties in the State of New York
and all or part of Franklin. Grand Isle,
Chittenden. Addison, Rutland, Lamoille,
Orange, Washington, Orleans, and Cale-
donia counties in Vermont, that contain
all of the streams, rivers, lakes, and other
bodies of water, including wetlands, that
drain into Lake Champlain.
(h)	Statutory Interpretation.—Nothing
in this section shall be construed so as to
affect the jurisdiction or powers of—
(1)anv	department or agency of the
Federal Government or any Slate govern-
ment; or
(2)	any international organization or
entity related to Lake Champlain created
by treaty or memorandum to which the
United States is a signatory.
(i)	Authorization.—There are autho-
rized to be appropriated to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to carry out
this section S2,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
[§120 added by PL 101-596]
[Editor's note: Section 304 of PL
101-596 did not amend the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act directly, but has
some impact on its implementation. Those
provisions follow.]
§304 Federal Program Coordination
(a) Designation of Lake Champlain as
a Special Project Area Under the Agri-
cultural Conservation Program.—
(1)	In General.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Lake Cham-
plain basin, as defined under section
120(h) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. shall be designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as special pro-
ject area under the Agricultural Conser-
vation Program established under section
8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domes-
tic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)).
(2)	Technical Assistance Reimburse-
ment.—To carry at the purposes of this
subsection, the technical assistance reim-
bursement from the Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service autho-
rized under the Soil nservation and Do-
mestic Allotment Act, shall be inreased
from 5 per centum to 10 per centum.
(3)	Comprehensive Agricultural Moni-
toring.—The Secretary, in consultation
with the Management Conference and
appropriate State and Federal agencies,
shall develop a comprehensive agricultur-
al monitoring and evaluation network for
all major drainages within the Lake
Champlain basin.
(4)	Allocation of Funds.—In allocating
funds under this subsection, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall consult with the Man-
agement Conference established under
section 120 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act and to the extent allow-
able by law, allocate funds to those agri-
cultural enterprises located at sites that
the Management Conference determines
to be priority sites, on the basis of a con-
cern for ensuring implementation of
ipoint source pollution controls through-
out the Lake champlain basin.
(b)	Cooperation of the United States
Geological Survey of the Department of
the Interior.—For the purpose of enhanc-
ing and expanding basic data collection
and monitoring in operation in the Lake
Champlain basin, as defined under section
120 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, the Secretary of the Interior, act-
ing through the heads of water resources
divisions of the New York and New En-
gland districts of the United States Geo-
logical Survey, shall—
(1)	in cooperation with appropriate uni-
versities and private research institutions,
and the appropriate officials of the appro-
priate departments and agencies of the
States of New York and Vermont, devel-
op an integrated georaphic information
system of the Lake Champlain basin;
(2)	convert all partial recording sites in
the Lake Champlain basin to continuous
monitoring stations with full gauging ca-
pabilities and status; and
(3)	establish such additional continuous
monitoring station sites in the Lake
Champlain basin as are necessary to carry
out basic data collection and monitoring,
as defined by the Secretary of the Interi-
or, including groundwater mapping, and
water quality and sediment data collec-
tion.
(c)	Cooperation of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service of The Depart-
ment of the Interior.—
(1) Resource Conservation Pro-
gram.—The Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the
Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Man-
agement Cooperative and the Manage-
ment Conference established pursuant to
this subsection shall—
(A) establish and implement a fisheries
resources restoration, development and
conservation program, including dedicat-
ing a level of hatchery production within
the Lake Champlain basin at or above the
level that existed immediately preceding
the date of enactment of this Act; and

-------
(B) conduct a wildlife species and habi-
tat assessment survey in the Lake Cham-
plain basin, including—
(1)	a survey of Federal threatened and
endangered species, listed or proposed for
listing under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), New
York State and State of Vermont threat-
ened and endangered species and other
species of special concern, migratory non-
game species of management concern,
and national resources plan species;
(ii)	a survey of wildlife habitats such as
islands, wetlands, and riparian areas; and
(iii)	a survey of migratory bird popula-
tions breeding, migrating and wintering
within the Lake Champlain basin.
(2)	To accomplish the purposes of para-
graph (1), the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service is autho-
rized to carry out activities related to—
(A)	controlling sea lampreys and other
nonindigenous aquatic animal nuisances;
(B)	improving the health of fishery re-
sources;
(C)	conducting investigations about
and assessing the status of fishery re-
sources, and disseminating that informa-
tion to all interested parties; and
(D)	conducting and periodically updat-
ing a survey of the fishery resources and
their habitats and food chains in the Lake
Champlain basin.
(d) Authorizations.—
(1)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Department of Agriculture
$2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991,
1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 to carry out
subsection (a) of this section.
(2)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Department of Interior
J 1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991,
1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 to carry out
subsections (b) and (c) of this section.
TITLE II—GRANTS FOR CON-
STRUCTION OF TREATMENT
WORKS
§201 [33 U.S.C. 1281] Purpose
(a)	It is the purpose of this title to re-
quire and to assist the development and
implementation of waste treatment man-
agement plans and practices which will
achieve the goals of this Act.
(b)	Waste treatment management
plans and practices shall provide for the
application of the best practicable waste
treatment technology before any dis-
charge into receiving waters, including re-
claiming and recycling of water, and con-
fined disposal of pollutants so they will not
migrate to cause water or other environ-
mental pollution and shall provide for
consideration of advanced waste treat-
ment techniques.
(c)	To the extent practicable, waste
treatment management shall be on an
areawide basis and provide control or
treatment of all point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, including in place or
accumulated pollution sources.
(d)	The Administrator shall encourage
waste treatent management which results
in the construction of revenue producing
facilities providing for—
(1)the	recycling of potential sewage
pollutants through the production of agri-
culture, silviculture, or aquaculture prod-
ucts, or any combination thereof;
(2)	the confined and contained disposal
of pollutants not recycled;
(3)	the reclamation of wastewater; and
(4)	the ultimate disposal of sludge in a
manner that will not result in environmen-
tal hazards.
(e)	The Administrator shall encourage
waste treatment management which re-
sults in integrating facilities for sewage
treatment and recycling with facilities to
treat, dispose of, or utilize other industrial
and municipal wastes, including but not
limited to solid waste and waste heat and
thermal discharges. Such integrated facil-
ities shall be designed and operated to
produce revenues in excess of capital and
operation and maintenance costs and such
revenues shall be used by the designated
regional management agency to aid in fi-
nancing other environmental improve-
ment programs.
(0 The Administrator shall encourage
waste treatment management which com-
bines "open space" and recreational con-
siderations with such management.
(g) (1) The Administrator is authorized
to make grants to any State, municipality,
or intermunicipal or interstate agency for
the construction of publicly owned treat-
ment works. On and after October 1,
1984, grants under this title shall be made
only for projects for secondary treatment
or more stringent treatment, or any cost
effective alternative thereto, new in-
terceptors and appurtenances, and infil-
tration-in-flow correction.. Notwithstand-
ing the preceding sentences, the Adminis-
trator may make grants on and after
October 1, 1984, for (A) any project with-
in the definition set forth in section 21 2(2)
of this Act. other than for a project re-
ferred to in ihe preceding sentence, and
(B) any purpose for which a grant may be
made under sections 319(h) and (i) of this
Act (including any innovative and alter-
native approaches for the control of
nonpoint sources of pollution), except that
not more than 20 per centum (as deter-
mined by the Governor of the State) of
the amount allotted to a State under sec-
tion 205 of this Act for any fiscal year
shall be obligated in such State under au-
thority of this sentence.
[§201 (g)( 1) revised by PL 97-117;
amended by PL 100-4]
(2)	The Administrator shall not make
grants from funds authorized for any fis-
cal year beginning after June 30, 1974, to
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal
or interstate agency for the erection,
building, acquisition, alteration, remodel-
ing, improvement, or extension of treat-
ment works unless the grant applicant has
satisfactorily demonstrated to the Admin-
istrator that—
(A)	alternative waste management
techniques have been studied and evalua-
ted and the works proposed for grant as-
sistance will provide for the application of
the best practicable waste treatment tech-
nology over the life of the works consis-
tent with the purposes of this title;
(B)	as appropriate, the works proposed
for grant assistance will take into account
and allow to the extent practicable the
application of technology at a later date
which will provide for the reclaiming or
recycling of water or otherwise eliminate
the discharge of pollutants.
(3)	The Administrator shall not ap-
prove any grant after July 1, 1973, for
treatment works under this section unless
the applicant shows to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that each sewer collec-
tion system discharging into such treat-
ment works is not subject to excessive in-
filtration.
(4)	The Administrator is authorized to
make grants to applicants for treatment
works grants under this section for such
sewer system evaluation studies as may be
necessary to carry out the requirements of
paragraph (3) of this subsection. Such
grants shall be made in accordance with
rules and regulations promulgated by the
Administrator. Initial rules and regula-
tions shall be promulgated under this
paragraph not later than 120 days after

-------
the date of enactment of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972.
(5)	The Administrator shall not make
grants from funds authorized for any fis-
cal year beginning after September 30,
1978, to any State, municipality, or in-
termunicipal or interstate agency for the
erection, building, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement, or extension of
treatment works unless the grant appli-
cant has satisfactorily demonstrated to
the Administrator that innovative and al-
ternative wastewater treatment processes
and techniques which provide for the re-
claiming and reuse of water, otherwise
eliminate the discharge of pollutants, and
utilize recycling techniques, land treat-
ment, new or improved methods of waste
treatment management for municipal and
industrial waste (discharged into munici-
pal systems) and the confined disposal of
pollutants, so that pollutants will not mi-
grate to cause water or other environmen-
tal pollution, have been fully studied and
evaluated by the applicant taking into ac-
count section 201(d) of this Act and tak-
ing into account and allowing to the ex-
tent practicable the more efficient use of
energy and resources.
(6)	The Administrator shall not make
grants from funds authorized for any fis-
cal year beginning after September 30,
1978, to any State, municipality, or in-
termunicipal or interstate agency for the
erection, building, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement, or extension of
treatment works unless the grant appli-
cant has satisfactorily demonstrated to
the Administrator that the applicant has
analyzed the potential recreation and
open space opportunities in the planning
of the proposed treatment works.
(h) A grant may be made under this
section to construct a privately owned
treatment works serving one or more prin-
cipal residences or small commercial es-
tablishments constructed prior to, and in-
habited on the date of enactment of this
subsection where the Administrator finds
that—
(1)	a public body otherwise eligible for
a grant under subsection (g) of this sec-
tion has applied on behalf of a number of
such units and certified that public owner-
ship such works is not feasible;
(2)	such public body has entered into
an agreement with the Administrator
which guarantees that such treatment
works will be properly operated and main-
tained and will comply with all other re-
quirements of section 204 of this Act and
includes a system of charges to assure
that each recipient of waste treatment
services under such a grant will pay its
proportionate share of the cost of opera-
tion and maintenance (including replace-
ment); and
(3) the total cost and environmental im-
pact of providing waste treatment services
to such residences or commercial estab-
lishments will be less than the cost of pro-
viding a system of collection and central
treatment of such wastes.
(i) The Administrator shall encourage
waste treatment management methods,
processes, and techniques which will re-
duce total energy requirements.
(j) The Administrator is authorized to
make a grant for any treatment works
utilizing processes and techniques meet-
ing the guidelines promulgated under sec-
tion 304(d)(3) of this Act, if the Adminis-
trator determines it is in the public inter-
est and if in the cost effectiveness study
made of the construction grant applica-
tion for the purpose of evaluating alterna-
tive treatment works, the life cycle cost of
the treatment works for which the grant is
to be made does not exceed the life cycle
cost of the most effective alternative by
more than 15 per centum.
(k) No grant made after November 15,
1981, for a publicly owned treatment
works, other than for facility planning
and the preparation of construction plans
and specifications, shall be used to treat,
store, or convey the flow of any industrial
user into such treatment works in excess
of a flow per day equivalent to fifty thou-
sand gallons per day of sanitary waste.
This subsection shall not apply to any pro-
ject proposed by a grantee which is carry-
ingout an approved project to prepare
construction plans and specifications for a
facility to treat wastewater, which re-
ceived its grant approval before May 15,
1980. This subsection shall not be in ef-
fect after November 15, 1981.
(§201 (k) added by PL 96-483; amended
by PL 97-117]
(1) (1) After the date of enactment of
this subsection, Federal grants shall not
be made for the purpose of providing as-
sistance solely for facility plans, or plans,
specifications, and estimates for any pro-
posed project for the construction of treat-
ment works. In the event that the pro-
posed project receives a grant under this
section for construction, the Administra-
tor shall make an allowance in such grant
for non-Federal funds expended during
the facility planning and advanced engi-
neering and design phase at the prevailing
Federal share under section 202(a) of this
Act, based on the percentage of total pro-
ject costs which the Administrator deter-
mines is the general experience for such
projects.
(2) (A) Each State shall use a portion
of the funds allotted to such State each
fiscal year, but not to exceed 10 per cen-
tum of such funds, to advance to potential
grant applicants under this title the costs
of facility planning or the preparation of
plans, specifications, and estimates.
(B)	Such an advance shall be limited to
the allowance for such costs which the
Administrator establishes under para-
graph (1) of this subsection, and shall be
provided only to a potential grant appli-
cant which is a small community and
which in the judgment of the State would
otherwise be unable to prepare a request
for a grant for construction costs under
this section.
(C)	In the event a grant for construc-
tion costs is made under this section for a
project for which an advance has been
made under this paragraph, the Adminis-
trator shall reduce the amount of such
grant by the allowance established under
paragraph (1) of this subsection. In the
event no such grant is made, the State is
authorized to seek repayment of such ad-
vance on such terms and conditions as it
may determine.
[§201 (1) added by PL 97-117]
(m) (1) Notwithstanding any other pro-
visions of this title, the Administrator is
authorized to make a grant from any
funds otherwise allotted to the State of
California under section 205 of this Act to
the project (and in the amount) specified
in Order WQG 81-1 of the California
State Water Resources Control Board.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sions of this Act, the Administrator shall
make a grant from any funds otherwise
allotted to the State of California to the
city of Eureka, California, in connection
with project numbered C-06-2772. for
the purchase of one hundred and thirty
nine acres of property as environmental
mitigation for siting of the proposed treat-
ment plant.

-------
(3) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act, the Administrator shall
make a grant from any funds otherwise
allotted to the State of California to the
city of San Diego, California, in connec-
tion with that city's aquaculture sewage
process (total resources recover: system)
as an innovative and alternative waste
treatment process.
[§201 (m) added by PL 97-117]
(n)(l)On and after October 1, 1984,
upon the request of the Governor of an
affected State, the Administrator is au-
thorized to use funds available to such
State under section 205 to address water
quality problems due to the impacts of
discharges from combined storm water
and sanitary sewer overflows, which are
not otherwise eligible under this subsec-
tion, were correction of such discharges is
a major priority for such State.
(2) Beginning fiscal year 1983, the Ad-
ministrator shall have available
$200,000,000 per fiscal year in addition to
those funds authorized in section 207 of
this Act to be utilized to address water
quality problems of marine bays and estu-
aries subject to lower levels of water qual-
ity due to the impacts of discharges from
combined storm water and sanitary sewer
overflows from adjacent urban complexes,
not otherwise eligible under this subsec-
tion. Such sums may be used as deemed
appropriate by the Administrator as pro-
vided in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection, upon the request of and dem-
onstration of water quality benefits by the
Governor of an affected State.
[§201 (n) added by PL 97-117]
(0)	The Administrator shall encourage
and assist applicants for grant assistance
under this title to develop and file with the
Administrator a capital financing plan
which, at a minimum —
(1)	projects the future requirements for
waste treatment services within the appli-
cant's jurisdiction for a period of no less
than ten years;
(2)	projects the nature, extent, timing,
and costs of future expansion and recon-
struction of treatment works which will be
necessary to satisfy the applicant's pro-
jected future requirements for waste
treatment services; and
(3)	sets forth with specificity the man-
ner in which the applicant intends to fi-
nance such future expansion and recon-
struction.
[§201 (o) added by PL 97-117]
(p) Time Limit on Resolving Certain
Disputes. — In any case in which a dis-
pute arises with respect to the awarding
of a contract for construction of treatment
works by a grantee of funds under this
title and a party to such dispute files an
appeal with the Administrator under this
title for resolution of such dispute, the
Administrator shall make a final decision
on such appeal within 90 days of the filing
of such appeal.
[§201 (p) added by PL 100-4]
§202 [33 U.S.C.1282] Federal Share
(a)(1) The amount of any grant for
treatment works made under this Act
from funds authorized for any fiscal year
beginning after June 30, 1971, and ending
before October 1, 1984, shall be 75 per
centum of the cost of construction thereof
(as approved by the Administrator), and
for any fiscal year beginning on or after
October 1, 1984, shall be 55 per centum
of the cost of construction thereof (as ap-
proved by the Administrator), unless
modified to a lower percentage rate uni-
form throughout a State by the Governor
of that State with the concurrence of the
Administrator. Within ninety days after
the enactment of this sentence the Ad-
ministrator shall issue guidelines for con-
currence in any such modification, which
shall provide for the consideration of the
unobligated balance of sums allocated to
the State under section 205 of this Act,
the need for assistance under this title in
such State, and the availability of State
grant assistance to replace the Federal
share reduced by such modification. The
payment of any such reduced Federal
share shall not constitute an obligation on
the part of the United States or a claim on
the part of any State or grantee to reim-
bursement for the portion of the Federal
share reduced in any such State. Any
grant (other than for reimbursement)
made prior to the date of enactment of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 from any funds au-
thorized for any fiscal year beginning af-
ter June 30, 1971, shall, upon the request
of the applicant, be increased to the appli-
cable percentage under this section. Not-
withstanding the first sentence of this
paragraph, in any case where a primary,
secondary, or advanced waste treatment
facility or its related interceptors or a pro-
ject for infiltration-in-flow correction has
received a grant for erection, building, ac-
quisition, alteration, remodeling, improve-
ment, extension, or correction before Oc-
tober 1, 1984, all segments and phases of
such facility, interceptors, and project for
infiltration-in-flow correction shall be eli-
gible for grants at 75 per centum of the
cost of construction thereof for any grant
made pursuant to a State obligation
which obligation occurred before October
1, 1990. Notwithstanding the first sen-
tence of this paragraph, in the case of a
project for which an application for a
grant under this title has been made to
the Administrator before October 1,
1984, and which project is under judicial
injunction on such date prohibiting its
construction, such project shall be eligible
for grants at 75 percent of the cost of
construction thereof. Notwithstanding the
first sentence of this paragraph, in the
case of the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Au-
thority project mandated by judicial order
under a proceeding begun prior to Octo-
ber 1, 1984, and a project for wastewater
treatment for Altoona, Pennsylvania, such
projects shall be eligible for grants at 75
percent of the cost of construction thereof.
[§202(a)(l) amended by PL 96-483; PL
97-117; PL 100-4]
(2) The amount of any grant made af-
ter September 30, 1978, and before Octo-
ber 1, 1981, for any eligible treatment
works or significant portion thereof utiliz-
ing innovative or alternative wastewater
treatment processes and techniques re-
ferred to in section 201(g)(5) shall be 85
per centum of the cost of construction
thereof unless modified by the Governor
of the State with the concurrence of the
Administrator to a percentage rate no less
than is percentum greater than the modi-
fied uniform percentage rate in which the
Administrator has concurred pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection. The
amount of any grant made after Septem-
ber 30, 1981, for any eligible treatment
works or unit processes and techniques
thereof utilizing innovative or alternative
wastewater treatment processes and tech-
niques referred to in section 201(g)(5)
shall be a percentage of the cost of con-
struction thereof equal to 20 per centum
greater than the percentage in effect un-
der paragraph (1) of this subsection for
such works or unit processes and tech-
niques, but in no event greater than 85
per centum of the cost of construction
thereof. No grant shall be made under

-------
this paragraph for construction of a treat-
ment works in any State unless the pro-
portion of the State contribution to the
non-Federal share of construction costs
for all treatment works in such State re-
ceiving a grant under this paragraph is
the same as or greater than the proportion
of the State contribution (if any) to the
non-Federal share of construction costs
for all treatment works receiving grants in
such State under paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
[§202(a)(2) amended by PL 96-483; PL
97-117]
(3)	In addition to any grant made pur-
suant to paragraph (2) of this subsection,
the Administrator is authorized to make a
grant to fund all of the costs of the modifi-
cation or replacement of any facilities
constructed with a grant made pursuant
to paragraph (2) if the administrator
finds that such facilities have not met de-
sign performance specifications unless
such failure is attributable to negligence
on the part of any person and if such fail-
ure has significantly increased capital or
operating and maintenance expenditures.
In addition, the Administrator is autho-
rized to make a grant to fund all of the
costs of the modification or replacement
of biodisc equipment (rotating biological
contractors) in any publicly owned treat-
ment works if the Administrator finds
that such equipment has failed to meet
design performance specifications, unless
such failure is attributable to negligence
on the part of any person, and if such
failure has significantly increased capital
or operating and maintenance expendi-
tures.
[§202(a)(3) amended by PL 100-4]
(4)	For the purposes of this section, the
term "eligible treatment works" means
those treatment works in each State
which meet the requirements of section
201(g)(5) of this Act and which can be
fully funded from funds available for such
purpose in such State.
[§202(a)(4) amended by PL-117}
(b) The amount of the grant for any
project approved by the Administrator af-
ter January 1, 1971, and before July 1,
1971, for the construction of treatment
works, the actual erection, building or ac-
quisition of which was not commenced
prior to July 1, 1971, shall, upon the re-
quest of the applicant, be increased to the
applicable percentage under subsection
(a) of this section for grants for treatment
works from funds for fiscal years begin-
ning after June 30, 1971, with respect to
the cost of such actual erection, building,
or acquisition. Such increased amount
shall be paid from any funds allocated to
the State in which the treatment works is
located without regard to the fiscal year
for which such funds were authorized.
Such increased amount shall be paid for
such project only if—
(1)	a sewage collection system that is a
part of the same total waste treatment
system as the treatment works for which
such grant was approved is under con-
struction or is to be constructed for use in
conjunction with such treatment works,
and if the cost of such sewage collection
system exceeds the cost of such treatment
works, and
(2)	the State water pollution control
agency or other appropriate State authori-
ty certifies that the quantity of available
ground water will be insufficient, inade-
quate, or unsuitable for public use, includ-
ing the ecological preservation and recre-
ational use of surface water bodies, unless
effluents from publicly owned treatment
works after adequate treatment are re-
turned to the ground water consistent
with acceptable technological standards.
§203 [33 U.S.C. 1283] Plans, Specifica-
tions, Estimates, and Payments
(a) (1) Each applicant for a grant shall
submit to the Administrator for his ap-
proval, plans, specifications, and estimates
for each proposed project for the construc-
tion of treatment works for which a grant
is applied for under section 201(g)(1)
from funds allotted to the State under sec-
tion 205 and which otherwise meets the
requirements of this Act. The Administra-
tor shall act upon such plans, specifica-
tions, and estimates as soon as practicable
after the same have been submitted, and
his approval of any such plans, specifica-
tions, and estimates shall be deemed a
contractual obligation of the United
States for the payment of its proportional
contribution to such project.
[§203(a> amended by PL 96-483; (a)(1)
designated by PL 100—4]
(2) Agreement on Eligible Costs.—
(A) Limitation on Modifications. —
Before taking final action on any plans,
specifications, and estimates submitted
under this subsection after the 60th day
following the date of the enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987, the Adminis-
trator shall enter into a written agreement
with the applicant which establishes and
specifies which items of the proposed pro-
ject are eligible for Federal payments un-
der this section. The Administrator may
not later modify such eligibility
determinatons unless they are found to
have been made in violation of applicable
Federal statutes and regulations.
(B) Limitation on Effect. — Eligibility
determinations under this paragraph shall
not preclude the Administrator from au-
diting a project pursuant to section 501 of
this Act, or other authority, or from with-
holding or recovering Federal funds for
costs which are found to be unreasonable,
unsupported by adequate documentation,
or otherwise unallowable under applicable
Federal cost principles, or which are in-
curred on a project which fails to meet the
design specifications or effluent limita-
tions contained in the grant agreement
and permit pursuant to section 402 of this
Act for such project.
(§203(a)(2) added by PL 100-4]
(3) In the case of a treatment works
that has an estimated total cost of
58,000,000 or less (as determined by the
Administrator), and the population of the
applicant municipality is twenty-five thou-
sand or less (according to the most recent
United States census), upon completion of
an approved facility plan, a single grant
may be awarded for the combined Feder-
al share of the cost of preparing construc-
tion plans and specifications, and the
building and erection of the treatment
works.
[§203(a)(3) designated by PL 100-4]
(b)	The Administrator shall, from time
to time as the work progresses, make pay-
ments to the recipient of a grant for costs
of construction incurred on a project.
These payments shall at no time exceed
the Federal share of the cost of construc-
tion incurred to the date of the voucher
covering such payment plus the Federal
share of the value of the materials which
have been stockpiled in the vicinity of
such construction in conformity to plans
and specifications for the project.
(c)	After completion of a project and
approval of the final voucher by the Ad-
ministrator, he shall pay out of the appro-
priate sums the unpaid balance of the
Federal share payable on account of such
project.

-------
(d)	Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to require, or to authorize the Ad-
ministrator to require, that grants under
this Act for construction of treatment
works be made only for projects which are
operable units usable for sewage collec-
tion, transportation, storage, waste treat-
ment, or for similar purposes without ad-
ditional construction.
(e)	At the request of a grantee under
this title, the Administrator is authorized
to provide technical and legal assistance
in the administration and enforcement of
any contract in connection with treatment
works assisted under this title, and to in-
tervene in any civil action involving the
enforcement of such a contract.
(0 Design/Build Projects.—
(1)	Agreement. — Consistent with
State law, an applicant who proposes to
construct waste water treatment works
may enter into an agreement with the Ad-
ministrator under this subsection provid-
ing for the preparation of construction
plans and specifications and the erection
of such treatment works, in lieu of pro-
ceeding under the other provisions of this
section.
(2)	Limitation on Projects. — Agree-
ments under this subsection shall be limit-
ed to projects under an approved facility
plan which projects are—
(A)	treatment works that have an esti-
mated total cost of S8,000,000 or less; and
(B)	any of the following types of waste
water treatment systems: aerated lagoons,
trickling filters, stabilization ponds, land
application systems, sand filters, and sub-
surface disposal systems.
(3)	Required Terms. — An agreement
entered into under this subsection shall—
(A)	set forth an amount agreed to as
the maximum Federal contribution to the
project, based1 upon a competitively bid
document of basic design data and appli-
cable standard construction specifications
and a determination of the federally eligi-
ble costs of the project at the applicable
Federal share under section 202 of this
Act;
(B)	set forth dates for the start and
completion of construction of the treat-
ment works by the applicant and a sched-
ule of payments of the Federal contribu-
tion to the project:
(C)	contain assurances by the applicant
that (i) engineering and management as-
sistance will be provided to manage the
project; (ii) the proposed treatment works
will be an operable unit and will meet all
the requirements of this title: and (iii) not
later than I year after the date specified
as the date of completion of cunstruction
of the treatment works, the treatment
works will beoperating so as to meet the
requirements of any applicable permit for
such treatment works under section 402
of this Act;
(D)	require the applicant to obtain a
bond from the contractor in an amount
determined necessary by the Administra-
tor to protect the Federal interest in the
project; and
(E)	contain such other terms and condi-
tions as are necessary to assure compli-
ance with this title (except as provided in
paragraph (4) of this subsection).
(4)	Limitation on Application. — Sub-
sections (a), (b), and (c) of this section
shall not apply to grants made pursuant to
this subsection.
(5)	Reservation to Assure Compliance.
— The Administrator shall reserve a por-
tion of the grant to assure contract com-
pliance until final project approval as de-
fined by the Administrator. If the amount
agreed to under paragraph (3)(A) ex-
ceeds the cost of designing and construct-
ing the treatment works, the Administra-
tor shall reallot the amount of the excess
to the State in which such treatment
works are located for the fiscal year in
which such audit is completed.
(6)	Limitation on Obligations. — The
Administrator shall not obligate more
than 20 percent of the amount allotted to
a State for a fiscal year under section 20S
of this Act for grants pursuant to this sub-
section.
(7.) Allowance. — The Administrator
shall determine an allowance for facilities
planning for projects constructed under
this subsection in accordance with section
201(1).
(8)	Limitation on Federal Contribu-
tions. — In no event shall the Federal
contribution for the cost of preparing con-
struction plans and specifications and the
building and erection of treatment works
pursuant to this subsection exceed the
amount agreed upon under paragraph (3).
(9)	Recovery Action. — In any case in
which the recipient of a grant made pur-
suant to this subsection does not comply
with the terms of the agreement entered
into under paragraph (3), the Administra-
tor is authorized to take such action as
may be necessary to recover the amount
of the Federal contribution to the project.
(10) Prevention of Double Benefits. —
A recipient of a grant made pursuant to
this subsection shall not be eligible for
any other grants under this title for the
same project.
[§203(0 added by PL 100-4]
§204 [33 U.S.C. 1283] Limitations and
Conditions
(a) Before approving grants for any
project for any treatment works under
section 201(g)(1) the Administrator shall
determine—
(1)that	any required areawide waste
treatment management plan under sec-
tion 208 of this Act (A) is being imple-
mented for such area and the proposed
treatment works are included in such
plan, or (B) is being developed for such
area and reasonable progress is being
made toward its implementation and the
proposed treatment works will be includ-
ed in such plan;
[§204(a)(l) revised by PL 100-4]
(2)	that (A) the State in which the pro-
ject is to be located (i) is implementing
any required plan under section 303(e) of
this Act and the proposed treatment
works are in conformity with such plan, or
(ii) is developing such a plan and the pro-
posed treatment works will be in conform-
ity with such plan, and (B) such State is
in compliance with section 305(b) of this
Act;
[§204(a)(2) revised by PL 100-4]
(3)	that such works have been certified
by the appropriate State water pollution
control agency as entitled to priority over
such other works in the State in accor-
dance with any applicable State plan un-
der section 303(e) of this Act, except that
any priority list developed pursuant to
section 303(e)(3)(H) may be modified by
such State in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Administrator to give
higher priority for grants for the Federal
share of the cost of preparing construction
drawings and specifications for any treat-
ment works utilizing processes and tech-
niques meeting the guidelines promulgat-
ed under section 304(d)(3) of this Act
and for grants for the combined Federal
share of the cost of preparing construction
drawings and specifications and the build-
ing and erection of any treatment works
meeting the requirements of the next to

-------
the lasi sentence of section 203(a) of this
Act which utilizes processes and tech-
niques meeting the guidelines promulgat-
ed under section 304(d)(3) of this Act;
(4)	that the applicant proposing to con-
struct such works agrees to pay the non-
Federal costs of such works and has made
adequate provisions satisfactory to the
Administrator for assuring proper and ef-
ficient operation, including the employ-
ment of trained management and opera-
tions personnel, and the maintenance of
such works in accordance with a plan of
operation approved by the State water
pollution control agency or, as appropri-
ate, the interstate agency, after construc-
tion thereof;
(5)	that the size and capacity of such
works relate directly to the needs to be
served by such works, including sufficient
reserve capacity. The amount of reserve
capacity provided shall be approved by
the Administrator on the basis of a com-
parison of the cost of constructing such
reserves as a part of the works to be fund-
ed and the anticipated cost of providing
expanded capacity at a date when such
capacity will be required after taking into
account, in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Administrator, efforts
to reduce total flow of sewage and unnec-
essary water consumption. The amount of
reserve capacity eligible for a grant under
this title shall be determined by the Ad-
ministrator taking into account the pro-
jected population and associated commer-
cial and industrial establishments within
the jurisdiction of the applicant to be
served by such treatment works as identi-
fied in an approved facilities plan, an
areawide plan under section 208; or an
applicable municipal master plan of de-
velopment. For the purpose of this para-
graph, section 208, and any such plan,
projected population shall be determined
on the basis of the latest information
available from the United States Depart-
ment of Commerce or from the States as
the Administrator, by regulation, deter-
mines appropriate. Beginning October 1,
1984, no grant shall be made under this
title to construct that portion of any treat-
ment works providing reserve capacity in
excess of existing needs (including exist-
ing needs of residential, commercial, in-
dustrial, and other users) on the date of
approval of a grant for the erection, build-
ing, acquisition, alteration, remodeling,
improvement, or extension of a project for
secondary treatment or more stringent
treatment or new interceptors and appur-
tenances, except that in no event shall re-
serve capacity of a facility and its related
interceptors to which this subsection ap-
plies be in excess of existing needs on Oc-
tober 1, 1990. In any case in which an
applicant proposes to provide reserve ca-
pacity greater than that eligible for Fed-
eral financial assistance under this title,
the incremental costs of the additional re-
serve capacity shall be paid by the appli-
cant;
[§204(a)(5) amended by PL 97-117]
(6) that no specification for bids in con-
nection with such works shall be written
in such a manner as to contain proprie-
tary, exclusionary, or discriminatory re-
quirements other than those based upon
performance, unless such requirements
are necessary to test or demonstrate a spe-
cific thing or to provide for necessary in-
terchangeability of parts and equipment.
When in the judgment of the grantee, it is
impractical or uneconomical to make a
clear and accurate description of the tech-
nical requirements, a 'brand name or
equal" description may be used as a
means to define the performance or other
salient requirements of a procurement,
and in doing so the grantee need not es-
tablish the existence of any source other
than the brand or source so named.
[§204(a)(6) amended by PL 97-117]
(b) (1) Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this title, the Administrator shall
not approve any grant for any treatment
works under section 201(g)(1) after
March 1, 1973, unless he shall first have
determined that the applicant (A) has
adopted or will adopt a system of charges
to assure that each recipient of waste
treatment services within the applicant's
jurisdiction, as determined by the Admin-
istrator, will pay its proportionate share
(except as otherwise provided in this para-
graph) of the costs of operation and main-
tenance (including replacement) of any
waste treatment services provided by the
applicant; and (B) has legal, institutional,
managerial, and financial capability to in-
sure adequate construction, operation,
and maintenance of treatment works
throughout the applicant's jurisdiction, as
determined by the Administrator. In any
case where an applicant which, as of the
date of enactment of this sentence, uses a
system of dedicated ad valorem taxes and
the Administrator determines that the ap-
plicant has a system of charges which re-
sults in the distribution of operation and
maintenance costs for treatment works
within the applicant's jurisdiction, to each
user class, in proportion to the contribu-
tion to the total cost of operation and
maintenance of such works by each user
class (taking into account total waste wa-
ter loading of such works, the constituent
elements of the waste, and other appropri-
ate factors) and such applicant is other-
wise in compliance with clause (A) of this
paragraph with respect to each industrial
user, then such dedicated ad valorem tax
system shall be deemed to be the user
charge system meeting the requirements
of clause (A) of this paragraph for the
residential user class and such small non-
residential user classes as defined by the
Administrator. In defining small non-resi-
dential users, the Administrator shall con-
sider the volume of wastes discharged into
the treatment works by such users and the
constituent elements of such wastes as
well as such other factors as he deems
appropriate. A system of user charges
which imposes a lower charge for low-in-
come residential users (as defined by the
Administrator) shall be deemed to be a
user charge system meeting the require-
ments of clause (A) of this paragraph if
the Administrator determines that such
system was adopted after public notice
and hearing.
[§204(b)( 1) amended by PL 96-483; PL
100-4]
(2) The Administrator shall, within one
hundred and eighty days after the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, and
after consultation with appropriate State,
interstate, municipal, and intermunicipal
agencies, issue guidelines applicable to
payment of waste treatment costs by in-
dustrial and nonindustrial recipients of
waste treatment services which shall es-
tablish (A) classes of users of such ser-
vices, including categories of industrial
users; (B) criteria against which to deter-
mine the adequacy of charges imposed on
classes and categories of users reflecting
all factors that influence the cost of waste
treatment, including strength, volume,
and delivery flow rate characteristics of
waste; and (C) model systems and rates of
user charges typical of various treatment
works serving municipal-industrial com-
munities.

-------
(3)	Approval by the Administrator of a
grant to an interstate agency established
by interstate compact for any treatment
works shall satisfy any other requirement
that such works be authorized by Act of
Congress.
[Former §204(b)(3) repealed and (4) re-
designated as (3) by PL 96-483]
(4)	A system of charges which meets
the requirement of clause (A) of para-
graph (1) of this subsection may be based
on something other than metering the
sewage or water supply flow of residential
recipients of waste treatment services, in-
cluding ad valorem taxes. If the system of
charges is based on something other than
metering the Administrator shall require
(A) the applicant to establish a system by
which maintenance of the treatment
works; and (B) the applicant to establish a
procedure under which the residential us-
er will be notified as to that portion of his
total payment which will be allocated to
the costs of the waste treatment services.
[Former §204(b)(5) redesignated as (4)
and §204(b)(6) repealed by PL 96-483]
(c)	The next to the last sentence of
paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this
section shall not apply in any case where a
primary, secondary, or advanced waste
treatment facility or its related in-
terceptors has received a grant for erec-
tion, building, acquisition, alteration, re-
modeling, improvement, or extension
before October 1, 1984, and all segments
and phases of such facility and in-
terceptors shall be funded based on a 20-
year reserve capacity in the case of such
facility and a 20-year reserve capacity in
the case of such interceptors, except that,
if a grant for such interceptors has heen
approved prior to the date of enactment of
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grant Amendments of
1981, such interceptors shall be funded
based on the approved reserve capacity
not to exceed 40 years.
[§204(c) added by PL 97-117]
(d)	(1) A grant for the construction of
treatment works under this title shall pro-
vide that the engineer or engineering firm
supervising construction or providing ar-
chitect engineering services during con-
struction shall continue its relationship to
the grant applicant for a period of one
year after the completion of construction
and initial operation of such treatment
works. During such period such engineer
or engineering firm shall supervise opera-
tion of the treatment works, train operat-
ing personnel, and prepare curricula and
training material for operating personnel.
Costs associated with the implementation
of this paragraph shall be eligible for Fed-
eral assistance in accordance with this ti-
tle.
(2)	On the date one year after the com-
pletion of construction and initial opera-
tion of such treatment works, the owner
and operator of such treatment works
shall certify to the Administrator whether
or not such treatment works meet the de-
sign specifications and effluent limitations
contained in the grant agreement and per-
mit pursuant to section 402 of the Act for
such works. If the owner and operator of
such treatment works cannot certify that
such treatment works meet such design
specifications and effluent limitations, any
failure to meet such design specifications
and effluent limitations shall be corrected
in a timely manner, to allow such affirma-
tive certification, at other than Federal
expense.
(3)	Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to prohibit a grantee under this
title from requiring more assurances,
guarantees, or indemnity or other contrac-
tual requirements from any party to a
contract pertaining to a project assisted
under this title, than those provided under
this subsection.
[§204(d) added by PL 97-117]
§205 [33 U.S.C. 1285] Allotment
(a) Sums authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to section 207 for each fiscal
year beginning after June 30, 1972, and
before September 30, 1977, shall be allot-
ted by the Administrator not later than
the January 1st immediately preceding
the beginning of the fiscal year for which
authorized, except that the allotment for
fiscal year 1973 shall be made not later
than 30 days after the date of enactment
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. Such sums
shall be allotted among the States by the
Administrator in accordance with regula-
tions promulgated by him. in the ratio
that the estimated cost of constructing all
needed publicly owned treatment works in
each State bears to the estimated cost of
construction of all needed publicly owned
treatment works in all of the States. For
the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, and
June 30, 1974, such ratio shall be deter-
mined on the basis of the table III of
House Public Works Committee Print
No. 92-50.
For the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975, such ratio shall be determined one-
half on the basis of table I of House Pub-
lic Works Committee Print Numbered
93-28 and one-half on the, basis of table
II of such print, except that no State shall
receive an allotment less than that which
it received for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1972, as set forth in table III of such
print Allotments for fiscal years which be-
gin after the fiscal year ending June 30,
1975 shall be made only in accordance
with a revised cost estimate made and
submitted to Congress in accordance with
section 516(b) of this Act and only after
such revised cost estimate shall have been
approved by law specifically enacted here-
after.
(b)	(1) Any sums allotted to a State un-
der subsection (a) shall be available for
obligation under section 203 on and after
the date of such allotment. Such sums
shall continue available for obligation in
such State for a period of one year after
the close of the fiscal year for which such
sums are authorized. Any amount so al-
lotted which are not obligated by the end
of such one-year period shall be immedi-
ately reallotted by the Administrator, in
accordance with regulations promulgated
by him, generally on the basis of the ratio
used in making the last allotment of sums
under this section. Such reallotted sums
shall be added to the last allotments made
to the States. Any sum made available to
a State by reallotment under this subsec-
tion shall be in addition to any funds oth-
erwise allotted to such State for grants
under this title during any fiscal year.
(2) Any sums which have been obligat-
ed under section 203 and which are re-
leased by the payment of the final voucher
for the project shall be immediately
credited to the State to which such sums
were last allotted. Such released sums
shall be added to the amounts last allotted
to such State and shall be immediately
available for obligation in the same man-
ner and to the same extent as such last
allotment.
(c)	(1) Sums authorized to be appropri-
ated pursuant to section 207 for the fiscal
years during the period beginning Octo-
ber 1, 1977, and ending September 30,
1981, shall be allotted for each such year
by the Administrator not later than the

-------
tenth day which begins aficr the date of
enactment of the Clean Water Act of
1977 Notwithstanding any other' provi-
sion of law, sums authorized for the fiscal
years ending September 30, 1978, Sep-
tember 30, 1979, September 30, 1980,
and September 30, 1981, shall be allotted
in accordance with table 3 of Committee
Print Numbered 95-30 of the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation of
the House of Representatives.
(2) Sums authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to section 207 for the fiscal years
1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 shall be allot-
ted for each such year by the Administra-
tor not later than the tenth day which
begins after the date of enactment of the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Con-
struction Grant Amendments of 1981.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, sums authorized for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1982, shall be allot-
ted in accordance with table 3 of Commit-
tee Print Numbered 95-30 of the Com-
mittee on Public Works and Transporta-
tion of the House of Representatives.
Sums authorized for the fiscal years end-
ing September 30, 1983, September 30,
1984, September 30, 1985, and Septem-
ber 30, 1986, shall be alloted in accor-
dance with the following table:
States:
Fiscal years 1983 through
1985
Alaoama
.011398
Alaska
.006101
Arizona
.006885
Arkansas
006668
California
072901
Colorado
008154
Connecticut
.012487
Delaware
004965
District of Coiumwa
.004965
Fionoa
.034407
Georgia
.017234
Hawau
007895
Idaho
004965
Illinois
046101
Indiana
024566
lowa
.013796
Kansas
009201
Kentucky
.012973
Louisiana
.011205
Maine
007788
Maryland
024653
Massachusetts
.034608
Michigan
043829
Minnesota
.018735
Mississippi
.009184
Missoun
.028257
Montana
004965
Nebraska
005214
Nevada
.004965
New Hampshire
.010186
New Jersey
.041654
New Mexico
004965
New York
113097
North Carolina
018396
North Oakota
004965
Slates.
Fiscal years 1983 through
1985
Ohio
057383
Oklahoma
008235
Oregon
011515
Pennsylvania
040377
Rhode island
006750
South Carolina
010442
South Dakota
.004965
Tennessee
014807
Texas
.038726
Utah
005371
Vermont
.004965
Virginia
020861
Washington
.017726
West Virginia
.015890
Wisconsin
027557
Wyoming
004965
Samoa
.000915
Guam
000662
Northern Marianas
000425
Puerto Rtco
013295
Pacific Trust Territories
001305
Virgin islands
.000531
United States totals
399996
[§205(c)(2) added by PL 97-117; amend-
ed by PL 100-4]
(3) Fiscal years 1987-1990. — Sums
authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 207 for the fiscal years 1987,
1988, 1989, and 1990 shall be allotted for
each such year by the Administrator not
later than the 10th day which begins after
the date of the enactment of this para-
graph. Sums authorized for such fiscal
years shall be allotted in accordance with
the following table:
Slates

Alabama
.011309
Alaska
006053
Arizona
006831
Arkansas
006616
California
.072333
Colorado
008090
Connecticut
.012390
Delaware
004965
District of Columbia
004965
Florida
034139
Georgia
017100
Hawaii
.007833
Idaho
004965
Illinois
.045741
Indiana
024374
towa
013688
Kansas
.009129
Kentucky
012872
Louisiana
011118
Mame
007829
Maryland
024461
Massachusetts
034338
Michigan
043487
Minnesota
018589
Mississippi
.009112
Missouri
.028037
Montana
004965
Nebraska
005173
Nevada
004965
New Hampshire
.010107
New Jersey
041329
New Mexico
.004965
Slates

New York
111632
North Carolina
018253
North Oakota
056936
Ohio
056936
Oklahoma
008171
Oregon
011425
Pennsylvania
040062
Rhode island
006791
South Carolina
.010361
South Oakota
004965
Tennessee
014692
Texas
046226
Utah
005329
Vermont
004965
Virginia
020698
Washington
.017588
West Virginia
015766
Wisconsin
.027342
Wyoming
004965
American Samoa
000908
Guam
.000657
Northern Mananas
000422
Puerto Rico
013191
Pacific Trust Territories
001295
Virgin Islands
000527
[§205(c)(3) added by PL 100-4]
(d)	Sums allotted to the States for a
fiscal year shall remain available for obli-
gation for the fiscal year for which autho-
rized and for the period of the next suc-
ceeding twelve months. The amount of
any allotment not obligated by the end of
such twenty-four-month period shall be
immediately reailotted by the Adminis-
trator on the basis of the same ratio as
applicable to sums allotted for the then
current fiscal year, except that none of the
funds reailotted by the Administrator for
fiscal year 1978 and for fiscal years there-
after shall be allotted to any State which
failed to obligate any of the funds being
reailotted. Any sum made available to a
State by reallotment under this subsection
shall be in addition to any funds otherwise
allotted to such State for grants under
this title during any fiscal year.
(e)	For the fiscal years, 1978, 1979,
1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985,
1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, no
State shall receive less than one-half of 1
per centum of the total allotment under
subsection (c) of this section, except that
in the case of Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Trust Territo-
ries not more than thirty-three one-hun-
dredths of 1 per centum on the aggregate
shall be allotted to all four of these juris-
dictions. For the purpose of carrying out
this subsection there are authorized to be
appropriated, subject to such amounts as
are provided in appropriation Acts, not to
exceed $75,000,000 for each of fiscal

-------
years 1978, 1979. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983,
1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and
1990. If for any fiscal year the amount
appropriated under authority of this sub-
section is less than the amount necessary
to carry out this subsection, the amount
each State receives under this subsection
for such year shall bear the same ratio to
the amount such State would have re-
ceived under this subsection in such year
if the amount necessary to carry it out
had been appropriated as the amount ap-
propriated for such year bears to the
amount necessary to carry out this subsec-
tion for such year.
[§205(e) amended by PL 97-117; PL
100-4]
(0 Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this section, sums made available
between January 1, 1975, and March 1,
1975, by the Administrator for obligation
shall be available for obligation until Sep-
tember 30, 1978.
(g) (1) The Administrator is authorized
to reserve each fiscal year not to exceed 2
percentum of the amount authorized un-
der section 207 of this title for purposes of
the allotment made to each State under
this section on or after October 1, 1977,
except in the case of any fiscal year begin-
ning on or after October 1,1981, and end-
ing before October 1, 1994, in which case
the percentage authorized to be reserved
shall not exceed 4 per centum or $400,000
whichever amount is the greater. Sums so
reserved shall be available for making
grants to such State under paragraph (2)
of this subsection for the same period as
sums are available from such allotment
under subsection (d) of this section, and
any such grant shall be available for obli-
gation only during such period. Any grant
made from sums reserved under this sub-
section which has not been obligated by
the end of the period for which available
shall be added to the amount last allotted
to such State under this section and shall
be immediately available for obligation in
the same manner and to the same extent
as such last allotment. Sums authorized to
be reserved by this paragraph shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of any other
funds which may be authorized to carry
out this subsection.
[§205(g)( 1) amended by PL 96-483; PL
97-117; PL 100-4]
(2) The Administrator is authorized to
grant to any State from amounts reserved
to such State under this subsection, the
reasonable costs of administering any as-
pects of sections 201. 203, 204, and 212 of
this Act the responsibility for administra-
tion of which the Administrator has dele-
gated to such State. The Administrator
may increase such grant to take into ac-
count the reasonable costs of administer-
ing an approved program under section
402 or 404, administering a statewide
waste treatment management planning
program under section 208(b)(4), and
managing waste treatment construction
grants for small communities.
(h)	The Administrator shall set aside
from funds authorized for each fiscal year
beginning on or after October 1, 1978, a
total (as determined by the Governor of
the State) of not less than 4 percent nor
more than lx/i percent of the sums allot-
ted to any State with a rural population of
25 per centum or more of the total popu-
lation of such State, as determined by the
Bureau of the Census. The Administrator
may set aside no more than 7'/2 of the
sums allotted to any other State for which
the Governor requests such action. Such
sums shall be available only for alterna-
tives to conventional sewage treatment
works for municipalities having a popula-
tion of three thousand five hundred or
less, or for the highly dispersed sections of
larger municipalities, as defined by the
Administrator.
[§205(h) amended by PL 100-4]
(i)	Set-Aside for Innovative and Alter-
native Projects. — Not less than '/2 of 1
percent of funds allotted to a State for
each of the fiscal years ending September
30, 1979, through September 30, 1990,
under subsection (c) of this section shall
be expended only for increasing the Fed-
eral share of grants for construction of
treatment works utilizing innovative
processes and techniques pursuant to sec-
tion 202(a)(2) of this Act. Including the
expenditures authorized by the preceding
sentence, a total of 2 percent of the funds
allotted to a State for each of the fiscal
years ending September 30, 1979, and
September 30, 1980, and 3 percent of the
funds allotted to a State for the fiscal year
ending September 30,1981, under subsec-
tion (c) of this section shall be expended
only for increasing grants for construction
of treatment works pursuant to section
202(a)(2) of this Act. Including the ex-
penditures authorized by the first sen-
tence of this subsection, a total (as deter-
mined by the Governor of the State) of
not less than 4 percent nor more than 71/:
percent of the funds allotted to such State
under subsection (c) of this section for
each of the fiscal years ending September
30, 1982, through September 30, 1990,
shall be expended only for increasing the
Federal share of grants for construction of
treatment works pursuant to section
202(a)(2) of this Act.
[§205(i) amended by PL 97-117; PL
100-4]
(j) (1) The Administrator shall reserve
each fiscal year not to exceed 1 per cen-
tum of the sums allotted and available for
obligation to each State under this section
for each fiscal year beginning on or after
October 1, 1981, or $100,000, whichever
amount is the greater.
[§205(j) added by PL 97-117]
(2)	Such sums shall be used by the Ad-
ministrator to make grants to the States
to carry out water quality management
planning, including, but not limited to—
(A)	identifying most cost effective and
locally acceptable facility and non-point
measures to meet and maintain water
quality standards;
(B)	developing an implementation plan
to obtain State and local financial and
regulatory commitments to implement
measures developed under subparagraph
(A);
(C)	determining the nature, extent, and
causes of water quality problems in vari-
ous areas of the State and interstate re-
gion, and reporting on these annually; and
(D)	determining those publicly owned
treatment works which should be con-
structed with assistance under this title, in
which areas and in what sequence, taking
into account the relative degree of effluent
reduction attained, the relative contribu-
tions to water quality of other point or
nonpoint sources, and the consideration of
alternatives to such construction, and im-.
plementing section 303(e) of this Act.
(3)	In carrying out planning with
grants made under paragraph (2) of this
subsection, a State shall develop jointly
with local, regional, and interstate enti-
ties, a plan for carrying out the program
and give funding priority to such entities
and designated or undesignated public
comprehensive planning organizations to
carry out the purposes of this subsection.
In giving such priority, the State shall al-
locate at least 40 percent of the amount
granted to such State for a fiscal year
under paragraph (2) of this subsection to

-------
regional public comprehensive planning
organizations in such State and appropri-
ate interstate organizations for the devel-
opment and implementation of the plan
described in this paragraph. In any fiscal
year for which the Governor, in consulta-
tion with such organizations and with the
approval of the Administrator, determines
that allocation of at least 40 percent of
such amount to such organizations will
not result in significant participation by
such organizations in water quality man-
agement planning and not significantly as-
sist in development and implementation
of the plan described in this paragraph
and achieving the goals of this Act, the
allocation to such organization may be
less than 40 percent of such amount.
[§205(j)(3) amended by PL 100-4]
(4)	All activities undertaken under this
subsection shall be in coordination with
other related provisions of this Act.
(5)	Nonpoint Source Reservation. — In
addition to the sums reserved under para-
graph (1), the Administrator shall reserve
each fiscal year for each State 1 percent
of the sums allotted and available for obli-
gation to such State under this section for
each fiscal year beginning on or after Oc-
tober 1, 1986, or SI00,000, whichever is
greater, for the purpose of carrying out
section 319 of this Act. Sums so reserved
in a State in any fiscal year for which
such State does not request the use of
such sums, to the extent such sums exceed
$100,000, may be used by such State for
other purposes under this title.
[§205(j)(5) added by PL 100-4]
(k) The Administrator shall allot to the
State of New York from sums authorized
to be appropriated for the fiscal year end-
ing September 30, 1982, an amount nec-
essary to pay the entire cost of conveying
sewage from the Convention Center of
the city of New York to the Newtown
sewage treatment plant, Brooklyn-Queens
area. New York. The amount allotted un-
der this subsection shall be in addition to
and not in lieu of any other amounts au-
thorized to be allotted to such State under
this Act.
[§205(k) added by PL 97-117]
(I) Marine Estuary Reservation.—
(1) Reservation of Funds.—
(A) General Rule. — Prior to making
allotments among the States under sub-
section (c) of this section, the Administra-
tor shall reserve funds from sums appro-
priated pursuant to section 207 for each
fiscal year beginning after September 30,
1986.
(B)	Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988. — For
each of fiscal years 1987 and 1988 the
reservation shall be 1 percent of the sums
appropriated pursuant to section 207 for
such fiscal year.
(C)	Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990. —
For each of fiscal years 1989 and 1990 the
reservation shall be l'/j percent of the
funds appropriated pursuant to section
207 for such fiscal year.
(2)	Use of Funds. — Of the sums re-
served under this subsection, two-thirds
shall be available to address water quality
problems of marine bays and estuaries
subject to lower levels of water quality
due to the impacts of discharges from
combined storm water and sanitary sewer
overflows from adjacent urban complexes,
and one-third shall be available for the
implementation of section 320 of this Act,
relating to the national estuary program.
(3)	Period of availability. — Sums re-
served under this subsection shall be sub-
ject to the period of availability for obliga-
tion established by subsection (d) of this
section.
(4)	Treatment of Certain Body of Wa-
ter. — For purposes of this section and
section 201 (n), Newark Bay, New Jersey,
and the portion of the Passaic River up to
Little Falls, in the vicinity of Beatties
Dam, shall be treated as a marine bay
and estuary.
[§205(1) added by PL 100-4]
(m) Discretionary Deposits Into State
Water Pollution Control Revolving
Funds.—
(l)From Construction Grant Allot-
ments. — In addition to any amounts de-
posited in a water pollution control revolv-
ing fund established by a State under title
VI, upon request of the Governor of such
State, the Administrator shall make avail-
able to the State for deposit, as capitaliza-
tion grants, in such fund in any fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 1986, such
portion of the amounts allotted to such
State under this section for such fiscal
year as the Governor considers appropri-
ate; except that (A) in fiscal year 1987,
such deposit may not exceed 50 percent of
the amounts allotted to such State under
this section for such fiscal year, and (B) in
fiscal year 1988, such deposit may not ex-
ceed 75 percent of the amounts allotted to
such State under this section for this fiscal
year.
(2)	Notice Requirement. — The Gov-
ernor of a State may make a request un-
der paragraph (1) for a deposit into the
water pollution control revolving fund of
such State—
(A)	in fiscal year 1987 only if no later
than 90 days after the date of the enact-
ment of this subsection, and
(B)	in each fiscal year thereafter only if
90 days before the first day of such fiscal
year,the State provides notice of its intent
to make such deposit.
(3)	Exception. — Sums reserved under
section 205(j) of this Act shall not be
available for obligation under this subsec-
tion.
[§205(m) added by PL 100-4]
§206 [33 U.S.C. 1286] Reimbursement and
Advanced Construction
(a)	Any publicly owned treatment
works in a State on which construction
was initiated after June 30, 1966, but
before July 1, 1973, which was approved
by the appropriate State water pollution
control agency and which the Administra-
tor finds meets the requirements of sec-
tion 8 of this Act in effect at the time of
the initiation of construction shall be re-
imbursed a total amount equal to the dif-
ference between the amount of Federal
financial assistance, if any, received under
such section 8 for such project and 50 per
centum of the cost of such project, or 55
per centum of the project cost where the
Administrator also determines that such
treatment works was constructed in con-
formity with a comprehensive metropoli-
tan treatment plan as described in section
8(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act as in effect immediately prior to
the date of enactment of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. Nothing in this subsection shall re-
sult in any such works receiving Federal
grants from all sources in excess of 80 per
centum of the cost of such project.
(b)	Any publicly owned treatment
works constructed with or eligible for
Federal financial assistance under this
Act in a State between June 30, 1956,
and June 30, 1966, which was approved
by the State water pollution control agen-
cy and which the Administrator finds
meets the requirements of section 8 of this
Act prior to the date of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act

-------
Amendments of 1972 but which was con-
structed without assistance under such
section 8 or which received such assist-
ance in an amount less than 30 per cen-
tum of the cost of such project shall quali-
fy for payments and reimbursement of
State or local funds used for such project
from oums allocated to such State under
this section in an amount which shall not
exceed the difference between the amount
of such assistance, if any, received for
such project and 30 per centum of the
cost of such project.
(c)	No publicly owned treatment works
shall receive any payment or reimburse-
ment under subsection (a) or (b) of this
section unless an application for such as-
sistance is filed with the Administrator
within the one year period which begins
on the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972. Any application filed with-
in such one year period may be revised
from time to time, as may be necessary.
(d)	The Administrator shall allocate to
each qualified project under subsection
(a) of this section each fiscal year for
which funds are appropriated under sub-
section (e) of this section an amount
which bears the same ratio to the unpaid
balance of the reimbursement due such
project as the total of such funds for such
year bears to the total unpaid balance of
reimbursement due all such approved
projects on the date of enactment of such
appropriations. The Administrator shall
allocate to each qualified project under
subsection (b) of this section each fiscal
year for which funds are appropriated un-
der subsection (e) of this section an
amount which bears the same ratio to the
unpaid balance of the reimbursement due
such project as the total of such funds for
such years bears to the total unpaid bal-
ance of reimbursement due all such ap-
proved projects on the date of enactment
of such appropriation.
(e)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to carry out subsection (a) of this
section not to exceed $2,600,000,000 and
to carry out subsection (b) of this section,
not to exceed 5750,000,000. The authori-
zations contained in this subsection shall
be the sole source of funds for reimburse-
ments authorized by this section.
(f)	(1) In any case where a substantial
portion of the funds allotted to a State for
the current fiscal year under this title
have been obligated under section 201(g),
or will be so obligated in a timely manner
(as determined by the Administrator),
and there is construction of any treatment
work project without the aid of Federal
funds and in accordance with all proce-
dures and all requirements applicable to
treatment works projects, except those
procedures and requirements which limit
construction of projects to those con-
structed with the aid of previously allotted
Federal funds, the Administrator, upon
his approval of an application made under
this subsection therefor, is authorized to
pay the Federal share of the cost of con-
struction of such project when additional
funds are allotted to the State under this
title if prior to the construction of the pro-
ject the Administrator approves plans,
specifications, and estimates therefor in
the same manner as other treatment
works projects. The Administrator may
not approve an application under this sub-
section unless an authorization is in effect
for the first fiscal year in the period for
which the application requests payment
and such requested payment for that fis-
cal year does not exceed the State's ex-
pected allotment from such authorization.
The Administrator shall not be required
to make such requested payment for any
fiscal year —
(A)	to the extent that such payment
would exceed such State's allotment of
the amount appropriated for such fiscal
year; and
(B)	unless such payment is for a project
which, on the basis of an approved fund-
ing priority list of such State, is eligible to
receive such payment based on the allot-
ment and appropriation for such fiscal
year. To the extent that sufficient funds
are not appropriated to pay the full Feder-
al share with respect to a project for
which obligations under the provisions of
this subsection have been made, the Ad-
ministrator shall reduce the Federal share
to such amount less than 75 percentum as
such appropriations do provide.
[§206 (f)(1) amended by PL 96-483]
(2) In determining the allotment for
any fiscal year under this title, any treat-
ment works project constructed in accor-
dance with this section and without the
aid of Federal funds shall not be consid-
ered completed until an application under
the provisions of this subsection with re-
spect to such project has been approved
by the Administrator, or the availability
of funds from which this project is eligible
for reimbursement has expired, whichever
first occurs.
§207 [33 U.S.C. 1288] Authorization
There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title, other than sections
206 (e), 208 and 209, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, not to exceed
$5,000,000,000, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, not to exceed
$6,000,000,000, and for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1975, not tO exceed
$7,000,000,000, and, subject to such
amounts as are provided in appropriation
Acts, for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1977, 51,000,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1978,
$4,500,000,000 and for the fiscal years
ending September 30, 1979, September
30, 1980, not to exceed $5,000,000,000;
for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1981,	not to exceed 52,548,837.000; and
for the fiscal years ending September 30,
1982,	September 30, 1983, September 30,
1984. and September 30, 1985, not to ex-
ceed $2,400,000,000 per fiscal year; and
for each of the fiscal years ending Sep-
tember 30, 1986, September 30, 1987,
and September 30, 1988, not to exceed
$2,400,000,000; and for each of the fiscal
years ending September 30, 1989, and
September 30, 1990, not to exceed
51,200,000,000.
[§207 amended by PL 97-35; PL 97-117;
PL 100-4]
§208 [33 U.S.C. 1288] Areawide Waste
Treatment Management
(a) For the purpose of encouraging and
facilitating the development and imple-
mentation of area wide waste treatment
management plans—
(1)The	Administrator, within ninety
days after the date of enactment of this
Act and after consultation with appropri-
ate Federal, State, and local authorities,
shall by regulation publish guidelines for
the identification of those areas which, as
a result of urban-industrial concentrations
or other factors, have substantial water
quality control problems.
(2)	The Governor of each State, within
sixty days after publication of the guide-
lines issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of
this subsection, shall identify each area
within the State which, as a result of ur-
ban-industrial concentrations or other fac-
tors, has substantial water quality control
problems. Not later than one hundred and

-------
twenty days following such identification
and after consultation with appropriate
elected and other officials of local govern-
ments having jurisdiction in such areas,
the Governor shall designate (A) the
boundaries of each such area, and (B) a
single representative organization, includ-
ing elected officials from local govern-
ments or their designees, capable of devel-
oping effective area wide waste treatment
management plans for such area. The
Governor may in the same manner at any
later time identify any additional area (or
modify an existing area) for which he de-
termines areawide waste treatment man-
agement to be appropriate, designate the
boundaries of such area, and designate an
organization capable of developing effec-
tive areawide waste treatment manage-
ment plans for such area.
(3)	With respect to any area which,
pursuant to the guidelines published un-
der paragraph (1) of this subsection, is
located in two or more States, the Gover-
nors of the respective States shall consult
and cooperate in carrying out the provi-
sions of paragraph (2), with a view toward
designating the boundaries of the inter-
state area having common water quality
control problems and for which areawide
waste treatment management plans would
be most effective, and toward designating,
within one hundred and eighty days after
publication of guidelines issued pursuant
to paragraph (1) of this subsection, of a
single representative organization capable
of developing effective areawide waste
treatment management plans for such
area.
(4)	If a Governor does not act, either
by designating or determining not to
make a designation under paragraph (2)
of this subsection, within the time re-
quired by such paragraph, or if, in the
case of an interstate area, the Governors
of the States involved do not designate a
planning organization within the time re-
quired by paragraph (3) of this subsec-
tion, the chief elected officials of local gov-
ernments within an area may by agree-
ment designate (A) the boundaries for
such an area, and (B) a single representa-
tive organization including elected offi-
cials from such local governments, or
their designees, capable of developing an
areawide waste treatment management
plan for such area.
(5)	Existing regional agencies may be
designated under paragraphs (2), (3), and
(4) of this subsection.
(6)	The State shall act as a planning
agency for all portions of such State
which are not designated under
paragraphs (2), (3), or (4) of this subsec-
tion.
(7)	Designations under this subsection
shall be subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
(b) (1) (A) Not later than one year af-
ter the date of designation of any organi-
zation under subsection (a) of this section
such organization shall have in operation
a continuing areawide waste treatment
management planning process consistent
with section 201 of this Act. Plans pre-
pared in accordance with this process
shall contain alternatives for waste treat-
ment management, and be applicable to
all wastes generated within the area in-
volved. The initial plan prepared in accor-
dance with such process shall be certified
by the Governor and submitted to the Ad-
ministrator not later than two years after
the planning process is in operation.
(B) For any agency designated after
1975 under subsection (a) of this section
and for all portions of a State for which
the State is required to act as the plan-
ning agency in accordance with subsec-
tion (a)(6), the initial plan prepared in
accordance with such process shall be cer-
tified by the Governor and submitted to
the Administrator not later than three
years after the receipt of the initial grant
award authorized under subsection (0 of
this section.
(2) Any plan prepared under such pro-
cess shall include, but not be limited to—
(A) the identification of treatment
works necessary to meet the anticipated
municipal and industrial waste treatment
needs of the area over a twenty-year peri-
od, annually updated (including an analy-
sis of alternative waste treatment sys-
tems), including any requirements for the
acquisition of land for treatment pur-
poses; the necessary waste water collec-
tion and urban storm water runoff sys-
tems; and a program to provide the neces-
sary financial arrangements for the
development of such treatment works,
and an identification of open space and
recreation opportunities that can be ex-
pected to result from improved water
quality, including consideration of poten-
tial use of lands associated with treatment
works and increased access to water-based
recreation;
(B)	the establishment of construction
priorities for such treatment works and
time schedules for the initiation and com-
pletion of all treatment works;
(C)	the establishment of a regulatory
program to—
(i)	implement the waste treatment
management requirements of section
201(c),
(ii)	regulate the location, modification,
and construction of any facilities within
such area which may result in any dis-
charge in such area, and
(iii)	assure that any industrial or com-
mercial waste discharged into any treat-
ment works in such area meet applicable
pretreatment requirements;
(D)	the identification of those agencies
necessary to construct, operate, and main-
tain all facilities required by the plan and
otherwise to carry out the plan;
(E)	the identification of the measures
necessary to carry out the plan (including
financing), the period of lime necessary to
carry out the plan, the costs of carrying
out the plan within such time, and the
economic, social, and environmental im-
pact of carrying out the plan within such
time;
(F)	a process to (i) identify, if appropri-
ate, agriculturally and silviculturally re-
lated nonpoint sources of pollution, in-
cluding return flows from irrigated agri-
culture, and their cumulative effects,
runoff from manure disposal areas, and
from land used for livestock and crop pro-
duction, and (ii) set forth procedures and
methods (including land use require-
ments) to control to the extent feasible
such sources;
(G)	a process of (i) identify, if appro-
priate, mine-related sources of pollution
including new, current, and abandoned
surface and underground mine runoff,
and (ii) set forth procedures and methods
(including land use requirements) to con-
trol to the extent feasible such sources;
(H)	a process to (i) identify construc-
tion activity related sources of pollution,
and (ii) set forth procedures and methods
(including land use requirements) to con-
trol to the extent feasible such sources;
(I)	a process to (i) identify, if appropri-
ate, salt water intrusion into rivers, lakes,
and estuaries resulting from reduction of
fresh water flow from any cause, includ-
ing irrigation, obstruction, ground water

-------
extraction, and diversion, and (ii) set
forth procedures and methods to control
such intrusion to the extent feasible where
such procedures and methods are other-
wise a part of the waste treatment man-
agement plan;
(J) a process to control the disposition
of all residual waste generated in such
area which could affect water quality; and
(K) a process to control the disposal of
pollutants on land or in subsurface exca-
vations within such area to protect ground
and surface water quality.
(3)	Areawide waste treatment manage-
ment plans shall be certified annually by
the Governor or his designee (or Gover-
nors or their designees, where more than
one State is involved) as being consistent
with applicable basin plans and such area-
wide waste treatment management plans
shall be submitted to the Administrator
for his approval.
(4)	(A) Whenever the Governor of any
State determines (and notifies the Admin-
istrator) that consistency with a statewide
regulatory program under section 303 so
requires, the requirements of clauses (F)
through (K) of paragraph (2) of this sub-
section shall be developed and submitted
by the Governor to the Administrator for
approval for application to a class or cate-
gory of activity throughout each State.
(B) Any program submitted under sub-
paragraph (A) of this paragraph which, in
whole or in part, is to control the dis-
charge or other placement of dredged or
fill material into the navigable waters
shall include the following;
(i)	A consultation process which in-
cludes the State agency with primary ju-
risdiction over fish and wildlife resources.
(ii)	A process to identify and manage
the discharge or other placement of
dredged or fill material which adversely
affects navigable waters, which shall com-
plement and be coordinated with a State
program under section 404 conducted
pursuant to this Act.
(iii)	A process to assure that any activi-
ty conducted pursuant to a best manage-
ment practice will comply with the guide-
lines established under section 404(b)(1),
and sections 307 and 403 of this Act.
(iv)	A process to assure that any activi-
ty conducted pursuant to a best manage-
ment practice can be terminated or modi-
fied for cause including, but not limited
to, the following;
(I)	violation of any condition of the best
management practice;
(II)	change in any activity that requires
either a temporary or permanent reduc-
tion or elimination of the discharge pursu-
ant to the best management practice.
(v) A process to assure continued coor-
dination with Federal and Federal-State
water-related planning and reviewing
processes, including the National Wet-
lands Inventory.
(C)	If the Governor of a State obtains
approval from the Administrator of a
statewide regulatory program which
meets the requirements of subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph and if such State is
administering a permit program under
section 404 of this Act, no person shall be
required to obtain an individual permit
pursuant to such section, or to comply
with a general permit issued pursuant to
such section, with respect to any appropri-
ate activity within such State for which a
best management practice has been ap-
proved by the Administrator under the
program approved by the Administrator
pursuant to this paragraph.
(D)	(i) Whenever the Administrator
determines after public hearing that a
State is not administering a program ap-
proved under this section in accordance
with the requirements of this section, the
Administrator shall so notify the State,
and if appropriate corrective action is not
taken within a reasonable time, not to ex-
ceed ninety days, the Administrator shall
withdraw approval of such program. The
Administrator shall not withdraw approv-
al of any such program unless he shall
first have notified the State, and made
public, in writing, the reasons for such
withdrawal.
(ii) In the case of a State with a pro-
gram submitted and approved under this
paragraph, the Administrator shall with-
draw approval of such program under this
subparagraph only for a substantial fail-
ure of the Slate to administer its program
in accordance with the requirements of
this paragraph.
(c) (1) The Governor of each State, in
consultation with the planning agency
designated under subsection (a) of this
section, at the time a plan is submitted to
the Administrator, shall designate one or
more waste treatment management agen-
cies (which may be an existing or newly
created local, regional or State agency or
potential subdivision) for each area desig-
nated under subsection (a) of this section
and submit such designations to the Ad-
ministrator.
(2) The Administrator shall accept any
such designation, unless, within 120 days
of such designation, he finds that the des-
ignated management agency (or agen-
cies) does not have adequate authority—
(A)	to carry out appropriate portions of
an areawide waste treatment manage-
ment plan developed under subsection (b)
of this section;
(B)	to manage effectively waste treat-
ment works and related facilities serving
such area in conformance with any plan
required by subsection (b) of this section;
(C)	directly or by contract, to design
and construct new works, and to operate
and maintain new and existing works as
required by any plan developed pursuant
to subsection (b) of this section;
(D)	to accept and utilize grants, or oth-
er funds from any source, for waste treat-
ment management purposes;
(E)	to raise revenues, including the as-
sessment of waste treatment charges;
(F)	to incur short- and long-term in-
debtedness;
(G)	to assure in implementation of an
areawide waste treatment management
plan that each participating community
pays its proportionate share of treatment
costs;
(H)	to refuse to receive any wastes
from any municipality or subdivision
thereof, which does hot comply with any
provisions of an approved plan under this
section applicable to such area; and
(I)	to accept for treatment industrial
wastes.
(d)	After a waste treatment manage-
ment agency having the authority re-
quired by subsection (c) has been desig-
nated under such subsection for an area
and a plan for such area has been ap-
proved under subsection (b) of this sec-
tion, the Administrator shall not make
any grant for construction of a publicly
owned treatment works under section
201(g)(1) within such area except to such
designated agency and for works in con-
formity with such plan.
(e)	No permit under section 402 of this
Act shall be issued for any point source
which is in conflict with a plan approved
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
(0(1) The Administrator shall make
grants to any agency designated under
subsection (a) of this section for payment

-------
of the reasonable costs of developing and
operating a continuing areawjde waste
treatment management planning process
under subsection (b) of this section.
(2)	For the two-year period beginning
on the date the first grant is made under
paragraph (1) of this subsection to an
agency, if such first grant is made before
October 1, 1977, the amount of each such
grant to such agency shall be 100 per cen-
tum of the costs of developing and operat-
ing a continuing areawide waste treat-
ment management planning process un-
der subsection (b) of this section, and
thereafter the amount granted to such
agency shall not exceed 75 per centum of
such costs in each succeeding one-year pe-
riod. In the case of any other grant made
to an agency under such paragraph (1) of
this subsection, the amount of such grant
shall not exceed 75 per centum of the
costs of developing and operating a con-
tinuing areawide waste treatment man-
agement planning process in any year.
(3)	Each applicant for a grant under
this subsection shall submit to the Admin-
istrator for his approval each proposal for
which a grant is applied for under this
subsection. The Administrator shall act
upon such proposal as soon as practicable
after it has been submitted, and his ap-
proval of that proposal shall be deemed a
contractual obligation of the United
States for the payment of its contribution
to such proposal, subject to such amounts
as are provided in appropriation Acts.
There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this subsection not to exceed
$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1973, not to exceed
5100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, not to exceed
5150,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1975, September
30, 1977, September 30, 1978, September
30, 1979, and September 30, 1980, not to
exceed 5100,000,000 per fiscal year for
the fiscal years ending September 30,
1981, and September 30, 1982, and such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years
1983 through 1990.
[§208(f)(3) amended by PL 96-483; PL
100-4]
(g) The Administrator is authorized,
upon request of the Governor or the desig-
nated planning agency, and without reim-
bursement,/ to consult with, and provide
technical assistance to, any agency desig-
nated under subsection (a) of this section
in the development of areawide waste
treatment management plans under sub-
section (b) of this section.
(h)	(1) The Secretary of the Army, act-
ing through the Chief of Engineers, in co-
operation with the Administrator is au-
thorized and directed, upon request of the
Governor or the designated planning or-
ganization, to consult with, and provide
technical assistance to, any agency de-
signed under subsection (a) of this section
in developing and operating a continuing
areawide waste treatment management
planning process under subsection (b) of
this section.
(2) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Secretary of the Army, to car-
ry out this subsection, not to exceed
550,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1973, and June 30,
1974.
(i)(l)The	Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall,
upon request of the Governor of a State,
and without reimbursement, provide tech-
nical assistance to such State in develop-
ing a statewide program for submission to
the Administrator under subsection
(b)(4)(B) of this section and in imple-
menting such program after its approval.
(2) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the Secretary of the Interior
56,000,000 to complete the National Wet-
lands Inventory of the United States, by
December 31, 1981, and to provide infor-
mation from such Inventory to States as it
becomes available to assist such States in
the development and operation of pro-
grams under this Act.
(j)(l)The Secretary of Agriculture,
with the concurrence of the Administra-
tor, and acting through the Soil Conserva-
tion Service and such other agencies of
the Department of Agriculture as the Sec-
retary may designate, is authorized and
directed to establish and administer a pro-
gram to enter into contracts of not less
than five years nor more than ten years
with owners and operators having control
of rural land for the purpose of installing
and maintaining measures incorporating
best management practices to control
nonpoint source pollution for improved
water quality in those States or areas for
which the Administrator has approved a
plan under subsection (b) of this section
where the practices to which the contracts
apply are certified by the management
agency designated under subsection
(c)(1) of this section to be consistent with
such plans and will result in improved wa-
ter quality. Such contracts may be en-
tered into during the period ending not
later than September 31, 1988. Under
such contracts the land owner or operator
shall agree—
(1)	to effectuate a plan approved by a
soil conservation district, where one ex-
ists, under this section for his farm, ranch,
or other land substantially in accordance
with the schedule outlined therein unless
any requirement thereof is waived or
modified by the Secretary;
(ii)	to forfeit all rights to further pay-
ments or grants under the contract and
refund to the United States all payments
and grants received thereunder, with in-
terest, upon his violation of the contract at
any stage during the time he has control
of the land if the Secretary, after consid-
ering the recommendations of the soil
conservation district where one exists, and
the Administrator, determines that such
violation is of such a nature as to warrant
termination of the contract, or to make
refunds or accept such payment adjust-
ments as the Secretary may deem appro-
priate if he determines that the violation
by the owner or operator does not warrant
termination of the contract;
(iii)	upon transfer of his right and inter-
est in the farm, ranch, or other land dur-
ing the contract period to forfeit all rights
to further payments or grants under the
contract and refund to the United States
all payments or grants received there-
under, with interest, unless the transferee
of any such land agrees with the Secre-
tary to assume all obligations of the con-
tract;
(iv)	not to adopt any practice specified
by the Secretary on the advice of the Ad-
ministrator in the contract as a practice
which would tend to defeat the purposes
of the contract;
(v)	to such additional provisions as the
Secretary determines arc desirable and
includes in the contract to effectuate the
purposes of the program or to facilitate
the practical administration of the pro-
gram.
(2)	In return for such agreement by the
landowner or operator the Secretary shall
agree to provide technical assistance and
share the cost of carrying out those con-
servation practices and measures set forth
in the c; r.tract for which he determines

-------
that cost sharing is appropriate and in the
public interest and which are approved
for cost sharing by the agency designated
to implement the plan developed under
subsection (b) of this section. The portion
of such cost (including labor) to be shared
shall be that part which the Secretary de-
termines is necessary and appropriate to
effectuate the installation of the water
quality management practices and mea-
sures under the contract, but not to ex-
ceed 50 per centum of the total cost of the
measures set forth in the contract; except
the Secretary may increase the matching
cost share where he determines that (1)
the main benefits to be derived from the
measures are related to improving offsite
water quality, and (2) the matching share
requirement would place a burden on the
landowner which would probably prevent
him from participating in the program.
(3)	The Secretary may terminate any
contract with a landowner or operator by
mutual agreement with the owner or oper-
ator if the Secretary determines that such
termination would be in the public inter-
est, and may agree to such modification of
contracts previously entered into as he
may determine to be desirable to carry
out the purposes of the program or facili-
tate the practical administration thereof
or to accomplish equitable treatment with
respect to other conservation, land use, or
water quality programs.
(4)	In providing assistance under this
subsection the Secretary will give priority
to those areas and sources that have the
most significant effect upon water quality.
Additional investigations or plans may be
made, where necessary, to supplement ap-
proved water quality management plans,
in order to determine priorities.
(5)	The Secretary shall, where practi-
cable, enter into agreements with soil con-
servation districts, State soil and water
conservation agencies, or State water
quality agencies to administer all or part
of the program established in this subsec-
tion under regulations developed by the
Secretary. Such agreements shall provide
for the submission of such reports as the
Secretary deems necessary, and for pay-
ment by the United States of such portion
of the costs incurred in the administration
of the program as the Secretary may
deem appropriate.
(6)	The contracts under this subsection
shall be entered into only in areas where
the management agency designated under
subsection (c)(1) of this section assures
an adequate level of participation by own-
ers and operators having control of rural
land in such areas. Within such areas the
local soil conservation district, where one
exists, together with the Secretary of Ag-
riculture, will determine the priority of
assistance among individual landowners
and operators to assure that the most crit-
ical water quality problems are addressed.
(7)	The Secretary, in consultation with
the Administrator and subject to section
304(k) of this Act, shall, not later than
September 30, 1978, promulgate regula-
tions for carrying out this subsection and
for support and cooperation with other
Federal and non-Federal agencies for im-
plementation of this subsection.
(8)	This program shall not be used to
authorize or finance projects that would
otherwise be eligible for assistance under
the terms of Public Law 83-566.
(9)	There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Agricul-
ture $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1979,
5400,000,000 for fiscal year 1980,
5100,000,000 for fiscal year 1981,
5100,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, and
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 1983 through 1990, to carry out this
subsection. The program authorized un-
der this subsection shall be in addition to,
and not in substitution of, other programs
in such area authorized by this or any
other public law.
[§208(j)(9) amended by PL 96-483; PL
100-4]
§209 [33 U.S.C. 1289] Basin Planning
(a)	The President, acting through the
Water Resources Council, shall, as soon
as practicable, prepare a Level B plan un-
der the Water Resources Planning Act
for all basins in the United States. All
such plans shall be completed not later
than January 1, 1980, except that priority
in the preparation of such plans shall be
given to those basins and portions thereof
which are within those areas designated
under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of sub-
section (a) of section 208 of this Act.
(b)	The President, acting through the
Water Resources Council, shall report an-
nually to Congress on progress being
made in carrying out this section. The
first such report shall be submitted not
later than January 31, 1973.
(c) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to carry out this section not to exceed
$200,000,000.
§210 [33 U.S.C. 1290] Annual Survey
The Administrator shall annually make
a survey to determine the efficiency of the
operation and maintenance of treatment
works constructed with grants made un-
der this Act, as compared to the efficiency
planned at the time the grant was made.
The results of such annual survey shall be
included in the report required under sec-
tion 516(a) of this Act.
§211 [33 U.S.C. 1291] Sewage Collection
Systems
(a)	No grant shall be made for a sew-
age collection system under this title un-
less such grant (1) is for replacement or
major rehabilitation of an existing collec-
tion system and is necessary to the total
integrity and performance of the waste
treatment works servicing such communi-
ty, or (2) is for a new collection system in
an existing community with sufficient ex-
isting or planned capacity adequately to
treat such collected sewage and is consis-
tent with section 201 of this Act.
(b)	If the Administrator uses popula-
tion density as a test for determining the
eligibility of a collector sewer for assist-
ance it shall be only for the purpose of
evaluating alternatives and determining
the needs for such system in relation to
ground or surface water quality impact.
(c)	No grant shall be made under this
title from funds authorized for any fiscal
year during the period beginning October
1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1990,
for treatment works for control of pollu-
tant discharges from separate storm sewer
systems.
[§211(c) amended by PL 97-117; PL
100-4]
§212 [33 U.S.C. 1292] Definitions
As used in this title—
(1) The term "construction" means any
one or more of the following: preliminary
planning to determine the feasibility of
treatment works, engineering, architec-
tural, legal, fiscal, or economic investiga-
tions or studies, surveys, designs, plans,
working drawings, specifications, proce-
dures, field testing of innovative or alter-
native waste water treatment processes
and techniques meeting guidelines
promulgated under section 304(d)(3) of

-------
this Act, or other necessary actions, erec-
tion, building, acquisition, alteration, re-
modeling, improvement, or extension of
treatment works, or the inspection or su-
pervision of any of the foregoing items.
[§212(1) amended by PL 97-117]
(2) (A) The term "treatment works"
means any devices and systems used in
the storage, treatment, recycling, and rec-
lamation of municipal sewage or industri-
al wastes of a liquid nature to implement
section 201 of this act, or necessary to
recycle or reuse water at the most eco-
nomical cost over the estimated life of the
works, including intercepting sewers, out-
fall sewers, sewage collection systems,
pumping, power, and other equipment,
and their appurtenances; extensions, im-
provements, remodeling, additions, and
alterations thereof; elements essential to
provide a reliable recycled supply such as
standby treatment units and clear well fa-
cilities; and any works, including site ac-
quisition of the land that will be an inte-
gral part of the treatment process (includ-
ing land use for the storage of treated
wastewater in land treatment systems
prior to land application) or is used for
ultimate disposal of residues resulting
from such treatment.
(B)	In addition to the definition con-
tained in subparagraph (A) of this para-
graph, "treatment works" means any oth-
er method or system for preventing, abat-
ing, reducing, storing, treating,
separating, or disposing of municipal
waste, including storm water runoff, or
industrial waste, including waste in com-
bined storm water and sanitary sewer sys-
tems. Any application for construction
grants which includes wholly or in part
such methods or systems shall, in accor-
dance with guidelines published by the
Administrator pursuant to subparagraph
(C) of this paragraph, contain adequate
data and analysis demonstrating such pro-
posal to be, over the life of such works,
the most cost efficient alternative to com-
ply with sections 301 or 302 of this act, or
the requirements of section 201 of this
act.
(C)	For the purposes of subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph, the Administrator
shall, within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this title,
publish and thereafter revise no less often
than annually, guidelines for the evalua-
tion of methods, including cost effective
analysis, described in subparagraph (B)
of this paragraph.
(3) The term "replacement" as used in
this title means those expenditures for ob-
taining and installing equipment, accesso-
ries, or appurtenances during the useful
life of the treatment works necessary to
maintain the capacity and performance
for which such works are designed and
constructed.
§213 [33 U.S.C. 1293] Loan Guarantees
for Construction of Treatment Works
(a)	Subject to the conditions of this sec-
tion and to such terms and conditions as
the Administrator determines to be neces-
sary to cany out the purposes of this title,
the Administrator is authorized to guar-
antee, and to make commitments to guar-
antee, the principal and interest (includ-
ing interest accruing between the date of
default and the date of the payment in
full of the guarantee) of any loan, obliga-
tion, or participation therein of any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or inter-
state agency issued directly and exclusive-
ly to the Federal Financing Bank to fi-
nance that part of the cost of any grant-
eligible project for the construction of
publicly owned treatment works not paid
for with Federal financial assistance un-
der this title (other than this section),
which project the Administrator has de-
termined to be eligible for such financial
assistance under this title, including, but
not limited to, projects eligible for reim-
bursement under section 206 of this title.
(b)	No guarantee, or commitment to
make a guarantee, may be made pursuant
to this section—
(1)	unless the Administrator certifies
that the issuing body is unable to obtain
on reasonable terms sufficient credit to fi-
nance its actual needs without such guar-
antee; and
(2)	unless the Administrator deter-
mines that there is a reasonable assurance
of repayment of the loan, obligation, or
participation therein.
A determination of whether financing is
available at reasonable rates shall be
made by the Secretary of the Treasury
with relationship to the current average
yield on outstanding marketable obliga-
tions of municipalities of comparable ma-
turity.
(c)	The Administrator is authorized to
charge reasonable fees for the investiga-
tion of an application for a guarantee and
for the issuance of a commitment to make
a guarantee.
(d) The Administrator, in determining
whether there is a reasonable assurance of
repayment, may require a commitment
which would apply to such repayment.
Such commitment may include, but not
be limited to, any funds received by such
grantee from the amounts appropriated
under section 206 of this act.
[§213(d) amended by PL 96-483]
§214 [33 U.S.C. 1294] Public Information
The Administrator shall develop and
operate within one year of the date of
enactment of this section, a continuing
program of public information and educa-
tion on recycling and reuse of wastewater
(including sludge), the use of land treat-
ment, and methods for the reduction of
wastewater volume.
§215 [33 U.S.C. 1295] Requirements for
American Materials
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no grant for which application is
made after February 1, 1978, shall be
made under this title for any treatment
works unless only such unmanufactured
articles, materials, and supplies as have
been mined or produced in the United
States, and only such manufactured arti-
cles, materials, and supplies as have been
manufactured in the United States, sub-
stantially all from articles, materials, or
supplies mined, produced, or manufac-
tured, as the case may be, in the United
States will be used in such treatment
works. This section shall not apply in any
case where the Administrator determines,
based upon those factor the Administra-
tor deems relevant, including the avail-
able resources of the agency, it to be in-
consistent with the public interest (includ-
ing multilateral government procurement
agreements) or the cost to be unreason-
able, or if articles, materials, or supplies
of the class or kind to be used or the arti-
cles, material, or supplies from which
they are manufactured are not mined,
produced, or manufactured, as the case
may be, in the United States in sufficient
and reasonably available commercial
quantities and of a satisfactory quality.
§216 [33 U.S.C. 1295] Determination of
Priority
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the determination of the priority

-------
to be given each category of projects for
construction of publicly owned treatment
works within each State shall be made
solely by that State, except that if the
Administrator, after a public hearing, de-
termines that a specific project will not
result in compliance with the enforceable
requirements of this Act, such project
shall be removed from the State's priority
list and such State shall submit a revised
priority list. These categories shall in-
clude, but not be limited to (A) secondary
treatment, (B) more stringent treatment,
(C) infiltration-in-flow correction,(D) ma-
jor sewer system rehabilitation, (E) new
collector sewers and appurtenances, (F)
new interceptors and appurtenances, and
(G) correction of combined sewer over-
flows. Not less than 25 per centum of
funds allocated to a State in any fiscal
year under this title for construction of
publicly owned treatment works in such
State shall be obligated for those types of
projects referred to in clauses (D, (E),
(F), and (G) of this section, if such
projects are on such State's priority list
for that year and are otherwise eligible for
funding in that fiscal year. It is the policy
of Congress that projects for wastewater
treatment and management undertaken
with Federal financial assistance under
this Act by any State, municipality, or
intermunicipal or interstate agency shall
be projects which, in the estimation of the
State, are designed to achieve optimum
water quality management, consistent
with the public health and water quality
goals and requirements of the Act.
[§216 amended by PL 97-117]
§217 [33 U.S.C. 1297] Cost-Effectiveness
Guidelines
Any guidelines for cost-effectiveness
analysis published by the Administrator
under this title shall provide for the iden-
tification and selection of cost effective al-
ternatives to comply with the objective
and goals of this Act and sections 201(b),
201(d), 201(g)(2)(A), and 301(b)(2)(B)
of this Act.
§218 [33 U.S.C. 1298] Cost Effectiveness
(a) It is the policy of Congress that a
project for waste treatment and manage-
ment undertaken with Federal financial
assistance under this Act by any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or inter-
state agency shall be considered as an
overall waste treatment system for waste
treatment and management, and shall be
that system which constitutes the most
economical and cost-effective combination
of devices and systems used in the stor-
age, treatment, recycling, and reclama-
tion of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature to implement
section 201 of this Act, or necessary to
recycle or reuse water at the most eco-
nomical cost over the estimated life of the
works, including intercepting sewers, out-
fall sewers, sewage collection systems,
pumping power, and other equipment,
and their appurtenances; extension, im-
provements, remodeling, additions, and
alterations thereof; elements essential to
provide a reliable recycled supply such as
standby treatment units and dear well fa-
cilities; and any works, ir eluding site ac-
quisition of the land that will be an inte-
gral part of the treatment process (includ-
ing land use for the storage of treated
wastewater in iand treatment systems
prior to land application) or which is used
for ultimate disposal of residues resulting
from such treatment; water efficiency
measures and devices; and any other
method or system for preventing, abating,
reducing, storing, treating, separating, or
disposing of municipal waste, including
storm water runoff, or industrial waste,
including waste in combined storm water
and sanitary sewer systems; to meet the
requirements of this Act.
(b)	In accordance with the policy set
forth in subsection (a) of this section,
before the Administrator approves any
grant to any State, municipality, or inter
municipal or interstate agency for the
erection, building, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement, or extension of
any treatment works the Administrator
shall determine that the facilities plan of
which such treatment works are a part
constitutes the most economical and cost-
effective combination of treatment works
over the life of the project to meet the
requirements of this Act, including, but
not limited to, consideration of construc-
tion costs, operation, maintenance, and re-
placement costs.
(c)	In furtherance of the policy set
forth in subsection (a) of this section, the
Administrator shall require value engi-
neering review in connection with any
treatment works, prior to approval of any
grant for the erection, building, acquisi-
tion, alteration;, remodeling, improve-
ment, or extension of such treatment
works, in any case in which the cost of
such erection, building, acquisition, alter-
ation, remodeling, improvement, or exten-
sion is projected to be in excess of
$10,000,000. For purposes of this subsec-
tion, the term 'value engineering review"
means a specialized cost control technique
which uses a systematic and creative ap-
proach to identify and to focus on unnec-
essarily high cost in a project in order to
arrive at a cost saving without sacrificing
the reliability or efficiency of the project.
(d) This section applies to projects for
waste treatment and management for
which no treatment works including a fa-
cilities plan for such project have received
Federal financial assistance for the prepa-
ration of construction plans and specifica-
tions under this Act before the date of
enactment of this section.
[§218 added by PL 97-117]
§219 [33 U.S.C. 1299] State Certification
of Projects
Whenever the Governor of a State
which has been delegated sufficient au-
thority to administer the construction
grant program under this title in that
State certifies to the Administrator that a
grant application meets applicable re-
quirements of Federal and State law for
assistance under this title, the Adminis-
trator shall approve or disapprove such
application within 45 days of the date of
receipt of such application. If the Admin-
istrator does not approve or disapprove
such application within 45 days of receipt,
the application shall be deemed approved.
If the Administrator disapproves such ap-
plication the Administrator shall state in
writing the reasons for such disapproval.
Any grant approved or deemed approved
under this section shall be subject to
amounts provided in appropriation Acts.
[§219 added by PL 97-117]
TITLE III—STANDARDS AND
ENFORCEMENT
§301 [33 U.S.C. 1311] Effluent
Limitations
(a)	Except as in compliance with this
section and sections 302, 306, 307, 318,
402, and 404 of this Act, the discharge of
any pollutant by any person shall be un-
lawful.
(b)	In order to carry out the objective
of this Act there shall be achieved—

-------
(1)	(A) not later than July 1, 1977, ef-
fluent limitations for point sources, other
than publicly owned treatment works, (i)
which shall require the application of the
best practicable control technology cur-
rently available as defined by the Admin-
istrator pursuant to section 304(b) of this
Act, or (ii) in the case of a discharge into
a publicly owned treatment works which
meets the requirements of subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph, which shall require
compliance with any applicable pretreat-
ment requirements and any requirements
under section 307 of this Act; and
(B)	for publicly owned treatment works
in existence on July 1, 1977, or approved
pursuant to section 203 of this Act prior
to June 30, 1974 (for which construction
must be completed within four years of
approval), effluent limitations based upon
secondary treatment as defined by the
Administrator pursuant to section
304(d)(1) of this Act; or,
(C)	not later than July 1, 1977, any
more stringent limitation, including those
necessary to meet water quality stan-
dards, treatment standards, or schedule of
compliance, established pursuant to any
State law or regulations, (under authority
preserved by section 510) or any other
Federal law or regulation, or required to
implement any applicable water quality
standard established pursuant to this Act.
(2)	(A) for pollutants identified in sub-
paragraphs (C), (D), and (F) of this para-
graph, effluent limitations for categories
and classes of point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works, which
(i) shall require application of the best
available technology economically achiev-
able for such category or class, which will
result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants, as deter-
mined in accordance with regulations is-
sued by the Administrator pursuant to
section 304(b)(2) of this Act, which such
effluent limitations shall require the elimi-
nation of discharges of all pollutants if the
Administrator finds, on the basis of infor-
mation available to him (including infor-
mation developed pursuant to section
315), that such elimination is technologi-
cally and economically achievable for cat-
egory or class of point sources as deter-
mined in accordance with regulations is-
sued by the Administrator pursuant to
section 304(b)(2) of this Act or (ii) in the
case of the introduction of a pollutant into
a publicly owned treatment works which
meets the requirements of subparagraph
(b) of this paragraph, shall require com-
pliance with any applicable pretreatment
requirements and any other requirement
under section 307 of this Act;
(B)	[Repealed]
[§301(b)(2)(B> repealed by PL 97-117]
(C)	with respect to all toxic pollutants
referred to in table 1 of Committee Print
Number 95-30 of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives compliance
with effluent limitations in accordance
with subparagraph (A) of this paragraph
as expeditiously as practicable but in no
case later than three years after the date
such limitations are promulgated under
section 304(b), and in no case later than
March 31, 1989.
[§301 (b)(2)(C) amended by PL 100-4]
(D)	for all toxic pollutants listed under
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section
307 of this Act which are not referred to
in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph
compliance with effluent limitation in ac-
cordance with subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph as expeditiously as practicable,
but in no case later than three years after
date such limitations are promulgated un-
der section 304(b), and in no case later
than March 31, 1989;
[§301 (b)(2)(D) amended by PL 100-4]
(E)	as expeditiously as practicable but
in no case later than three years after the
date such limitations are promulgated un-
der section 304(b), and in no case later
than March 31, 1989, compliance with
effluent limitations for categories and
classes of point sources, other than public-
ly owned treatment works, which in the
case of pollutants identified pursuant to
section 304(a)(4) of this Act shall require
application of the best conventional pollu-
tant control technology as determined in
accordance with regulations issued by the
Administrator pursuant to section
304(b)(4) of this Act; and
[§301 (b)(2)(E) amended by PL 100-4]
(F)	for all pollutants (other than those
subject to subparagraphs (C), (D), or (E)
of this paragraph) compliance with efflu-
ent limitations in accordance with sub-
paragraph (A) of this paragraph as expe-
ditiously as practicable but in no case lat-
er than 3 years after the date such
limitations are established, and in no case
later than March 31, 1989.
[§301 (b)(2)(F) amended by PL 100-4]
(3) (A) for effluent limitations under
paragraph (l)(A)(i) of this subsection
promulgated after January 1, 1982, and
requiring a level of control substantially
greater or based on fundamentally differ-
ent control technology than under permits
for an industrial category issued before
such date, compliance as expeditiously as
practicable but in no case later than three
years after the date such limitations are
promulgated under section 304(b), and in
no case later than March 31, 1989; and
(B) for any effluent limitation in accor-
dance with paragraph (l)(A)(i),
(2)(A)(i), or (2)(E) of this subsection es-
tablished only on the basis of section
402(a)(1) in a permit issued after enact-
ment of the Water Quality Act of 1987,
compliance as expeditiously as practica-
ble but in no case later than three years
after the date such limitations are estab-
lished, and in no case later than March
31, 1989.
[§301 (b)(3) added by PL 100-4]
(c)	The Administrator may modify the
requirements of subsection (b)(2)(A) of
this section with respect to any point
source for which a permit application is
filed after July 1, 1977, upon a showing
by the owner or operator of such point
source satisfactory to the Administrator
that such modified requirements (1) will
represent the maximum use of technology
within the economic capability of the
owner or operator; and (2) will result in
reasonable further progress toward the
elimination of the discharge of pollutants.
(d)	Any effluent limitation required by
paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this
section shall be reviewed at least every
five years and, if appropriate, revised pur-
suant to the procedure established under
such paragraph.
(e)	Effluent limitations established pur-
suant to this section or section 302 of this
Act shall be applied to all point sources of
discharge of pollutants in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.
(0 Notwithstanding any other provi-
sions of this Act it shall be unlawful to
discharge any radiological, chemical, or
biological warfare agent, any high-level
radioactive waste, or any medical waste,
into the navigable waters.
[§301(0 amended by PL 100-688]
(g) Modifications for Certain Noncon-
ventional Pollutants.—

-------
(1)	General Authority. — The Admin-
istrator, with the concurrence of the
State, may modify the requirements of
subsection (b)(2)(A) of this section with
respect to the discharge from any point
source of ammonia, chlorine, color, iron,
and total phenols (4AAP) (when deter-
mined by the Administrator to be a pollu-
tant covered by subsection (b)(2)(F)) and
any other pollutant which the Administra-
tor lists under paragraph (4) of this sub-
section.
[Former §301 (g)( 1) deleted and new (1)
and (2) added by PL 100-4]
(2)	Requirements for Granting Modifi-
cations. — A modification under this sub-
section shall be granted only upon a show-
ing by the owner or operator of a point
source satisfactory to the Administrator
that—
(A)	such modified requirements will re-
sult at a minimum in compliance with the
requirements of subsection (b)(1)(A) or
(C) of this section, whichever is applica-
ble;
(B)	such modified requirements will not
result in any additional requirements on
any other point or nonpoint source; and
(C)	such modification will not interfere
with the attainment of maintenance of
that water quality which shall assure pro-
tection of public water supplies, and the
protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife,
and allow recreational activities, in and on
the water and such modification will not
result in the discharge of pollutants in
quantities which may reasonably be antic-
ipated to pose an unacceptable risk to hu-
man health or the environment because of
bioaccumulation, persistency in the envi-
ronment, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity
(including carcinogenicity, mutagenicity
or teratogenicity), or synergistic propensi-
ties.
(3)	Limitation on Authority to Apply
for Subsection (c) Modification — If an
owner or operator of a point source ap-
plies for a modification under this subsec-
tion with respect to the discharge of any
pollutant, such owner or operator shall be
eligible to apply for modification under
subsection (c) of this section with respect
to such pollutant only during the same
time-period as he is eligible to apply for a
modification under this subsection.
[Former §301 (g)(2) amended and redes-
ignated as (3) by PL 100-4]
(4) Procedures for Listing Additional
Pollutants —
(A)	General Authority. — Upon peti-
tion of any person, the Administrator may
add any pollutant to the list of pollutants
for which modification under this section
is authorized (except for pollutants identi-
fied pursuant to section 304(a)(4) of this
Act, toxic pollutants subject to section
307(a) of this Act, and the thermal com-
ponent of discharges) in accordance with
the provisions of this paragraph.
(B)	Requirements for Listing.—
(i)	Sufficient Information. — The per-
son petitioning for listing of an additional
pollutant under this subsection shall sub-
mit to the Administrator sufficient infor-
mation to make the determinations re-
quired by this subparagraph.
(ii)	Toxic Criteria Determination. —
The Administrator shall determine
whether or not the pollutant meets the
criteria for listing as a toxic pollutant un-
der section 307(a) of this Act.
(iii)	Listing as Toxic Pollutant. — If
the Administrator determines that the
pollutant meets the criteria for listing as a
toxic pollutant under section 307(a), the
Administrator shall list the Pollutant as a
toxic pollutant under section 307(a).
(iv)	Nonconventional Criteria Determi-
nation. — If the Administrator deter-
mines that the pollutant does not meet the
criteria for listing as a toxic pollutant un-
der such section and determines that ade-
quate test methods and sufficient data are
available to make the determinations re-
quired by paragraph (2) of this subsection
with respect to the pollutant, the Admin-
istrator shall add the pollutant to the list
of pollutants specified in paragraph (1) of
this subsection for which modifications
are authorized under this subsection.
(C)	Requirements for Filing of Peti-
tions. — A petition for listing of a pollu-
tant under this paragraph—
(i)	must be filed not later than 270 days
after the date of promulgation of an appli-
cable effluent guideline under section 304;
(ii)	may be filed before promulgation of
such guideline; and
(iii)	may be filed with an application
for a modification under paragraph (I)
with respect to the discharge of such pol-
lutant.
(D)	Deadline for Approval of Petition.
— A decision to add a pollutant to the list
of pollutants for which modifications un-
der this subsection are authorized must be
made within 270 days after the date of
promulgation of an applicable effluent
guideline under section 304.
(E) Burden of Proof. — The burden of
proof for making the determinations un-
der subparagraph (B) shall be on the peti-
tioner.
[§301 (g)(4) added by PL 100-4]
(5) Removal of Pollutants. — The Ad-
ministrator may remove any pollutant
from the list of pollutants for which modi-
fications are authorized under this subsec-
tion if the Administrator determines that
adequate test methods and sufficient data
are no longer available for determining
whether or not modifications may be
granted with respect to such pollutant un-
der paragraph (2) of this subsection.
[§301 (g)(5) added by PL 100-4]
(h) The Administrator, with the con-
currence of the Slate, may issue a permit
under section 402 which modifies the re-
quirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this
section with respect to the discharge of
any pollutant from a publicly owned treat-
ment works into marine waters, if the ap-
plicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that—
(1)	there is an applicable water quality
standard specific to the pollutant for
which the modification is requested,
which has been identified under section
304(a)(6) of this Act;
(2)	the discharge of pollutants in accor-
dance with such modified requirements
will not interfere, alone or in combination
with pollutants from other sources, with
the attainment or maintenance of that
water quality which assures protection of
public water supplies and protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,
and allows recreational activities, in and
on the water;
(3)	the applicant has established a sys-
tem for monitoring the impact of such dis-
charge on a representative sample of
aquatic biota, to the extent practicable,
and the scope of such monitoring is limit-
ed to include only those scientific investi-
gations which are necessary to study the
effects of the proposed discharge;
[§301 (h)(3) amended by PL 100-4]
[Editor's note: Section 303(b)(2) of
PL 100-4 states the amendment to
301(h)(3), "shall only apply to modifica-
tions and renewals of modifications which

-------
are tentatively or finally approved after
the date of the enactment of this Act."]
(4)	such modified requirements will not
result in any additional requirements on
any other point or nonpoint source;
(5)	all applicable pretreatment require-
ments for sources introducing waste into
such treatment works will be enforced;
(6)	in the case of any treatment works
serving a population of 50,000 or more,
with respect to any toxic pollutant intro-
duced into such works by an industrial
discharger for which pollutant there is no
applicable pretreatment requirement in
effect, sources introducing waste into such
works are in compliance with all applica-
ble pretreatment requirements, the appli-
cant will enforce such requirements, and
the applicant has in effect a pretreatment
program which, in combination with the
treatment of discharges from such works,
removes the same amount of such pollu-
tant as would be removed if such works
were to apply secondary treatment to dis-
charges and if such works had no pre-
treatment program with respect to such
pollutant;
[New §301 (h)(6) added by PL 100-4]
(7)	to the extent practicable, the appli-
cant has established a schedule of activi-
ties designed to eliminate the entrance of
toxic pollutants from nonindustrial
sources into such treatment works;
[Former §301(h)(8) deleted by PL
97-117; former (6) and (7) redesignated
as (7) and (8) by PL 100-4]
(8)	there will be no new or substantially
increased discharges from the point
source of the pollutant to which the modi-
fication applies above that volume of dis-
charge specified in the permit;
(9)	the applicant at the time such modi-
fication becomes effective will be dis-
charging effluent which has received at
least primary or equivalent treatment and
which meets the criteria established under
section 304(a)(1) of this Act after initial
mixing in the waters surrounding or adja-
cent to the point at which such effluent is
discharged.
[§301(h)(9) added by PL 100-4]
For the purposes of this subsection the
phrase "the discharge of any pollutant in-
to marine waters" refers to a discharge
into deep waters of the territorial sea or
the waters of the contiguous zone, or into
saline estuarine waters where there is
strong tidal movement and other hydro-
logical and geological characteristics
which the Administrator determines nec-
essary to allow compliance with para-
graph (2) of this subsection, and section
101(a)(2) of this Act. For the purposes of
paragraph (9), "primary or equivalent
treatment" means treatment by screen-
ing, sedimentation, and skimming ade-
quate to remove at least 30 percent of the
biological oxygen demanding material
and of the suspending solids in the treat-
ment works influent, and disinfection,
where appropriate. A municipality which
applies secondary treatment shall be eligi-
ble to receive a permit pursuant to this
subsection which modifies the require-
ments of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this sec-
tion with respect to the discharge of any
pollutant from any treatment works
owned by such municipality into marine
waters. No permit issued under this sub-
section shall authorize the discharge of
sewage sludge into marine waters. In or-
der for a permit to be issued under this
subsection for the discharge of a pollutant
into marine waters, such marine waters
must exhibit characteristics assuring that
water providing dilution does not contain
significant amounts of previously dis-
charged effluent from such treatment
works. No permit issued under this sub-
section shall authorize the discharge of
any pollutant into saline estuarine waters
which at the time of application do not
support a balanced indigenous population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife, or allow rec-
reation in and on the waters or which ex-
hibit ambient water quality below appli-
cable water quality standards adopted for
the protection of public water supplies,
shellfish, fish and wildlife or recreational
activities or such other standards neces-
sary to assure support and protection of
such uses. The prohibition contained in
the preceding sentence shall apply with-
out regard to the presence or absence of a
causal relationship between such charac-
teristics and the applicant's current or
proposed discharge. Notwithstanding any
other provisions of this subsection, no per-
mit may be issued under this subsection
for discharge of a pollutant into the New
York Bight Apex consisting of the ocean
waters of the Atlantic Ocean westward of
73 degrees 30 minutes west longitude and
northward of 40 degrees 10 minutes north
latitude.
[§301 (h) amended by PL 97-117; PL
100-4]
(1)(l)	Where construction is required
in order for a planned or existing publicly
owned treatment works to achieve limita-
tions under subsection (b)(1)(B) or
(b)(1)(C) of this section, but (A) con-
struction cannot be completed within the
time required in such subsection, or (B)
the United States has failed to make fi-
nancial assistance under this Act avail-
able in time to achieve such limitations by
the time specified in such subsection, the
owner or operator of such treatment
works may request the Administrator (or
if appropriate the State) to issue a permit
pursuant to section 402 of this Act or to
modify a permit issued pursuant to that
section to extend such time for compli-
ance. Any such request shall be filed with
the Administrator (or if appropriate the
State) within 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Water Quality Act of
1987.	The Administrator (or if appropri-
ate the State) may grant such request and
issue or modify such a permit, which shall
contain a schedule of compliance for the
publicly owned treatment works based on
the earliest date by which such financial
assistance will be available from the Unit-
ed States and construction can be com-
pleted, but in no event later than July 1,
1988,	and shall contain such other terms
and conditions, including those necessary
to carry out subsections (b) through (g) of
section 201 of this Act, section 307 of this
Act. and such interim effluent limitations
applicable to that treatment works as the
Administrator determines are necessary
to carry out the provisions of this Act.
[§301 (i)( 1) amended by PL 100-4]
[Editor's note: Section 304(b) of PL
100-4 states the amendment to 301 (i)( 1),
"shall not apply to those treatment works
which are subject to a compliance sched-
ule established before the date of the en-
actment of this Act by a court order or a
final administrative order."]
(2)	(A) Where a point source (other
than a publicly owned treatment works)
will not achieve the requirements of sub-
sections (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C) of this
section and—
(i)	if a permit issued prior to July 1,
1977, to such point source is based upon a
discharge into a publicly owned treatment
works; or
(ii)	if such point source (other than a
publicly owned treatment works) had
before July 1, 1977, a contract (enforce-

-------
able against such point source) to dis-
charge into a publicly owned treatment
works; or
(iii) if either an application made
before July 1, 1977, for a construction
grant under this Act for a publicly owned
treatment works, or engineering or archi-
tectural plans or working drawings made
before July 1, 1977, for a publicly owned
treatment works, show that such point
source was to discharge into such publicly
owned treatment works, and such publicly
owned treatment works is presently un-
able to accept such discharge without con-
struct ion, and in the case of a discharge
to an existing publicly owned treatment
works, such treatment works has an ex-
tension pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection, the owner or operator of such
point source may request the Administra-
tor (or if appropriate the State) to issue or
modify such a permit pursuant to such
section 402 to extend such time for com-
pliance. Any such request shall be filed
with the Administrator (or if appropriate
the State) within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection or the fil-
ing of a request by the appropriate public-
ly owned treatment works under para-
graph (1) of this subsection, whichever is
later. If the Administrator (or if appropri-
ate the State) finds that the owner or op-
erator of such point source has acted in
good faith, he may grant such request and
issue or modify such a permit, which shall
contain a schedule of compliance for the
point source to achieve the requirements
of subsections (b)(1)(A) and (C) of this
section and shall contain such other terms
and conditions, including pretreatment
and interim effluent limitations and water
conservation requirements applicable to
that point source, as the Administrator
determines are necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act.
(B) No time modification granted by
the Administrator (or if appropriate the
State) pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) of
this subsection shall extend beyond the
earliest date practicable for compliance or
beyond the date of any extension granted
to the appropriate publicly owned treat-
ment works pursuant to paragraph (1) of
this subsection, but in no event shall it
extend beyond July 1, 1988; and no such
time modification shall be granted unless
(i) the publicly owned treatment works
will be in operation and available to the
point source before July 1, 1988, and will
meet the requirements to subsections
(b)(1)(B) and (C) of this section after
receiving the discharge from that point
source; and (ii) the point source and the
publicly owned treatment works have en-
tered into an enforceable contract requir-
ing the point source to discharge into the
publicly owned treatment works, the own-
er or operator of such point source to pay
the costs required under section 204 of
this Act, and the publicly owned treat-
ment works to accept the discharge from
the point source; and (iii) the permit for
such point source requires point source to
meet all requirements under section
307(a) and (b) during the period of such
time modification.
[§301 (i) amended by PL 97-117]
(j) (1) Any application filed under this
section for a modification of the provisions
of—
(A)	subsection (b)(1)(B) under subsec-
tion (h) of this section shall be filed not
later that[n] the 365th day which begins
after the date of enactment of the Munici-
pal Wastewater Treatment Construction
Grant Amendments of 1981, except that
a publicly owned treatment works which
prior to December 31, 1982, had a con-
tractual arrangement to use a portion of
the capacity of an ocean outfall operated
by another publicly owned treatment
works which has applied for or received
modification under subsection (h), may
apply for a modification of subsection (h)
in its own right not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987;
[§301(j)(l)(A) revised by PL 97-117;
amended by PL 100-4]
(B)	Subsection (b)(2)(A) as it applies
to pollutants identified in subsection
(b)(2)(F) shall be filed not later than 270
days after the date of promulgation of an
applicable effluent guideline under section
304 or not later than 270 days after the
date of enactment of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, whichever is later.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3) of this sec-
tion, any application for a modification
filed under subsection (g) of this section
shall not operate to stay any requirement
under this Act, unless in the judgment of
the Administrator such a stay or the mod-
ification sought will not result in the dis-
charge of pollutants in quantities which
may reasonably be anticipated to pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment because of bioaccumulation,
persistency in the environment, acute tox-
icity, chronic toxicity (including carcino-
genicity, mutagenicity or teratogenicity),
or synergistic propensities, and that there
is a substantial likelihood that the appli-
cant will succeed on the merits of such
application. In the case of an application
filed under subsection (g) of this section,
the Administrator may condition any stay
granted under this paragraph on requiring
the filing of a bond or other appropriate
security to assure timely compliance with
the requirements from which a modifica-
tion is sought.
(3)	Compliance Requirements Under
Subsection (g).—
(A)	Effect of Filing. — An application
for a modification under subsection (g)
and a petition for listing of a pollutant as
a pollutant for which modifications are
authorized under such subsection shall
not stay the requirement that the person
seeking such modification or listing com-
ply with effluent limitations under this
Act for all pollutants not the subject of
such application or petition.
(B)	Effect of Disapproval. — Disap-
proval of an application for a modification
under- subsection (g) shall not stay the
requirement that the person seeking such
modification comply with all applicable
effluent limitations under this Act.
[§301(j)(3) added by PL 100-4]
(4)	Deadline for Subsection (g) Deci-
sion. — An application for a modification
with respect to a pollutant filed under sub-
section (g) must be approved or disap-
proved not later than 365 days after the
date of such filing; except that in any case
in which a petition for listing such pollu-
tant as a pollutant for which modifications
are authorized under such subsection is
approved, such application must be ap-
proved or disapproved not later than 365
days after the date of approval of such
petition.
[§301 (j)(4) added by PL 100-4]
(k) In the case of any facility subject to
a permit under section 402 which propos-
es to comply with the requirements of
subsection (b)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(E) of this
section by replacing existing production
capacity with an innovative production
process which will result in an effluent
reduction significantly greater than that
required by the limitation otherwise appli-
cable to such facility and moves toward
the national goal of eliminating the dis-
charge of all pollutants, or with the instal-

-------
lation of an innovative control technique
that has a substantial likelihood for en-
abling the facility to comply with the ap-
plicable effluent limitation by achieving a
significantly greater effluent reduction
than that required by the applicable efflu-
ent limitation and moves toward the na-
tional goal of eliminating the discharge of
all pollutants, or by achieving the re-
quired reduction with an innovative sys-
tem that has the potential for significantly
lower costs than the systems which have
been determined by the Administrator to
be economically achievable, the Adminis-
trator (or the State with an approved pro-
gram under section 402, in consultation
with the Administrator) may establish a
date for compliance under subsection
(b)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(E) of this section no
later than two years after the date for
compliance with such effluent limitation-
which would otherwise be applicable un-
der such subsection, if it is also deter-
mined that such innovative system has the
potential for industrywide application.
[§301 (k) amended by PL 100-4]
(1) Other than as provided in subsection
(n) of this section, the Administrator may
not modify any requirement of this sec-
tion as it applies to any specific pollutant
which is on the toxic pollutant list under
section 307(a)(1) of this Act.
[§301(1) amended by PL 100-4]
(m)(l)The Administrator, with the
concurrence of the State, may issue a per-
mit under section 402 which modifies the
requirements of subsections (b)(1)(A)
and (b)(2)(E) of this section, and of sec-
tion 403, with respect to effluent limita-
tions to the extent such limitations relate
to biochemical oxygen demand and pH
from discharges by an industrial discharg-
er in such State into deep waters of the
territorial seas, if the applicant demon-
strates and the Administrator finds that—
(A)	the facility for with modification is
sought is covered at the time of the enact-
ment of this subsection by National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System per-
mit number CA0005894 or CA0005282;
(B)	the energy and environmental costs
of meeting such requirements of subsec-
tions (b)(1)(A) and (b)(2)(E) and section
403 exceed by an unreasonable amount
the benefits to be obtained, including the
objectives of this Act;
(C)	the applicant has established a sys-
tem for monitoring the impact of such dis-
charges on a representative sample of
aquatic biota;
(D)	such modified requirements will
not result in any additional requirements
on any other point or nonpoint source;
(E)	there will be no new or substantial-
ly increased discharges from the point
source of the pollutant to which the modi-
fication applies above that volume of dis-
charge specified in the permit;
(F)	the discharge is into waters where
there is strong tidal movement and other
hydrological and geological characteris-
tics which are necessary to allow compli-
ance with this subsection and section
101 (a)(2) of this Act;
(G)	the applicant accepts as a condition
to the permit a contractural obligation to
use funds in the amount required (but not
less than $250,000 per year for ten years)
for research and development of water
pollution control technology, including
but not limited to closed cycle technology;
(H)	the facts and circumstances pre-
sent a unique situation which, if relief is
granted, will not establish a precedent or
the relaxation of the requirements of this
Act applicable to similarly situated dis-
charges; and
(I)	no owner or operator of a facility
comparable to that of the applicant situat-
ed in the United States has demonstrated
that it would be put at a competitive dis-
advantage to the applicant (or the parent
company or any subsidiary thereof) as a
result of the issuance of a permit under
this subsection.
(2)	The effluent limitations established
under a permit issued under paragraph
(1) shall be sufficient to implement the
applicable State water quality standards,
to assure the protection of public water
supplies and protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, fauna, wildlife, and other
aquatic organisms, and to allow recre-
ational activities in and on the water. In
setting such limitations, the Administra-
tor shall take into account any seasonal
variations and the need for an adequate
margin of safety, considering the lack of
essential knowledge concerning the rela-
tionship between effluent limitations and
water quality and the lack of essential
knowledge of the effects of discharges on
beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
(3)	A permit under this subsection may
be issued for a period not to exceed five
years, and such a permit may be renewed
for one additional period not to exceed
five years upon a demonstration by the
applicant and a finding by the Adminis-
trator at the time of application for any
such renewal that the provisions of this
subsection are met.
(4) The Administrator may terminate a
permit issued under this subsection if the
Administrator determines that there has
been a decline in ambient water quality of
the receiving waters during the period of
the permit even if a direct cause and ef-
fect relationship cannot be shown: Provid-
ed, That if the effluent from a source with
a permit issued under this subsection is
contributing to a decline in ambient water
quality of the receiving waters, the Ad-
ministrator shall terminate such permit.
[§301 (m) added by PL 97-440]
(n) Fundamentally Different Fac-
tors.—
(1) General Rule. — The Administra-
tor, with the concurrence of the State,
may establish an alternative requirement
under subsection (b)(2) or section 307(b)
for a facility that modifies the require-
ments of national effluent limitation
guidelines or categorical pretreatment
standards that would otherwise be appli-
cable to such facility, if the owner or oper-
ator of such facility demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that—
(A)	the facility is fundamentally differ-
ent with respect to the factors (other than
cost) specified in section 304(b) or 304(g)
and considered by the Administrator in
establishing such national effluent limita-
tion guidelines or categorical pretreat-
ment standards;
(B)	the application—
(i)	is based solely on information and
supporting data submitted to the Admin-
istrator during the rulemaking for estab-
lishment of the applicable national efflu-
ent limitation guidelines or categorical
pretreatment standard specifically raising
the factors that are fundamentally differ-
ent for such facility; or
(ii)	is based on information and sup-
porting data referred to in clause (i) and
information and supporting data the ap-
plicant did not have a reasonable opportu-
nity to submit during such rulemaking;
(C)	the alternative requirement is no
less stringent than justified by the funda-
mental difference; and
(D)	the alternative requirement will not
result in a non-water quality environmen-
tal impact which is markedly more ad-

-------
verse than the impact considered by the
Administrator in establishing such nation-
al effluent limitation guideline or categori-
cal pretreatment standard.
(2)	Time Limit for Applications. — An
application for an alternative requirement
which modifies the requirements of an ef-
fluent limitation or pretreatment standard
under this subsection must be submitted
to the Administrator within 180 days af-
ter the date on which such limitation or
standard is established or revised, as the
case may be.
(3)	Time Limit for Decision. — The
Administrator shall approve or deny by
final agency action an application submit-
ted under this subsection within 180 days
after the date such application is filed
with the Administrator.
(4)	Submission of Information. — The
Administrator may allow an applicant un-
der this subsection to submit information
and supporting data until the earlier of
the date the application is approved or
denied or the last day that the Adminis-
trator has to approve or deny such appli-
cation.
(5)	Treatment of Pending Applications.
— For the purposes of this subsection, an
application for an alternative requirement
based on fundamentally different factors
which is pending on the date of the enact-
ment of this subsection shall be treated as
having been submitted to the Administra-
tor on the 180th day following such date
of enactment. The applicant may amend
the application to take into account the
provisions of this subsection.
(6)	Effect of Submission of Applica-
tion. — An application for an alternative
requirement under this subsection shall
not stay the applicant's obligation to com-
ply with the effluent limitation guideline
or categorical pretreatment standard
which is the subject of the application.
(7)	Effect of Denial. — If an applica-
tion for an alternative requirement which
modifies the requirements of an effluent
limitation or pretreatment standard under
this subsection is denied by the Adminis-
trator, the applicant must comply with
such limitation or standard as established
or revised, as the case may be.
(8)	Reports. — Every 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this subsec-
tion, the Administrator shall submit to
the Committee on Environment and Pub-
lic Works of the Senate and the Commit-
tee on Public Works and Transportation
of the House of Representatives a report
on the status of applications for alterna-
tive requirements which modify the re-
quirements of effluent limitations under
section 301 or 304 of this Act or any na-
tional categorical pretreatment standard
under section 307(b) of this Act filed
before, on, or after such date of enact-
ment.
[§301 (n) added by PL 100-4]
(0)	Application Fees. — The Adminis-
trator shall prescribe and collect from
each applicant fees reflecting the reason-
able administrative costs incurred in re-
viewing and processing applications for
modifications submitted to the Adminis-
trator pursuant to subsections (c), (g), (i),
(k), (m), and (n) of section 301, section
304(d)(4), and section 316(a) of this Act.
All amounts collected by the Administra-
tor under this subsection shall be deposit-
ed into a special fund of the Treasury
entitled "Water Permits and Related Ser-
vices" which shall thereafter be available
for appropriation to carry out activities of
the Environmental Protection Agency for
which such fees were collected.
[§301 (o) added by PL 100-4]
(p) Modified Permit for Coal Refining
Operations.—
(1)	In General. — Subject to
paragraphs (2) through (4) of this subsec-
tion, the Administrator, or the State in
any case which the State has an approved
permit pro gram under section 402(b),
may issue a permit under section 402
which modifies the requirements of sub-
section (b)(2)(A) of this section with re-
spect to the pH level of any pre-existing
discharge, and with respect to preexisting
discharges of iron and manganese from
the remined area of any coal remining
operation or with respect to the pH level
or level of iron or manganese in any pre-
existing discharge affected by the remin-
ing operation. Such modified require-
ments shall apply the best available tech-
nology economically achievable on a case-
by-case basis, using best professional
judgment, to set specific numerical efflu-
ent limitations in each permit.
(2)	Limitations. — The Administrator
or the State may only issue a permit pur-
suant to paragraph (1) if the applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator or the State, as the case
may be, that the coal remining operation
will result in the potential for improved
water quality from the remining operation
but in no event shall such a permit allow
the pH level of any discharge, and in no
event shall such a permit allow the dis-
charges of iron and manganese, to exceed
the levels being discharged from the
remined area before the coal remining op-
eration begins. No discharge from, or af-
fected by, the remining operation shall ex-
ceed State water quality standards estab-
lished under section 303 of this Act.
(3)	Definitions. — For purposes of this
subsection—
(A)	Coal Remining Operation. — The
term "coal remining operation" means a
coal mining operation which begins after
the date of the enactment of this subsec-
tion at a site on which coal mining was
conducted before the effective date of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977,
(B)	Remined Area. — The term
"remined area" means only that area of
any coal remining operation on which coal
mining was conducted before the effective
date of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977,
(C)	Pre-existing Discharge. — The
term "pre-existing discharge" means any
discharge at the time of permit applica-
tion under this subsection.
(4)	Applicability of Strip Mining Laws.
— Nothing in this subsection shall affect
the application of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to
any coal remining operation, including
the application of such Act to suspended
solids.
[§301 (p) added by PL 100-4]
§302(33 U.S.C. 1312] Water Quality
Related Effluent Limitations
(a) Whenever, in the judgment of the
Administrator or as identified under sec-
tion 304(1) discharges of pollutants from
a point source or group of point sources,
with the application of effluent limitations
required under section 301 (b)(2) of this
Act, would interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of that water quality in a
specific portion of the navigable waters
which shall assure protection of public
health, public water supplies, agricultural
and industrial uses, and the protection
and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water,
effluent limitations (including alternative
effluent control strategies) for such point
source or sources shall be established

-------
which can reasonably be expected to con-
tribute to the attainment or maintenance
of such water quality.
[§302(a) amended by PL 100-4]
(b)	Modifications of Effluent Limita-
tions.—
(1)	Notice and Hearing. — Prior to es-
tablishment of any effluent limitation pur-
suant to subsection (a) of this section, the
Administrator shall publish such proposed
limitation and within 90 days of such pub-
lication hold a public hearing.
(2)	Permits.—
(A)	No Reasonable Relationship. —
The Administrator, with the concurrence
of the Slate, may issue a permit which
modifies the effluent limitations required
by subsection (a) of this section for pollu-
tants other than toxic pollutants if the ap-
plicant demonstrates at such hearing that
(whether or not technology or other alter-
native control strategies are available)
there is no reasonable relationship be-
tween the economic and social costs and
the benefits to be obtained (including at-
tainment of the objective of this Act)
from achieving such limitation.
(B)	Reasonable Progress. — The Ad-
ministrator. with the concurrence of the
State, may issue a permit which mqpiifies
the effluent limitations required by sub-
section (a) of this section for toxic pollu-
tants for a single period not to exceed 5
years if the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
such modified requirements (i) will repre-
sent the maximum degree of control with-
in the economic capability of the owner
and operator of the source, and (ii) will
result in reasonable further progress be-
yond the requirements of section
301(b)(2) toward the requirements of
subsection (a) of this section.
[§302(b) revised by PL 100-4]
(c)	The establishment of effluent limita-
tions under this section shall not operate
to delay the application of any effluent
limitation established under section 301
of this Act.
§303 [33 U.S.C. 1313] Water Quality
Standards and Implementation Plaits
(a)(1) In order to carry out the pur-
pose of this Act, any water quality stan-
dard applicable to interstate waters which
was adopted by any Stale and submitted
to, and approved by, or is awaiting ap-
proval by. the Administrator pursuant to
this Act as in effect immediately prior to
the date of enactment of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, shall remain in effect unless ihe Ad-
ministrator determined that such stan-
dard is not consistent with the applicable
requirements of this Act as in effect im-
mediately prior to the date of enactment
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. If the Admin-
istrator makes such a determination he
shall, within three months after the date
of enactment of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972,
notify the State and specify the changes
needed to meet such requirements. If such
changes are not adopted by the State
within ninety days after the date of such
notification, the Administrator shall pro-
mulgate such changes in accordance with
subsection (b) of this section.
(2)	Any State which, before the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. has
adopted pursuant to its own law, water
quality standards applicable to intrastate
waters shall submit such standards to the
Administrator within thirty days after the
date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. Each such standard shall remain in
effect, in the same manner and to the
same extent as any other water quality
standard established under this Act unless
the Administrator determines that such
standard is inconsistent with the applica-
ble requirements of this Act as in effect
immediately prior to the date of enact-
ment of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972. If the Ad-
ministrator makes such a determination
he shall not later than the one hundred
and twentieth day after the date of sub-
mission of such standards, notify the
State and specify the changes needed to
meet such requirements. If such changes
are not adopted by the State within ninety
days after such notification, the Adminis-
trator shall promulgate such changed in
accordance with subsection (b) of this sec-
tion.
(3)	(A) Any State which prior to the
date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 has not adopted pursuant to its own
laws water quality standards applicable to
intrastate waters shall, not later than one
hundred and eighty days after the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, adopt
and submit such standards to the Admin-
istrator.
(B)	If the Administrator determines
that any such standards are consistent
with the applicable requirements of this
Act as in effect immediately prior to the
date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, he shall approve such standards.
(C)	If the Administrator determines
that any such standards are not consistent
with the applicable requirements of this
Act as in effect immediately prior to the
date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, he shall, not later than the ninetieth
day after the date of submission of such
standards, notify the State and specify the
changes to meet such requirements. If
such changes are not adopted by the State
within ninety days after the date of notifi-
cation, the Administrator shall promul-
gate such standards pursuant to subsec-
tion (b) of this section.
(b)(1)	The Administrator shall
promptly prepare and publish proposed
regulations setting forth water quality
standards for a State in accordance with
the applicable requirements of this Act as
in effect immediately prior to the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, if—
(A)	the State fails to submit water
quality standards within the times pre-
scribed in subsection (a) of this section,
(B)	a water quality standard submitted
by such State under subsection (a) of this
section is determined by the Administra-
tor not to be consistent with the applica-
ble requirements of subsection (a) of this
section.
(2) The Administrator shall promul-
gate any water quality standard published
in a proposed regulation not later than
one hundred and ninety days after the
date he publishes any such proposed stan-
dard, unless prior to such promulgation,
such State has adopted a water quality
standard which the Administrator deter-
mines to be in accordance with subsection
(a) of this section.
(c)	(1) The Governor of a State or the
State water pollution control agency of
such State shall from time to time (but at
least once each three year period begin-
ning with the date of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972) hold public hear-
ings for the purpose of reviewing applica-

-------
blc water quality standards and, as appro-
priate, modifying and adopting standards.
Results of such review shall be made
available to the Administrator.
(2) (A) Whenever the State revises or
adopts a new standard, such revised or
new standard shall be submitted to the
Administrator. Such revised or new water
quality standard shall consist of the desig-
nated uses of the navigable waters in-
volved and the water quality criteria for
such waters based upon such uses. Such
standards shall be such as to protect the
public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of
this Act. Such standards shall be estab-
lished taking into consideration their use
and value for public water supplies, prop-
agation of fish and wildlife, recreational
purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and
other purposes, and also taking into con-
sideration their use and value for naviga-
tion.
[§303(c)(2)(A) designated by PL 100-4]
(B) Whenever a State reviews water
quality standards pursuant to paragraph
(1) of this subsection, or revises or adopts
new standards pursuant to this paragraph,
such State shall adopt criteria for all toxic
pollutants listed pursuant to section
307(a)(1) of this Act for which criteria
have been published under section 304(a),
the discharge or presence of which in the
affected waters could reasonably be ex-
pected to interfere with those designated
uses adopted by the State, as necessary to
support such designated uses. Such crite-
ria shall be specific numerical criteria for
such toxic pollutants. Where such numeri-
cal criteria are not available, whenever a
State reviews water quality standards pur-
suant to paragraph (1), or revises or
adopts new standards pursuant to this
paragraph, such State shall adopt criteria
based on biological monitoring or assess-
ment methods consistent with information
published pursuant to section 304(a)(8).
Nothing in this section shall be construed
to limit or delay the use of effluent limita-
tions or other permit conditions based on
or involving biological monitoring or as-
sessment methods or previously adopted
numerical criteria.
[§303(c)(2)(B) added by PL 100-4]
(3) If the Administrator, within sixty
days after the date of submission of the
revised or new standard, determines that
such standard meets the requirements of
this Act, such standard shall thereafter be
the water quality standard for the appli-
cable waters of that State. If the Adminis-
trator determines that any such revised or
new standard is not consistent with the
applicable requirements of this Act, he
shall not later than the ninetieth day after
the date of submission of such standard
notify the State and specify the changes
to meet such requirements. If such
changes are not adopted by the State
within ninety days after the date of notifi-
cation, the Administrator shall promul-
gate such standard pursuant to paragraph
(4) of this subsection.
(4) The Administrator shall promptly
prepare and publish proposed regulations
setting forth a revised or new water quali-
ty standard for the navigable waters in-
volved—
(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 Administra-
tor not to be consistent with the applica-
ble requirements of this Act, or
(B)	in any case where the Administra-
tor determines that a revised or new stan-
dard is necessary to meet the require-
ments of this Act. The Administrator
shall promulgate any revised or new stan-
dard under this paragraph not later than
ninety days after he publishes such pro-
posed standards, unless prior to such pro-
mulgation, such State has adopted a re-
vised or new water quality standard which
the Administrator determines to be in ac-
cordance with this Act.
(d) (1) (A) Each state shall identify
those waters within its boundaries for
which the effluent limitations required by
section 301(b)(1)(A) and section
301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard ap-
plicable to such waters. The State shall
establish a priority ranking for such wa-
ters, taking into account the severity of
the pollution and the uses to be made of
such waters.
(B)	Each State shall identify those wa-
ters or parts thereof within its boundaries
for which controls on thermal discharges
under section 301 are not stringent
enough to assure protection and propaga-
tion of a balanced indigenous population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
(C)	Each State shall establish for the
waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) 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(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation.
Such load shall be established at a level
necessary to implement the applicable wa-
ter quality standards with seasonal varia-
tions and a margin of safety which takes
into account any lack of knowledge con-
cerning the relationship between effluent
limitations and water quality.
(D) Each State shall estimate for the
waters identified in paragraph (l)(d) of
this subsection the total maximum daily
thermal load 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 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 in-
clude a margin of safety which takes into
account any lack of knowledge concerning
the development of thermal water quality
criteria for such protection and propaga-
tion in the identified waters or parts there-
of.
(2) Each State shall submit to the Ad-
ministrator from time to time, with the
first such 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 paragraphs
(1)(A), (1 )(B), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this
subsection. The Administrator shall ei-
ther approve or disapprove such identifi-
cation and load not later than thirty days
after the date of submission. If the Ad-
ministrator approves such identification
and load, such State shall incorporate
them into its current plan under subsec-
tion (e) of this section. If the Administra-
tor 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 deter-
mines necessary to implement the water
quality standards applicable to such wa-
ters and upon such identification and es-
tablishment the State shall incorporate
them into its current plan under subsec-
tion (e) of this section.

-------
(3)	For the specific purpose of develop-
ing information, each State shall identify
all waters within its boundaries which it
has not identified under paragraph (1)(A)
and (1)(B) of this subsection and estimate
for such waters the total maximum daily
load with seasonal variations and margins
of safety, for those pollutants which the
Administrator identifies under section
304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation
and for thermal discharges, at a level that
would assure protection and propagation
of a balanced indigenous population of
fish, shellfish and wildlife.
(4)	Limitations on Revision of Certain
Effluent Limitations.—
(A)	Standard Not Attained. — For wa-
ters identified under paragraph (1)(A)
where the applicable water quality stan-
dard has not yet been attained, any efflu-
ent limitation based on a total maximum
daily load or other waste load allocation
established under this section may be re-
vised only if (i) the cumulative effect of
all such revised effluent limitations based
on such total maximum daily load or
waste load allocation will assure the at-
tainment of such water quality standard,
or (ii) the designated use which is not
being attained is removed in accordance
with regulations established under this
section.
(B)	Standard Attained. — For waters
identified under paragraph (1)(A) where
the quality of such waters equals or ex-
ceeds levels necessary to protect the desig-
nated use for such waters or otherwise
required by applicable water quality stan-
dards, any effluent limitation based on a
total maximum daily load or other waste
load allocation established under this sec-
tion, or any water quality standard estab-
lished under this section, or any other per-
mitting standard may be revised only if
such revision is subject to and consistent
with the antidegradation policy estab-
lished under this section.
[§303(d)(4) added by PL 100-4]
(e) (1) Each State shall have a continu-
ing planning process approved under
paragraph (2) of this subsection which is
consistent with this Act.
(2) Each State shall submit not later
than 120 days after the date of the enact-
ment of the Water Pollution Control
Amendments of 1972 to the Administra-
tor for his approval a proposed continuing
planning process which is consistent with
this Act. Not later than thirty days after
the date of submission of such a process
the Administrator shall either approve or
disapprove such process. The Administra-
tor shall from time to time review each
State's approved planning process for the
purpose of insuring that such planning
process is at all times consistent with this
Act. The Administrator shall not approve
any State permit program under title IV
of this Act for any State which does not
have an approved continuing planning
process under this section.
(3) The Administrator shall approve
any continuing planning process submit-
ted to him under this section which will
result in plans for all navigable waters
within such State, which include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(A)	effluent limitations and schedules
of compliance at least as stringent as
those required by section 301(b)(1), sec-
tion 301(b)(2), section 306, and section
307, and at least as stringent as any re-
quirements contained in any applicable
water quality standard in effect under au-
thority of this section;
(B)	the incorporation of all elements of
any applicable areawide waste manage-
ment plans under section 208, and appli-
cable basin plans under section 209 of this
Act;
(C)	total maximum daily load for pollu-
tants in accordance with subsection (d) of
this section;
(D)	procedures for revision;
(E)	adequate authority for intergovern-
mental cooperation;
(F)	adequate implementation, includ-
ing schedules of compliance, for revised or
new water quality standards, under sub-
section (c) of this section;
(G)	controls over the disposition of all
residual waste from any water treatment
processing;
(H)	an inventory and ranking, in order
of priority, of needs for construction of
waste treatment works required to meet
the applicable requirements of sections
301 and 302.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to affect any effluent limitation, or
schedule of compliance required by any
State to be implemented prior to the dates
set forth in sections 301(b)(1) and
301(b)(2) nor to preclude any State from
requiring compliance with any effluent
limitation or schedule of compliance at
dates earlier than such dates.
(g)	Water quality standards relating to
heat shall be consistent with the require-
ments of section 316 of this Act.
(h)	For the purposes of this Act the
term "water quality standards" includes
thermal water quality standards.
§304 [33 U.S.C. 1314] Information and
Guidelines
(a)(1) The Administrator, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal and
State agencies and other interested per-
sons, shall develop and publish, within one
year after the date of enactment of this
title (and from time to time thereafter
revise) criteria for water quality accurate-
ly reflecting the latest scientific knowl-
edge (A) on the kind and extent of all
identifiable effects on health and welfare
including, but not limited to, plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shore
lines, beaches, esthetics, and recreation
which may be expected from the presence
of pollutants in any body of water, includ-
ing ground water; (B) on the concentra-
tion and dispersal of pollutants, or their
byproducts, through biological, physical,
and chemical processes; and (C) on the
effects of pollutants on biological commu-
nity diversity, productivity, and stability,
including information on the factors af-
fecting rates of eutrophication and rates
of organic and inorganic sedimentation
for varying types of receiving waters.
(2)	The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons,
shall develop and publish, within one year
after the date of enactment of this title
(and from time to time thereafter revise)
information (A) on the factors necessary
to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of all
navigable waters, ground waters, waters
of the contiguous zone, and the oceans;
(B) on the factors necessary for the pro-
tection and propagation of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife for classes and categories of
receiving waters and to allow recreational
activities in and on the water; and (C) on
the measurement and classification of wa-
ter quality; and (D) for the purpose of
section 303, on and the identification of
pollutants suitable for maximum daily
load measurement correlated with the
achievement of water quality objectives.
(3)	Such criteria and information and
revisions thereof shall be issued to the
States and shall be published in the Fed-

-------
eral Register and otherwise made avail-
able to the public.
(4)	The Administrator shall, within 90
days after the date of enactment of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 and from time
to time thereafter, publish and revise as
appropriate information identifying con-
ventional pollutants, including but not
limited to, pollutants classified as biologi-
cal oxygen demanding, suspended solids,
fecal coliform, and pH. The thermal com-
ponent of any discharge shall not be iden-
tified as a conventional pollutant under
this paragraph.
(5)	(A) The Administrator, to the ex-
tent practicable before consideration of
any request under section 301(g) of this
Act and within six months after the date
of enactment of the Clean Water Act of
1977, shall develop and publish informa-
tion on the factors necessary for the pro-
tection of public water supplies, and the
protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,
and to allow recreational activities, in and
on the water.
(B) The Administrator, to the extent
practicable before consideration of any
application under section 301(h) of this
Act and within six months after the date
of enactment of the Clean Water Act of
1977, shall develop and publish informa-
tion on the factors necessary for the pro-
tection of public water supplies, and the
protection and propagation of a balanced
indigenous population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife, and to allow recreational activi-
ties, in and on the water.
(6)	The Administrator shall, within
three months after enactment of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 and annually
thereafter, for purposes of section 301(h)
of this Act publish and revise as appropri-
ate information identifying each water
quality standard in effect under this Act
of State law, the specific pollutants associ-
ated with such water quality standard,
and the particular waters to which such
water quality standard applies.
(7)	Guidance to States. — The Admin-
istrator, after consultation with appropri-
ate State agencies and on the basis of cri-
teria and information published under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection,
shall develop and publish, within 9
months after the date of the enactment of
the Water Quality Act of 1987, guidance
to the States on performing the identifica-
tion required by section 304(1 )(1) of this
Act.
[§304(a)(7) added by PL 100-4]
(8) Information on Water Quality Cri-
teria. — The Administrator, after consul-
tation with appropriate Slate agencies
and within 2 years after the date of the
enactment of the Water Quality Act of
1987, shall develop and publish informa-
tion on methods for establishing and mea-
suring water quality criteria for toxic pol-
lutants on other bases than pollutant-by-
pollutant criteria, including biological
monitoring and assessment methods.
(§304(a)(8) added by PL 100-4]
(b) For the purpose of adopting or re-
vising effluent limitations under this Act
the Administrator shall, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons,
publish within one year of enactment of
this title, regulations, providing guidelines
for effluent limitations, and, at least annu-
ally thereafter, revise, if appropriate, such
regulations. Such regulations shall—
(1)	(A) identify, in terms of amounts of
constituents and chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants,
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best practi-
cable control technology currently avail-
able for classes and categories of point
sources (other than publicly owned treat-
ment works); and
(B) specify factors to be taken into ac-
count in determining the control measures
and practices to be applicable to point
sources (other than publicly owned treat-
ment works) within such categories or
classes. Factors relating to the assessment
of best practicable control technology cur-
rently available to comply with subsection
(b)(1) of section 301 of this Act shall in-
clude consideration of the total cost of
application of technology in relation to
the effluent reduction benefits to be
achieved from such application, and shall
also take into account the age of equip-
ment and facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of the
application of various types of control
techniques, process changes, non-water
quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements), and such other fac-
tors as the Administrator deems appropri-
ate;
(2)	(A) identify, in terms of amounts of
constituents and chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants.
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best control
measures and practices achievable includ-
ing treatment techniques, process and
procedure innovations, operating meth-
ods, and other alternatives for classes and
categories of point sources (other than
publicly owned treatment works); and
(B) specify factors to be taken into ac-
count in determining the best measures
and practices available to comply with
subsection (b)(2) of section 301 of this
Act to be applicable to any point source
(other than publicly owned treatment
works) within such categories of classes.
Factors relating to the assessment of best
available technology shall take into ac-
count the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the process employed, the engi-
neering aspects of the application of vari-
ous types of control techniques, process
changes, the cost of achieving such efflu-
ent reduction, non-water quality environ-
mental impact (including energy require-
ments), and such other factors as the Ad-
ministrator deems appropriate;
(3)	identify control measures and prac-
tices available to eliminate the discharge
of pollutants from categories and classes
of point sources, taking into account the
cost of achieving such elimination of the
discharge of pollutants; and
(4)	(A) identify, in terms of amounts of
constituents and chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants,
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology (in-
cluding measures and practices) for clas-
ses and categories of point sources (other
than publicly owned treatment works);
and
(B) specify factors to be taken into ac-
count in determining the best convention-
al pollutant control technology measures
and practices to comply with section
301(b)(2)(E) of this Act to be applicable
to any point source (other than publicly
owned treatment works) within such cate-
gories or classes. Factors relating to the
assessment of best conventional pollutant
control technology (including measures
and practices) shall include consideration
of the reasonableness of the relationship
between the costs of attaining a reduction
in effluents and the effluent reduction ben-
efits derived, and the comparison of the
cost and level of reduction of such pollu-
tants from the discharge from publicly

-------
owned treatment works to the cost and
level of reduction of such pollutants from
a class or category of industrial sources,
and shall take into account the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the pro-
cess employed, the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of control
techniques, process changes, non-water
quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements), and such other fac-
tors as the Administrator deems appropri-
ate.
(c)	The Administrator, after consulta-
tion, with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons,
shall issue to the States and appropriate
water pollution control agencies within
270 days after enactment of this title (and
from time to time thereafter) information
on the processes, procedures, or operating
methods which result in the elimination or
reduction of the discharge of pollutants to
implement standards of performance un-
der section 306 of this Act. Such informa-
tion shall include technical and other
data, including costs, as are available on
alternative methods of elimination or re-
duction of the discharge of pollutants.
Such information, and revisions thereof,
shall be published in the Federal Register
and otherwise shall be made available to
the public.
(d)(1)	The Administrator, after con-
sultation with appropriate Federal and
State agencies and other interested per-
sons, shall publish within sixty days after
enactment of this title (and from time to
time thereafter) information, in terms of
amounts of constituents and chemical,
physical, and biological characteristics of
pollutants, on the degree of effluent reduc-
tion attainable through the application of
secondary treatment.
(2)	The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons,
shall publish within nine months after the
date of enactment of this title (and from
time to time thereafter) information on
alternative waste treatment management
techniques and systems available to im-
plement section 201 of this Act.
(3)	The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons,
shall promulgate within one_ hundred and
eighty days after the date of enactment of
this subsection guidelines for identifying
and evaluating innovative and alternative
wastewater treatment processes and tech-
niques referred to in section 201(g)(5) of
this Act.
(4) For the purposes of this subsection,
such biological treatment facilities as oxi-
dation ponds, lagoons, and ditches and
trickling filters shall be deemed the equiv-
alent of secondary treatment. The Admin-
istrator shall provide guidance under
paragraph (1) of this subsection on design
criteria for such facilities, taking into ac-
count pollutant removal efficiencies and,
consistent with the objective of the Act,
assuring that water quality will not be ad-
versely affected by deeming such facilities
as the equivalent of secondary treatment.
[§304(d)(4) added by PL 97-117]
(e) The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons,
may publish regulations, supplemental to
any effluent limitations specified under
subsections (b) and (c) of this section for
a class or category of point sources, for
any specific pollutant which the Adminis-
trator is charged with a duty to regulate
as a toxic or hazardous pollutant under
section 307(a)(1) or 311 of this Act, to
control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks,
sludge or waste disposal, and drainage
from raw material storage which the Ad-
ministrator determines are associated
with or ancillary to the industrial manu-
facturing or treatment process within
such class or category of point sources and
may contribute significant amounts of
such pollutants to navigable waters. Any
applicable controls established under this
subsection shall be included as a require-
ment for the purposes of section 301, 302,
306, 307, or 403, as the case may be, in
any permit issued to a point source pursu-
ant to section 402 of this Act.
(0 The Administrator, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons,
shall issue to appropriate Federal agen-
cies, the States, water pollution control
agencies, and agencies designated under
section 208 of this Act, within one year
after the effective date of this subsection
(and from time to time thereafter) infor-
mation including (1) guidelines for identi-
fying and evaluating the nature and ex-
tent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and
(2) processes, procedures, and methods to
control pollution resulting from—
(A)	agricultural and silvicultural activi-
ties, including runoff from fields and crop
and forest lands;
(B)	mining activities, including runofT
and siltation from new, currently operat-
ing, and abandoned surface and under-
ground mines;
(C)	all construction activity, including
runoff from the facilities resulting from
such construction;
(D)	the disposal of pollutants in wells
or in subsurface excavations;
(E)	salt water intrusion resulting from
reductions of fresh water flow from any
cause, including extraction of ground wa-
ter, irrigation, obstruction, and diversion;
and
(F)	changes in the movement, flow, or
circulation of any navigable waters or
ground waters, including changes caused
by the construction of dams, levees, chan-
nels, causeways, or flow diversion facili-
ties. Such information and revisions there-
of shall be published in the Federal Regis-
ter and otherwise made available to the
public.
(g)(1)	For the purpose of assisting
States in carrying out programs under
section 402 of this Act, the Administrator
shall publish, within one hundred and
twenty days after the date of enactment
of this title, and review at least annually
thereafter and, if appropriate, revise
guidelines for prctreatment of pollutants
which he determines are not susceptible
to treatment by publicly owned treatment
works. Guidelines under this subsection
shall be established to control and prevent
the discharge into the navigable waters,
the contiguous zone, or the ocean (either
directly or through publicly owned treat-
ment works) of any pollutant which inter-
feres with, passes through, or otherwise is
incompatible with such works.
(2) When publishing guidelines under
this subsection, the Administrator shall
designate the category or categories of
treatment works to which the guidelines
shall apply.
(h)	The Administrator shall, within one
hundred and eighty days from the date of
enactment of this title, promulgate guide-
lines establishing test procedures for the
analysis of pollutants that shall include
the factors which must be provided in any
certification pursuant to section 401 of
this Act or permit application pursuant to
section 402 of this Act.

-------
(i) The Administrator shall (1) within
sixty days after the enactment of this title
promulgate guidelines for the purpose of
establishing uniform application forms
and other minimum requirements for the
acquisition of information from owners
and operators of point-sources of dis-
charge subject to any State program un-
der section 402 of this Act, and (2) within
sixty days from the date of enactment of
this title promulgate guidelines establish-
ing the minimum procedural and other
elements of any State program under sec-
tion 402 of this Act which shall include:
(A)	monitoring requirements;
(B)	reporting requirements (including
procedures to make information available
to the public);
(C)	enforcement provisions; and
(D)	funding, personnel qualifications,
and manpower requirements (including a
requirement that no board or body which
approves permit applications or portions
thereof shall include, as a member, any
person who receives, or has during the
previous two years received, a significant
portion of his income directly or indirectly
from permit holders or applicants for a
permit).
(j) Lake Restoration Guidance Manual
— The Administrator shall, within 1 year
after the date of the enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987 and biennially
thereafter, publish and disseminate a lake
restoration guidance manual describing
methods, procedures, and processes to
guide State and local efforts to improve,
restore, and enhance water quality in the
Nation's publicly owned lakes.
[§304(j) revised by PL 100-4]
(k) (1) The Administrator shall enter
into agreements with the Secretary of Ag-
riculture, the Secretary of the Army, and
the Secretary of the Interior, and the
heads of such other departments, agen-
cies, and instrumentalities of the United
States as the Administrator determines,
to provide for the maximum utilization of
other Federal laws and programs for the
purpose of achieving and maintaining wa-
ter quality through appropriate imple-
mentation of plans approved under sec-
tion 208 of this Act and nonpoint source
pollution management programs ap-
proved under section 319 of this Act.
[§304(k)( 1) amended by PL 100-4]
(2) The Administrator is authorized to
transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture,
the Secretary of the Army, and the Secre-
tary of the Interior and the heads of such
other departments, agencies, and instru-
mentalities of the United States as the
Administrator determines, any funds ap-
propriated under paragraph (3) of this
subsection to supplement funds otherwise
appropriated to programs authorized pur-
suant to any agreement under paragraph
(1).
(3) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to carry out the provisions of this
subsection. 5100,000,000 per fiscal year
for the fiscal years 1979 through 1983 and
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 1984 through 1990.
[§304(k)(3) amended by PL 100-4]
(1) Individual Control Strategies for
Toxic Pollutants.—
(1) State List of Navigable Waters and
Development of Strategies. — Not later
than 2 years after the date of the enact-
ment of this subsection, each State shall
submit to the Administrator for review,
approval, and implementation under this
subsection—
(A)	a list of those waters within the
State which after the application of efflu-
ent limitations required under section
301(b)(2) of this Act cannot reasonably
be anticipated to attain or maintain (i)
water quality standards for such waters
reviewed, revised, or adopted in accor-
dance with section 303(c)(2)(B) of this
Act, due to toxic pollutants, or (ii) that
water quality which shall assure protec-
tion of public health, public water sup-
plies, agricultural and industrial .uses, and
the protection and propagation of a bal-
anced population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife, and allow recreational activities
in and on the water;
(B)	a list of all navigable waters in such
State for which the State does not expect
the applicable standard under section 303
of this Act will be achieved after the re-
quirements of sections 301(b), 306, and
307(b) are met, due entirely or substan-
tially to discharges from point sources of
any toxic pollutants listed pursuant to sec-
tion 307(a);
(C)	for each segment of the navigable
waters included on such lists, a determi-
nation of the specific point sources dis-
charging any such toxic pollutant which is
believed to be preventing or impairing
such water quality and the amount of
each such toxic pollutant discharged by
each such source; and
(D) for each such segment, an individu-
al control strategy which the State deter-
mines will produce a reduction in the dis-
charge of toxic pollutants from point
sources identified by the State under this
paragraph through the establishment of
effluent limitations under section 402 of
this Act and water quality standards un-
der section 303(c)(2)(B) of this Act,
which reduction is sufficient, in combina-
tion with existing controls on point and
nonpoint sources of pollution, to achieve
the applicable water quality standard as
soon as possible, but not later than 3 years
after the date of the establishment of such
strategy.
(2)	Approval or Disapproval. — Not
later than 120 days after the last day of
the 2-year period referred to in para-
graph (1), the Administrator shall ap-
prove or disapprove the control strategies
submitted under paragraph (1) by any
State.
(3)	Administrator's Action. — If a
State fails to submit control strategies in
accordance with paragraph (1) or the Ad-
ministrator does not approve the control
strategies submitted by such State in ac-
cordance with paragraph (1), then, not
later than 1 year after the last day of the
period referred to in paragraph (2), the
Administrator, in cooperation with such
State and after notice and opportunity for
public comment, shall implement the re-
quirements of paragraph (1) in such
State. In the implementation of such re-
quirements, the Administrator shall, at a
minimum, consider for listing under this
subsection any navigable waters for which
any person submits a petition to the Ad-
ministrator for listing not later than 120
days after such last day.
[§304(1) added by PL 100-4]
(m) Schedule for Review of Guide-
lines.—
(1) Publication. — Within 12 months
after the date of the enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987, and biennial-
ly thereafter, the Administrator shall pub-
lish in the Federal Register a plan which
shall—
(A)	establish a schedule for the annual
review and revision of promulgated efflu-
ent guidelines, in accordance with subsec-
tion (b) of this section;
(B)	identify categories of sources dis-
charging toxic or nonconventional pollu-
tants for which guidelines under subsec-

-------
lion (b)(2) of this section and section 306
have not previously been published; and
(C) establish a schedule for promulga-
tion of effluent guidelines for categories
identified in subparagraph (B), under
which promulgation of such guidelines
shall be no later than 4 years after such
date of enactment for categories identified
in the first published plan or 3 years after
the publication of the plan for categories
identified in later published plans.
(2) Public Review. — The Administra-
tor shall provide for public review and
comment on the plan prior to final publi-
cation.
[§304(m) added by PL 100-4]
§305 [33 li.S.C. 1315] Water Quality
Inventory
(a)	The Administrator, in cooperation
with the States and with the assistance of
appropriate Federal agencies shall pre-
pare a report to be submitted to the Con-
gress on or before January 1, 1974, which
shall—
(1)	describe the specific quality, during
1973, with appropriate supplemental de-
scriptions as shall be required to take into
account seasonal, tidal, and other varia-
tions, of all navigable waters and the wa-
ters of the contiguous zone;
(2)	include an inventory of all point
sources of discharge (based on a qualita-
tive and quantitative analysis of dis-
charges) of pollutants, into all navigable
waters and the waters of the contiguous
zone; and
(3)	identify specifically those navigable
waters, the quality of which—
(A)	is adequate to provide for the pro-
tection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife
and allow recreational activities in and on
the water;
(B)	can reasonably be expected to at-
tain such level by 1977 or 1983; and
(C)	can reasonably be expected to at-
tain such level by any later date.
(b)	(1) Each State shall prepare and
submit to the Administrator by April 1,
1975, and shall bring up to date by April
1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a re-
port which shall include—
(A) a description of the water quality
of all navigable waters in such State dur-
ing the preceding year, with appropriate
supplemental descriptions as shall be re-
quired to take into account seasonal, tidal,
and other variations, correlated with the
quality of water required by the objective
of this Act (as identified by the Adminis-
trator pursuant to criteria published un-
der section 304(a) of this Act) and the
water quality described in subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph;
(B)	an analysis of the extent to which
all navigable waters of such State provide
for the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife, and allow recreational activities
in and on the water;
(C)	an analysis of the extent to which
the elimination of the discharge of pollu-
tants and a level of water quality which
provides for the protection and propaga-
tion of a balanced population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife and allows recreational
activities in and on the water, have been
or will be achieved by the requirements of
this Act, together with recommendations
as to additional action necessary to
achieve such objectives and for what wa-
ters such additional action is necessary;
(D)	an estimate of (i) the environmen-
tal impact, (ii) the economic and social
costs necessary to achieve the objective of
this Act in such State, (iii) the economic
and social benefits of such achievement,
and (iv) an estimate of the date of such
achievement; and
(E)	a description of the nature and ex-
tent of non-point sources of pollutants,
and recommendations as to the programs
which must be undertaken to control each
category of such sources, including an es-
timate of the costs of implementing such
programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit
such State reports, together with an anal-
ysis thereof, to Congress on or before Oc-
tober 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976, and
biennially thereafter.
§306 [33 U.S.C. 1316] National Standards
of Performance
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1)The	term "standard of perfor-
mance" means a standard for the control
of the discharge of pollutants which re-
flects the greatest degree of effluent re-
duction which the Administrator deter-
mines to be achievable through applica-
tion of the best available demonstrated
control technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including,
where practicable, a standard permitting
no discharge of pollutants.
(2)	The term "new source" means any
source, the construction of which is com-
menced after the publication of proposed
regulations prescribing a standard of per-
formance under this section which will be
applicable to such source, if such standard
is thereafter promulgated in accordance
with this section.
(3)	The term "source" means any
building, structure, facility, or installation
from which there is or may be the dis-
charge of pollutants.
(4)	The term "owner or operator"
means any person who owns, leases, oper-
ates, controls, or supervises a source.
(5)	The term "construction" means any
placement, assembly, or installation of fa-
cilities or equipment (including contrac-
tual obligations to purchase such facilities
or equipment) at the premises where such
equipment will be used, including prepa-
ration work at such premises.
(b) (1) (A) The Administrator shall,
within ninety days after the date of enact-
ment of this title publish (and from time
to time thereafter shall revise) a list of
categories of sources, which shall, at the
minimum, include;
pulp and paper mills;
paperboard, builders paper and board
mills;
meat product and rendering process-
ing;
dairy product processing; grain mills;
canned and preserved fruits and vege-
tables processing;
canned and preserved seafood process-
ing;
sugar processing;
textile mills;
cement manufacturing;
feedlots;
electroplating;
organic chemicals manufacturing;
inorganic chemicals manufacturing;
plastic and synthetic materials manu-
facturing;
soap and detergent manufacturing;
fertilizer manufacturing;
petroleum refining;
iron and steel manufacturing;
nonferrous metals manufacturing;
phosphate manufacturing;
steam electric powerplants;
ferroalloy manufacturing;
leather tanning and finishing;
glass and asbestos manufacturing;
rubber processing; and
timber products processing.
(B) As soon as practicable, but in no
case more than one year, after a category

-------
of sources is included in a list under sub-
paragraph (A) of this paragraph, the Ad-
ministrator shall propose and publish reg-
ulations establishing Federal standards of
performance for new sources within such
category. The Administrator shall afford
interested persons an opportunity for writ-
ten comment on such proposed regula-
tions. After considering such comments,
he shall promulgate, within one hundred
and twenty days after publication of such
proposed regulations, such standards with
such adjustments as he deems appropri-
ate. The Administrator shall, from time to
time, as technology and alternatives
change, revise such standards following
the procedure required by this subsection
for promulgation of such standards. Stan-
dards of performance, or revisions there-
of, shall become effective upon promulga-
tion. In establishing or revising Federal
standards of performance for new sources
under this section, the Administrator shall
take into consideration the cost of achiev-
ing such effluent reduction, and any non-
water quality environmental impact and
energy requirements.
(2)	The Administrator may distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes within cat-
egories of new sources for the purpose of
establishing such standards and shall con-
sider the type of process employed (in-
cluding whether batch or continuous).
(3)	The provisions of this section shall
apply to any new source owned or oper-
ated by the United States.
(c)	Each State may develop and submit
to the Administrator a procedure under
State law for applying and enforcing stan-
dards of performance for new sources lo-
cated in such State. If the Administrator
finds that the procedure and the law of
any State require the application and en-
forcement of standards of performance to
at least the same extent as required by
this section, such State is authorized to
apply and enforce such standards of per-
formance (except with respect to new
sources owned or operated by the United
States).
(d)	Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act, any point source the con-
struction of which is commenced after the
date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 and which is so constructed as to
meet all applicable standards of perfor-
mance shall not be subject to any more
stringent standard of performance during
a ten-year period beginning on the date of
completion of such construction or during
the period of depreciation or amortization
of such facility for the purposes of section
167 or 169 (or both) of the Internal Reve-
nue Code of 1954, whichever period ends
first.
(e) After the effective date of standards
of performance promulgated under this
section, it shall be unlawful for any owner
or operator of any new source to operate
such source in violation of any standard of
performance applicable to such source.
§307 [33 U.S.C. 1317] Toxic and
Pretreatment Effluent Standards
(a) (1) On and after the date of enact-
ment of the Clean Water Act of 1977, the
list of toxic pollutants or combination of
pollutants subject to this Act shall consist
of those toxic pollutants listed in table 1
of Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of
the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Represen-
tatives, and the Administrator shall pub-
lish, not later than the thirtieth day after
date of enactment of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, that list. From time to time
thereafter, the Administrator may revise
such list and the Administrator is autho-
rized to add to or remove from such list
any pollutant. The Administrator in pub-
lishing any revised list, including the addi-
tion or removal of any pollutant from such
list, shall take into account the toxicity of
the pollutant, its persistence, degradabili-
ty, the usual or potential presence of the
affected organisms in any waters, the im-
portance of the affected organisms, and
the nature and extent of the effect of the
toxic pollutant on such organisms. A de-
termination of the Administrator under
this paragraph shall be final except that
if. on judicial review, such determination
was based on arbitrary and capricious ac-
tion of the Administrator, the Administra-
tor shall make a redetermination.
[Editor's note: The current version of
Table 1, as revised by the EPA, is pub-
lished in Environment Reporter, Federal
Regulations—6, p. 135:0501. See also the
provisions of §519 of PL 100-4 published
at the end of this Act.]
(2) Each toxic pollutant listed in accor-
dance with paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion shall be subject to effluent limitations
resulting from the application of the best
available technology economically achiev-
able for the applicable category or class of
point sources established in accordance
with section 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)
of this Act. The Administrator, in his dis-
cretion, may publish in the Federal Regis-
ter a proposed effluent standard (which
may include a prohibition) establishing
requirements for a toxic pollutant which,
if an effluent limitation is applicable to a
class or category of point sources, shall be
applicable to such category or class only if
such standard imposes more stringent re-
quirements. Such published effluent stan-
dard (or prohibition) shall take into ac-
count the toxicity of the pollutant, its per-
sistence, degradability, the usual or
potential presence of the affected orga-
nisms in any waters, the importance of
the affected organisms and the nature and
extent of the effect of the toxic pollutant
on such organisms, and the extent to
which effective control is being or may be
achieved under other regulatory authori-
ty. The Administrator shall allow a period
of not less than sixty days following publi-
cation of any such proposed effluent stan-
dard (or prohibition) for written comment
by interested persons on such proposed
standard. In addition, if within thirty days
of publication of any such proposed efflu-
ent standard (or prohibition) any interest-
ed person so requests, the Administrator
shall hold a public hearing in connection
therewith. Such a public hearing shall
provide an opportunity for oral and writ-
ten presentations, such cross-examination
as the Administrator determines is appro-
priate on disputed issues of material fact,
and the transcription of a verbatim record
which shall be available to the public. Af-
ter consideration of such comments and
any information and material presented
at any public hearing held on such pro-
posed standard or prohibition, the Admin-
istrator shall promulgate such standards
(or prohibition) with such modifications
as the Administrator finds are justified.
Such promulgation by the Administrator
shall be made within two hundred and
seventy days after publication of proposed
standard (or prohibition). Such standard
(or prohibition) shall be final except that
if, on judicial review, such standard wai
not based on substantial evidence, the Ad-
ministrator shall promulgate a revised
standard. Effluent limitations shall be es-
tablished in accordance with sections
301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) for every
toxic pollutant referred to in table 1 of

-------
Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the
Committee on Public Works and Trans-
portation of the House of Representatives
as soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of the Clean Water Act of
1977, but no later than July 1, 1980. Such
effluent limitations or effluent standards
(or prohibitions) shall be established for
every other toxic pollutant listed under
paragraph (1) of this subsection as soon
as practicable after it is so listed.
(3)	Each such effluent standard (or pro-
hibition) shall be reviewed and, if appro-
priate, revised at least every three years.
(4)	Any effluent standard promulgated
under this section shall be at that level
which the Administrator determines pro-
vides an ample margin of safety.
(5)	When proposing or promulgating
any effluent standard (or prohibition) un-
der this section, the Administrator shall
designate the category or categories of
sources to which the effluent standard (or
prohibition) shall apply. Any disposal of
dredged material may be included in such
a category of sources after consultation
with the Secretary of the Army.
(6)	Any effluent standard (or prohibi-
tion) established pursuant to this section
shall take effect on such date or dates as
specified in the order promulgating such
standard, but in no case, more than one
year from the date of such promulgation.
If the Administrator determines that com-
pliance within one year from the date of
promulgation is technologically infeasible
for a category of sources, the Administra-
tor may establish the effective date of the
effluent standard (or prohibition) for such
category at the earliest date upon which
compliance can be feasibly attained by
sources within such category, but in no
event more than three years after the date
of such promulgation.
(7)	Prior to publishing any regulations
pursuant to this section the Administrator
shall, to the maximum extent practicable
within the time provided, consult with ap-
propriate advisory committees. States, in-
dependent experts, and Federal depart-
ments and agencies.
(b) (1) The Administrator shall, within
one hundred and eighty days after the
date of enactment of this title and from
time to time thereafter, publish proposed
regulations establishing pretreatment
standards for introduction of pollutants
into treatment works (as defined in sec-
tion 212 of this Act) which are publicly
owned for those pollutants which are de-
termined not to be susceptible to treat-
ment by such treatment works or which
would interfere with the operation of such
treatment works. Not later than ninety
days after such publication, and after op-
portunity for public hearing, the Adminis-
trator shall promulgate such pretreatment
standards. Pretreatment standards under
this subsection shall specify a time for
compliance not to exceed three years from
the date of promulgation and shall be es-
tablished to prevent the discharge of any
pollutant through treatment works (as de-
fined in section 212 of this Act) which are
publicly owned, which pollutant interferes
with, passes through, or otherwise is in-
compatible with such works. If, in the
case of any toxic pollutant under subsec-
tion (a) of this section introduced by a
source into a publicly owned treatment
works, the treatment by such works
removes all or any part of such toxic pol-
lutant and the discharge from such works
does not violate that effluent limitation or
standard which would be applicable to
such toxic pollutant if it were discharged
by such source other than through a pub-
licly owned treatment works, and does not
prevent sludge use or disposal by such
works in accordance with section 405 of
this Act, then the pretreatment require-
ments for the sources actually discharging
such toxic pollutant into such publicly
owned treatment works may be revised by
the owner or operator of such works to
reflect the removal of such toxic pollutant
by such works.
(2)	The Administrator shall, from time
to time, as control technology, processes,
operating methods, or other alternative
change, revise such standards following
the procedure established by this subsec-
tion for promulgation of such standards.
(3)	When proposing or promulgating
any pretreatment standard under this sec-
tion, the Administrator shall designate
the category or categories of sources to
which such standard shall apply.
(4)	Nothing in this subsection shall af-
fect any pretreatment requirement estab-
lished by any State or local law not in
conflict with any pretreatment standard
established under this subsection.
(c) In order to insure that any source
introducing pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works, which source
would be a new source subject to section
306 if it were to discharge pollutants, will
not cause a violation of the effluent limita-
tions established for any such treatment
works, the Administrator shall promul-
gate pretreatment standards for the cate-
gory of such sources simultaneously with
the promulgation of standards of perfor-
mance under section 306 for the equiva-
lent category of new sources. Such pre-
treatment standards shall prevent the dis-
charge of any pollutant into such
treatment works, which pollutant may in-
terfere with, pass through, or otherwise be
incompatible with such works.
(d)	After the effective date of any efflu-
ent standard or prohibition or pretreat-
ment standard promulgated under this
section, it shall be unlawful for any owner
or operator of any source to operate any
source in violation of any such effluent
standard or prohibition or pretreatment
standard.
(e)	Compliance Date Extension for In-
novative Pretreatment Systems. — In the
case of any existing facility that proposes
to comply with the pretreatment stan-
dards of subsection (b) of this section by
applying an innovative system that meets
the requirements of section 301 (k) of this
Act, the owner or operator of the publicly
owned treatment works receiving the
treated effluent from such facility may ex-
tend the date for compliance with the ap-
plicable pretreatment standard estab-
lished under this section for a period not
to exceed 1 years—
(1)	if the Administrator determines
that the innovative system has the poten-
tial for industrywide application, and
(2)	if the Administrator (or the State in
consultation with the Administrator, in
any case in which the State has a pre-
treatment program approved by the Ad-
ministrator)—
(A) determines that the proposed ex-
tension will not cause the publicly owned
treatment works to be in violation of its
permit under section 402 or of section 405
or to contribute to such a violation, and B
concurs with the proposed extension.
[§307(e) added by PL 100-4]
§308 [33 U.S.C. 1318] Inspections,
Monitoring and Entry
(a) Whenever required to carry out the
objective of this Act, including but not
limited to
(1) developing or assisting in the devel-
opment of any effluent limitation, or other
limitation, prohibition, or effluent stan-

-------
dard, pretreatment standard, or standard
of performance under this Act;
(2)	determining whether any person is
in violation of any such effluent limitation,
or other limitation, prohibition or effluent
standard, pretreatment standard, or stan-
dard of performance,
(3)	any requirement established under
this Section, or
(4)	carrying out sections 305, 311, 402,
404 (relating to State permit programs),
405, and 504 of this Act—
(§308(a)(4) amended by PL 100-4]
(A)	the Administrator shall require the
owner or operator of any point source to
(i)	establish and maintain such records,
(ii)	make such reports, (iii) install, use,
and maintain such monitoring equipment
or methods (including where appropriate,
biological monitoring methods), (iv) sam-
ple such effluents (in accordance with
such methods, at such locations, at such
intervals, and in such manner as the Ad-
ministrator shall prescribe), and (v) pro-
vide such other information as he may
reasonably require; and
(B)	the Administrator or his authorized
representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of
the Administrator), upon presentation of
his credentials—
(i)	shall have a right of entry to, upon,
or through any premises in which an efflu-
ent source is located or in which any
records required to be maintained under
clause (A) of this subsection are located,
and
(ii)	may at reasonable times have ac-
cess to and copy any records, inspect any
monitoring equipment or method required
under clause (A), and sample any efflu-
ents which the owner or operator of such
source is required to sample under such
clause.
[§308(a)(4)(B) amended by PL 100-4]
(b) Any records, reports, or informa-
tion obtained under this section (1) shall,
in the case of effluent data, be related to
any applicable effluent limitations, toxic,
pretreatment, or new source performance
standards, and (2) shall be available to
the public, except that upon a showing
satisfactory to the Administrator by any
person that records, reports, or informa-
tion, or particular part thereof (other than
effluent data), to which the Administrator
has access under this section, if made pub-
lic would divulge methods or processes en-
titled to protection as trade secrets of such
person, the Administrator shall consider
such record, report, or information, or
particular portion thereof confidential in
accordance with the purposes of section
1905 of title 18 of the United States
Code. Any authorized representative of
the Administrator (including an autho-
rized contractor acting as a representative
of the Administrator) who knowingly or
willfully publishes, divulges, discloses, or
makes known in any manner or to any
extent not authorized by law any informa-
tion which is required to be considered
confidential under this subsection shall be
fined not more than S1,000 or imprisoned
not more than 1 year, or both. Nothing in
this subsection shall prohibit the Adminis-
trator or an authorized representative of
the Administrator (including any autho-
rized contractor acting as a representative
of the Administrator) from disclosing
records, reports, or information to other
officers, employees, or authorized repre-
sentatives of the United States concerned
with carrying out this Act or when rele-
vant in any proceeding under this Act.
[§308(b) amended by PL 100-4]
(c)	Each State may develop and submit
to the Administrator procedures under
State law for inspection, monitoring, and
entry with respect to point sources located
in such State. If the Administrator finds
that the procedures and the law of any
State relating to inspection, monitoring,
and entry are applicable to at least the
same extent as those required by this sec-
tion, such State is authorized to apply and
enforce its procedures for inspection,
monitoring, and entry with respect to
point sources located in such State (ex-
cept with respect to point sources owned
or operated by the United States).
(d)	Access by Congress. — Notwith-
standing any limitation contained in this
section or any other provision of law, all
information reported to or otherwise ob-
tained by the Administrator (or any rep-
resentative of the Administrator) under
this Act shall be made available, upon
written request of any duly authorized
committee of Congress, to such commit-
tee.
[§308(d) added by PL 100-4]
§309[33 U.S.C. 1319] Federal
Enforcement
[Editor's note: See also Section 318 of
PL 100-4, published at the end of this
Act, for applicability of this Section to the
Unconsolidated Quarternarv Aquifer,
Rockaway River Basin, New Jersey.]
(a) (1) Whenever, on the basis of any
information available to him, the Admin-
istrator finds that any person is in viola-
tion of any condition or limitation which
implements section 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, 318, or 405 of this Act in a permit
issued by a State under an approved per-
mit program under section 402 or 404 of
this Act, he shall proceed under his au-
thority in paragraph (3) of this subsection
or he shall notify the person in alleged
violation and such State of such finding. If
beyond the thirtieth day after the Admin-
istrator's notification the State has not
commenced appropriate enforcement ac-
tion, the Administrator shall issue an or-
der requiring such person to comply with
such condition or limitation or shall bring
a civil action in accordance with subsec-
tion (b) of this section.
(2)	Whenever, on the the basis of infor-
mation available to him, the Administra-
tor finds that violations of permit condi-
tions or limitations as set forth in para-
graph (1) of this subsection are so
widespread that such violations appear to
result from a failure of the State to en-
force such permit conditions or limitations
effectively, he shall so notify the State. If
the Administrator finds such failure ex-
tends beyond the thirtieth day after such
notice, he shall give public notice of such
finding. During the period beginning with
such public notice and ending when such
State satisfies the Administrator that it
will enforce such conditions and limita-
tions (hereafter referred to in this section
as the period of "federally assumed en-
forcement"), except where an extension
has been granted under paragraph (5)(B)
of this subsection, the Administrator shall
enforce any permit condition or limitation
with respect to any person—
(A)	by issuing an order to comply with
such condition or limitation, or
(B)	by bringing a civil action under
subsection (b) of this section.
(3)	Whenever on the basis of any infor-
mation available to him the Administra-
tor finds that any person is in violation of
section 301, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
this Act, or is in violation of any permit
condition or limitation implementing any
of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of this Act by him or by a
State or in a permit issued under section

-------
404 of this Act by a Siaie, he shall issue
an order requiring such person to comply
with such section or requirement, or he
shall bring a civil action in accordance
with subsection (b) of this section.
(4)	A copy of any order issued under
this subsection shall be sent immediately
by the Administrator to the Stale in
which the violation occurs and other af-
fected Stales. In any case in which an
order under this subsection (or notice to a
violator under paragraph (1) of this sub-
section) is issued to a corporation, a copy
of such order (or notice) shall be served
on any appropriate corporate officers. An
order issued under this subsection relating
to a violation of section 308 of this Act
shall not take effect until the person to
whom it is issued has had an opportunity
to confer with the Administrator concern-
ing the alleged violation.
(5)	(A) Any order issued under this
subsection shall be by personal service,
shall state with reasonable specificity the
nature of the violation, and shall specify a
time for compliance not to exceed thirty
days in the case of a violation of an inter-
im compliance schedule or operation and
maintenance requirement and not to ex-
ceed a time the Administrator determines
to be reasonable in the case of a violation
of a final deadline, taking into account the
seriousness of the violation and any good
faith efforts to comply with applicable re-
quirements.
(B) The Administrator may, if he de-
termines (i) that any person who is a vio-
lator of, or any person who is otherwise
not in compliance with, the time require-
ments under this Act or in any permit
issued under this Act, has acted in good
faith, and has made a commitment (in the
form of contracts or other securities) of
necessary resources to achieve compliance
by the earliest possible date after July 1,
1977, but not later than April 1, 1979; (ii)
that any extension under this provision
will not result in the imposition of any
additional controls on any other point or
nonpoint source; (iii) that an application
for a permit under section 402 of this Act
was filed for such person prior to Decem-
ber 31, 1974; and (iv) that the facilities
necessary for compliance with such re-
quirements are under construction, grant
an extension of the.date referred to in
section 301(b)(1)(A) to a date which will
achieve compliance at the earliest time
possible but not later than April I, 1979.
(6) Whenever, on the basis of informa-
tion available to him, the Administrator
finds (A) that any person is in violation of
section 301(b)(1)(A) or (C) of this Act,
(B) that such person cannot meet the re-
quirements for a time extension under
section 301 (i)(2) of this Act, and (C) that
the most expeditious and appropriate
means of compliance with this Act by
such person is to discharge into a publicly
owned treatment works, then, upon re-
quest of such person, the Administrator
may issue an order requiring such person
to comply with this Act at the earliest
date practicable, but not later than July 1,
1983, by discharging into a publicly
owned treatment works if such works con-
cur with such order. Such order shall in-
clude a schedule of compliance.
(b)	The Administrator is authorized to
commence a civil action for appropriate
relief, including a permanent or tempo-
rary injunction, for any violation for
which he is authorized to issue a compli-
ance order under subsection (a) of this
section. Any action under this subsection
may be brought in the district court of the
United States for the district in which the
defendant is located or resides or is doing
business, and such court shall have juris-
diction to restrain such violation and to
require compliance. Notice of the com-
mencement of such action shall be given
immediately to the appropriate State.
(c)	Criminal Penalties.—
[309(c) revised by PL 100-4; amended by
PL 101-380]
(1) Negligent Violations. — Any per-
son who—
(A)	negligently violates section 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, 311(b)(3), 318 or 405
of this Act, or any permit condition or
limitation implementing any of such sec-
tions in a permit issued under section 402
of this Act by the Administrator or by a
State, or any requirement imposed in a
pretreatment program approved under
section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this Act
or in a permit issued under section 404 of
this Act by the Secretary of the Army or
by a State; or
[§309(c)(1)(A) amended by PL
101-380]
(B)	negligently introduces into a sewer
system or into a publicly owned treatment
works any pollutant or hazardous sub-
stance which such person knew or reason-
ably should have known could cause per-
sonal injury or property damage or, other
than in compliance with all applicable
Federal, State, or local requirements or
permits, which causes such treatment
works to violate any effluent limitation or
condition in any permit issued to the
treatment works under section 402 of this
Act by the Administrator or a State; shall
be punished by a fine of not less than
$2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year, or by both. If a convic-
tion of a person is for a violation commit-
ted after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment shall be
by a fine of not more than $50,000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment of
not more than 2 years, or by both.
(2)	Knowing Violations. — Any person
who—
(A)	knowingly violates section 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, 31 1(b)(3), 318 or 405
of this Act, or any permit condition or
limitation implementing any of such sec-
tions in a permit issued under section 402
of this Act by the Administrator or by a
State, or any requirement imposed in a
pretreatment program approved under
section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this Act
or in a permit issued under section 404 of
this Act by the Secretary of the Army or
by a State; or
[§309(c)(2)(A) amended by PL
101-380]
(B)	knowingly introduces into a sewer
system or into a publicly owned treatment
works any pollutant or hazardous sub-
stance which such person knew or reason-
ably should have known could cause per-
sonal injury or property damage or, other
than in compliance with all applicable
Federal, State, or local requirements or
permits, which causes such treatment
work to violate any effluent limitation or
condition in a permit issued to the treat-
ment works under section 402 of this Act
by the Administrator or a State; shall be
punished by a fine of not less than $5,000
nor more than $50,000 per day of viola-
tion, or by imprisonment for not more
than 3 years, or by both. If a conviction of
a person is for a violation committed after
a first conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment shall be a fine of
not more than $100,000 per day of viola-
tion, or by imprisonment of not more than
6 years, or by both.
(3)	Knowing Endangerment.—
(A) General Rule. — Any person who
knowingly violates section 301. 302, 303,

-------
306, 307, 308, 311(b)(3). 318 or 405 of
this Act, or any permit condition or limi-
tation implementing any of such sections
in a permit issued under section 402 of
this Act by the Administrator or by a
State, or in a permit issued under section
404 of this Act by the Secretary of the
Army or by a State, and who knows at
that time that he thereby places another
person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury, shall, upon convic-
tion, be subject to a fine of not more than
5250,000 or imprisonment of not more
than 15 years, or both. A person which is
an organization shall, upon conviction of
violating this subparagraph, be subject to
a fine of not more than $1,000,000. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such
person under this paragraph, the maxi-
mum punishment shall be doubled with
respect to both fine and imprisonment.
(§309(c)(3)(A) amended by PL
101-380]
(B) Additional Provisions. — For the
purpose of subparagraph (A) of this para-
graph—
(i)	in determining whether a defendant
who is an individual knew that his con-
duct placed another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury—
(I)	the person is responsible only for ac-
tual awareness or actual belief that he
possessed; and
(II)	knowledge possessed by a person
other than the defendant but not by the
defendant himself may not be attributed
to the defendant; except that in proving
the defendant's possession of actual
knowledge, circumstantial evidence may
be used, including evidence that the de-
fendant took affirmative steps to shield
himself from relevant information;
(ii)	it is an affirmative defense to prose-
cution that the conduct charged was con-
sented to by the person endangered and
that the danger and conduct charged were
reasonably foreseeable hazards of—
(I)	an occupation, a business, or a pro-
fession; or
(II)	medical treatment or medical or
scientific experimentation conducted by
professionally approved methods and such
other person had been made aware of the
risks involved prior to giving consent; and
such defense may be established under
this subparagraph by a preponderance of
the evidence;
(iii)	the term "organization" means a
legal entity, other than a government, es-
tablished or organized for any purpose,
and such term includes a corporation,
company, association, firm, partnership,
joint stock company, foundation, institu-
tion, trust, society, union, or any other
association of persons; and
(iv)	the term "serious bodily injury"
means bodily injury which involves a sub-
stantial risk of death, unconsciousness, ex-
treme physical pain, protracted and obvi-
ous disfigurement, or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of a bodily
member, organ, or mental faculty.
(4)	False Statements. — Any person
who knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation, or certification
in any application, record, report, plan, or
other document filed or required to be
maintained under this Act or who know-
ingly falsifies, tampers with, or renders
inaccurate any monitoring device or
method required to be maintained under
this Act, shall upon conviction, be pun-
ished by a fine of not more than $10,000,
or by imprisonment for not more than 2
years, or by both. If a conviction of a
person is for a violation committed after a
first conviction of such person under this
paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine
of not more than $20,000 per day of viola-
tion, or by imprisonment of not more than
4 years, or by both.
(5)	Treatment of Single Operational
Upset. — For purposes of this subsection,
a single operational upset which leads to
simultaneous violations of more than one
pollutant parameter shall be treated as a
single violation.
(6)	Responsible Corporate Officer as
"Person". — For the purpose of this sub-
section, the term "person" means, in addi-
tion to the definition contained in section
502(5) of this Act, any responsible corpo-
rate officer.
(7)	Hazardous Substance Defined. —
For the purpose of this subsection, the
term "hazardous substance" means (A)
any substance designated pursuant to sec-
tion 311(b)(2)(A) of this Act, (B) any
element, compound, mixture, solution, or
substance designated pursuant to section
102 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, (C) any hazardous waste
having the characteristics identified under
or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (but not includ-
ing any waste the regulation of which un-
der the Solid Waste Disposal Act has
been suspended by Act of Congress), (D)
any toxic pollutant listed under section
307(a) of this Act, and (E) any imminent-
ly hazardous chemical substance or mix-
ture with respect to which the Adminis-
trator has taken action pursuant to section
7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
(d)	Any person who violates section
301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of
this Act, or any permit condition or limi-
tation implementing any of such sections
in a permit issued under section 402 of
this Act by the Administrator, or by a
State, or in a permit issued under section
404 of this Act by a State, or any require-
ment imposed in a pretrcatment program
approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of this Act, and any person who
violates any order issued by the Adminis-
trator under subsection (a) of this section,
shall be subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $25,000 per day for each violation.
In determining the amount of a civil pen-
alty the court shall consider the serious-
ness of the violation or violations, the eco-
nomic benefit (if any) resulting from the
violation, any history of such violations,
any good-faith efforts to comply with the
applicable requirements, the economic
impact of the penalty on the violator, and
such other matters as justice may require.
For purposes of this subsection, a single
operational upset which leads to simulta-
neous violations of more than one pollu-
tant parameter shall be treated as a single
violation.
[§309(d) amended by PL 100-4]
(e)	Whenever a municipality is a party
to a civil action brought by the United
States under this section, the State in
which such municipality is located shall
be joined as a party. Such State shall be
liable for payment of any judgment, or
any expenses incurred as a result of com-
plying with any judgment, entered against
the municipality in such action to the ex-
tent that the laws of that State prevent
the municipality from raising revenues
needed to comply with such judgment.
(0 Whenever, on the basis of an infor-
mation available to him, the Administra-
tor finds that an owner or operator of any
source is introducing a pollutant into a
treatment works in violation of subsection
(d) of section 307, the Administrator may
notify the owner or operator of such treat-
ment works and the State of such viola-

-------
tion. If the owner or operator of the treat-
ment works does not commence appropri-
ate enforcement action within 30 days of
the date of such notification, the Adminis-
trator may commence a civil action for
appropriate relief, including but not limit-
ed to, a permanent or temporary injunc-
tion, against the owner or operator of such
treatment works. In any such civil action
the Administrator shall join the owner or
operator of such source as a party to the
action. Such action shall be brought in the
district court of the United States in the
district in which the treatment works is
located. Such court shall have jurisdiction
to restrain such violation and to require
the owner or operator of the treatment
works and the owner or operator of the
source to take such action as may be nec-
essary to come into compliance with this
Act. Notice of commencement of any
such action shall be given to the State.
Nothing in this subsection shall be con-
strued to limit or prohibit any other au-
thority the Administrator may have under
this Act.
(g) Administrative Penalties.—
(1)	Violations. — Whenever on the ba-
sis of any information available—
(A)	the Administrator finds that any
person has violated section 301, 302, 306,
307, 308, 318, or 405 of this Act, or has
violated any permit condition or limita-
tion implementing any of such sections in
a permit issued under section 402 of this
Act by the Administrator or by a State, or
in a permit issued under section 404 by a
State, or
(B)	the Secretary of the Army (herein-
after in this subsection referred to as the
"Secretary") finds that any person has vi-
olated any permit condition or limitation
in a permit issued under section 404 of
this Act by the Secretary, the Administra-
tor or Secretary, as the case may be, may,
after consultation with the State in which
the violation occurs, assess a class I civil
penalty or a class II civil penalty under
this subsection.
(2)	Classes of Penalties.—
(A) Class I. — The amount of a class I
civil penalty under paragraph (1) may not
exceed $10,000 per violation, except that
the maximum amount of any class I civil
penalty under this subparagraph shall not
exceed $25,000. Before issuing an order
assessing a civil penalty under this sub-
paragraph, the Administrator or the Sec-
retary, as the case may be, shall give to
the person to be assessed such penalty
written notice of the Administrator's or
Secretary's proposal to issue such order
and the opportunity to request, within 30
days of the date the notice is received by
such person, a hearing on the proposed
order. Such hearing shall not be subject to
section 554 or 556 of title 5, United
States Code, but shall provide a reason-
able opportunity to be heard and to pre-
sent evidence.
(B) Class II. — The amount of a class
II civil penalty under paragraph (1) may
not exceed SI0,000 per day for each day
during which the violation continues; ex-
cept that the maximum amount of any
class II civil penalty under this subpara-
graph shall not exceed SI25,000. Except
as otherwise provided in this subsection, a
class II civil penalty shall be assessed and
collected in the same manner, and subject
to the same provisions, as in the case of
civil penalties assessed and collected after
notice and opportunity for a hearing on
the record in accordance with section 554
of title 5, United States Code. The Ad-
ministrator and the Secretary may issue
rules for discovery procedures for hear-
ings under this subparagraph.
(3)	Determining Amount. — In deter-
mining the amount of any penalty as-
sessed under this subsection, the Adminis-
trator or the Secretary, as the case may
be, shall take into account the nature, cir-
cumstances, extent and gravity of the vio-
lation, or violations, and, with respect to
the violator, ability to pay, any prior histo-
ry of such violations, the degree of culpa-
bility, economic benefit or savings (if any)
resulting from the violation, and such oth-
er matters as justice may require. For
purposes of this subsection, a single opera-
tional upset which leads to simultaneous
violations of more than one pollutant pa-
rameter shall be treated as a single viola-
tion.
(4)	Rights of Interested Persons.—
(A)	Public Notice. — Before issuing an
order assessing a civil penalty under this
subsection the Administrator or Secre-
tary, as the case may be, shall provide
public notice of and reasonable opportuni-
ty to comment on the proposed issuance of
such order.
(B)	Presentation of Evidence. — Any
person who comments on a proposed as-
sessment of a penalty under this subsec-
tion shall be given notice of any hearing
held under this subsection and of the or-
der assessing such penalty. In any hearing
held under this subsection, such person
shall have a reasonable opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence.
(C) Rights of Interested Persons to a
Hearing. — If no hearing is held under
paragraph (2) before issuance of an order
assessing a penalty under this subsection,
any person who commented on the pro-
posed assessment may petition, within 30
days after the issuance of such order, the
Administrator or Secretary, as the case
may be, to set aside such order and to
provide a hearing on the penalty. If the
evidence presented by the petitioner in
support of the petition is material and was
not considered in the issuance of the or-
der, the Administrator or Secretary shall
immediately set aside such order and pro-
vide a hearing in accordance with para-
graph (2)(A) in the case of a class I civil
penalty and paragraph (2)(B) in the case
of a class II civil penalty. If the Adminis-
trator or Secretary denies a hearing under
this subparagraph, the Administrator or
Secretary shall provide to the petitioner,
and publish in the Federal Register, no-
tice of and the reasons for such denial.
(5)	Finality of Order. — An order is-
sued under this subsection shall become
final 30 days after its issuance unless a
petition for judicial review is filed under
paragraph (8) or a hearing is requested
under paragraph (4)(C). If such a hear-
ing is denied, such order shall become fi-
nal 30 days after such denial.
(6)	Effect of Order.—
(A) Limitation on Actions Under Oth-
er Sections.— Action taken by the Ad-
ministrator or the Secretary, as the case
may be, under this subsection shall not
affect or limit the Administrator's or Sec-
retary's authority to enforce any provision
of this Act; except that any violation—
(i)	with respect to which the Adminis-
trator or the Secretary has commenced
and is diligently prosecuting an action un-
der this subsection,
(ii)	with respect to which a State has
commenced and is diligently prosecuting
an action under a State law comparable to
this subsection, or
(iii)	for which the Administrator, the
Secretary, or the State has issued a final
order not subject to further judicial re-
view and the violator has paid a penalty
assessed under this subsection, or such
comparable State law, as the case may be,
shall not be the subject of a civil penalty

-------
action under subsection (d) of this section
or section 311(b) or section 505 of this
Act.
(B) Applicability of Limitation With
Respect to Citizen Suits. — The limita-
tions contained in subparagraph (A) on
civil penalty actions under section 505 of
this Aci shall not apply with respect to
any violation for which—
(i)	a civil action under section
505(a)(1) of this Act has been filed prior
to commencement of an action under this
subsection, or
(ii)	notice of an alleged violation of sec-
tion 505(a)(1) of this Act has been given
in accordance with section 505(b)(1)(A)
prior to commencement of an action un-
der this subsection and an action under
section 505(a)(1) with respect to such al-
leged violation is filed before the 120th
day after the date on which such notice is
given.
(7)	Effect of Action on Compliance. —
No action by the Administrator or the
Secretary under this subsection shall af-
fect any person's obligation to comply
with any section of this Act or with the
terms and conditions of any permit issued
pursuant to section 402 or 404 of this Act.
(8)	Judicial Review. — Any person
against whom a civil penalty is assessed
under this subsection or who commented
on the proposed assessment of such penal-
ty in accordance with paragraph (4) may
obtain review of such assessment—
(A)	in the case of assessment of a class
I	civil penalty, in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of Columbia or
in the district in which the violation is
alleged to have occurred, or
(B)	in the case of assessment of a class
II	civil penalty, in United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit or for any other circuit in which such
person resides or transacts business, by
filing a notice of appeal in such court
within the 30-day period beginning on the
date the civil penalty order is issued and
by simultaneously sending a copy of such
notice by certified mail to the Administra-
tor or the Secretary, as the case may be,
and the Attorney General. The Adminis-
trator or the Secretary shall promptly file
in such court a certified copy of the record
on which the order was issued, Such court
shall not set aside or remand such order
unless there is not substantial evidence in
the record, taken as a whole, to support
the finding of a violation or unless the
Administrator's or Secretary's assessment
of the penalty constitutes an abuse of dis-
cretion and shall not impose additional
civil penalties for the same violation un-
less the Administrator's or Secretary's as-
sessment of the penalty constitutes an
abuse of discretion.
(9)	Collection. — If any person fails to
pay an assessment of a civil penalty—
(A)	after the order making the assess-
ment has become final, or
(B)	after a court in an action brought
under paragraph (8) has entered a final
judgment in favor of the Administrator or
the Secretary, as the case may be, the
Administrator or the Secretary shall re-
quest the Attorney General to bring a civ-
il actior. in an appropriate district court to
recover the amount assessed (plus interest
at currently prevailing rates from the date
of the final order or the date of the final
judgment, as the case may be). In such an
action, the validity, amount, and appropri-
ateness of such penalty shall not be sub-
ject to review. Any person who fails to
pay on a timely basis the amount of an
assessment of a civil penalty as described
in the first sentence of this paragraph
shall be required to pay, in addition to
such amount and interest, attorneys fees
and costs for collection proceedings and a
quarterly nonpayment penalty for each
quarter during which such failure to pay
persists. Such nonpayment penalty shall
be in an amount equal to 20 percent of the
aggregate amount of such person's penal-
ties and nonpayment penalties which are
unpaid as of the beginning of such quar-
ter.
(10)	Subpoenas. — The Administrator
or Secretary, as the case may be, may
issue subpoenas for the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production
of relevant papers, books, or documents in
connection with hearings under this sub-
section. In case of contumacy or refusal to
obey a subpoena issued pursuant to this
paragraph and served upon any person,
the district court of the United States for
any district in which such person is found,
resides, or transacts business, upon appli-
cation by the United States and after no-
tice to such person, shall have jurisdiction
to issue an other requiring such person to
appear and give testimony before the ad-
ministrative law judge or to appear and
produce documents before the administra-
tive law judge or both, and any failure to
obey such order of the court may be pun-
ished by such court as a contempt thereof.
(11) Protection of Existing Procedures.
— Nothing in this subsection shall change
the procedures existing on the day before
the date of the enactment of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 under other subsec-
tions of this section for issuance and en-
forcement of orders by the Administrator.
[§309(g) added by PL 100-4]
§310 [33 U.S.C. 1320} International
Pollution Abatement
(a)	Whenever the Administrator, upon
receipts of reports, surveys, or studies
from any duly constituted international
agency, has reason to believe that pollu-
tion is occurring which endangers the
health or welfare of persons in a foreign
country, and the Secretary of State re-
quests him to abate such pollution, he
shall give formal notification thereof to
the State water pollution control agency
of the State or States in which such dis-
charge or discharges originate and to the
appropriate interstate agency, if any. He
shall also promptly call such a hearing, if
he believes that such pollution is occur-
ring in sufficient quantity to warrant such
action, and if such foreign country has
given the United States essentially the
same rights with respect to the prevention
and control of pollution occurring in that
country as is given that country by this
subsection. The Administrator, through
the Secretary of State, shall invite the for-
eign country which may be adversely af-
fected by the pollution to attend and par-
ticipate in the hearing, and the represen-
tative of such country shall, for the
purpose of the hearing and any further
proceeding resulting from such hearing,
have all the rights of a State water pollu-
tion control agency. Nothing in this sub-
section shall be construed to modify,
amend, repeal, or otherwise affect the pro-
visions of the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty between Canada and the United
States or the Water Utilization Treaty of
1944 between Mexico and the United
States (59 Stat. 1219), relative to the con-
trol and abatement of pollution in waters
covered by those treaties.
(b)	The calling of a hearing under this
section shall not be construed by the
courts, the Administrator, or any person
as limiting, modifying, or otherwise af-
fecting the functions and responsibilities
of the Administrator under this section to

-------
establish and enforce water quality re-
quirements under this Act.
(c)	The Administrator shall publish in
the Federal Register a notice of a public
hearing before a hearing board of five or
more persons appointed by the Adminis-
trator. A majority of the members of the
board and the chairman who shall be des-
ignated by the Administrator shall not be
officers or employees of Federal, State, or
local governments. On the basis of the
evidence presented at such hearing, the
board shall within sixty days after com-
pletion of the hearing make findings of
fact as to whether or not such pollution is
occurring and shall thereupon by decision,
incorporating its findings therein, make
such recommendations to abate the pollu-
tion as may be appropriate and shall
transmit such decision and the record of
the hearings to the Administrator. All
such decisions shall be public. Upon re-
ceipt of such decision, the Administrator
shall promptly implement the board's de-
cision in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
(d)	In connection with any hearing
called under this subsection, the board is
authorized to require any person whose
alleged activities result in discharges
causing or contributing to pollution to tile
with it in such forms as it may prescribe,
a report based on existing data, furnishing
such information as may reasonably be
required as to the character, kind, and
quantity of such discharges and the use of
facilities or other means to prevent or re-
duce such discharges by the person filing
such a report. Such report shall be made
under oath or otherwise, as the board may
prescribe, and shall be filed with the
board within such reasonable period as it
may prescribe, unless additional lime is
granted by it. Upon a showing satisfacto-
ry to the board by the person filing such
report that such report or portion thereof
(other than effluent data), to which the
Administrator has access under this sec-
tion, if made public would divulge trade
secrets or secret processes of such person,
the board shall consider such report or
portion thereof confidential for the pur-
poses of section 1905 of title 18 of the
United States Code. If any person re-
quired to file any report under this para-
graph shall fail to do so within the time
fixed by the board for filing the same, and
such failure shall continue for thirty days
after notice of such default, such person
shall forfeit lo the United States the sum
of SI,000 for each and every day of the
continuance of such failure, which forfei-
ture shall be payable into the Treasury of
the United States, and shall be recover-
able in a civil suit in the name of the
United States in the district court of the
United States where such person has his
principal office or in any district in which
he does business. The Administrator may
upon application therefor remit or miti-
gate any forfeiture provided for under this
subsection.
(e)	Board members, other than officers
or employees of Federal, State, or local
governments, shall be for each day (in-
cluding travel-time) during which they
are performing board business, entitled to
receive compensation at a rate fixed by
the Administrator but not in excess of the
maximum rate of pay for grade GS-18, as
provided in the General Schedule under
section 5332 of title 5 of the United
Stales Code, and shall, notwithstanding
the limitations of sections 5703 and 5704
of title 5 of the United States Code, be
fully reimbursed for travel, subsistence,
and related expenses.
(f)	When any such recommendation
adopted by the Administrator involves the
institution of enforcement proceedings
against any person to obtain the abate-
ment of pollution subject to such recom-
mendation, the Administrator shall insti-
tute such proceedings if he believes that
the evidence warrants such proceedings.
The district court of the United States
shall consider and determine de novo all
relevant issues, but shall receive in evi-
dence the record of the proceedings
before the conference or hearing board.
The court shall have jurisdiction to enter
such judgment and orders enforcing such
judgment as it deems appropriate or to
remand such proceedings to the Adminis-
trator for such further action as it may
direct.
§311 [33 U.S.C. 1321] Oil and Hazardous
Substance Liability
(a) For the purpose of this section, the
term—
(1)	"oil" means oil of any kind or in
any form, including, but not limited to,
petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and
oil mixed with wastes other than dredged
spoil;
(2)	"discharge" includes, but is not lim-
ited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping.
but excludes (A) discharges in compli-
ance with a permit under section 402 of
this Act. (B) discharges resulting from
circumstances identified and reviewed
and made a part of the public record 'with
respect to a permit issued or modified un-
der section 402 of this Act, and subject to
a condition in such permit, and (C) con-
tinuous or anticipated intermittent dis-
charges from a point source, identified in
a permit or permit application under sec-
tion 402 of this Act. which are caused by
events occurring within the scope of rele-
vant operating or treatment systems.
[§311(a)(2) amended by PL 95-576]
(3)	"vessel" means every description of
watercraft or other artificial contrivance
used, or capable of being used, as a means
of transportation on water other than a
public vessel;
(4)	"public vessel" means a vessel
owned or bare-boat-chartered and oper-
ated by the United States, or by a State or
political subdivision thereof, or by a for-
eign nation, except when such vessel is
engaged in commerce;
(5)	"United States" means the States,
the District of Columbia, the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, the Common-
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Is-
lands and the Trust Territory of the Pacif-
ic Islands;
[§31 l(a)(5)amended by PL 100-4]
(6)	"owner or operator" means (A) in
the case of a vessel, any person owning,
operating, or chartering by demise, such
vessel, and (B) in the ease of an onshore
facility, and an offshore facility, any per-
son owning or operating such onshore fa-
cility or offshore facility, and (C) in the
ease of any abandoned offshore facility,
the person who owned or operated such
facility immediately prior to such aban-
donment;
(7)	"person" includes an individual,
firm, corporation, association, and a part-
nership;
(8)	"remove" or "removal" refers to
containment and removal of the oil or
hazardous substances from the water and
shorelines or the taking of such other ac-
tions as may be necessary to minimize or
mitigate damage to the public health or
welfare, including, but not limited to, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and public and private
property, shorelines, and beaches;

-------
[§311(a)(8) amended by PL 101-380]
(9)	"contiguous zone" means the entire
zone established or to be established by
the United States under article 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone;
(10)	"onshore facility" means any facil-
ity (including, but not limited to, motor
vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind lo-
cated in, on, or under, any land within the
United States other than submerged land;
(11)	"offshore facility" means any fa-
cility of any kind located in, on, or under,
any of the navigable waters of the United
States, and any facility of any kind which
is subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States and is located in, on, or under any
other waters, other than a vessel or a pub-
lic vessel;
(12)	"act of God" means an act occa-
sioned by an unanticipated grave natural
disaster;
(13)	"barrel" means 42 United States
gallons at 60 degrees Fahrenheit;
(14)	"hazardous substance" means any
substance designated pursuant to subsec-
tion (b)(2) of this section;
(15)	"inland oil barge" means a non-
self-propelled vessel carrying oil in bulk as
cargo and certificated to operate only in
the inland waters of the United States,
while operating in such waters;
(16)	"inland waters of the United
States" means those waters of the United
States lying inside the baseline from
which the territorial sea is measured and
those waters outside such baseline which
are a part of the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
way;
[§311 (a)( 16) amended by PL 101-380]
(17)	"otherwise subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the United States" means subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States by
virtue of United States citizenship, Unit-
ed States vessel documentation or num-
bering, or as provided for by international
agreement to which the United States is a
party;
[§311 (a)(17) added by PL 95-576;
amended by PL 101-380]
(18)	"Area Committee" means an
Area Committee established under sub-
section (j);
[§311 (a)( 18) added by PL 101-380]
(19)	"Area Contingency Plan" means
an Area Contingency Plan prepared un-
der subsection (j);
[§311 (a)( 19) added by PL 101-380]
(20)	"Coast Guard District Response
Group" means a Coast Guard District
Response Group established under sub-
section (j);
[§31 l(a)(20) added by PL 101-380]
(21)	"Federal On-Scene Coordinator"
means a Federal On-Scene Coordinator
designated in the National Contingency
Plan;
[§311 (a)(21) added by PL 101-380]
(22)	"National Contingency Plan"
means the National Contingency Plan
prepared and published under subsection
(d);
[§31 l(a)(22) added by PL 101-380]
(23)	"National Response Unit" means
the National Response Unit established
under subsection (j); and
[§311 (a)(23) added by PL 101-380]
(24)	"worst case discharge" means—
(A)	in the case of a vessel, a discharge
in adverse weather conditions of its entire
cargo; and
(B)	in the case of an offshore facility or
onshore facility, the largest foreseeable
discharge in adverse weather conditions.
[§311 (a)(24) added by PL 101-380]
(b)(1) The Congress hereby declares
that it is the policy of the United States
that there should be no discharges of oil
or hazardous substances into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States, ad-
joining shorelines, or into or upon thq wa-
ters of the contiguous zone, or in connec-
tion with activities under the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater
Port Act of 1977, or which may affect
natural resources belonging to, appertain-
ing to, or under the exclusive manage-
ment authority of the United States (in-
cluding resources under the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976).
[§311(b)(1) amended by PL 96-561]
(2) (A) The Administrator shall devel-
op, promulgate, and revise as may be ap-
propriate, regulations designating as haz-
ardous substances, other than oil as de-
fined in this section, such elements and
compounds which, when discharged in
any quantity into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining
shorelines or the waters of the contiguous
zone or in connection with activities under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which
may affect natural resources belonging to,
appertaining to, or under the exclusive
management authority of the United
States (including resources under the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976), present an im-
minent and substantial danger to the pub-
lic health or welfare, including, but not
limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore-
lines, and beaches.
[§311(b)(2)(A) amended by PL 96-561]
(B) The Administrator shall within 18
months after the date of enactment of this
paragraph, conduct a study and report to
the Congress on methods, mechanisms,
and procedures to create incentives to
achieve a higher standard of care in all
aspects of the management and move-
ment of hazardous substances on the part
of owners, operators, or persons in charge
of onshore facilities, offshore facilities or
vessels. The Administrator shall include
in such study (1) limits of liability, (2)
liability for third party damages, (3) pen-
alties and fees, (4) spill prevention plans,
(5) current practices in the insurance and
banking industries, and (6) whether the
penalty enacted in subclause (bb) of
clause (iii) of subparagraph (B) of subsec-
tion (b)(2) of section 311 of Public Law
92-500 should be enacted.
(3) The discharge of oil or hazardous
substances (i) into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States, adjoining
shorelines, or into or upon the waters of
the contiguous zone, or (ii) in connection
with activities under the Outer Continen-
tal Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater
Port Act. of 1974, or which may affect
natural resources belonging to, appertain-
ing to, or under the exclusive manage-
ment authority of the United States (in-
cluding resources under the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976), in such quantities as may be
harmful as determined by the President
under paragraph (4) of this subsection, is
prohibited, except (A) in the case of such
discharges into the waters of the contigu-
ous zone or which may affect natural re-
sources belonging to, appertaining to, or
under the exclusive management authori-
ty of the United States (including re-
sources under the Magnuson Fishery Con-
servation and Management Act of 1976),
where permitted under the Protocol of
1978 Relating to the International Con-
vention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships, 1973 and (B) where permit-
ted in quantities and at times and loca-

-------
tions or under such circumstances or con-
ditions as the President may, by regula-
tion. determine not to be harmful. Any
regulations issued under this subsection
shall be consistent with maritime safety
and with marine and navigation laws and
regulations and applicable water quality
standards.
[§311 (b)(3) revised by PL 95-576;
amended by PL 96-478: PL 96-561]
(4)	The President shall by regulation
determine for the purposes of this section
those quantities of oil and any hazardous
substances the discharge of which may be
harmful to the public health or welfare or
the environment of the United States, in-
cluding but not limited to fish, shellfish,
wildlife, and public and private property,
shorelines, and beaches.
[§311(b)(4) amended by PL 95-576; PL
101-380]
(5)	Any person in charge of a vessel or
of an onshore facility or an offshore facili-
ty shall, as soon as he has knowledge of
any discharge of oil or a hazardous sub-
stance from such vessel or facility in viola-
tion of paragraph (3) of this subsection,
immediately notify the appropriate agen-
cy of the United States Government of
such discharge. The Federal agency shall
immediately notify the appropriate State
agency of any State which is, or may rea-
sonably be expected to be, affected by the
discharge of oil or a hazardous substance.
Any such person (A) in charge of a vessel
from which oil or a hazardous substance
is discharged in violation of paragraph
(3)(i) of this subsection, or (B) in charge
of a vessel from which oil or a hazardous
substance is discharged in violation of
paragraph (3)(ii) of this subsection and
who is otherwise subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the United States at the time of
the discharge, or (C) in charge of an on-
shore facility or an offshore facility, who
fails to notify immediately such agency of
such discharge shall, upon conviction, be
fined in accordance with title 18, United
States Code, or imprisoned for not more
than 5 years, or both. Notification re-
ceived pursuant to this paragraph shall
not be used against any such natural per-
son in any criminal case, except a prose-
cution for perjury or for giving a false
statement.
[§311(b)(5) amended by PL 95-576; PL
101-380]
(6)	Administrative Penalties.—
(A)	Violations. — Any owner, opera-
tor, or person in charge of any vessel, on-
shore facility, or offshore facility—
(i)	from which oil or a hazardous sub-
stance is discharged in violation of para-
graph (3), or
(ii)	who fails or refuses to comply with
any regulation issued under subsection (j)
to which that owner, operator, or person
in charge is subject, may be assessed a
class I or class II civil penalty by the Sec-
retary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating or the Adminis-
trator.
(B)	Classes of Penalties.—
(i)	Class I. — The amount of a class I
civil penalty under subparagraph (A)
may not exceed SI0,000 per violation, ex-
cept that the maximum amount of any
class I civil penalty under this subpara-
graph shall not exceed $25,000. Before
assessing a civil penalty under this clause,
the Administrator or Secretary, as the
case may be, shall give to the person to be
assessed such penalty written notice of the
Administrator's or Secretary's preposal to
assess the penalty and the opportunity to
request, within 30 days of the date the
notice is received by such person, a hear-
ing on the proposed penalty. Such hearing
shall not be subject to section 554 or 556
of title 5, United States Code, but shall
provide a reasonable opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence.
(ii)	Class II. — The amount of a class
II civil penalty under subparagraph (A)
may not exceed $10,000 per day for each
day during which the violation continues;
except that the maximum amount of any
class II civil penalty under this subpara-
graph shall not exceed $125,000. Except
as otherwise provided in this subsection, a
class II civil penalty shall be assessed and
collected in the same manner, and subject
to the same provisions, as in the case of
civil penalties assessed and collected after
notice and opportunity for a hearing on
the record in accordance with section 554
of title 5, United States Code. The Ad-
ministrator and Secretary may issue rules
for discovery procedures for hearings un-
der this paragraph.
(C)	Rights of Interested Persons.—
(i) Public Notice. — Before issuing an
order assessing a class II civil penalty un-
der this paragraph the Administrator or
Secretary, as the case may be. shall pro-
vide public notice of and reasonable op-
portunity to comment on the proposed is-
suance of such order.
(ii)	Presentation of Evidence. — Any
person who comments on a proposed as-
sessment of a class II civil penalty under
this paragraph shall be given notice of any
hearing held under this paragraph and of
the order assessing such penalty. In any
hearing held under this paragraph, such
person shall have a reasonable opportuni-
ty to be heard and to present evidence.
(iii)	Rights of Interested Persons to a
Hearing.— If no hearing is held under
subparagraph (B) before issuance of an
order assessing a class II civil penalty un-
der this paragraph, any person who com-
mented on the proposed assessment may
petition, within 30 days after the issuance
of such order, the Administrator or Secre-
tary, as the case may be, to set aside such
order and to provide a hearing on the pen-
alty. If the evidence presented by the peti-
tioner in support of the petition is materi-
al and was not considered in the issuance
of the order, the Administrator or Secre-
tary shall immediately set aside such or-
der and provide a hearing in accordance
with subparagraph (B)(ii). If the Admin-
istrator or Secretary denies a hearing un-
der this clause, the Administrator or Sec-
retary shall provide to the petitioner, and
publish in the Federal Register, notice of
and the reasons for such denial.
(D)	Finality of Order. — An order as-
sessing a class II civil penalty under this
paragraph shall become final 30 days af-
ter its issuance unless a petition for judi-
cial review is filed under subparagraph
(G) or a hearing is requested under sub-
paragraph (C)(iii). If such a hearing is
denied, such order shall become final 30
days after such denial.
(E)	Effect of Order.— Action taken by
the Administrator or Secretary, as the
case may be, under this paragraph shall
not affect or limit the Administrator's or
Secretary's authority to enforce any provi-
sion of this Act; except that any viola-
tion—
(i)	with respect to which the Adminis-
trator or Secretary has commenced and is
diligently prosecuting an action to access
a class II civil penalty under this
paragraphs or
(ii)	for which the Administrator or Sec-
retary has issued a final order assessing a
class II civil penalty not subject to further
judicial review and the violator has paid a
penalty assessed under this paragraph.

-------
shall not be the subject of a civil penalty
action under section 309(d), 309(g), or
505 of this Act or under paragraph (7).
(F)	Effect of Action on Compliance.—
No action by the Administrator or Secre-
tary under this paragraph shall affect any
person's obligation to comply with any
section of this Act.
(G)	Judicial Review.— Any person
against whom a civil penalty is assessed
under this paragraph or who commented
on the proposed assessment of such penal-
ty in accordance with subparagraph (C)
may obtain review of such assessment—
(i)	in the case of assessment of a class I
civil penalty, in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia or in
the district in which the violation is al-
leged to have occurred, or
(ii)	in the case of assessment of a class
II civil penalty, in United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit or for any other circuit in which such
person resides or transacts business, by
filing a notice of appeal in such court
within the 30-day period beginning on the
date the civil penalty order is issued and
by simultaneously sending a copy of such
notice by certified mail to the Administra-
tor or Secretary, as the case may be, and
the Attorney General. The Administrator
or Secretary shall promptly file in such
court a certified copy of the record on
which the order was issued. Such court
shall not set aside or remand such order
unless there is not substantial evidence in
the record, taken as a whole, to support
the finding of a violation or unless the
Administrator's or Secretary's assessment
of the penalty constitutes an abuse of dis-
cretion and shall not impose additional
civil penalties for the same violation un-
less the Administrator's or Secretary's as-
sessment of the penalty constitutes an
abuse of discretion.
(H)	Collection.— If any person fails to
pay an assessment of a civil penalty—
(i)	after the assessment has become fi-
nal, or
(ii)	after a court in an action brought
under subparagraph (G) has entered a fi-
nal judgment in favor of the Administra-
tor or Secretary, as the case may be, the
Administrator or Secretary shall request
the Attorney General to bring a civil ac-
tion in an appropriate district court to re-
cover the amount assessed (plus interest
at currently prevailing rates from the date
of the final order or the date of the final
judgment, as the case may be). In such an
action, the validity, amount, and appropri-
ateness of such penalty shall not be sub-
ject to review. Any person who fails to
pay on a timely basis the amount of an
assessment of a civil penalty as described
in the first sentence of this subparagraph
shall be required to pay. in addition to
such amount and interest, attorneys fees
and costs for collection proceedings and a
quarterly nonpayment penalty for each
quarter during which such failure to pay
persists. Such nonpayment penalty shall
be in an amount equal to 20 percent of the
aggregate amount of such person's penal-
ties and nonpayment penalties which are
unpaid as of the beginning of such quar-
ter.
(I) Subpoenas.— The Administrator or
Secretary, as the case may be, may issue
subpoenas for the attendance and testimo-
ny of witnesses and the production of rele-
vant papers, books, or documents in con-
nection with hearings under this para-
graph. In case of contumacy or refusal to
obey a subpoena issued pursuant to this
subparagaph and served upon any person,
the district court of the United States for
any district in which such person is found,
resides, or transacts business, upon appli-
cation by the United States and after no-
tice to such person, shall have jurisdiction
to issue an order requinng such person to
appear and give testimony before the ad-
ministrative law judge or to appear and
produce documents before the administra-
tive law judge, or both, and any failure to
obey such order of the court may be pun-
ished by such court as a contempt thereof.
[Former §311 (b)(6) repealed and new
(b)(6) added by PL 101-380]
(7) Civil Penalty Action.—
(A)	Discharge, Generally.— Any per-
son who is the owner, operator, or person
in charge of any vessel, onshore facility,
or offshore facility from which oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in vio-
lation of paragraph (3), shall be subject to
a civil penalty in an amount up to 525,000
per day of violation or an amount up to
$1,000 per barrel of oil or unit of reporta-
ble quantity of hazardous substances dis-
charged.
(B)	Failure to Remove or Comply.—
Any person described in subparagraph
(A) who, without sufficient cause—
(i) fails to properly carry out removal
of the discharge under an order of the
President pursuant to subsection (c); or
(ii) fails to comply with an order pursu-
ant to subsection (e)(1)(B); shall be sub-
ject to a civil penalty in an amount up to
$25,000 per day of violation or an amount
up to 3 limes the costs incurred by the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund as a result of
such failure.
(C)	Failure to comply with Regulation.
— Any person who fails or refuses to
comply with any regulation issued under
subsection (j) shall be subject to a civil
penalty in an amount up to 525,000 per
day of violation.
(D)	Gross Negligence. — In any case
in which a violation of paragraph (3) was
the result of gross negligence or willful
misconduct of a person described in sub-
paragraph (A), the person shall be subject
to a civil penalty of not less than
$100,000, and not more than $3,000 per
barrel of oil or unit of reportable quantity
of hazardous substance discharged.
(E)	Jurisdiction. — An action to im-
pose a civil penalty under this paragraph
may be brought in the district court of the
United States for the district in which the
defendant is located, resides, or is doing
business, and such court shall have juris-
diction to assess such penalty.
(F)	Limitation. — A person is not lia-
ble for a civil penalty under this para-
graph for a discharge if the person has
been assessed a civil penalty under para-
graph (6) for the discharge.
[§311(b)(7) added by PL 101-380]
(8)	Determination of Amount. — In
determining the amount of a civil penalty
under paragraphs (6) and (7), the Admin-
istrator, Secretary, or the court, as the
case may be, shall consider the serious-
ness of the violation or violations, the eco-
nomic.benefit to the violator, if any, re-
sulting from the violation, the degree of
culpability involved, any other penalty for
the same incident, any history of prior
violations, the nature, extent, and degree
of success of any efforts of the violator to
minimize or mitigate the effects of the
discharge, the economic impact of the
penalty on the violator, and any other
matters as justice may require.
[§311(b)(8) added by PL 101-380]
(9)	Mitigation of Damage. — In addi-
tion to establishing a penalty for the dis-
charge of oil or a hazardous substance,
the Administrator or the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may act to mitigate the damage
to the public health or welfare caused by

-------
such discharge. The cost of such mitiga-
tion shall be deemed a cost incurred under
subsection (c) of this section for the re-
moval of such substance by the United
States Government.
[§311(b)(9) added by PL 101-380]
(10)	Recovery of Removal Costs. —
Any costs of removal incurred in connec-
tion with a discharge excluded by subsec-
tion (a)(2)(C) of this section shall be re-
coverable from the ewner or operator of
the source of the discharge in an action
brought under section 309(b) of this Act.
[§311 (b)( 10) added by PL 101-380]
(11)	Limitation. — Civil penalties shall
not be assessed under both this section
and section 309 for the same discharge.
[§31 l(b)(l 1) added by PL 101-380]
(c) Federal Removal Authority.—
[§311(c) revised by PL 101-380]
(1) General Removal Requirement. —
(A)	The President shall in accordance
¦with the National Contingency Plan and
any appropriate Area Contingency Plan,
ensure effective and immediate removal
of a discharge, and mitigation or preven-
tion of a substantial threat of a discharge,
of oil or a hazardous substance—
(i)	into or on the navigable waters;
(ii)	on the adjoining shorelines to the
navigable waters;
(iii)	into or on the waters of the exclu-
sive economic zone; or
(iv)	that may affect natural resources
belonging to, appertaining to, or under
the exclusive management authority of
the United States.
(B)	In carrying out this paragraph, the
President may—
(1)	remove or arrange for the removal
of a discharge, and mitigate or prevent a
substantial threat of a discharge, at any
time;
(ii)	direct or monitor all Federal, State,
and private actions to remove a discharge;
and
(iii)	remove and. if necessary, destroy a
vessel discharging, or threatening to dis-
charge, by whatever means are available.
(2)	Discharge Posing Substantial
Threat to Public Health or Welfare. —
(A) If a discharge, or a substantial
threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous
substance from a vessel, offshore facility,
or onshore facility is of such 'a size or
character as to be a substantial threat to
the public health or welfare of the United
States (including but not limited to fish.
shellfish, wildlife, other natural resources,
and the public and private beaches and
shorelines of the United States), the Pres-
ident shall direct all Federal, State, and
private actions to remove the discharge or
to mitigate or prevent the threat of the
discharge.
(B) In carrying out this paragraph, the
President may, without regard to any oth-
er provision of law governing contracting
procedures or employment of personnel
by the Federal Government—
(i)	remove or arrange for the removal
of the discharge, or mitigate or prevent
the substantial threat of the discharge;
and
(ii)	remove and, if necessary, destroy a
vessel discharging, or threatening to dis-
charge, by whatever means are available.
(c) Revision of National Contingency
Plan. — Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the
President shall revise and republish the
National Contingency Plan prepared un-
der section 311(c)(2) of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act (as in effect im-
mediately before the date of the enact-
ment of this Act) to implement the
amendments made by this section and
section 4202.
[Editor's note: Section 4201(c) of PL
101-380 (the Oil Pollution Act of 1990)
included provisions concerning the Na-
tional Contingency Plan. Those provisions
follow.]
§4201
(c) (3) Actions in Accordance with Na-
tional Contingency Plan. —
(A)	Each Federal agency. State, owner
or operator, or other person participating
in efforts under this subsection shall act in
accordance with the National Contingen-
cy Plan or as directed by the President.
(B)	An owner or operator participating
in efforts under this subsection shall act in
accordance with the National Contingen-
cy Plan and the applicable response plan
required under subsection (j), or as direct-
ed by the President.
(4) Exemption From Liability. —
(A) person is not liable for removal
costs or damages which result from ac-
tions taken or omitted to be taken in the
course of rendering care, assistance, or
advice consistent with the National Con-
tingency Plan or as otherwise directed by
the President.
(B)	Subparagraph (A) docs not ap-
ply—
(i)	to a responsible party;
(ii)	to a response under the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.);
(iii)	with respect to personal injury or
wrongful death; or
(iv)	if the person is grossly negligent or
engages in willful misconduct.
(C)	A responsible party is liable for any
removal costs and damages that another
person is relieved of under subparagraph
(A).
(5)	Obligation and Liability of Owner
or Operator not Affected. — Nothing in
this subsection affects—
(A)	the obligation of an owner or oper-
ator to respond immediately to a dis-
charge, or the threat of a discharge, of oil;
or
(B)	the liability of a responsible party
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
(6)	Responsible Party Defined. — For
purposes of this subsection, the term 're-
sponsible party' has the meaning given
that term under section 1001 of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990.
§311 Contd.
(d) National Contingency Plan.—
[§311(d) revised by PL 101-380]
(1)	Preparation by President. — The
President shall prepare and publish a Na-
tional Contingency Plan for removal of oil
and hazardous substances pursuant to this
section.
(2)	Contents. — The National Contin-
gency Plan shall provide for efficient, co-
ordinated, and effective action to mini-
mize damage from oil and hazardous sub-
stance discharges, including containment,
dispersal, and removal of oil and hazard-
ous substances, and shall include, but not
be limited to, the following:
(A)	Assignment of duties and responsi-
bilities among Federal departments and
agencies in coordination with State and
local agencies and port authorities includ-
ing, but not limited to, water pollution
control and conservation and trusteeship
of natural resources (including conserva-
tion of fish and wildlife).
(B)	Identification, procurement, main-
tenance, and storage of equipment and
supplies.
(C)	Establishment or designation of
Coast Guard strike teams, consisting of—

-------
(i)	personnel who shall be trained, pre-
pared, and available to provide necessary
services to carry out the National Contin-
gency Plan;
(ii)	adequate oil and hazardous sub-
stance pollution control equipment and
material; and
(iii)	a detailed oil and hazardous sub-
stance pollution and prevention plan, in-
cluding measures to protect fisheries and
wildlife.
(D)	A system of surveillance and notice
designed to safeguard against as well as
ensure earliest possible notice of dis-
charges of oil and hazardous substances
and imminent threats of such discharges
to the appropriate State and Federal
agencies.
(E)	Establishment of a national center
to provide coordination and direction for
operations in carrying out the Plan.
(F)	Procedures and techniques to be
employed in identifying, containing, dis-
persing, and removing oil and hazardous
substances.
(G)	A schedule, prepared in coopera-
tion with the States, identifying—
(i)	dispersants, othei chemicals, and
other spill mitigating devices and sub-
stances, if any, that may be used in carry-
ing out the Plan,
(ii)	the waters in which such disper-
sants. other chemicals, and other spill mit-
igating devices and substances may be
used, and
(iii)	the quantities of such dispersant,
other chemicals, or other spill mitigating
device or substance which can be used
safely in such waters, which schedule
shall provide in the case of any dispersant,
chemical, spill mitigating device or sub-
stance, or waters not specifically identified
in such schedule that the President, or his
delegate, may, on a case-by-case basis,
identify the dispersants, other chemicals,
and other spill mitigating devices and sub-
stances which may be used, the waters in
which they may be used and the quanti-
ties which can be used safely in such wa-
ters.
(H)	A system whereby the State or
States afTected by a discharge of oil or
hazardous substance may act where nec-
essary to remove such discharge and such
State or Slates may be reimbursed in ac-
cordance with the Oil Pollution Act of
1990. in the case of any discharge of oil
from a vessel or facility, for the reason-
able costs incurred for that removal, from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(I) Establishment of criteria and proce-
dures to ensure immediate and effective
Federal identification of. and response to,
a discharge, or the threat of a discharge,
that results in a substantial threat to the
public health or welfare of the United
States, as required under subsection
(c)(2).
(J) Establishment of procedures and
standards for removing a worst case dis-
charge of oil, and for mitigating or
preventing a substantial threat of such a
discharge.
(K) Designation of the Federal official
who shall be the Federal On-Scene Coor-
dinator for each area for which an Area
Contingency Plan is required to be pre-
pared under subsection (j).
(L) Establishment of procedures for the
coordination of activities of—
(i)	Coast Guard strike teams estab-
lished under subparagraph (C);
(ii)	Federal On-Scene Coordinators
designated under subparagraph (K);
(iii)	District Response Groups estab-
lished under subsection (j); and
(iv)	Area Committees established un-
der subsection (j).
(M) A fish and wildlife response plan,
developed in consultation with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, and other interested parties (in-
cluding State fish and wildlife conserva-
tion officials), for the immediate and
effective protection, rescue, and rehabili-
tation of, and the minimization of risk of
damage to, fish and wildlife resources and
their habitat that are harmed or that may
be jeopardized by a discharge.
(3)	Revisions and Amendments. — The
President may, from time to time, as the
President deems advisable, revise or oth-
erwise amend the National Contingency
Plan. .
(4)	Actions in Accordance with Nation-
al Contingency Plan. — After publication
of the National Contingency Plan, the re-
moval of oil and hazardous substances
and actions to minimize damage from oil
and hazardous substance discharges shall,
to the greatest extent possible, be in ac-
cordance with the National Contingency
Plan.
(e) Civil Enforcement.—
[§311(e) revised by PL 101-380]
(1)	Orders Protecting Public Health.
— In addition to any action taken by
State or local government, when the Pres-
ident determines that there may be an
imminent and substantial threat to the
public health or welfare of the United
States, including fish, shellfish, and wild-
life, public and private property, shore-
lines, beaches, habitat, and other living
and nonliving natural resources under the
jurisdiction or control of the United
States, because of an actual or threatened
discharge of oil or a hazardous substance
from a vessel or facility in violation of
subsection (b), the President may—
(A)	require the Attorney General to se-
cure any relief from any person, including
the owner or operatoi of the vessel or fa-
cility, as may be necessary to abate such
endangerment; or
(B)	after notice to the afTected State,
take any other action under this section,
including issuing administrative orders,
that may be necessary to protect the pub-
lic health and welfare.
(2)	Jurisdiction of District Courts. —
The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction to grant any relief
under this subsection that the public in-
terest and the equities of the case may
require.
(0(1) Except where an owner or oper-
ator can prove that a discharge was
caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B)
an act of war, (C) negligence on the part
of the United States Government, or (D)
an act or omission of a third party without
regard to whether any such act or omis-
sion was or was not negligent, or any com-
bination of the foregoing clauses, such
owner or operator of any vessel from
which oil or a hazardous substance is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (b)(3)
of this section shall, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, be liable to the
United States Government for the actual
costs incurred under subsection (c) for the
removal of such oil or substance by the
United States Government in an amount
not to exceed, in the case of an inland oil
barge 5125 per gross ton of such barge, or
$125,000, whichever is greater, and in the
case of any other vessel, SI50 per gross
ton of such vessel (or, for a vessel carrying
oil or hazardous substances as cargo,
$250,000), whichever is greater, except
that where the United States can show
that such discharge was the result of will-
ful negligence or willful misconduct with-

-------
in the privity and knowledge of the owner,
such owner or operator shall be liable to
the United States Government for the full
amount of such costs. Such costs shall
constitute a maritime lien on such vessel
which may be recovered in an action in
rem in the district court of the United
States for any district within which any
vessel may be found. The United States
may also bring an action against the own-
er or operator of such vessel in any court
of competent jurisdiction to recover such
costs.
(2)	Except where an owner or operator
of an onshore facility can prove that a
discharge was caused solely by (A) an act
of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence
on the part of the United States Govern-
ment, or (D) an act or omission of a third
party without regard to whether any such
act or omission was or was not negligent,
or any combination of the foregoing
clauses, such owner or operator of any
such facility from which oil or a hazard-
ous substance is discharged in violation of
subsection (b)(3) of this section shall be
liable to the United States Government
for the actual costs incurred under subsec-
tion (c) for the removal of such oil or
substance by the United States Govern-
ment in an amount not to exceed
S50,000,000, except that where the Unit-
ed States can show that such discharge
was the result of willful negligence or will-
ful misconduct within the privity and
knowledge of the owner, such owner or
operator shall be liable to the United
States Government for the full amount of
such costs. The United States may bring
an action against the owner or operator of
such facility in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover such costs. The Ad-
ministrator is authorized, by regulation,
after consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce and the Small Business Ad-
ministration, to establish reasonable and
equitable classifications of those onshore
facilities having a total fixed storage ca-
pacity of 1,000 barrels or less which he
determines because of size, type, and loca-
tion do not present a substantial risk of
the discharge of oil or a hazardous sub-
stance in violation of subsection (b)(3) of
this section, and apply with respect to
such classifications differing limits of lia-
bility which may be less than the amount
contained in this paragraph.
(3)	Except where an owner or operator
of an offshore facility can prove that a
discharge was caused solely by (A) an act
of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence
on the part of the United States Govern-
ment, or (D) an act or omission of a third
party without regard to whether any such
act or omission was or was not negligent,
or any combination of the foregoing
clauses, such owner or operator of any
such facility from which oil or a hazard-
ous substance is discharged in violation of
subsection (b)(3) of this section shall, not-
withstanding any other provision of law,
be liable to the United States Govern-
ment for the actual costs incurred under
subsection (c) for the removal of such oil
or substance by the United States Gov-
ernment in an amount not to exceed
S50,000,000, except that where the Unit-
ed States can show that such discharge
was the result of willful negligence or will-
ful misconduct within the privity and
knowledge of the owner, such owner or
operator shall be liable to the United
States Government for the full amount of
such costs. The United States may bring
an action against the owner or operator of
such a facility in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover such costs.
(4)	The costs of removal of oil or a haz-
ardous substance for which the owner or
operator of a vessel or onshore or offshore
facility is liable under subsection (f) of
this section shall include any costs or ex-
penses incurred by the Federal Govern-
ment or any State government in the res-
toration or replacement of natural re-
sources damaged or destroyed as a result
of a discharge of oil or a hazardous sub-
stance in violation of subsection (b) of this
section.
(5)	The President, or the authorized
representative of any State, shall act on
behalf of the public as trustee of the natu-
ral resources to recover for the costs of
replacing or restoring such resources.
Sums recovered shall be used to restore,
rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of
such natural resources by the appropriate
agencies of the Federal Government, or
the State government.
(g) Where the owner or operator of a
vessel (other than an inland oil barge)
carrying oil or hazardous substances as
cargo or an onshore or offshore facility
which handles or stores oil or hazardous
substances in bulk, from which oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in vio-
lation of subsection (b) of this section,
alleges that such discharge was caused
solely by an act or omission of a third
party, such owner or operator shall pay to
the United States Government the actual
costs incurred under subsection (c) for re-
moval of such oil or substance and shall
be entitled by subrogation to all rights of
the United States Government to recover
such costs from such third party under
this subsection. In any case where an own-
er or operator of a vessel, of an onshore
facility, or of an offshore facility, from
which oil or a hazardous substance is dis-
charged in violation of subsection (b)(3)
of this section, proves that such discharge
of oil or hazardous substance was caused
solely by an act or omission of a third
party, or was caused solely by such an act
or omission in combination with an act of
God, an act of war, or negligence on the
part of the United States Government,
such third party shall, not withstanding
any other provision of law, be liable to the
United States Government for the actual
costs incurred under subsection (c) for re-
moval of such oil or substance by the
United States Government, except where
such third party can prove that such dis-
charge was caused solely by (A) an act of
God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on
the part of the United States Govern-
ment, or (D) an act or omission of another
party without regard to whether such act
or omission was or was not negligent, or
any combination of the foregoing clauses.
If such third party was the owner or oper-
ator of a vessel which caused the dis-
charge of oil or a hazardous substance in
violation of subsection (b)(3) of this sec-
tion, the liability of such third party under
this subsection shall not exceed, in the
case of an inland oil barge, SI25 per gross
ton of such barge, $125,000, whichever is
greater, and in the case of any other ves-
sel, $150 per gross ton of such vessel (or,
for a vessel carrying oil or hazardous sub-
stances as cargo, $250,000), whichever is
greater. In any other case the liability of
such third party shall not exceed the limi-
tation which would have been applicable
to the owner or operator of the vessel or
the onshore or offshore facility from
which the discharge actually occurred if
such owner or operator were liable. If the
United States can show that the discharge
of oil or a hazardous substance in viola-
tion of subsection (b)(3) of this section
was the result of willful negligence or will-
ful misconduct within the privity and
knowledge of such third party, such third

-------
party shall be liable to the United States
Government for the full amount of such
removal costs. The United States may
bring an action against the third party in
any court of competent jurisdiction to re-
cover such removal costs.
(h)	The liabilities established by this
section shall in no way affect any rights
which (1) the owner or operator of a ves-
sel or of an onshore facility or an offshore
facility may have against any third party
whose acts may in any way have caused
or contributed to such discharge, or (2)
The United States Government may have
against and third party whose actions may
in any way have caused or contributed to
the discharge of oil or hazardous sub-
stance.
(i)	In any case where an owner or oper-
ator of a vessel or an onshore facility or an
offshore facility from which oil or a haz-
ardous substance is discharged in viola-
tion of subsection (b) of this section acts
to remove such oil or substance in accor-
dance with regulations promulgated pur-
suant to this section, such owner or opera-
tor shall be entitled to recover the reason-
able costs incurred in such removal upon
establishing, in a suit which may be
brought against the United States Gov-
ernment in the United States Claims
Court, that such discharge was caused
solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of
war, (C) negligence on the part of the
United States Government or (D) an act
or omission of a third party without re-
gard to whether such act or omission was
or was not negligent, or of any combina-
tion of the foregoing clauses.
(2)-(3) [Repealed]
[§311 (i)( 1) and (3) amended by PL
97-164; (i)(l) designation deleted and
(2) and (3) repealed by PL 101-380]
[Editor's note: Section 2002(a) of PL
101-380 provides:
"(a) Application. — Subsections (f),
(g), (h), and (i) of section 311 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1321) shall not apply with respect
to any incident for which liability is estab-
lished under section 1002 of this Act."]
(j) National Response System.—
(1) In General. — Consistent with the
National Contingency Plan required by
subsection (c)(2) of this section, as soon
as practicable after the effective date of
this section, and from time to time there-
after, the President shall issue regulations
consistent with maritime safety and with
marine and navigation laws (A) establish-
ing methods and procedures for removal
of discharged oil and hazardous sub-
stances, (B) establishing criteria for the
development and implementation of local
and regional oil and hazardous substance
removal contingency plans, (C) establish-
ing procedures, methods, and equipment
and other requirements for equipment to
prevent discharges of oil and hazardous
substances from vessels and from onshore
facilities and offshore facilities, and to
contain such discharges, and (D) govern-
ing the inspection of vessels carrying car-
goes of oil and hazardous substances and
the inspection of such cargoes in order to
reduce the likelihood of discharges of oil
from vessels in violation of this section.
[§3110") and (j)(l) heads added by PL
101-380]
(2) National Response Unit. — The
Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall establish a
National Response Unit at Elizabeth
City, North Carolina. The Secretary, act-
ing through the National Response
Unit—
(A)	shall compile and maintain a com-
prehensive computer list of spill removal
resources, personnel, and equipment that
is available worldwide and within the ar-
eas designated by the President pursuant
to paragraph (4), which shall be available
to Federal and State agencies and the
public;
(B)	shall provide technical assistance,
equipment, and other resources requested
by a Federal On-Scene Coordinator;
(C)	shall coordinate use of private and
public personnel and equipment to re-
move a worst case discharge, and to miti-
gate or prevent a substantial threat of
such a discharge, from a vessel, offshore
facility, or onshore facility operating in or
near an area designated by the President
pursuant to paragraph (4);
(D)	may provide technical assistance in
the preparation of Area Contingency
Plans required under paragraph (4);
(E)	shall administer Coast Guard strike
teams established under the National
Contingency Plan;
(F)	shall maintain on file all Area Con-
tingency Plans approved by the President
under this subsection; and
(G)	shall review each of those plans
that affects its responsibilities under this
subsection.
[Former §311 (j)(2) repealed and new
(j)(2) added by PL 101-380]
(3)	Coast Guard District Response
Groups. —
(A)	The Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall
establish in each Coast Guard district a
Coast Guard District Response Group.
(B)	Each Coast Guard District Re-
sponse Group shall consist of—
(i)	The Coast Guard personnel and
equipment, including firefighting equip-
ment, of each port within the district;
(ii)	additional prepositioned equipment;
and
(iii)	a district response advisory staff.
(C)	Coast Guard district response
groups—
(i)	shall provide technical assistance,
equipment, and other resources when re-
quired by a Federal On-Scene Coordina-
tor;
(ii)	shall maintain all Coast Guard re-
sponse equipment within its district;
(iii)	may provide technical assistance in
the preparation of Area Contingency
Plans required under paragraph (4); and
(iv)	shall review each of those plans
that affect its area of geographic responsi-
bility.
[§311(j)(3) added by PL 101-380]
(4)	Area Committees and Area Contin-
gency Plans. —
(A)	There is established for each area
designated by the President an Area
Committee comprised of members ap-
pointed by the President from qualified
personnel of Federal, State, and local
agencies.
(B)	Each Area Committee, under the
direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordi-
nator for its area, shall—
(i)	prepare for its area the Area Contin-
gency Plan required under subparagraph
(C);
(ii)	work with State and local officials
to enhance the contingency planning of
those officials and to assure preplanning
of joint response efforts, including appro-
priate procedures for mechanical recov-
ery, dispersal, shoreline cleanup, protec-
tion of sensitive environmental areas, and
protection, rescue, and rehabilitation of
fisheries and wildlife; and
(iii)	work with State and local officials
to expedite decisions for the use of disper-
sants and other mitigating substances and
devices.

-------
(C) Each Area Committee shall pre-
pare and submit to the President for ap-
proval an Area Contingency Plan for its
area. The Area Contingency Plan shall—
(i)	when implemented in conjunction
with the National Contingency Plan, be
adequate to remove a worst case dis-
charge, and to mitigate or prevent a sub-
stantial threat of such a discharge, from a
vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility
operating in or near the area;
(ii)	describe the area covered by the
plan, including the areas of special eco-
nomic or environmental importance that
might be damaged by a discharge;
(iii)	describe in detail the responsibili-
ties of an owner or operator and of Feder-
al, State, and local agencies in removing a
discharge, and in mitigating or preventing
a substantial threat of a discharge;
(iv)	list the equipment (including
firefighting equipment), dispersants or
other mitigating substances and devices,
and personnel available to an owner or
operator and Federal, State, and local
agencies, to ensure an effective and imme-
diate removal of a discharge, and to en-
sure mitigation or prevention of a substan-
tial threat of a discharge;
(v)	describe the procedures to be fol-
lowed for obtaining an expedited decision
regarding the use of dispersants;
(vi)	describe in detail how the plan is
integrated into other Area Contingency
Plans and vessel, offshore facility, and on-
shore facility response plans approved un-
der this subsection, and into operating
procedures of the National Response
Unit;
(vii)	include any other information the
President requires; and
(viii)	be updated periodically by the
Area Committee.
(D) The President shall—
(i)	review and approve Area Contingen-
cy Plans under this paragraph; and
(ii)	periodically review Area Contin-
gency Plans so approved.
[§311(j)(4) added by PL 101-380]
[Editor's note: Section 4202(b)(1) of
PL 101-380 states:
"(b) Implementation.—
(1) Area Committees and Contingency
Plans. — (A) Not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the President shall designate the ar-
eas for which Area Committees are estab-
lished under section 311(j)(4) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by this Act. In designating such
areas, the President shall ensure that all
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines,
and waters of the exclusive economic zone
are subject to an Area Contingency Plan
under that section.
(B)	Not later than 18 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, each
Area Committee established under that
section shall submit to the President the
Area Contingency Plan required under
that section.
(C)	Not later than 24 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the
President shall—
(i)	promptly review each plan;
(ii)	require amendments to any plan
that does not meet the requirements of
section 311(j)(4) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act; and
(iii)	approve each plan that meets the
requirements of that section."]
(5) Tank Vessel and Facility Response
Plans. —
(A)	The President shall issue regula-
tions which require an owner or operator
of a tank vessel or facility described in
subparagraph (B) to prepare and submit
to the president a plan for responding, to
the maximum extent practicable, to a
worst case discharge, and to a substantial
threat of such a discharge, of oil or a haz-
ardous substance.
(B)	The tank vessels and facilities re-
ferred to in subparagraph (A) are the fol-
lowing:
(i)	A tank vessel, as defined under sec-
tion 2101 of title 46, United States Code.
(ii)	An offshore facility.
(iii)	An onshore facility that, because
of its location, could reasonably be expect-
ed to cause substantial harm to the envi-
ronment by discharging into or on the
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or
the exclusive economic zone.
(C)	A response plan required under
this paragraph shall—
(i)	be consistent with the requirements
of the National Contingency Plan and
Area Contingency Plans;
(ii)	identify the qualified individual
having full authority to implement remov-
al actions, and require immediate commu-
nications between the individual and the
appropriate Federal official and the per-
sons providing personnel and equipment
pursuant to clause (iii);
(iii)	identify, and ensure by contract or
other means approved by the President
the availability of, private personnel and
equipment necessary to remove to the
maximum extent practicable a worst case
discharge (including a discharge resulting
from fire or explosion), and to mitigate or
prevent a substantial threat of such a dis-
charge;
(iv)	describe the training, equipment
testing, periodic unannounced drills, and
response actions of persons on the vessel
or at the facility, to be carried out under
the plan to ensure the safety of the vessel
or facility and to mitigate or prevent the
discharge, or the substantial threat of a
discharge;
(v)	be updated periodically; and
(vi)	be resubmitted for approval of each
significant change.
(D)	With respect to any response plan
submitted under this paragraph for an on-
shore facility that, because of its location,
could reasonably be expected to cause sig-
nificant and substantial harm to the envi-
ronment by discharging into or on the
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
or the exclusive economic zone, and with
respect to each response plan submitted
under this paragraph for a tank vessel or
offshore facility, the President shall—
(i)	promptly review such response plan;
(ii)	require amendments to any plan
that does not meet the requirements of
this paragraph;
(iii)	approve any plan that meets the
requirements of this paragraph; and
(iv)	review each plan periodically there-
after.
(E)	A tank vessel, offshore facility, or
onshore facility required to prepare a re-
sponse plan under this subsection may not
handle, store, or transport oil unless—
(i)	in the case of a tank vessel, offshore
facility, or onshore facility for which a
response plan is reviewed by the President
under subparagraph (D), the plan has
been approved by the President; and
(ii)	the vessel or facility is operating in
compliance with the plan.
(F)	Notwithstanding subparagraph
(E), the President may authorize a tank
vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility
to operate without a response plan ap-
proved under this paragraph, until not lat-
er than 2 years after the date of the sub-
mission to the President of a plan for the
tank vessel or facility, if the owner or op-
erator certifies that the owner or operator

-------
has ensured by contract or other means
approved by the President the availability
of private personnel and equipment neces-
sary to respond, to the maximum extent
practicable, to a worst case discharge or a
substantial threat of such a discharge.
(G)	The owner or operator of a tank
vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility
may not claim as a defense to liability
under title I of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 that the owner or operator was act-
ing in accordance with an approved re-
sponse plan.
(H)	The Secretary shall maintain, in
the Vessel Identification system estab-
lished under chapter 125 of title 46, Unit-
ed States Code, the dates of approval and
review of a response plan under this para-
graph for each tank vessel that is a vessel
of the United States.
[§311 (j)(5) added by PL 101-380]
' [Editor's note: Section 4204(b)(4) of
PL 101-380 provides:
"(4) Tank Vessel and Facility Re-
sponse Plans; Transition Provision; Effec-
tive Date of Prohibition.—
(A)	Not later than 24 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the
President shall issue regulations for tank
vessel and facility response plans under
section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by this
Act.
(B)	During the period beginning 30
months after the date of the enactment of
this paragraph and ending 36 months af-
ter the date of enactment, a tank vessel or
facility for which a response plan is re-
quired to be prepared under section
311(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended by this Act, may
not handle, store, or transport oil unless
the owner or operator thereof has submit-
ted such a plan to the President.
(C)	Subparagraph (E) of section
3ll(j)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended by this Act,
shall take effect 36 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act."]
(6) Equipment Requirements and In-
spection.—Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this section, the
President shall require—
(A) periodic inspection of containment
booms, skimmers, vessels, and other ma-
jor equipment used to remove discharges;
and
(B) vessels operating on navigable wa-
ters and carrying oil or a hazardous sub-
stance in bulk as cargo to carry appropri-
ate removal equipment that employs the
best technology economically feasible and
that is compatible with the safe operation
of the vessel.
[§31 l(j)(6) added by PL 101-380]
(7)	Area Drills.— The President shall
periodically conduct drills of removal ca-
pability, without prior notice, in areas for
which Area Contingency Plans are re-
quired under this subsection and under
relevant tank vessel and facility response
plans. The drills may include participa-
tion by Federal, State, and local agencies,
the owners and operators of vessels and
facilities in the area, and private industry.
The President may publish annual reports
on these drills, including assessments of
the effectiveness of the plans and a list of
amendments made to improve plans.
[§311(j)(7) added by PL 101-380]
(8)	United States Government not Lia-
ble.—The United States Government is
not liable for any damages arising from
actions or omissions relating to any re-
sponse plan required by this section.
[§31 l(j)(8) added by PL 101-380]
(k) [Repealed]
[§311 (k) repealed by PL 101-380]
[Editor's note: Section 2002(b)(2) of
PL 101-380 repealed 311 (k) of this Act
and stipulated, "(2) ... Any amounts
remaining in the revolving fund estab-
lished under that subsection shall be de-
posited in the Fund. The Fund shall as-
sume all liability incurred by the revolv-
ing fund established under that
subsection."]
(1) The President is authorized to dele-
gate the administration of this section to
the heads of those Federal departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities which he
determines to be appropriate. Each such
department, agency, and instrumentality,
in order to avoid duplication of effort,
shall, whenever appropriate, utilize the
personnel, services, and facilities of other
Federal departments, agencies, and in-
strumentalities.
[§311(1) amended by PL 101-380]
(m) Administrative Provisions.—
[§311(m) revised by PL 101-380]
(1) For Vessels. — Anyone authorized
by the President to enforce the provisions
of this section with respect to any vessel
may, except as to public vessels—
(A)	board and inspect any vessel upon
the navigable waters of the United States
or the waters of the contiguous zone,
(B)	with or without a warrant, arrest
any person who in the presence or view of
the authorized person violates the provi-
sions of this section or any regulation is-
sued thereunder, and
(C)	execute any warrant or other pro-
cess issued by an officer or court of com-
petent jurisdiction.
(2) For Facilities.—
(A)	Recordkeeping. — Whenever, re-
quired to carry out the purposes of this
section, the Administrator or the Secre-
tary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall require the
owner or operator of a facility to which
this section applies to establish and main-
tain such records, make such reports, in-
stall, use, and maintain such monitoring
equipment and methods, and provide such
other information as the Administrator or
Secretary, as the case may be, may re-
quire to carry out the objectives of this
section.
(B)	Entry and Inspection. — Whenever
required to carry out the purposes of this
section, the Administrator or the Secre-
tary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating or an authorized
representative of the Administrator or
Secretary, upon presentation of appropri-
ate credentials, may—
(i)	enter and inspect any facility to
which this section applies, including any
facility at which any records are required
to be maintained under subparagraph
(A); and
(ii)	at reasonable times, have access to
and copy any records, take samples, and
inspect any monitoring equipment or
methods required under subparagraph
(A).
(C)	Arrests and Execution of War-
rants. — Anyone authorized by the Ad-
ministrator or the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operat-
ing to enforce the provisions of this
section with respect to any facility may—
(i) with or without a warrant, arrest
any person who violates the provisions of
this section or any regulation issued there-
under in the presence or view of the per-
son so authorized; and

-------
(ii) execute any warrant or process is-
sued by an officer or court of competent
jurisdiction.
(D) Public Access. — Any records, re-
ports, or information obtained under this
paragraph shall be subject to the same
public access and disclosure requirements
which are applicable to records, reports,
and information obtained pursuant to sec-
tion 308.
(n) The several district courts of the
United States are invested with jurisdic-
tion for any actions, other than actions
pursuant to subsection (i)(l), arising un-
der this section. In the case of Guam and
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
such actions may be brought in the dis-
trict court of Guam, and in the case of the
Virgin Islands such actions may be
brought in the district court of the Virgin
Islands. In the case of American Samoa
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-
lands, such actions may be brought in the
District Court of the United States for the
District of Hawaii and such court shall
have jurisdiction of such actions. In the
case of the Canal Zone, such actions may
be brought in the United States District
Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
(o) (1) Nothing in this section shall af-
fect or modify in any way the obligations
of any owner or operator of any vessel, or
of any owner or operator of any onshore
facility or offshore facility to any person
or agency under any provision of law for
damages to any publicly owned or private-
ly owned property resulting from a dis-
charge of any oil or hazardous substance
or from the removal of any such oil or
hazardous substance.
(2)	Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued as preempting any State or politi-
cal subdivision thereof from imposing any
requirement or liability with respect to
the discharge of oil or hazardous sub-
stance into any waters within such State,
or with respect to any removal activities
related to such discharge.
[§311 (o)(2) amended by PL 101-380]
(3)	Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued as affecting or modifying any other
existing authority of any Federal depart-
ment, agency, or instrumentality, relative
to onshore or offshore facilities under this
Act or any other provision of law, or to
affect any State or local law not in conflict
with this section.
(p) [Repealed]
[§311 (p) repealed by PL 101-380]
(q) The President is authorized to es-
tablish, with respect to any class or cate-
gory of onshore or offshore facilities, a
maximum limit of liability under subsec-
tions (0(2) and (3) of this section of less
than $50,000,000, but not less than
$8,000,000.
(r) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to impose or authorize the imposi-
tion of any limitation on liability under
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or
the Deepwater Port Act of 1974.
(s)The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
established under section 9509 of the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
9509) shall be available to carry out sub-
sections (b), (c), (d), (j), and (1) as those
subsections apply to discharges, and sub-
stantial threats of discharges, of oil. Any
amounts received by the United States
under this section shall be deposited in the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
[§31 l(s) added by PL 101-380]
§312 [33 U.S.C. 1322] Marine Sanitation
Devices
(a) For the purpose of this section, the
term—
(1)	"new vessel" includes every descrip-
tion of water-craft or other artificial con-
trivance used, or capable of being used, as
a means of transportation on the naviga-
ble waters, the construction of which is
initiated after promulgation of standards
and regulation under this section;
(2)	"existing vessel" includes every de-
scription of watercraft or other artificial
contrivance used, or capable of being
used, as a means of transportation on the
navigable waters, the construction of
which is initiated before promulgation of
standards and regulations under this sec-
tion;
(3)	"public vessel" means a vessel
owned or bare-boat-chartered and oper-
ated by the United States, by a State or
political subdivision thereof, or by a for-
eign nation, except when such vessel is
engaged in commerce;
(4)	"United States" includes the
States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Vir-
gin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Canal Zone, and the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands;
(5)	"marine sanitation device" includes
any equipment for installation on board a
vessel which is designed to receive, retain.
treat, or discharge sewage, and any pro-
cess to treat such sewage;
(6)	"sewage" means human body
wastes and the wastes from toilets and
other receptacles intended to receive or
retain body wastes except that, with re-
spect to commercial vessels on the Great
Lakes such term shall include graywater;
(7)	"manufacture" means any person
engaged in the manufacturing, assem-
bling, or importation of marine sanitation
devices or of vessels subject to standards
and regulations promulgated under this
section;
(8)	"person" means an individual, part-
nership, firm, corporation, or association,
but does not include an individual on
board a public vessel;
(9)	"discharge" includes, but is not lim-
ited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping;
(10)	"commercial vessels" means those
vessels used in the business of transport-
ing property for compensation or hire, or
in transporting property in the business of
the owner, lessee, or operator of the ves-
sel;
(11)	"graywater" means galley, bath,
and shower water.
(b) (1) As soon as possible, after the en-
actment of this section and subject to the
provisions of section 101 (j) of this Act,
the Administrator, after consultation with
the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is .operating, after giving
appropriate consideration to the economic
costs involved, ang within the limits of
available technology, shall promulgate
Federal standards of performance for ma-
rine sanitation devices (hereafter in this
section referred to as "standards") which
shall be designed to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sew-
age into or upon the navigable waters
from new vessels and existing vessels, ex-
cept vessels not equipped with installed
toilet facilities. Such standards and stan-
dards established under subsection
(c)(1)(B) of this section shall be consis-
tent with maritime safety and the marine
and navigation laws and regulations and
shall be coordinated with the regulations
issued under this subsection by the Secre-
tary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating. The Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall promulgate regulations,
which are consistent with standards
promulgated under this subsection and

-------
subsection (c) of this section and with
maritime safety and the marine and navi-
gation laws and regulations governing the
design, construction, installation, and op-
eration of any marine sanitation device on
board such vessels.
(2) Any existing vessel equipped with a
marine sanitation device on the date of
promulgation of initial standards and reg-
ulations under this section, which device
is in compliance with such initial stan-
dards and regulations, shall be deemed in
compliance with this section until such
time as the device is replaced or is found
not to be in compliance with such initial
standards and regulations.
(c)(1)(A) Initial standards and regu-
lations under this section shall become ef-
fective for new vessels two years after pro-
mulgation; and for existing vessels five
years after promulgation. Revisions of
standards and regulations shall be effec-
tive upon promulgation, unless another ef-
fective date is specified, except that no
revision shall take effect before the effec-
tive date of the standard or regulation be-
ing revised.
(B) The Administrator shall, with re-
spect to commercial vessels on the Great
Lakes, establish standards which require
at a minimum the equivalent of secondary
treatment as defined under section 304(d)
of this Act. Such standards and regula-
tions shall take effect for existing vessels
after such time as the Administrator de-
termines to be reasonable for the upgrad-
ing of marine sanitation devices to attain
such standard.
(2) The Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating with
regard to his regulatory authority estab-
lished by this section, after consultation
with the Administrator, may distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes of vessels
as well as between new and existing ves-
sels, and may waive applicability of stan-
dards and regulations as necessary or ap-
propriate for such classes, types, and sizes
of vessels (including existing vessels
equipped with marine sanitation devices
on the date of promulgation of the initial
standards required by this section), and,
upon application, for individual vessels.
(d) The provisions of this section and
the standards and regulations promulgat-
ed hereunder apply to vessels owned and
operated by the United States unless the
Secretary of Defense finds that compli-
ance would not be in the interest of na-
tional security. With respect to vessels
owned and operated by the Department of
Defense, regulations under the last sen-
tence of subsection (b)(1) of this section
and certifications under subsection (g)(2)
of this section shall be promulgated and
issued by the Secretary of Defense.
(e) Before the standards and regula-
tions under this section arc promulgated,
the Administrator and the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall consult with the Secre-
tary of State; the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare; the Secretary of
Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury;
the Secretary of Commerce; other inter-
ested Federal agencies; and the States
and industries interested; and otherwise
comply with the requirements of section
553 of title 5 of the United States Code.
(0(1) (A) Except as provided in sub-
paragraph (B), after the effective date of
the initial standards and regulations
promulgated under this section, no State
or political subdivision thereof shall adopt
or enforce any statute or regulation of
such State or political subdivision with re-
spect to the design, manufacture, or in-
stallation or use of any marine sanitation
devise on any vessel subject to the provi-
sions of this section.
[§312(f)(1)(A) designated and amended
by PL 100-4]
(B) A State may adopt and enforce a
statute or regulation with respect to the
design, manufacture, or installation or use
of any marine sanitation device on a
houseboat, if such statute or regulation is
more stringent than the standards and
regulations promulgated under this sec-
tion. For purposes of this paragraph, the
term 'houseboat' means a vessel which,
for a period of time determined by the
State in which the vessel is located, is
used primarily as a residence and is not
used primarily as a means of transporta-
tion.
[§312(0( 1 )(B) added by PL 100-4]
(2) If after promulgation of the initial
standards and regulations and prior to
their effective date, a vessel is equipped
with a marine sanitation device in compli-
ance with such standards and regulations
and the installation and operation of such
device is in accordance with such stan-
dards and regulations, such standards and
regulations shall, for the purposes of para-
graph (1) of this subsection, become effec-
tive with respect to such vessel on the date
of such compliance.
(3)	After the effective date of the initial
standards and regulations promulgated
under this section, if any Slate determines
that the protection and enhancement of
the quality of some or all of the waters
within such State require greater environ-
mental protection, such Stale may com-
pletely prohibit the discharge from all ves-
sels of any sewage, whether treated or
not, into such waters, except that no such
prohibition shall apply until the Adminis-
trator determines that adequate facilities
for the safe and sanitary removal and
treatment of sewage from all vessels are
reasonably available for such water to
which such prohibition would apply. Upon
application of the State, the Administra-
tor shall make such determination within
90 days of the date of such application.
(4)	(A) If the Administrator deter-
mines upon application by a State that
the protection and enhancement of the
quality of specified waters within such
State requires such a prohibition, he shall
by regulation completely prohibit the dis-
charge from a vessel of any sewage
(whether treated or not) into such waters.
(B) Upon application by a State, the
Administrator shall, by regulation, estab-
lish a drinking water intake zone in any
waters within such State and prohibit the
discharge of sewage from vessels within
that zone.
(g)(1) No manufacturer of a marine
sanitation device shall sell, offer for sale,
or introduce or deliver for introduction in
interstate commerce, or import into the
United States for sale or resale any ma-
rine sanitation device manufactured after
the effective date of the standards and
regulations promulgated under this sec-
tion unless such device is in all material
respects substantially the same as a test
device certified under this subsection.
(2) Upon application of the manufac-
turer, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall
so certify a marine sanitation device if he
determines, in accordance with the provi-
sions of this paragraph, that it meets the
appropriate standards and regulations
promulgated under this section. The Sec-
retary of the department m which the
Coast Guard is operating shall test or re-
quire such testing of the device in accor-
dance with procedures set forth by the
Administrator as to standards of perfor-

-------
mance and for such other purposes as may
be appropriate. If the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is
operating determines that the device is
satisfactory from the standpoint of safety
and any other requirements of maritime
law or regulation, and after consideration
of the design, installation, operation, ma-
terial, or other appropriate factors, he
shall certify the device. Any device manu-
factured by such manufacturer which is
in all material respects substantially the
same as the certified test device shall be
deemed to be in conformity with the ap-
propriate standards and regulations estab-
lished under this section.
(3) Every manufacturer shall establish
and maintain such records, make such re-
ports, and provide such information as the
Administrator or the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the Coast Guard is op-
erating may reasonably require to enable
him to determine whether such manufac-
turer has acted or is acting in compliance
with this section and regulations issued
thereunder and shall, upon request of an
officer or employee duly designated by the
Administrator or the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the Coast Guard is op-
erating, permit such officer or employee
at reasonable times to have access to and
copy such records. All information report-
ed to or otherwise obtained by the Admin-
istrator or the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operat-
ing or their representatives pursuant to
this subsection which contains or relates
to a trade secret or other matter referred
in section 1905 of title 18 of the United
States Code shall be considered confiden-
tial for the purpose of that section, except
that such information may be disclosed to
other officers or employees concerned
with carrying out this section. This para-
graph shall not apply in the case of the
construction of a vessel by an individual
for his own use.
(h) After the effective date of standards
and regulations promulgated under this
section, it shall be unlawful—
(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel
subject to such standards and regulations
to manufacture for sale, to sell or offer for
sale, or to distribute for sale or resale any
such vessel unless it is equipped with a
marine sanitation device which is in all
material respects substantially the same
as the appropriate test device certified
pursuant to this section;
(2)	for any person, prior to the sale or
delivery of a vessel subject to such stan-
dards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render
inoperative any certified marine sanita-
tion device or element of design of such
device installed in such vessel;
(3)	for any person to fail or refuse to
permit access to or copying of records or
to fail to make reports or provide informa-
tion required under this section; and
(4)	for a vessel subject to such stan-
dards and regulations to operate on the
navigable waters of the United States, if
such vessel is not equipped with an oper-
able marine sanitation device certified
pursuant to this section.
(i)The district courts of the United
States shall have jurisdictions to restrain
violations of subsection (g)(1) of this sec-
tion and subsections (h)( 1) through (3) of
this section. Actions to restrain such viola-
tions shall be brought by, and in, the
name of the United States. In case of con-
tumacy or refusal to obey a subpena
served upon any person under this subsec-
tion, the district court of the United
States for any district in which such per-
son is found or resides or transacts busi-
ness, upon application by the United
States and after notice to such person,
shall have jurisdiction to issue an order
requiring such person to appear and give
testimony or to appear and produce docu-
ments, and any failure to obey such order
of the court may be punished by such
court as a contempt thereof.
(j) Any person who violates subsection
(g)(1) of this section or clause (1) or (2)
of subsection (h) of this section shall be
liable to a civil penalty of not more than
$5,000 for each violation. Any person who
violates clause (4) of subsection (h) of this
section or any regulation issued pursuant
to this section shall be liable to a civil
penalty of not more than $2,000 for each
violation. Each violation shall be a sepa-
rate offense. The Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operat-
ing may assess and compromise any such
penalty. No penalty shall be assessed until
the person charged shall have been given
notice and an opportunity for a hearing on
such charge. In determining the amount
of the penalty, or the amount agreed upon
in compromise, the gravity of the viola-
tion, and the demonstrated good faith of
the person charged in attempting to
achieve rapid compliance, after notifica-
tion of a violation, shall be considered by
said Secretary.
(k) The provisions of this section shall
be enforced by the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the Coast Guard is op-
erating and he may utilize by agreement,
with or without reimbursement, law en-
forcement officers or other personnel and
facilities of the Administrator, other Fed-
eral agencies, or the States to carry out
the provisions of this section. The provi-
sions of this section may also be enforced
by a State.
[§312(k) amended by PL 100-4]
(1) Anyone authorized by the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to enforce the provi-
sions of this section may, except as to pub-
lic vessels, (1) board and inspect any ves-
sel upon the navigable waters of the Unit-
ed States and (2) execute any warrant or
other process issued by an officer or court
of competent jurisdiction.
(m) In the case of Guam and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, actions
arising under this section may be brought
in the district court of Guam, and in the
case of the Virgin Islands such actions
may be brought in the district court of the
Virgin Islands. In the case of American
Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pa-
cific Islands, such actions may be brought
in the District Court of the United States
for the District of Hawaii and such court
shall have jurisdiction of such actions. In
the case of the Canal Zone, such action
may be brought in the District Court for
the District of the Canal Zone.
§313 [33 U.S.C. 1323] Federal Facilities
Pollution Control
(a) Each department, agency, or instru-
mentality of the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches of the Federal Govern-
ment (1) having jurisdiction over any
property or facility, or (2) engaged in any
activity resulting, or which may result, in
the discharge or runoff of pollutants, and
each officer, agent, or employee thereof in
the performance of his official duties,
shall be subject to, and comply with, all
Federal, State, interstate, and local re-
quirements, administrative authority, and
process and sanctions respecting the con-
trol and abatement of water pollution in
the same manner, and to the same extent
as any nongovernmental entity including
the payment of reasonable service
charges. The preceding sentence shall ap-

-------
ply (A) to any requirement whether sub-
stantive or procedural (including any re-
cordkeeping or reporting requirement,
any requirement respecting permits and
any other requirement, whatsoever), (B)
to the exercise of any Federal, State, or
local administrative authority, and (C) to
any process and sanction, whether en-
forced in Federal, State, or local courts or
in any other manner. This subsection shall
apply notwithstanding any immunity of
such agencies, officers, agents, or employ-
ees under any law or rule of law. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to pre-
vent any department, agency, or instru-
mentality of the Federal Government, or
any officer, agent, or employee thereof in
the performance of his official duties,
from reporting to the appropriate Federal
district court any proceeding to which the
department, agency, or instrumentality or
officer, agent, or employee thereof is sub-
ject pursuant to this section, and any such
proceeding may be removed in accor-
dance with 28 U.S.C. 1441 et seq. No
officer, agent, or employee of the United
States shall be personally liable for any
civil penalty arising from the performance
of his official duties, for which he is not
otherwise liable, and the Untied States
shall be liable only for those civil penalties
arising under Federal law or imposed by a
State or local court to enforce an order or
the process of such court. The President
may exempt any effluent source of any
department, agency, or instrumentality in
the executive branch from compliance
with any such a requirement if he deter-
mines it to be in the paramount interest of
the United States to do so; except that no
exemption may be granted from the re-
quirements of section 306 or 307 of this
Act. No such exemptions shall be granted
due to lack of appropriation unless the
President shall have specifically requested
such appropriation as a part of the bud-
getary process and the Congress shall
have failed to make available such re-
quested appropriation. Any exemption
shall be for a period not in excess of one
year, but additional exemptions may be
granted for periods of not to exceed one
year upon the President's making a new
determination. The President shall report
each January to the Congress all exemp-
tions from the requirements of this section
granted during the preceding calendar
year, together with his reason for granting
such exemption. In addition lo any such
exemption of a particular effluent source,
the President may, if he determines it to
be in the paramount interest of the Unit-
ed States to do so, issue regulations ex-
empting from compliance with the re-
quirements of this section any weaponry,
equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or
other classes or categories of property,
and access to such property, which are
owned or operated by the Armed Forces
of the United States (including the Coast
Guard) or by the National Guard of any
State and which are uniquely military in
nature. The President shall reconsider the
need for such regulations at three-year in-
tervals.
(b) (1) The Administrator shall coordi-
nate with the head of each department,
agency, or instrumentality of the Federal
Government having jurisdiction over any
property or facility utilizing federally
owned wastewater facilities to develop a
program of cooperation for utilizing
wastewater control systems utilizing those
innovative treatment processes and tech-
niques for which guidelines have been
promulgated under section 304(d)(3).
Such program shall include an inventory
of property and facilities which could uti-
lize such processes and techniques.
(2) Construction shall not be initiated
for facilities for treatment of wastewater
at any Federal property or facility after
September 30, 1979, if alternative meth-
ods for wastewater treatment at such
property or facility utilizing innovative
treatment processes and techniques, in-
cluding but not limited to methods utiliz-
ing recycle and reuse techniques and land
treatment are not utilized, unless the life
cycle cost of the alternative treatment
works exceeds the life cycle cost of the
most cost effective alternative by more
than 15 per centum. The Administrator
may waive the application of this para-
graph in any case where the Administra-
tor determines it to be in the public inter-
est, or that compliance with this para-
graph would interfere with the orderly
compliance with conditions of a permit
issued pursuant to section 402 of this Act.
§314 [33 U.S.C. 1324] Clean Lakes
(a) Establishment and Scope of Pro-
gram.—
[§314(a) revised by PL 100-4]
(1) State program requirements. —
Each Slate on a biennial basis shall pre-
pare and submit to the Administrator for
his approval—
(A)	an identification and classification
according to eutrophic condition of all
publicly owned lakes in such State;
(B)	a description of procedures,
processes, and methods (including land
use requirements), to control sources of
pollution of such lakes;
(C)	a description of methods and proce-
dures, in conjunction with appropriate
Federal agencies, to restore the quality of
such lakes;
(D)	methods and procedures to miti-
gate the harmful effects of high acidity,
including innovative methods of neutraliz-
ing and restoring buffering capacity of
lakes and methods of removing from lakes
toxic metals and other toxic substances
mobilized by high acidity;
(E)	a list and description of those pub-
licly owned lakes in such State for which
uses are known to be impaired, including
those lakes which are known not to meet
applicable water quality standards or
which require implementation of control
programs to maintain compliance with ap-
plicable standards and those lakes in
which water quality has deteriorated as a
result of high acidity that may reasonably
be due to acid deposition; and
(F)	an assessment of the status and
trends of water quality in lakes in such
State, including but not limited to, the
nature and extent of pollution loading
from point and nonpoint sources and the
extent to which the use of lakes is im-
paired as a result of such pollution, partic-
ularly with respect to toxic pollution.
(2)	Submission as Part of 305(b)(1)
Report. — The information required un-
der paragraph (1) shall be included in the
report required under section 305(b)(1)
of this Act. beginning with the report re-
quired under such section bv April 1,
1988.
(3)	Report of Administrator. — Not
later than 180 days after receipt from the
States of the biennial information re-
quired under paragraph (1), the Adminis-
trator shall submit to the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate a report on the status of
water quality in lakes in the Uniied
States, including the effectiveness of the
methods and procedures described in
paragraph (1)(D).

-------
(4) Eligibility Requirement. — Begin-
ning after April 1. 1988. a State must
have submitted the information required
under paragraph (1) in order to receive
grant assistance under this section.
(b)	The Administrator shall provide fi-
nancial assistance to Slates in order to
carry out methods and procedures ap-
proved by him under subsection (a) of this
section. The Administrator shall provide
financial assistance to States to prepare
the identification and classification
surveys required in subsection (a)(1) of
this section.
[§314(b) amended b\ PL 100-41]
(c)(1)	The amount granted to any
State for any fiscal year under subsection
(b) of this section shall not exceed 70 per
centum of the funds expended by such
State in such year for carrying out ap-
proved methods and procedures under
subsection (a) of this Section.
[§314(c)(1) amended by PL 100-4]
(2) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated $50,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1973; $100,000,000 for the
fiscal year 1974; $150,000,000 for the fis-
cal year 1975, $50,000,000 for fiscal year
1977, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1978,
$60,000,000 for fiscal year 1979,
$60,000,000 for fiscal year 1980,
$30,000,000 for fiscal year 1981,
$30,000,00 for fiscal year 1982, such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years
1983 through 1985, and $30,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of the fiscal years
1986 through 1990 for grants to States
under subsection (b) of this section which
sums shall remain available until expend-
ed. The Administrator shall provide for
an equitable distribution of such sums to
the States with approved methods and
procedures under subsection (a) of this
section.
[§314(c)(2) amended by PL 100-4]
(d)	Demonstration Program.—
(§314(d) added by PL 100-4]
(1) General Requirements. — The Ad-
ministrator is authorized and directed to
establish and conduct at locations
throughout the Nation a lake water quali-
ty demonstration program. The program
shall, at a minimum—
(A) develop cost effective technologies
for the control of pollutants to preserve or
enhance lake water quality while optimiz-
ing multiple lakes uses;
(B)	control nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion which are contributing to the degra-
dation of water quality in lakes;
(C)	evaluate the feasibility of imple-
menting regional consolidated pollution
control strategies;
(D)	demonstrate environmentally pre-
ferred techniques for the removal and dis-
posal of contaminated lake sediments;
(E)	develop improved methods for the
removal of silt, stumps, aquatic growth,
and other obstructions which impair the
quality of lakes;
(F)	construct and evaluate silt traps
and other devices or equipment to prevent
or abate the deposit of sediment in lakes;
and
(G)	demonstrate the costs and benefits
of utilizing dredged material from lakes
in the reclamation of despoiled land.
(2)	Geographical Requirements. —
Demonstration projects authorized by this
subsection shall be undertaken to reflect a
variety of geographical and environmen-
tal conditions. As a priority, the Adminis-
trator shall undertake demonstration
projects at Lake Champlain, New York
and Vermont; Lake Houston, Texas; Bea-
ver Lake, Arkansas; Greenwood Lake and
Belcher Creek, New Jersey; Deal Lake.
New Jersey; Alcyon Lake, New Jersey;
Gorton's Pond, Rhode Island; Lake
Washington, Rhode Island; Lake
Bomoseen, Vermont; Sauk Lake, Minne-
sota; and Lake Worth, Texas.
[§314(d)(2) amended by PL 101-596]
(3)	Reports. — The Administrator
shall report annually to the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate on work undertaken pursu-
ant to this subsection. Upon completion of
the program authorized by this subsec-
tion, the Administrator shall submit to
such committees a final report on the re-
sults of such program, along with recom-
mendations for further measures to im-
prove the water quality of the Nation's
lakes.
(4)	Authorization of Appropriations.—
(A)	In General. — There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this sub-
section not to exceed $40,000,000 for fis-
cal years beginning after September 30,
1986, to remain available until expended.
(B)	Special Authorizations.—
(i) Amount. — There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out subsection
(b) with respect to subsection (a)(1)(D)
not to exceed $15,000,000 for fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1986, to
remain available until expended.
(ii)	Distribution of Funds. — The Ad-
ministrator shall provide for an equitable
distribution of sums appropriated pursu-
ant to this subparagraph among States
carrying out approved methods and proce-
dures. Such distribution shall be based on
the relative needs of each such State for
the mitigation of the harmful effects on
lakes and other surface waters of high
acidity that may reasonably be due to
acid deposition or acid mine drainage.
(iii)	Grants as Additional Assistance.
— The amount of any grant to a State
under this subparagraph shall be in addi-
tion to, and not in lieu of, any other Fed-
eral financial assistance.
§315(33 U.S.C. 1325] National Study
Commission
(a)	There is established a National
Study Commission, which shall make a
full and complete investigation and study
of all of the technological aspects of
achieving, and all aspects of the total eco-
nomic, social, and environmental effects
of achieving or not achieving, the effluent
limitations and goals set forth for 1983 in
section 301(b)(2) of this Act.
(b)	Such Commission shall be com-
posed of fifteen members, including five
members of the Senate, who are members
of the Public Works committee, appointed
by the President of the Senate, five mem-
bers of the House, who are members of
the Public Works committee, appointed
by the Speaker of the House, and five
members of the public appointed by the
President. The Chairman of such Com-
mission shall be elected from among its
members.
(c)	In the conduct of such study, the
Commission is authorized to contract with
the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Engineering
(acting through the National Research
Council), the National Institute of Ecolo-
gy, Brookings Institution, and other non-
governmental entities, for the investiga-
tion of matters within their competence.
(d)	The heads of the departments,
agencies and instrumentalities of the ex-
ecutive branch of the Federal Govern-
ment shall cooperate with the Commis-
sion in carrying out the requirements of
this section, and shall furnish to the Com-
mission such information as the Commis-

-------
sion deems necessary to carry out this sec-
tion.
(e)	A report shall be submitted to the
Congress of the results of such investiga-
tion and study, together with recommen-
dations, not later than three years after
the date of enactment of this title.
(f)The	members of the Commission
who are not officers or employees of the
United States, while attending confer-
ences or meetings of the Commission or
while otherwise serving at the request of
the Chairman shall be entitled to receive
compensation at a rate not in excess of the
maximum rate of pay for grade GS-18, as
provided in the General Schedule under
section 5332 of title V of the United
States Code, including traveltime and
while away from their homes or regular
places of business they may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu
of subsistence as authorized by law (5
U.S.C. 73b—2) for persons in the Govern-
ment service employed intermittently.
(g)	In addition to authority to appoint
personnel subject to the provisions of title
5, United States Code, governing appoint-
ments in the competitive service, and to
pay such personnel in accordance with the
provisions of chapter SI and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay
rates, the Commission shall have authori-
ty to enter into contracts with private or
public organizations who shall furnish the
Commission with such administrative and
technical personnel as may be necessary
to carry out the purpose of this section.
Personnel furnished by such organizations
under this subsection are not, and shall
not be considered to be. Federal employ-
ees for any purposes, but in the perfor-
mance of their duties shall be guided by
the standards which apply to employees of
the legislative branches under rules 41
and 43 of the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives, respectively.
(h)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated, for use in carrying out this section,
not to exceed SI7,250,000.
§316 [33 U.S.C. 1326] Thermal
Discharges
(a) With respect to any point source
Otherwise subject to the provisions of sec-
tion 301 or section 306 of this Act, when-
ever the owner or operator of any such
source, after opportunity for public hear-
ing, can demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator (or, if appropriate, the
State) that any effluent limitation pro-
posed for the control of the thermal com-
ponent of any discharge from such source
will require effluent limitations more
stringent than necessary to assure the pro-
jection and propagation of a balanced, in-
digenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife in and on the body of water into
which the discharge is to be made, the
Administrator (or, if appropriate, the
State) may impose an effluent limitation
under such sections for such plant, with
respect to the thermal component of such
discharge (taking into account the inter-
action of such thermal component with
other pollutants), that will assure the pro-
tection and propagation of a balanced, in-
digenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife in and on that body of water.
(b)	Any standard established pursuant
to section 301 or section 306 of this Act
and applicable to a point source shall re-
quire that the location, design, construc-
tion, and capacity of cooling water intake
structures reflect the best technology
available for minimizing adverse environ-
mental impact.
(c)	Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act, any point source of a
discharge having a thermal component,
the modification of which point source is
commenced after the date of enactment
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 and which, as
modified, meets effluent limitations estab-
lished under section 301, or, if more strin-
gent, effluent limitations established un-
der section 303 and which effluent limita-
tions will assure protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in
or on the water into which the discharge
is made, shall not be subject to any more
stringent effluent limitation with respect
to the thermal component of its discharge
during a ten year period beginning on the
date of completion of such modification or
during the period of depreciation or amor-
tization of such facility for the purpose of
section 167 or 169 (or both) of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever pe-
riod ends first.
§317 [33 U.S.C. 1327] Financing Study
(a) The Administrator shall continue to
investigate and study the feasibility of al-
ternate methods of financing the cost of
preventing, controlling and abating pollu-
tion as directed in the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-224), including, but not limned to, the
feasibility of establishing a pollution
abatement trust fund. The results of such
investigation and study shall be reported
to the Congress not later than two years
after enactment of this title, together with
recommendations of the Administrator
for financing the programs for preventing,
controlling and abating pollution for the
fiscal years beginning after fiscal year
1976, including any necessary legislation.
(b) There is authorized to be appropri-
ated for use in carrying out this section,
not to exceed $1,000,000.
§318 [33 U.S.C. 1328] Aquaculture
(a)	The Administrator is authorized,
after public hearings, to permit the dis-
charge of a specific pollutant or pollutants
under controlled conditions associated
with an approved aquaculture project un-
der Federal or State supervision pursuant
to section 402 of this Act.
(b)	The Administrator shall by regula-
tion establish any procedures and guide-
lines which the Administrator deems nec-
essary to carry out this section. Such reg-
ulations shall require the application to
such discharge of each criterion, factor,
procedure, and requirement applicable to
a permit issued under section 402 of this
title, as the Administrator determines
necessary to carry out the objective of this
Act.
(c)	Each State desiring to administer
its own permit program within its jurisdic-
tion for discharge of a specific pollutant or
pollutants under controlled conditions as-
sociated with an approved aquaculture
project may do so if upon submission of
such program the Administrator deter-
mines such program is adequate to carry
out the objective of this Act.
§319 [33 U.S.C. 1329] Nonpoint Source
Management Programs
(a) State Assessment Reports.—
(1) Contents. — The Governor of each
State shall, after notice and opportunity
for public comment, prepare and submit
to the Administrator for approval, a re-
port which—
(A) identifies those navigable waters
within the State which, without additional
action to control nonpoint sources of pol-
lution, cannot reasonably be expected to
attain or maintain applicable water quali-
ty standards or the goals and require-
ments of this Act:

-------
(B)	identifies those categories and sub-
categories of nonpoint sources or. where
appropriate, particular nonpoint sources
which add significant pollution to each
portion of the navigable waters identified
under subparagraph (A) in amounts
which contribute to such portion not
meeting such water quality standards or
such goals and requirements;
(C)	describes the process, including in-
tergovernmental coordination and public
participation, for identifying best man-
agement practices and measures to con-
trol each category and suhcategory of
nonpoint sources and, where appropriate,
particular non point sources identified un-
der subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to
the maximum extent practicable, the level
of pollution resulting from such category,
suhcategory, or source; and
(D)	identifies and describes State and
local programs for controlling pollution
added from nonpoint sources to. and im-
proving the quality of. each such portion
of the navigable waters, including but not
limited to those programs which are re-
ceiving Federal assistance under subsec-
tions (h) and (i).
(2) Information Used in Preparation.
— In developing the report required by
this section, the State (A) may rely upon
information developed pursuant to sec-
tions 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), and
314, and other information as appropri-
ate, and (B) may utilize appropriate ele-
ments of the waste treatment manage-
ment plans developed pursuant to sections
208(b) and 303, to the extent such ele-
ments are consistent with and fulfill the
requirements of this section.
(b) State Management Programs.—
(1)	In General. — The Governor of
each State, for that Slate or in combina-
tion with adjacent States, shall, after no-
tice and opportunity for public comment,
prepare and submit to the Administrator
for approval a management program
which such State proposes to implement
in the first four fiscal years beginning af-
ter the date of submission of such man-
agement program for controlling pollution
added from nonpoint sources to the navi-
gable waters within the State and improv-
ing the quality of such waters.
(2)	Specific Contents. — Each manage-
ment program proposed for implementa-
tion under this subsection shall include
each of the following:
(A)	An identification of the best man-
agement practices and measures which
will be undertaken to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category,
subcategory, or particular nonpoint
source designated under paragraph
(1)(B), taking into account the impact of
the practice on ground water quality.
(B)	An identification of programs (in-
cluding, as appropriate, nonregulatory or
regulatory programs for enforcement,
technical assistance, financial assistance,
education, training, technology transfer,
and demonstration projects) to achieve
implementation of the best management
practices by the categories, subcategories,
and particular nonpoint sources designat-
ed under subparagraph (A).
(C)	A schedule containing annual mile-
stones for (i) utilization of the program
implementation methods identified in sub-
paragraph (B), and (ii) implementation of
the best management practices identified
in subparagraph (A) by the categories,
subcategories, or particular nonpoint
sources designated under paragraph
(1)(B). Such schedule shall provide for
utilization of the best management prac-
tices at the earliest practicable date.
(D)	A certification of the attorney gen-
eral of the State or States (or the chief
attorney of any State water pollution con-
trol agency which has independent legal
counsel) that the laws of the State or
States,, as the case may be, provide ade-
quate authority to implement such man-
agement program or, if there is not such
adequate authority, a list of such addi-
tional authorities as will be necessary to
implement such management program. A
schedule and commitment by the State or
States to seek such additional authorities
as expeditiously as practicable.
(E)	Sources of Federal and other assist-
ance and funding (other than assistance
provided under subsections (h) and (i)
which will be available in each of such
fiscal years for supporting implementation
of such practices and measures and the
purposes for which such assistance will be
used in each of such fiscal years.
(F)	An identification of Federal finan-
cial assistance programs and Federal de-
velopment projects for which the State
will review individual assistance applica-
tions or development projects for their ef-
fect on water quality pursuant to the pro-
cedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983,
to determine whether such assistance ap-
plications or development projects would
be consistent with the program prepared
under this subsection; for the purposes of
this subparagraph, identification shall not
be limited to the assistance programs or
development projects subject to Executive
Order 12372 but may include any pro-
grams listed in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance which may
have an effect on the purposes and objec-
tives of the Stale's nonpoint source pollu-
tion management program.
(3)	Utilization of Local and Private Ex-
perts. — In development and implement-
ing a management program under this
subsection, a State shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, involve local public
and private agencies and organizations
which have expertise in control of
nonpoint sources of pollution.
(4)	Development on Watershed Basis.
— A State shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, develop and implement a
management program under this subsec-
tion on a watershed-by-watershed basis
within such State.
(c)	Administrative Provisions.—
(1)	Cooperation Requirement. — Any
report required by subsection (a) and any
management program and report re-
quired by subsection (b) shall be devel-
oped in cooperation with local, substate
regional, and interstate entities which are
actively planning for the implementation
of nonpoint source pollution controls and
have either been certified by the Adminis-
trator in accordance with section 208,
have worked jointly with the State on wa-
ter quality management planning under
section 205(j), or have been designated by
the State legislative body or Governor as
water quality management planning
agencies for their geographic areas.
(2)	Time Period for Submission of Re-
ports and Management Programs. —
Each report and management program
shall be submitted to the Administrator
during the 18-month period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this section.
(d)	Approval or Disapproval of Reports
and Management Programs.—
(1) Deadline — Subject to paragraph
(2), not later than 180 days after the date
of submission to the Administrator of any
report or management program under this
section (other than subsections (h), (i),
and (k)), the Administrator shall either
approve or disapprove such report or man-

-------
agement program, as the case may be.
The Administrator may approve a portion
of a management program under this sub-
section. If the Administrator does not dis-
approve a report, management program,
or portion of a management program in
such 180-day period, such report, man-
agement program, or portion shall be
deemed approved for purposes of this sec-
tion.
(2)	Procedure for Disapproval. — If,
after notice and opportunity for public
comment and consultation with appropri-
ate Federal and State agencies and other
interested persons, the Administrator de-
termines that—
(A)	the proposed management program
or any portion thereof does not meet the
requirements of subsection (b)(2) of this
section or is not likely to satisfy, in whole
or in part, the goals and requirements of
this Act;
(B)	adequate authority does not exist,
or adequate resources are not available, to
implement such program or portion;
(C)	the schedule for implementing such
program or portion is not sufficiently ex-
peditious; or
(D)	the practices and measures pro-
posed in such program or portion are not
adequate to reduce the level of pollution
in navigable waters in the State resulting
from nonpoint sources and to improve the
quality of navigable waters in the State;
the Administrator shall within 6 months
of the receipt of the proposed program
notify the State of any revisions or modifi-
cations necessary to obtain approval. The
Stale shall thereupon have an additional 3
months to submit its revised management
program and the Administrator shall ap-
prove or disapprove such revised program
within three months of receipt.
(3)	Failure of State to Submit Report.
— If a Governor of State does not submit
the report required by subsection (a)
within the period specified by subsection
(c)(2), the Administrator shall, within 30
months after the date of the enactment of
this section, prepare a report for such
State which makes the identifications re-
quired by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B)
of subsection (a). Upon completion of the
requirement of the preceding sentence
and after notice and opportunity for com-
ment, the Administrator shall report to
Congress on his actions pursuant to this
section.
(e) Local Management Programs;
Technical Assistance. — If a State fails to
submit a management program under
subsection (b) or the Administrator does
not approve such a management program,
a local public agency or organization
which has expertise in, and authority to,
control water pollution, resulting from
nonpoint sources in any area of such State
which the Administrator determines is of
sufficient geographic size may, with ap-
proval of such State, request the Adminis-
trator to provide, and the Administrator
shall provide, technical assistance to such
agency or organization in developing for
such area a management program which
is described in subsection (b) and can be
approved pursuant to subsection (d). Af-
ter development of such management pro-
gram, such agency or organization shall
submit such management program to the
Administrator for approval. If the Admin-
istrator approves such management pro-
gram, such agency or organization shall
be eligible to receive financial assistance
under subsection (h) for implementation
of such management program as if such
agency or organization were a State for
which a report submitted under subsec-
tion (a) and a management program sub-
mitted under subsection (b) were ap-
proved under this section. Such financial
assistance shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions as assistance provid-
ed to a State under subsection (h).
(f)	Technical Assistance for States. —
Upon request of a State, the Administra-
tor may provide technical assistance to
such State in developing a management
program approved under subsection (b)
for those portions of the navigable waters
requested by such State.
(g)	Interstate Management Confer-
ence.—
(1) Convening of Conference; Notifica-
tion; Purpose. — If any portion of the
navigable waters in any State which is
implementing a management program ap-
proved under this section is not meeting
applicable water quality standards or the
goals and requirements of this Act as a
result, in whole or in part, of pollution
from nonpoint sources in another State,
such State may petition the Administra-
tor to convene, and the Administrator
shall convene, a management conference
of all States which contribute significant
pollution resulting from nonpoint sources
to such portion. If, on the basis of infor-
mation available, the Administrator de-
termines that a State is not meeting appli-
cable water quality standards or the goals
and requirements of this Act as a result,
in whole or in part, of significant pollution
from nonpoint sources in another State,
the Administrator shall notify such
States. The Administrator may convene a
management conference under this para-
graph not later than 180 days after giving
such notification, whether or not the State
which is not meeting such standards re-
quests such conference. The purpose of
such conference shall be to develop an
agreement among such States to reduce
the level of pollution in such portion re-
sulting from nonpoint sources and to im-
prove the water quality of such portion.
Nothing in such agreement shall super-
sede or abrogate rights to quantities of
water which have been established by in-
terstate water compacts. Supreme Court
decrees, or State water laws. This subsec-
tion shall not apply to any pollution which
is subject to the Colorado River Basin Sa-
linity Control Act. The requirement that
the Administrator convene a management
conference shall not be subject to the pro-
visions of section 505 of this Act.
(2) State Management Program Re-
quirement. — To the extent that the
States reach agreement through such con-
ference, the management programs of the
States which are parties to such agree-
ments and which contribute significant
pollution to the navigable waters or por-
tions thereof not meeting applicable water
quality standards or goals and require-
ments of this Act will be revised to reflect
such agreement. Such a management pro-
grams shall be consistent with Federal
and State law.
(h) Grant Program.—
(1) Grants for Implementation of Man-
agement Programs. — Upon application
of a State for which a report submitted
under subsection (a) and a management
program submitted under subsection (b)
is approved under this section, the Admin-
istrator shall make grants, subject to such
terms and conditions as the Administrator
considers appropriate, under this subsec-
tion to such State for the purpose of as-
sisting the State in implementing such
management program. Funds reserved
pursuant to section 205(j)(5) of this Act
may be used to develop and implement
such management program.

-------
(2)	Applications. — An application for
a grant under this subsection in any fiscal
year shall be in such form and shall con-
tain such other information as the Admin-
istrator may require, including an identifi-
cation and description of the best manage-
ment practices and measures which the
State proposes to assist, encourage, or re-
quire in such year with the Federal assist-
ance to be provided under the grant.
(3)	Federal Share. — The Federal
share of the cost of each management pro-
gram implemented with Federal assist-
ance under this subsection in any fiscal
year shall not exceed 60 percent of the
cost incurred by the State in implement-
ing such management program and shall
be made on condition that the non-Feder-
al share is provided from non-Federal
sources.
(4)	Limitation on Grant Amounts. —
Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, not more than 15 percent
of the amount appropriated to carry out
this subsection may be used to make
grants to any one State, including any
grants to any local public agency or orga-
nization with authority to control pollu-
tion from nonpoint sources in any area of
such State.
(5)	Priority for Effective Mechanisms.
— For each fiscal year beginning after
September 30, 1987, the Administrator
may give priority in making grants under
this subsection, and shall give consider-
ation in determining the Federal share of
any such grant, to States which have im-
plemented or are proposing to implement
management programs which will—
(A)	control particularly difficult or seri-
ous nonpoint source pollution problems,
including, but not limited to, problems re-
sulting from mining activities;
(B)	implement innovative methods or
practices for controlling nonpoint sources
of pollution, including regulatory pro-
grams where the Administrator deems ap-
propriate;
(C)	control interstate nonpoint source
pollution problems; or
(D)	carry out ground water quality pro-
tection activities which the Administrator
determines are part of a comprehensive
nonpoint source pollution control pro-
gram, including research, planning,
ground water assessments, demonstration
programs, enforcement, technical assist-
ance, education, and training to protect
ground water quality from nonpoint
sources of pollution.
(6)	Availability for Obligation. — The
funds granted to each State pursuant to
this subsection in a fiscal year shall re-
main available for obligation by such
State for the fiscal year for which appro-
priated. The amount of any such funds
not obligated by the end of such fiscal
year shall be available to the Administra-
tor for granting to other States under this
subsection in the next fiscal year.
(7)	Limitation on Use of Funds. —
States may use funds from grants made
pursuant to this section for financial as-
sistance to persons only to the extent that
such assistance is related to the costs of
demonstration projects.
(8)	Satisfactory Progress. — No grant
may be made under this subsection in any
fiscal year to a State which in the preced-
ing fiscal year received a grant under this
subsection unless the Administrator deter-
mines that such State made satisfactory
progress in such preceding fiscal year in
meeting the schedule specified by such
State under subsection (b)(2).
(9)	Maintenance of Effort. — No grant
may be made to a State under this subsec-
tion in any fiscal year unless such State
enters into such agreements with the Ad-
ministrator as the Administrator may re-
quire to ensure that such State will main-
tain its aggregate expenditures from all
other sources for programs for controlling
pollution added to the navigable waters in
such State from non- point sources and
improving the quality of such waters at or
above the average level of such expendi-
tures in its two fiscal years preceding the
date of enactment of this subsection.
(10)	Request for Information. — The
Administrator may request such informa-
tion, data, and reports as he considers nec-
essary to make the determination of con-
tinuing eligibility for grants under this
section.
(11)	Reporting and Other Require-
ments. — Each State shall report to the
Administrator on an annual basis con-
cerning (A) its progress in meeting the
schedule of milestones submitted pursu-
ant to subsection (b)(2)(C) of this sec-
tion, and (B) to the extent that appropri-
ate information is available, reductions in
nonpoint source pollutant loading and im-
provements in water quality for those nav-
igable waters or watersheds within the
State which were identified pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section result-
ing from implementation of the manage-
ment program.
(12) Limitation on Administrative
Costs. — For purposes of this subsection,
administrative costs in the form of sala-
ries, overhead, or indirect costs for ser-
vices provided and charged against activi-
ties and programs carried out with a grant
under this subsection shall not exceed in
any fiscal year 10 percent of the amount
of the grant in such year, except that costs
of implementing enforcement and regula-
tory activities, education, training, techni-
cal assistance, demonstration projects,
and technology transfer programs shall
not be subject to this limitation.
(i) Grants for Protecting Groundwater
Quality.—
(1)	Eligible Applicants and Activities.
—	Upon application of a State for which
a report submitted under subsection (a)
and a plan submitted under subsection (b)
is approved under this section, the Admin-
istrator shall make grants under this sub-
section to such State for the purpose of
assisting such State in carrying out
groundwater quality protection activities
which the Administrator determines will
advance the State toward implementation
of a comprehensive nonpoint source pollu-
tion control program. Such activities shall
include, but not be limited to. research
planning, groundwater assessments, dem-
onstration programs, enforcement, techni-
cal assistance, education and training to
protect the quality of groundwater and to
prevent contamination of groundwater
from nonpoint sources of pollution.
(2)	Applications. — An application for
a grant under this subsection shall be in
such form and shall contain such informa-
tion as the Administrator may require.
(3)	Federal Share; Maximum Amount.
—	The Federal share of the cost of assist-
ing a State in carrying out groundwater
protection, activities in any fiscal year un-
der this subsection shall be 50 percent of
the costs incurred by the State in carrying
out such activities, except that the maxi-
mum amount of Federal assistance which
any State may receive under this subsec-
tion in any fiscal year shall not exceed
$150,000.
(4)	Report. — The Administrator shall
include in each report transmitted under
subsection (m) a report on the activities
and programs implemented under this

-------
subsection during the preceding fiscal
year.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out subsections (h) and (i) not to
exceed S70,000,000 for fiscal year 1988,
$100,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal years 1 989 and 1990, and
SI30,000.000 for fiscal year 1991; except
that for each of such fiscal years not to
exceed $7,500,000 may be made available
to carry out subsection (i). Sums appro-
priated pursuant to this subsection shall
remain available until expended.
(k) Consistency of Other Programs and
Projects With Management Programs. —
The Administrator shall transmit to the
Office of Management and Budget and
the appropriate Federal departments and
agencies a list of those assistance pro-
grams and development projects identi-
fied by each State under subsection
(b)(2)(F) for which individual assistance
applications and projects will be reviewed
pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Executive Order 12372 as in effect on
September 17, 1983. Beginning not later
than sixty days after receiving notification
by the Administrator, each Federal de-
partment and agency shall modify exist-
ing regulations to allow States to review
individual development projects and as-
sistance applications under the identified
Federal assistance programs and shall ac-
commodate, according to the require-
ments and definitions of Executive Order
12372, as in effect on September 17,
1983, the concerns of the State regarding
the consistency of such applications or
projects with the State nonpoint source
pollution management program.
(1) Collection of Information. — The
Administrator shall collect and make
available, through publications and other
appropriate means, information pertain-
ing to management practices and imple-
mentation methods, including, but not
limited to, (1) information concerning the
costs and relative efficiencies of best man-
agement practices for reducing nonpoint
source pollution; and (2) available data
concerning the relationship between wa-
ter quality and implementation of various
management practices to control nonpoint
sources of pollution.
(m) Reports of Administrator.—
(1) Annual Reports. — Not later than
January I, 1988, and each January 1
thereafter, the Administrator shall trans-
mit to the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works of the Senate,
a report for the preceding fiscal year on
the activities and programs implemented
under this section and the progress made
in reducing pollution in the navigable wa-
ters resulting from nonpoint sources and
improving the quality of such waters.
(2) Final Report. — Not later than
January 1, 1990, the Administrator shall
transmit to Congress a final report on the
activities carried out under this section.
Such report, at a minimum, shall—
(A)	describe the management pro-
grams being implemented by the States
by types and amount of affected navigable
waters, categories and subcategories of
nonpoint sources, and types of best man-
agement practices being implemented;
(B)	describe the experiences of the
States in adhering to schedules and imple-
menting best management practices;
(C)	describe the amount and purpose of
grants awarded pursuant to subsections
(h) and (i) of this section;
(D)	identify, to the extent that informa-
tion is available, the progress made in re-
ducing pollutant loads and improving wa-
ter quality in the navigable waters;
(E)	indicate what further actions need
to be taken to attain and maintain in
those navigable waters (i) applicable wa-
ter quality standards, and (ii) the goals
and requirements of this Act;
(F)	include recommendations of the
Administrator concerning future pro-
grams (including enforcement programs)
for controlling pollution from nonpoint
sources; and
(G)	identify the activities and programs
of departments, agencies, and instrumen-
talities of the United States which are in-
consistent with the management pro-
grams submitted by the States and recom-
mend modifications so that such activities
and programs are consistent with and as-
sist the States in implementation of such
management programs.
(n) Set Aside for Administrative Per-
sonnel. — Not less than 5 percent of the
funds appropriated pursuant to subsection
(j) for any fiscal year shall be available to
the Administrator to maintain personnel
levels at the Environmental Protection
Agency at levels which are adequate to
carry out this section in such year.
[§319 added by PL 100-4]
§320 [33 U.S.C. 1330) National Estuary
Program
[§320 added by PL 100-4]
(a) Management Conference.—
(1)	Nomination of Estuaries. — The
Governor of any State may nominate to
the Administrator an estuary lying in
whole or in part within the State as an
estuary of national significance and re-
quest a management conference to devel-
op a comprehensive management plan for
the estuary. The nomination shall docu-
ment the need for the conference, the like-
lihood of success, and information relat-
ing to the factors in paragraph (2).
(2)	Convening of Conference.—
(A)	In General. — in any case where
the Administrator determines, on his own
initiative or upon nomination of a State
under paragraph (1), that the attainment
or maintenance of that water quality in an
estuary which assures protection of public
water supplies and the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife,
and allows recreational activities, in and
on the water, requires the control of point
and nonpoint sources of pollution to sup-
plement existing controls of pollution in
more than one State, the Administrator
shall select such estuary and convene a
management conference.
(B)	Priority consideration — The Ad-
ministrator shall give priority consider-
ation under this section to Long Island
Sound, New York and Connecticut; Nar-
ragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards
Bay, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Bay,
Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay
and Boston Harbor); Puget Sound, Wash-
ington; New York-New Jersey Harbor,
New York and New Jersey; Delaware
Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; Dela-
ware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albermarle
Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay,
Florida; San Francisco Bay, California;
Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston
Bay, Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay es-
tuary complex, Louisiana; Indian River
Lagoon, Florida; and Peconic Bay, New
York.
[§320(a)(2)(B) amended by PL 100-202;
PL 100-653; PL 100-688]
(3)	Boundary Dispute Exception. — In
any case in which a boundary between
two States passes through an estuary and
such boundary is disputed and is the sub-
ject of an action in any court, the Admin-

-------
istrator shall not convene a management
conference with respect to such estuary
before a final adjudication has been made
of such dispute.
(b)	Purposes of Conference. — The
purposes of any management conference
convened with respect to an estuary under
this subsection shall be to—
(1)	assess trends in water quality, natu-
ral resources, and uses of the estuary;
(2)	collect, characterize, and assess
data on toxics, nutrients, and natural re-
sources within the estuarine zone to iden-
tify the causes of environmental problems;
(3)	develop the relationship between
the inplace loads and point and nonpoint
loadings of pollutants to the estuarine
zone and the potential uses of the zone,
water quality, and natural resources;
(4)	develop a comprehensive conserva-
tion and management plan that recom-
mends priority corrective actions and
compliance schedules addressing point
and nonpoint sources of pollution to re-
store and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the estuary, in-
cluding restoration and maintenance of
water quality, a balanced indigenous pop-
ulation of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and
recreational activities in the estuary, and
assure that the designated uses of the es-
tuary are protected;
(5)	develop plans for the coordinated
implementation of the plan by the States
as well as Federal and local agencies par-
ticipating in the conference;
(6)	monitor the effectiveness of actions
taken pursuant to the plan; and
(7)	review all Federal financial assist-
ance programs and Federal development
projects in accordance with the require-
ments of Executive Order 12372, as in
effect on September 17, 1983, to deter-
mine whether such assistance program or
project would be consistent with and fur-
ther the purposes and objectives of the
plan prepared under this section. For pur-
poses of paragraph (7), such programs
and projects shall not be limited to the
assistance programs and development
projects subject to Executive Order
12372, but may include any programs list-
ed in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance which may have an
effect on the purposes and objectives of
the plan developed under this section.
(c)	Members of Conference. — The
members of a management conference
convened under this section shall include.
at a minimum, the Administrator and rep-
resentatives of—
(1)	each State and foreign nation locat-
ed in whole or in part in the estuarine
zone of the estuary for which the confer-
ence is convened;
(2)	international, interstate, or regional
agencies or entities having jurisdiction
over all or a significant part of the estua-
ry;
(3)	each interested Federal agency, as
determined appropriate by the Adminis-
trator;
(4)	local governments having jurisdic-
tion over any land or water within the
estuarine zone, as determined appropriate
by the Administrator; and
(5)	affected industries, public and pri-
vate educational institutions, and the gen-
eral public, as determined appropriate by
the Administrator.
(d)	Utilization of Existing Data. — In
developing a conservation and manage-
ment plan under this section, the manage-
ment conference shall survey and utilize
existing reports, data, and studies relating
to the estuary that have been developed
by or made available to Federal, inter-
state, State, and local agencies.
(e)	Period of Conference. — A man-
agement conference convened under this
section shall be convened for a period not
to exceed 5 years. Such conference may
be extended by the Administrator, and if
terminated after the initial period, may be
reconvened by the Administrator at any
time thereafter, as may be necessary to
meet the requirements of this section.
(0 Approval and Implementation of
Plans.—
(1)	Approval. — Not later than 120
days after the completion of a conserva-
tion and management plan and after pro-
viding for public review and comment, the
Administrator shall approve such plan if
the plan meets the requirements of this
section and the affected Governor or Gov-
ernors concur.
(2)	Implementation. — Upon approval
of a conservation and management plan
under this section, such plan shall be im-
plemented. Funds authorized to be appro-
priated under titles II and VI and section
319 of this Act may be used in accordance
with the applicable requirements of this
Act to assist States with the implementa-
tion of such plan.
(g) Grants.—
(1)	Recipients. — The Administrator is
authorized to make grants to State, inter-
state, and regional water pollution control
agencies and entities. State coastal zone
management agencies, interstate agen-
cies, other public or nonprofit private
agencies, institutions, organizations, and
individuals.
(2)	Purposes. — Grants under this sub-
section shall be made to pay for assisting
research, surveys, studies, and modeling
and other technical work necessary for
the development of a conservation and
management plan under this section.
(3)	Federal Share. — The amount of
grants to any person (including a State,
interstate, or regional agency or entity)
under this subsection for a fiscal year
shall not exceed 75 percent of the costs of
such research, survey, studies, and work
and shall be made on condition that the
non-Federal share of such costs are pro-
vided from non-Federal sources.
(h)	Grant Reporting. — Any person
(including a State, interstate, or regional
agency or entity) that receives a grant
under subsection (g) shall report to the
Administrator not later than 18 months
after receipt of such grant and biennially
thereafter on the progress being made un-
der this section.
(i)	Authorization of Appropriations. —
There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator not to exceed
SI2,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and
1991 for—
(1)	expenses related to the administra-
tion of management conferences under
this section, not to exceed 10 percent of
the amount appropriated under this sub-
section;
(2)	making grants under subsection (g);
and
(3)	monitoring the implementation of a
conservation and management plan by the
management conference or by the Admin-
istrator, in any case in which the confer-
ence has been terminated. The Adminis-
trator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per
fiscal year of the sums authorized to be
appropriated under this subsection to the
Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration to carry
out subsection (j).
(j) Research.—
(1) Programs. — In order to determine
the need to convene a management con-
ference under this section or at the re-

-------
quest of such a management conference,
the Administrator shall coordinate and
implement through the National Marine
Pollution Program Office and the Nation-
al Marine Fisheries Service of the Nation-
al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, as appropriate, for one or more estu-
arine zones—
(A)	a long-term program of trend as-
sessment monitoring measuring variations
in pollutant concentrations, marine ecolo-
gy, and other physical or biological envi-
ronmental parameters which may affect
estuarine zones, to provide the Adminis-
trator the capacity to determine the po-
tential and actual effects of alternative
management strategies and measures;
(B)	a program of ecosystem assessment
assisting in the development of (i) base-
line studies which determine the state of
estuarine zones and the effects of natural
and anthropogenic changes, and (ii) pre-
dictive models capable of translating in-
formation on specific discharges or gener-
al pollutant loadings within estuarine
zones into a set of probable effects on
such zones;
(C)	a comprehensive water quality
sampling program for the continuous
monitoring of nutrients, chlorine acid pre-
cipitation, dissolved oxygen, and poten-
tially toxic pollutants (including organic
chemicals and metals) in estuarine zones,
after consultation with interested State,
local, interstate, or international agencies
and review and analysis of all environ-
mental sampling data presently collected
from estuarine zones; and
(D)	a program of research to identify
the movements of nutrients, sediments
and pollutants through estuarine zones
and the impact of nutrients, sediments,
and pollutants on water quality, the
ecosystem, and designated or potential
uses of the estuarine zones.
(2) Reports. — The Administrator, in
cooperation with the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, shall submit to the Congress
no less often than biennially a comprehen-
sive report on the activities authorized un-
der this subsection including—
(A)	a listing of priority monitoring and
research needs;
(B)	an assessment of the state and
health of the Nation's estuarine zones, to
the extent evaluated under this subsec-
tion;
(C)a	discussion of pollution problems
and trends in pollutant concentrations
with a direct or indirect effect on water
quality, the ecosystem, and designated or
potential uses of each estuarine zone, to
the extent evaluated under this subsec-
tion; and
(D)	an evaluation of pollution abate-
ment activities and management mea-
sures so far implemented to determine the
degree of improvement toward the objec-
tives expressed in subsection (b)(4) of this
section.
(k) Definitions. — For purposes of this
section, the terms 'estuary' and 'estuarine
zone' have the meanings such terms have
in section 104(h)(4) of this Act, except
that the term 'estuarine zone' shall also
include associated aquatic ecosystems and
those portions of tributaries draining into
the estuary up to the historic height of
migration of anadromous fish or the his-
toric head of tidal influence, whichever is
higher.
TITLE IV-PERMITS AND
LICENSES
§401 [33 U.S.C. 1341] Certification
(a)(1) Any applicant for a Federal li-
cense or permit to conduct any activity
including, but not limited to. the construc-
tion or operation of facilities, which may
result in any discharge into the navigable
waters, shall provide the licensing or per-
mitting agency a certification from the
State in which the discharge originates or
will originate, or, if appropriate, from the
interstate water pollution control agency
having jurisdiction over the navigable wa-
ters at the point where the discharge
originates or will originate, that any such
discharge will comply with the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306,
and 307 of this Act. In the case of any
such activity for which there is not an
applicable effluent limitation or other lim-
itation under sections 301(b) and 302,
and there is not an applicable standard
under sections 306 and 307, the State
shall so certify, except that any such certi-
fication shall not be deemed to satisfy sec-
tion 511(c) of this Act. Such State or in-
terstate agency shall establish procedures
for public notice in the case of all applica-
tions for certification by it and, to the ex-
tent it deems appropriate, procedures for
public hearings in connection with specific
applications. In any case where a State or
interstate agency has no authority to give
such a certification, such certification
shall be from the Administrator. If the
State, interstate agency, or Administra-
tor, as the case may be, fails or refuses to
act on a request for certification, within a
reasonable period of time (which shall not
exceed one year) after receipt of such re-
quest, the certification requirements of
this subsection shall be waived with re-
spect to such Federal application. No li-
cense or permit shall be granted until the
certification required by this section has
been obtained or has been waived as pro-
vided in the preceding sentence. No li-
cense or permit shall be granted if certifi-
cation has been denied by the State, inter-
state agency, or the Administrator, as the
case may be.
(2)	Upon receipt of such application
and certification the licensing or permit-
ting agency shall immediately notify the
Administrator of such application and
certification. Whenever such a discharge
may affect, as determined by the Admin-
istrator, the quality of the waters of any
other State, the Administrator within
thirty days of the date of notice of appli-
cation for such Federal license or permit
shall so notify such other State, the licens-
ing or permitting agency, and the appli-
cant. If, within sixty days after receipt of
such notification, such other State deter-
mines that such discharge will affect the
quality of its waters so as to violate any
water quality requirement in such State,
and within such sixty-day period notifies
the Administrator and the licensing or
permitting agency in writing of its objec-
tion to the issuance of such license or per-
mit and requests a public hearing on such
objection, the licensing or permitting
agency shall hold such a hearing. The Ad-
ministrator shall at such hearing submit
his evaluation and recommendations with
respect to any such objection to the licens-
ing or permitting agency. Such agency,
based upon the recommendations of such
State, the Administrator, and upon any
additional evidence, if any, presented to
the agency at the hearing, shall condition
such license or permit in such manner as
may be necessary to insure compliance
with applicable water quality require-
ments. If the imposition of conditions can-
not insure such compliance such agency
shall not issue such license or permit.
(3)	The certification obtained pursuant
to paragraph (1) of this subsection with
respect to the construction of any facility

-------
shall fulfill the requirements of this sub-
section with respect to certification in con-
nection with any other Federal license or
permit required for the operation of such
facility unless, after notice to ihe certify-
ing State, agency, or Administrator, as
the case may be. which shall be given by
the Federal agency to whom application is
made for such operating license or permit,
the State, or if appropriate, the interstate
agency or the Administrator, notifies such
agency within sixty days after receipt of
such notice that there is no longer reason-
able assurance that there will be compli-
ance with the applicable provisions of sec-
tions 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this
Act because of changes since the con-
struction license or permit certification
was issued in (A) the construction or op-
eration of the facility, (B) the characteris-
tics of the waters into which such dis-
charge is made, (C) the water quality cri-
teria applicable to such waters or (D)
applicable effluent limitations or other re-
quirements. This paragraph shall be inap-
plicable in any case where the applicant
for such operating license or permit has
failed to provide the certifying State, or, if
appropriate, the interstate agency or the
Administrator, with notice of any pro-
posed changes in the construction or oper-
ation of the facility with respect to which
a construction license or permit has been
granted, which changes may result in vio-
lation of section 301, 302, 303, 306, or
307 of this Act.
(4) Prior to the initial operation of any
federally licensed or permitted facility or
activity which may result in any discharge
into the navigable waters and with respect
to which a certification has been obtained
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, which facility or activity is not sub-
ject to a Federal operating license or per-
mit, the licensee or permittee shall pro-
vide an opportunity for such certifying
State, or, if appropriate, the interstate
agency or the Administrator to review the
manner in which the facility or activity
shall be operated or conducted for the
purposes of assuring that applicable efflu-
ent limitations or other limitations or oth-
er applicable water quality requirements
will not be violated. Upon notification by
the certifying State, or if appropriate, the
interstate agency or the Administrator
that the operation of any such federally
licensed or permitted facility or activity
will violate applicable effluent limitations
or other limitations or other water quality
requirements such Federal agency may,
after public hearing, suspend such license
or permit. If such license or permit is sus-
pended, it shall remain suspended until
notification is received from the certifying
State, agency, or Administrator, as the
case may be, that there is reasonable as-
surance that such facility or activity will
not violate the applicable provisions of
section 301, 302, 303, 306, or 307 of this
Act.
(5)	Any Federal license or permit with
respect to which a certification has been
obtained under paragraph (1) of this sub-
section may be suspended or revoked by
the Federal agency issuing such license or
permit upon the entering of a judgment
under this Act that such facility or activi-
ty has been operated in violation of the
applicable provisions of section 301, 302,
303, 306, or 307 of this Act.
(6)	Except with respect to a permit is-
sued under section 402 of this Act, in any
case where actual construction of a facili-
ty has been lawfully commenced pnor to
April 3, 1970, no certification shall be re-
quired under this subsection for a license
or permit issued after April 3, 1970, to
operate such facility, except that any such
license or permit issued without certifica-
tion shall terminate April 3, 1973, unless
prior to such termination date the person
having such license or permit submits to
the Federal agency which issued such li-
cense or permit a certification and other-
wise meets the requirements of this sec-
tion.
(b)	Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to limit the authority of any de-
partment or agency pursuant to any other
provision of law to require compliance
with any applicable water quality require-
ments. The Administrator shall, upon the
request of any Federal department or
agency, or State or interstate agency, or
applicant, provide, for the purpose of this
section, any relevant information on appli-
cable effluent limitations, or other limita-
tions, standards, regulations or require-
ments, or water quality criteria, and shall,
when requested by any such department
or agency or State or interstate agency, or
applicant, comment on any methods to
comply with such limitations, standards,
regulations, requirements, or criteria.
(c)	In order to implement the provisions
of this section, the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized, if he deems it to be in the
public interest, to permit the use of spoil
disposal areas under his jurisdiction by
Federal licensees or permittees, and to
make an appropriate charge for such use.
Moneys received from such licensees or
permittees shall be deposited in the Trea-
sury as miscellaneous receipts.
(d) Any certification provided under
this section shall set forth any effluent
limitations and other limitations, and
monitoring requirements necessary to as-
sure that any applicant for a Federal li-
cense or permit will comply with any ap-
plicable effluent limitations and other lim-
itations, under section 301 or 302 of this
Act, standard of performance under sec-
tion 306 of this Act, or prohibition, efflu-
ent standard, or pretreatment standard
under section 307 of this Act, and with
any other appropriate requirement of
State law set forth in such certification,
and shall become a condition on any Fed-
eral license or permit subject to the provi-
sions of this section.
§402 [33 U.S.C. 1342] National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(a)(1) Except as provided in sections
318 and 404 of this Act, the Administra-
tor may, after opportunity for public hear-
ing, issue a permit for the discharge of
any pollutant, or combination of pollu-
tants, notwithstanding section 301(a), up-
on condition that such discharge will meet
either (A) all applicable requirements un-
der sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308 and
403 of this Act, or (B) prior to the taking
of necessary implementing actions relat-
ing to all such requirements, such condi-
tions as the Administrator determines are
necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act.
[§402(a)(l)(A) and (B) designated by PL
100-4]
(2)	The Administrator shall prescribe
conditions for such permits to assure com-
pliance with the requirements of para-
graph (1) of this subsection, including
conditions on data and information collec-
tion, reporting, and such other require-
ments as he deems appropriate.
(3)	The permit program of the Admin-
istrator under paragraph (1) of this sub-
section, and permits issued thereunder,
shall be subject to the same terms, condi-
tions, and requirements as apply to a
State permit program and permits issued

-------
thereunder under subsection (b) of this
section.
(4)	All permits for discharges into the
navigable waters issued pursuant to sec-
tion 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, shall
be deemed to be permits issued under this
title, and permits issued under this title
shall be deemed to be permits issued un-
der section 13 of the Act of March 3,
1899, and shall continue in force and ef-
fect for their term unless revoked, modi-
fied, or suspended in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
(5)	No permit for a discharge into the
navigable waters shall be issued under
section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899,
after the date of enactment of this title.
Each application for a permit under sec-
tion 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899,
pending on the date of enactment of this
Act shall be deemed to be an application
for a permit under this section. The Ad-
ministrator shall authorize a State, which
he determines has the capability of ad-
ministering a permit program which will
carry out the objective of this Act, to issue
permits for discharges into the navigable
waters within the jurisdiction of such
State. The Administrator may exercise
the authority granted him by the preced-
ing sentence only during the period which
begins on the date of enactment of this
Act and ends either on the ninetieth day
after the date of the first promulgation of
guidelines required by section 304(i)(2)
of this Act, or the date of approval by the
Administrator of a permit program for
such State under subsection (b) of this
section, whichever date first occurs, and
no such authorization to a State shall ex-
tend beyond the last day of such period.
Each such permit shall be subject to such
conditions as the Administrator deter-
mines are necessary to carry out the provi-
sions of this Act. No such permit shall
issue if the Administrator objects to such
issuance.
(b) At any time after the promulgation
of the guidelines required by subsection
(i)(2) of section 304 of this Act, the Gov-
ernor of each State desiring to administer
its own permit program for discharges in-
to navigable waters within its jurisdiction
may submit to the Administrator a full
and complete description of the program
it proposes to establish and administer un-
der State law or under an interstate com-
pact. In addition, such State shall submit
a statement from the attorney general (or
the attorney for those State water pollu-
tion control agencies which have indepen-
dent legal counsel), or from the chief legal
officer in the case of an interstate agency,
that the laws of such State, or the inter-
state compact, as the case may be, pro-
vide adequate authority to carry out the
described program. The Administrator
shall approve each such submitted pro-
gram unless he determines that adequate
authority does not exist:
(1) To issue permits which—
(A)	apply, and insure compliance with,
any applicable requirements of sections
301, 302, 306, 307, and 403;
(B)	are for fixed terms not exceeding
five years; and
(C)	can be terminated or modified for
cause including, but not limited to, the
following;
(1)	violation of any condition of the per-
mit;
(ii)	obtaining a permit by misrepresen-
tation, or failure to disclose fully all rele-
vant facts;
(iii)	change in any condition that re-
quires either a temporary or permanent
reduction or elimination of the permitted
discharge;
(D)	control the disposal of pollutants
into wells;
(2)	(A) To issue permits which apply,
and insure compliance with, all applicable
requirements of section 308 of this Act, or
(B) To inspect, monitor, enter, and re-
quire reports to at least the same extent
as required in section 308 of this Act;
(3)	To insure that the public, and any
other State the waters of which may be
affected, receive notice of each applica-
tion for a permit and to provide an oppor-
tunity for public hearing before a ruling
on each such application;
(4)	To insure that the Administrator re-
ceives notice of each application (includ-
ing a copy thereof) for a permit;
(5)	To insure that any State (other
than the permitting State), whose waters
may be affected by the issuance of a per-
mit may submit written recommendations
to the permitting State (and the Adminis-
trator) with respect to any permit applica-
tion and, if any part of such written rec-
ommendations are not accepted by the
permitting State, that the permitting
State will notify such affected State (and
the Administrator) in writing of its failure
to so accept such recommendations to-
gether with its reasons for so doing;
(6)	To insure that no permit will be is-
sued if, in the judgment of the Secretary
of the Army acting through the Chief of
Engineers, after consultation with the
Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, anchorage and
navigation of any of the navigable waters
would be substantially impaired thereby;
(7)	To abate violations of the permit or
the permit program, including civil and
criminal penalties and other ways and
means of enforcement.
(8)	To insure that any permit for a dis-
charge from a publicly owned treatment
works includes conditions to require the
identification in terms of character and
volume of pollutants of any significant
source introducing pollutants subject to
pretreatment standards under section
307(b) of this Act into such works and a
program to assure compliance with such
pretreatment standards by each such
source, in addition to adequate notice to
the permitting agency of (A) new intro-
ductions into such works of pollutants
from any source which would be a new
source as defined in section 306 if such
source were discharging pollutants, (B)
new introductions of pollutants into such
works from a source which would be sub-
ject to section 301 if it were discharging
such pollutants, or (C) a substantial
change in volume or character of pollu-
tants being introduced into such works by
a source introducing pollutants into such
works at the time of issuance of the per-
mit. Such notice shall include information
on the quality and quantity of effluent to
be introduced into such treatment works
and any anticipated impact of such
change in the quantity or quality of efflu-
ent to be discharged from such publicly
owned treatment works; and
(9)	To insure that any industrial user of
any publicly owned treatment works will
comply with sections 204(b), 307, and
308.
(c) (1) Not later thannmety days after
the date on which a State has submitted a
program (or revision thereof) pursuant to
subsection (b) of this section, the Admin-
istrator shall suspend the issuance of per-
mits under subsection (a) of this section
as to those discharges subject to such pro-
gram unless he determines that the State
permit program does not meet the re-
quirements of subsection (b) of this sec-
tion or does not conform to the guidelines
issued under section 304(i)(2) of this Act.

-------
If the Administrator so determines, he
shall notify the State of any revisions or
modifications necessary to conform to
such requirements or guidelines.
(§402(c)(I) amended by PL 100-4]
(2)	Any State permit program under
this section shall at all times be in accor-
dance with this section and guidelines
promulgated pursuant to section
304(i)(2) of this Act.
(3)	Whenever the Administrator deter-
mines after public hearing that a State is
not administering a program approved un-
der this section in accordance with re-
quirements of this section, he shall so noti-
fy the State and, if appropriate corrective
action is not taken within a reasonable
time, not to exceed ninety days, the Ad-
ministrator shall withdraw approval of
such program. The Administrator shall
not withdraw approval of any such pro-
gram unless he shall first have notified the
State, and made public, in writing, the
reasons for such withdrawal.
(4)	Limitations on Partial Permit Pro-
gram Returns and Withdrawals. — A
Stale may return to the Administrator ad-
ministration, and the Administrator may
withdraw under paragraph (3) of this sub-
section approval, of—
(A)	a State partial permit program ap-
proved under subsection (n)(4) only if the
entire permit program being administered
by the State department or agency at the
time is returned or withdrawn; and
(B)	a State partial permit program ap-
proved under subsection (n)(4) only if an
entire phased component of the permit
program being administered by the State
at the time is returned or withdrawn.
[§402(c)(4) added by PL 100-4]
(d) (1) Each State shall transmit to the
Administrator a copy of each permit ap-
plication received by such State and pro-
vide notice to the Administrator of every
action related to the consideration of such
permit application, including each permit
proposed to be issued by such State.
(2) No permit shall issue (A) if the Ad-
ministrator within ninety days of the date
of his notification under subsection (b)(5)
of this section objects in writing to the
issuance of such permit, or (B) if the Ad-
ministrator within ninety days of the date
of transmittal of the proposed permit by
the Slate objects in writing to the issu-
ance of such permit as being outside the
guidelines and requirements of this Act.
Whenever the Administrator objects to
the issuance of a permit under this para-
graph such written objection shall contain
a statement of the reasons for such objec-
tion and the effluent limitations and con-
ditions which such permit would include
if it were issued by the Administrator.
(3)	The Administrator may, as to any
permit application, waive paragraph (2)
of this subsection.
(4)	In any case where, after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Admin-
istrator, pursuant to paragraph (2) of this
subsection, objects to the issuance of a
permit, or request of the State, a public
hearing shall be held by the Administra-
tor on such objection. If the State does not
resubmit such permit revised to meet such
objection within 30 days after completion
of the hearing, or, if no hearing is request-
ed within 90 days after the date of such
objection, the Administrator may issue
the permit pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section for such source in accordance
with the guidelines and requirements of
this Act.
(e)	In accordance with guidelines
promulgated pursuant to subsection (i)(2)
of section 304 of this Act. the Administra-
tor authorized to waive the requirements
of subsection (d) of this section at the
time he approves a program pursuant to
subsection (b) of this section for any cate-
gory (including any class, type, or size
within such category) of point sources
within the State submitting such pro-
gram.
(f)	The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations establishing categories of
point sources which he determines shall
not be subject to the requirements of sub-
section (d) of this section in any State
with a program approved pursuant to sub-
section (b) of this section. The Adminis-
trator may distinguish among classes,
types, and sizes within any category of
point sources.
(g)	Any permit issued under this sec-
tion for the discharge of pollutants into
the navigable waters from a vessel or oth-
er floating craft shall be subject to any
applicable regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, establishing
specifications for safe transportation, han-
dling, carriage, storage, and stowage of
pollutants.
(h)	In the event any condition of a per-
mit for discharges from a treatment works
(as defined in section 212 of this Act)
which is publicly owned is violated, a
State with a program approved under sub-
section (b) of this section or the Adminis-
trator, where no State program is ap-
proved or where the Administrator deter-
mines pursuant to section 309(a) of this
Act that a State with an approved pro-
gram has not commenced appropriate en-
forcement action with respect to such per-
mit, may proceed in a court of competent
jurisdiction to restrict or prohibit the in-
troduction of any pollutant into such
treatment works by a source not utilizing
such treatment works prior to the finding
that such condition was violated.
(i) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to limit the authority of the Ad-
minisfrator to take action pursuant to sec-
tion 309 of this Act.
Q) A copy of each permit application
and each permit issued under this section
shall be available to the public. Such per-
mit application or permit, or portion
thereof, shall further be available on re-
quest for the purpose of reproduction.
(k) Compliance with a permit issued
pursuant to this section shall be deemed
compliance, for purposes of sections 309
and 505, with sections 301, 302, 306, 307,
and 403, except any standard imposed un-
der section 307 for a toxic pollutant inju-
rious to human health. Until December
31, 1974, in any case where a permit for
discharge has been applied for pursuant
to this section, but final administrative
disposition of such application has not
been made, such discharge shall not be a
violation of (1) section 301, 306, and 402,
of this Act, or (2) section 13 of the Act of
March 3, 1899, unless the Administrator
or other plaintiff proves that final admin-
istrative disposition of such application
has not been made because of the failure
of the applicant to furnish information
reasonably required or requested in order
to process the application. For the
180-day period beginning on the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, in the
case of any point source discharging any
pollutant or combination of pollutants im-
mediately prior to such date of enactment
which source is not subject to section 13 of
the Act of March 3, 1899, the discharge
by such source shall not be a violation of
this Act if such a source applies for a
permit for discharge pursuant to this sec-
tion within such 180-day period.

-------
(1) Limitation on Permit Require-
ment.—
(1)	Agricultural Return Flows. — The
Administrator shall not require a permit
under this section, for discharge com-
posed entirely of return flows from irrigat-
ed agriculture, nor shall the Administra-
tor directly or indirectly, require any
State to require such a permit.
[§402(1)( 1) designated by PL 100-4]
(2)	Stormwater Runoff From Oil, Gas,
and Mining Operations. — The Adminis-
trator shall not require a permit under
this section, nor shall the Administrator
directly or indirectly require any State to
require a permit, for discharges of
stormwater runoff from mining operations
or oil and gas exploration, production,
precessing, or treatment operations or
transmission facilities, composed entirely
of flows which are from conveyances or
systems of conveyances (including but not
limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and
channels) used for collecting and convey-
ing precipitation runoff and which are not
contaminated by contact with, or do not
come into contact with, any overburden,
raw material, intermediate products, fin-
ished product, byproduct, or waste prod-
ucts located on the site of such operations.
[§402(1)(2) added by PL 100-4]
(m) Additional Pretreatment of Con-
ventional Pollutants Not Required. — To
the extent a treatment works (as defined
in section 212 of this Act) which is public-
ly owned is not meeting the requirements
of a permit issued under this section for
such treatment works as a result of inade-
quate design or operation of such treat-
ment works, the Administrator, in issuing
a permit under this section, shall not re-
quire pretreatment by a person introduc-
ing conventional pollutants identified pur-
suant to section 304(a)(4) of this Act into
such treatment works other than pretreat-
ment required to assure compliance with
pretreatment standards under subsection
(6)(8) of this section and section
307(b)(1) of this Act. Nothing in this sub-
section shall affect the Administrator's
authority under sections 307 and 309 of
this Act, affect State and local authority
under sections 307(b)(4) and 510 of this
Act, relieve such treatment works of its
obligations to meet requirements estab-
lished under this Act, or otherwise pre-
clude such works from pursuing whatever
feasible options are available to meet its
responsibility to comply with its permit
under this section.
(§402(m) added by PL 100-4]
(n) Partial Permit Program.—
(1)	State Submission. — The Governor
of a State may submit under subsection
(b) of this section a permit program for a
portion of the discharges into the naviga-
ble waters in such State.
(2)	Minimum Coverage. — A partial
permit program under this subsection
shall cover, at a minimum, administration
of a major category of the discharges into
the navigable waters of the State or a
major component of the permit program
required by subsection (b).
(3)	Approval of Major Category Par-
tial Permit Programs. — The Administra-
tor may approve a partial permit program
covering administration of a major cate-
gory of discharges under this subsection
if—
(A)	such program represents a com-
plete permit program and covers all of the
discharges under the jurisdiction of a de-
partment or agency of the State; and
(B)	the Administrator determines that
the partial program represents a signifi-
cant and identifiable part of the State pro-
gram required by subsection (b).
(4)	Approval of Major Component Par-
tial Permit Programs. — The Administra-
tor may approve under this subsection a
partial and phased permit program cover-
ing administration of a major component
(including discharge categories) of a
State permit program required by subsec-
tion (b) if—
(A)	the Administrator determines that
the partial program represents a signifi-
cant and identifiable part of the State pro-
gram required by subsection (b); and
(B)	the State submits, and the Admin-
istrator approves, a plan for the State to
assume administration by phases of the
remainder of the State program required
by subsection (b) by a specified date not
more than 5 years after submission of the
partial program under this subsection and
agrees to make all reasonable efforts to
assume such administration by such date.
(§402(n) added by PL 100-4]
(0)	Anti-Backsliding.—
(1)	General Prohibition. — In the case
of effluent limitations established on the
basis of subsection (a)(1)(B) of this sec-
tion, a permit may not be renewed, reis-
sued, or modified on the basis of effluent
guidelines promulgated under section
304(b) subsequent to the original issuance
of such permit, to contain effluent limita-
tions which are less stringent than the
comparable effluent limitations in the pre-
vious permit. In the case of effluent limita-
tions established on the basis of section
301(b)(1)(C) or section 303 (d) or (e), a
permit may not be renewed, reissued, or
modified to contain effluent limitations
which are less stringent than the compa-
rable effluent limitations in the previous
permit except in compliance with section
303(d)(4).
(2) Exceptions. — A permit with re-
spect to which paragraph (1) applies may
be renewed, reissued, or modified to con-
tain a less stringent effluent limitation ap-
plicable to a pollutant if—
(A)	material and substantial alterations
or additions to the permitted facility oc-
curred after permit issuance which justify
the application of a less stringent effluent
limitation;
(B)	(i) information is available which
was not available at the time of permit
issuance (other than revised regulations,
guidance, or lest methods) and which
would have justified the application of a
less stringent effluent limitation at the
time of permit issuance; or
(ii) the Administrator determines that
technical mistakes or mistaken interpreta-
tions of law were made in issuing the per-
mit under subsection (a)(1)(B);
(C)	a less stringent effluent limitation is
necessary because of events over which
the permittee has no control and for
which there is no reasonably available
remedy;
(D)	the permittee has received a permit
modification under section 301(c),
301(g), 301(h), 301 (i), 301 (k), 301 (n), or
316(a); or
(E)	the permittee has installed the
treatment facilities required to meet the
effluent limitations in the previous permit
and has properly operated and maintained
the facilities but has nevertheless been un-
able to achieve the previous effluent limi-
tations, in which case the limitations in
the reviewed, reissued, or modified permit
may reflect the level of pollutant control
actually achieved (but shall not be less
stringent than required by effluent guide-
lines in effect at the time of permit renew-
al, reissuance, or modification). Subpara-
graph (B) shall not apply to any revised
waste load allocations or any alternative
grounds for translating water quality

-------
standards into effluent limitations, except
where the cumulative effect of such re-
vised allocations results in a decrease in
the amount of pollutants discharged into
the concerned waters, and such revised
allocations are not the result of a dis-
charger eliminating or substantially re-
ducing its discharge of pollutants due to
complying with the requirements of this
Act or for reasons otherwise unrelated to
water quality.
(3) Limitations. — In no event may a
permit with respect to which paragraph
(1) applies be renewed, reissued, or modi-
fied to contain an effluent limitation
which is less stringent than required by
effluent guidelines in effect at the time the
permit is renewed, reissued, or modified.
In no event may such a permit to dis-
charge into waters be renewed, reissued,
or modified to contain a less stringent ef-
fluent limitation if the implementation of
such limitation would result in a violation
of a water quality standard under section
303 applicable to such waters.
[§402(o) added by PL 100-4]
(p) Municipal and Industrial
Stormwater Discharges.—
(1)	General Rule. — Prior to October 1,
1992, the Administrator or the State (in
the case of a permit program approved
under section 402 of this Act) shall not
require a permit under this section for
discharges composed entirely of
stormwater.
(2)	Exceptions. — Paragraph (1) shall
not apply with respect to the following
stormwater discharges:
(A)	A discharge with respect to which
a permit has been issued under this sec-
tion before the date of the enactment of
this subsection.
(B)	A discharge associated with indus-
trial activity.
(C)	A discharge from a municipal sepa-
rate storm sewer system serving a popula-
tion of 250,000 or more.
(D)	A discharge from a municipal sepa-
rate storm sewer system serving a popula-
tion of 100,000 or more but less than
250,000.
(E)	A discharge for which the Adminis-
trator or the State, as the case may be,
determines that the stormwater discharge
contributes to a violation of a water quali-
ty standard or is a significant contributor
of pollutants to waters of the United
States.
(3)	Permit Requirements.—
(A)	Industrial Discharges. — Permits
for discharges associated with industrial
activity shall meet all applicable provi-
sions of this section and section 301.
(B)	Municipal Discharge. — Permits
for discharges from municipal storm sew-
ers—
(i)	may be issued on a system — or
jurisdiction-wide basis;
(ii)	shall include a requirement to effec-
tively prohibit non-stormwater discharges
into the storm sewers; and
(iii)	shall require controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable, including management
practices, control techniques and system,
design and engineering methods, and such
other provisions as the Administrator or
the State determines appropriate for the
control of such pollutants.
(4) Permit Application Require-
ments.—
(A)	Industrial and Large Municipal
Discharges.— Not later than 2 years af-
ter the date of the enactment of this sub-
section, the Administrator shall establish
regulations setting forth the permit appli-
cation requirements for stormwater dis-
charges described in paragraphs (2)(B)
and (2)(C). Applications for permits for
such discharges shall be filed no later than
3 years after such date of enactment. Not
later than 4 years after such date of en-
actment, the Administrator or the State,
as the case may be, shall issue or deny
each such permit. Any such permit shall
provide for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than 3
years after the date of issuance of such
permit.
(B)	Other Municipal Discharges. —
Not later than 4 years after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Ad-
ministrator shall establish regulations set-
ting forth the permit application require-
ments for stormwater discharges de-
scribed in paragraph (2)(D). Applications
for permits for such discharges shall be
filed no later than 5 years after such date
of enactment. Not later than 6 years after
such date of enactment, the Administra-
tor or the State, as the case may be, shall
issue or deny each such permit. Any such
permit shall provide for compliance as ex-
peditiously as practicable, but in no event
later than 3 years after the date of issu-
ance of such permit.
(5)	Studies. — The Administrator, in
consultation with the States, shall conduct
a study for the purposes of—
(A)	identifying those stormwater dis-
charges or classes of stormwater dis-
charges for which permits are not re-
quired pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2)
of this subsection;
(B)	determining, to the maximum ex-
tent practicable, the nature and extent of
pollutants in such discharges; and
(C)	establishing procedures and meth-
ods to control stormwater discharges to
the extent necessary to mitigate impacts
on water quality.
Not later than October 1, 1988, the Ad-
ministrator shall submit to Congress a re-
port on the results of the study described
in subparagraphs (A) and (B). Not later
than October 1, 1989, the Administrator
shall submit to Congress a report on the
results of the study described in subpara-
graph (C).
(6)	Regulations. — Not later than Oc-
tober 1, 1992, the Administrator, in con-
sultation with State and local officials,
shall issue regulations (based on the re-
sults of the studies conducted under para-
graph (5)) which designate stormwater
discharges, other than those discharges
described in paragraph (2), to be regula-
ted to protect water quality and shall es-
tablish a comprehensive program to regu-
late such designated sources. The pro-
gram shall, at a minimum, (A) establish
priorities, (B) establish requirements for
State stormwater management programs,
and (C) establish expeditious deadlines.
The program may include performance
standards, guidelines, guidance, and man-
agement practices and treatment require-
ments, as appropriate.
[§402(p) added by PL 100-4]
§403(33 U.S.C. 1343] Ocean Discharge
Criteria
(a)	No permit under section 402 of this
Act for a discharge into the territorial sea,
the waters of the contiguous zone, or the
oceans shall be issued, after promulgation
of guidelines established under subsection
(c) of this section, except in compliance
with such guidelines. Prior to the promul-
gation of such guidelines, a permit may be
issued under such section 402 if the Ad-
ministrator determines it to be in the pub-
lic interest.
(b)	The requirements of subsection (d)
of section 402 of this Act may not be

-------
waived in the case of permits for dis-
charges inio the territorial sea.
(c) (1) The Administrator shall, within
one hundred and eighty days after enact-
ment of this Act (and from time to time
thereafter), promulgate guidelines for de-
termining the degradation of the waters
of the territorial seas, the contiguous
zone, and the oceans, which shall include:
(A)	the effect of disposal of pollutants
on human health or welfare, including but
not limited to plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, shorelines, and beaches;
(B)	the effect of disposal of pollutants
on marine life including the transfer, con-
centration, and dispersal of pollutants or
their byproducts through biological, phys-
ical, and chemical processes; changes in
marine ecosystem diversity, productivity,
and stability; and species and community
population changes;
(C)	the effect of disposal, of pollutants
on esthetic, recreation, and economic val-
ues;
(D)	the persistence and permanence of
the effects of disposal of pollutants;
(E)	the effect of the disposal at varying
rates, of particular volumes and concen-
trations of pollutants;
(F)	other possible locations and meth-
ods of disposal or recycling of pollutants
including land-based alternatives; and
(G)	the effect on alternate uses of the
oceans, such as mineral exploitation and
scientific study.
(2) In any event where insufficient in-
formation exists on any proposed dis-
charge to make a reasonable judgment on
any of the guidelines established pursuant
to this subsection no permit shall be is-
sued under section 402 of this Act.
§404 [33 U.S.C. 1344] Permits for
Dredged or Fill Material
(a)	The Secretary may issue permits,
after notice and opportunity for public
hearings for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into the navigable waters at
specified disposal sites. Not later than the
fifteenth day after the date an applicant
submits all the information required to
complete an application for a permit un-
der this subsection, the Secretary shall
publish the notice required by this subsec-
tion.
(b)	Subject to subsection (c) of this sec-
tion, each such disposal site shall be speci-
fied for each such permit by the Secretary
(1) through the application of guidelines
developed by the Administrator, in con-
junction with the Secretaiy, which guide-
lines shall be based upon criteria compa-
rable to the criteria applicable to the terri-
torial seas, the contiguous zones, and the
ocean under section 403(c), and (2) in
any case where such guidelines under
clause (1) alone would prohibit the speci-
fication of a site, through the application
additionally of the economic impact of the
site on navigation and anchorage.
(c)	The Administrator is authorized to
prohibit the specification (including the
withdrawal of specification) of any de-
fined area as a disposal site, and he is
authorized to deny or restrict the use of
any defined area for specification (includ-
ing the withdrawal of specification) as a
disposal site, whenever he determines, af-
ter notice and opportunity for public hear-
ings, that the discharge of such materials
into such area will have an unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal water sup-
plies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (in-
cluding spawning and breeding areas),
wildlife, or recreational areas. Before
malting such determination, the Adminis-
trator shall consult with the Secretary.
The Administrator shall set forth in writ-
ing and make public his findings and his
reasons for making any determination un-
der this subsection.
(d)	The term "Secretary" as used in
this section means the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engi-
neers.
(e)	(1) In carrying out his functions re-
lating to the discharge of dredged or fill
material under this section, the Secretary
may, after notice and opportunity for pub-
lic hearing, issue general permits on a
State, regional, or nationwide basis for
any category of activities involving dis-
charges of dredged or fill material if the
Secretary determines that the activities in
such category are similar in nature, will
cause only minimal adverse environmen-
tal effects when performed separately,
and will have only minimal cumulative
adverse effect on the environment. Any
general permit issued under this subsec-
tion shall (A) be based on the guidelines
described in subsection (b)(1) of this sec-
tion, and (B) set forth the requirements
and standards which shall apply to any
activity authorized by such general per-
mit.
(2) No general permit issued under this
subsection shall be for a period of more
than five years after the date of its issu-
ance and such general permit may be re-
voked or modifed by the Secretary if, af-
ter opportunity for public hearing, the
Secretary determines that the activities
authorized by such general permit have
an adverse impact on the environment or
such activities are more appropriately au-
thorized by individual permits.
(f) (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2) of this subsection, the discharge of
dredge or fill material—
(A)	from normal farming, silviculture,
and ranching activities such as plowing,
seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, har-
vesting for the production of food, fiber,
and forest products, or upland soil and
water conservation practices;
(B)	for the purpose of maintenance, in-
cluding emergency reconstruction of re-
cently damaged parts, of currently ser-
viceable structures such as dikes, dams,
levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, cause-
ways, and bridge abutments or approach-
es, and transportation structures;
(C)	for the purpose of construction or
maintenance of farm or stock ponds or
irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of
drainage ditches;
(D)	for the purpose of construction of
temporary sedimentation basins on a con-
struction site which does not include
placement of fill material into the naviga-
ble waters;
(E)	for the purpose of construction or
maintenance of farm roads or forest
roads, or temporary ioads for moving min-
ing equipment, where such roads are con-
structed and maintained, in accordance
with best management practices, to as-
sure that flow and circulation patterns
and chemical and biological characteris-
• tics of the navigable waters are not im-
paired, that the reach of the navigable
waters is not reduced, and that any ad-
verse effect on the aquatic environment
will be otherwise minimized;
(F)	resulting from any activity with re-
spect to which a State has an approved
program under section 208(b)(4) which
meets the requirements of subparagraphs
(B) and (C) of such section, is not prohib-
ited by or otherwise subject to regulation
under this section or section 301(a) or 402
of this Act (except for effluent standards
or prohibitions under section 307).
(2) Any discharge cf dredged or fill ma-
terial into the navigable waters incidental
to any activity having as its purpose bring-
ing an area of the navigable waters into a

-------
use lo which it was not previously subject,
where the flow or circulation of navigable
waters may be impaired or the reach of
such waters be reduced, shall be required
to have a permit under this section.
(g)	(1) The Governor of any State de-
siring to administer us own individual and
general permit program for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into the naviga-
ble waters (other than those waters which
are presently used, or are susceptible to
use in their natural condition or by rea-
sonable improvement as a means to trans-
port interstate or foreign commerce shore-
ward to their ordinary high water mark,
including all waters which are subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to
their mean high water mark, or mean
higher high water mark on the west coast,
including wetlands adjacent thereto),
within its jurisdiction may submit to the
Administrator a full and complete de-
scription of the program it proposes to
establish and administer under State law
or under an interstate compact. In addi-
tion, such State shall submit a statement
from the attornev general (or the attorney
for those State agencies which have inde-
pendent legal counsel), or from the chief
legal officer in the case of an interstate
agency, that the laws of such State, or the
interstate compact, as the case may be,
provide adequate authority to carry out
the described program.
(2)	Not later than the tenth day after
the date of the receipt of the program and
statement submitted by any State under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Ad-
ministrator shall provide copies of such
program and statement to the Secretary
and the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.
(3)	Not later than the ninetieth day af-
ter the date of the receipt by the Adminis-
trator of the program and statement sub-
mitted by any State, under paragraph (1)
of this subsection, the Secretary and the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, shall submit any com-
ments with respect to such program and
statement to the Administrator in writing.
(h)	(I) Not later than the one-hundred-
twentieth day after the date of the receipt
by the Administrator of a program and
statement submitted by any State under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Ad-
ministrator shall determine, taking into
account any comments submitted by the
Secretary and the Secretary of the Interi-
or, acting through the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
pursuant to subsection (g) of this section,
whether such State has the following au-
thority with respect to the issuance of per-
mits pursuant to such program:
(A)	To issue permits which—
(i)	apply and assure compliance with,
any applicable requirements of this sec-
tion. including, but not limited to, the
guidelines established under section
(b)(1) of this section, and sections 307
and 403 of this Act;
(ii)	are for fixed terms not exceeding
five years; and
(iii)	can be terminated or modified for
cause including, but not limited to, the
following:
(I)	violation of any condition of the per-
mit;
(II)	obtaining a permit by misrepresen-
tation, or failure to disclose fully all rele-
vant facts;
(III)	change in any condition that re-
quires either a temporary or permanent
reduction or elimination of the permitted
discharge.
(B)	To issue permits which apply, and
assure compliance with, all applicable re-
quirements of section 308 of this Act, or
to inspect, monitor, enter, and require re-
ports to at least the same extent as re-
quired in section 308 of this Act.
(C)	To assure that the public, and any
other State the waters of which may be
affected, receive notice of each applica-
tion for a permit and to provide an oppor-
tunity for public hearing before a ruling
on each such application.
(D)	To assure that the Administrator
receives notice of each application (in-
cluding a copy thereof) for a permit.
(E)	To assure that any State (other
than the permitting State), whose waters
may be affected by the issuance of a per-
mit may submit written recommendation
to the permitting State (and the Adminis-
trator) with respect to any permit applica-
tion and, if any part of such written rec-
ommendations are not accepted by the
permitting State, that the permitting
State will notify such affected State (and
the Administrator) in writing of its failure
to so accept such recommendations to-
gether with its reasons for so doing.
(F)	To assure that no permit will be
issued if, in the judgment of the Secre-
tary. after consultation with the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating, anchorage and navi-
gation of any of the navigable water
would be substantially impaired thereby.
(G)	To abate violations of the permit or
the permit program, including civil and
criminal penalties and other ways and
means of enforcement.
(H)	To assure continued coordination
with Federal and Federal-State water-re-
lated planning and review processes.
(2)	If, with respect to a State program
submitted under subsection (g)(1) of this
section, the Administrator determines
that such State—
(A)	has the authority set forth in para-
graph (1) of this subsection, the Adminis-
trator shall approve the program and so
notify (i) such State, and (ii) the Secre-
tary, who upon subsequent notification
from such State that it is administering
such program, shall suspend the issuance
of permits under subsection (a) and (e) of
this section for activities with respect to
which a permit may be issued pursuant to
such State program; or
(B)	does not have the authority set
forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection,
the Administrator shall so notify such
State, which notification shall also de-
scribe the revisions or modifications neces-
sary so that such State may resubmit such
program for a determination by the Ad-
ministrator under this subsection.
(3)	If the Administrator fails to make a
determination with respect to any pro-
gram submitted by a State under subsec-
tion (g)(1) of this section within one-hun-
dred-twenty days after the date of the re-
ceipt of such program, such program shall
be deemed approved pursuant to para-
graph (2)(A) of this subsection and the
Administrator shall so notify such State
and the Secretary who, upon subsequent
notification from such State that it is ad-
ministering such program, shall suspend
the issuance of permits under subsection
(a) and (e) of this section for activities
with respect to which a permit may be
issued by such State.
(4)	After the Secretary receives notifi-
cation from the Administrator under
paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection
that a State permit program has been ap-
proved, the Secretary shall transfer any
applications for permits before the Secre-
tary for activities with respect to which a
permit may be issued pursuant to such

-------
State program to such State for appropri-
ate action.
(5) Upon notification from a State with
a permit prcgram approved under this
subsection that such State intends to
administer and enforce the terms and con-
ditions of a general permit issued by the
Secretary under subsection (e) of this sec-
tion with respect to activities in such
State to which such general permit ap-
plies, the Secretary shall suspend the ad-
ministration and enforcement of such gen-
eral permit with respect to such activities.
(i) Whenever the Administrator deter-
mines after public hearing that a State is
not administering a program approved un-
der section (h)(2)(A) of this section, in
accordance with this section, including,
but not limited to, the guidelines estab-
lished under subsection (b)(1) of this sec-
tion, the Administrator shall so notify the
State, and, if appropriate corrective ac-
tion is not taken within a reasonable time,
not to exceed ninety days after the date of
the receipt of such notification, the Ad-
ministrator shall (1) withdraw approval of
such program until the Administrator de-
termines such corrective action has been
taken, and (2) notify the Secretary that
the Secretary shall resume the program
for the issuance of permits under subsec-
tions (a) and (e) of this section for activi-
ties with respect to which the State was
issuing permits and that such authority of
the Secretary shall continue in effect until
such time as the Administrator makes the
determination described in clause (1) of
this subsection and such State again has
an approved program.
(j) Each State which is administering a
permit program pursuant to this section
shall transmit to the Administrator (1) a
copy of each permit application received
by such State and provide notice to the
Administrator of every action related to
the consideration of such permit applica-
tion, including each permit proposed to be
issued by such State, and (2) a copy of
each proposed general permit which such
State intends to issue. Not later than the
tenth day after the date of the receipt of
such permit application or such proposed
general permit, the Administrator shall
provide copies of such permit application
or such proposed general permit to the
Secretary and the Secretary of the Interi-
or, acting through the Director of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
If the Administrator intends to provide
written comments to such State with re-
spect to such permit application or such
proposed general permit, he shall so noti-
fy such State not later than the thirtieth
day after the date of the receipt of such
application or such proposed general per-
mit and provide such written comments to
such State, after consideration of any
comments made in writing with respect to
such application or such proposed general
permit by the Secretary and the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Direc-
tor of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, not later than the ninetieth day
after the date of such receipt. If such
State is so notified by the Administrator,
it shall not issue the proposed permit until
after the receipt of such comments from
the Administrator, or after such ninetieth
day, whichever first occurs. Such State
shall not issue such proposed permit after
such ninetieth day if it has received such
written comments in which the Adminis-
trator objects (A) to the issuance of such
proposed permit and such proposed per-
mit is one that has been submitted to the
Administrator pursuant to subsection
(h)(1) (E), or (B) to the issuances of such
proposed permit as being outside the re-
quirements of this section, including, but
not limited to, the guidelines developed,
under subsection (b)(1) of this section un-
less it modifies such proposed permit in
accordance with such comments. When-
ever the Administrator objects to the issu-
ance of a permit under the preceding sen-
tence such written objection shall contain
a statement of the reasons for such objec-
tion and the conditions which such permit
would include if it were issued by the Ad-
ministrator. In any case where the Ad-
ministrator objects to the issuance of a
permit, on request of the State, a public
hearing shall be held by the Administra-
tor on such objection. If the State does not
resubmit such permit revised to meet such
objection within 30 days after completion
of the hearing or, if no hearing is request-
ed within 90 days after the date of such
objection, the Secretary may issue the
permit pursuant to subsection (a) or (e) of
this section, as the case may be, for such
source in accordance with the guidelines
and requirements of this Act.
(k) In accordance with guidelines
promulgated pursuant to subsection
(h)(2) of section 304 of this Act, the Ad-
ministrator is authorized to waive the re-
quirements of subsection (j) of this sec-
tion at the time of the approval of a pro-
gram pursuant to subsection (h)(2)(A) of
this section for any category (including
any class, type, or size within such cate-
gory) of discharge within the State sub-
mitting such program.
(1) The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations establishing categories of dis-
charges which he determines shall not be
subject to the requirements of subsection
(j) of this section in any State with a pro-
gram approved pursuant to subsection
(h)(2)(A) of this section. The Adminis-
trator may distinguish among classes,
types, and sizes within any category of
discharges.
(m) Not later than the ninetieth day
after the date on which the Secretary no-
tifies the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service that (1) an ap-
plication for a permit under subsection
(a) of this section has been received by
the Secretary, or (2) the Secretary pro-
poses to issue a general permit under sub-
section (e) of this section, the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Director
of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, shall submit any comments with
respect to such application or such pro-
posed general permit in writing to the
Secretary.
(n) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to limit the authority of the Ad-
ministrator to take action pursuant to sec-
tion 309 of this Act.
(o) A copy of each permit application
and each permit issued under this section
shall be available to the public. Such per-
mit application or portion thereof, shall
further be available on request for the
purpose of reproduction.
(p) Compliance with a permit issued
pursuant to this section, including any ac-
tivity carried out pursuant to a general
permit issued under this section, shall be
deemed compliance, for purposes of sec-
tions 309 and 505, with sections 301, 307,
and 403.
(q) Not later than the one-hundred-
eightieth day after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Secretary shall
enter into agreements with the Adminis-
trator, the Secretaries of the Departments
of Agriculture, Commerce. Interior, and
Transportation, and the heads of other ap-
propriate Federal agencies to minimize, to
the maximum extent practicable, duplica-
tion, needless paperwork, and delays in

-------
the issuance of permits under this section.
Such agreements shall be developed to as-
sure thai, to the maximum extent practi-
cable, a decision with respect to an appli-
cation for a permit under subsection (a)
of this section will be made not later than
the ninetieth day after the date the notice
of such application is published under
subsection (a) of this section.
(r) The discharge of dredged or fill ma-
terial as part of the construction of a Fed-
eral project specifically authorized by
Congress, whether prior to or on or after
the date of enactment of this subsection,
is not prohibited by or otherwise subject
to regulation under this section, or a State
program approved under this section, or
section 301(a) or 402 of the Act (except
for effluent standards or prohibitions un-
der section 307), if information on the
effects of such discharge, including con-
sideration of the guidelines developed un-
der subsection (b)(1) of this section, is
included in an environmental impact
statement for such project pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and such environmental impact
statement has been submitted to Congress
before the actual discharge of dredged or
fill material in connection with the con-
struction of such project and prior to ei-
ther authorization of such project or an
appropriation of funds for each construc-
tion.
(s) (1) Whenever on the basis of any
information available to him the Secre-
tary finds that any person is in violation of
any condition or limitation set forth in a
permit issued by the Secretary under this
section, the Secretary shall issue an order
requiring such persons to comply with
such condition or limitation, or the Secre-
tary shall bring a civil action in accor-
dance with paragraph (3) of this subsec-
tion.
(2) A copy of any order issued under
this subsection shall be sent immediately
by the Secretary to the State in which the
violation occurs and other affected States.
Any order issued under this subsection
shall be by personal service and shall state
with reasonable specificity the nature of
the violation, specify a time for compli-
ance, not to exceed thirty days, which the
Secretary determines is reasonable, tak-
ing into account the seriousness of the vio-
lation and any good faith efforts to com-
ply with applicable requirements. In any
case in which an order under this subsec-
tion is issued to a corporation, a copy of
such order shall be served on any appro-
priate corporate officers.
(3)	The Secretary is authorized to com-
mence a civil action for appropriate relief,
including a permanent or temporary in-
junction for any violation for which he is
authorized to issue a compliance order un-
der paragraph (1) of this subsection. Any
action under this paragraph may be
brought in the district court of the United
States for the district in which the defen-
dant is located or resides or is doing busi-
ness, and such court shall have jurisdic-
tion to restrain such violation and to re-
quire compliance. Notice of the
commencement of such action shall be
given immediately to the appropriate
State.
(4)	Any person who violates any condi-
tion or limitation in a permit issued by the
Secretary under this section, and any per-
son who violates any order issued by the
Secretary under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, shall be subject to a civil pen-
alty not to exceed S25.000 per day for
each violation. In determining the amount
of a civil penalty the court shall consider
the seriousness of the violation or viola-
tions, the economic benefit (if any) result-
ing from the violation, any history of such
violations, any good-faith efforts to com-
ply with the applicable requirements, the
economic impact of the penalty on the
violator, and such other matters as justice
may require.
[Former §404(s)(4) deleted and (5)
amended and redesignated as (4) by PL
100-4]
(t) Nothing in this section shall pre-
clude or deny the right of any State or
interstate agency to control the discharge
of dredged or fill material in any portion
of the navigable waters within the juris-
diction of such State, including any activi-
ty of any Federal agency, and each such
agency shall comply with such State or
interstate requirements both substantive
and procedural to control the discharge of
dredged or fill material to the same extent
that any person is subject to such require-
ments. This section shall not be construed
as affecting or impairing the authority of
the Secretary to maintain navigation.
§405 [33 U.S.C. 1345] Disposal of Sewage
Sludge
(a) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act or of any other law, in the
case where the disposal of sewage sludge
resulting from the operation of a treat-
ment works as defined in section 212 of
this Act (including the removal of in-
place sewage sludge from one location
and its deposit at another location) would
result in any pollutant from such sewage
sludge entering the navigable waters, such
disposal is prohibited except in accor-
dance with a permit issued by the Admin-
istrator under section 402 of this Act.
(b)	The Administrator shall issue regu-
lations governing the issuance of permits
for the disposal of sewage sludge subject
to subsection (a) of this section and sec-
tion 402 of this Act. Such regulations
shall require the application to such dis-
posal of each criterion, factor, procedure,
and requirement applicable to a permit
issued under section 402 of this title.
(c)	Each State desiring to administer
its own permit program for disposal of
sewage sludge subject to subsection (a) of
this section within its jurisdiction may do
so in accordance with section 402 of this
Act.
(d)	Regulations.—
(1)	Regulations. — The Administrator,
after consultation with appropriate Feder-
al and State agencies and other interested
persons, shall develop and publish, within
one year after the date of enactment of
this subsection and from time to time
thereafter, regulations providing guide-
lines for the disposal of sludge and the
utilization of sludge for various purposes.
Such regulations shall—
(A)	identify uses for sludge, including
disposal;
(B)	specify factors to be taken into ac-
count in determining the measures and
practices applicable to each such use or
disposal (including publication of infor-
mation on costs);
(C)	identify concentrations of pollu-
tants which interfere with each such use
or disposal. The Administrator is autho-
rized to revise any regulation issued under
this subsection.
(2)	Identification and Regulation of
Toxic Pollutants.—
(A) On Basis of Available Informa-
tion.—
(i) Proposed Regulations. — Not later
than November 30, 1986, the Administra-
tor shall identify those toxic pollutants
which, on the basis of available informa-
tion on their toxicity, persistence, concen-
tration, mobility, or potential for expo-

-------
sure, may be present in sewage sludge in
concentrations which may adversely af-
fect public health or the environment, and
propose regulations specifying acceptable
management practices for sewage sludge
containing each such toxic pollutant and
establishing numerical limitations for
each such pollutant for each use identified
under paragraph (1)(A).
(ii) Final Regulations. — Not later
than August 31, 1987, and after opportu-
nity for public hearing, the Administrator
shall promulgate the regulations required
by subparagraph (A)(i).
(B)	Others.—
(i)	Proposed Regulations. — Not later
than July 31, 1987, the Administrator
shall identify those toxic pollutants not
identified under subparagraph (A)(i)
which may be present in sewage sludge in
concentrations which may adversely af-
fect public health or the environment, and
propose regulations specifying acceptable
management practices for sewage sludge
containing each such toxic pollutant and
establishing numerical limitations for
each pollutant for each such use identified
under paragraph (1)(A).
(ii)	Final Regulations. — Not later
than June 15, 1988, the Administrator
shall promulgate the regulations required
by subparagraph (B)(i).
(C)	Review. — From time to time, but
not less often than every 2 years, the Ad-
ministrator shall review the regulations
promulgated under this paragraph for the
purpose of identifying additional toxic
pollutants and promulgating regulations
for such pollutants consistent with the re-
quirements of this paragraph.
(D)	Minimum Standards; Compliance
Date. — The management practices and
numerical criteria established under sub-
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall be ad-
equate to protect public health and the
environment from any reasonably antici-
pated adverse effects of each pollutant.
Such regulations shall require compliance
as expeditiously as practicable but in no
case later than 12 months after their pub-
lication, unless such regulations require
the construction of new pollution control
facilities, in which case the regulations
. shall require compliance as expeditiously
as practicable but in no case later than
two years from the date of their publica-
tion.
(§405(d)(2)(5) added by PL 100-4]
(3)	Alternative Standards — For pur-
poses of this subsection, if, in the judg-
ment of the Administrator, it is not feasi-
ble to prescribe or enforce a numerical
limitation for a pollutant identified under
paragraph (2), the Administrator may in-
stead promulgate a design, equipment,
management practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof, which
in the Administrator's judgment is ade-
quate to protect public health and the en-
vironment from any reasonably antici-
pated adverse effects of such pollutant. In
the event the Administrator promulgates
a design or equipment standard under this
subsection, the Administrator shall in-
clude as part of such standard such re-
quirements as will assure the proper oper-
ation and maintenance of any such ele-
ment of design or equipment.
[§405(d)(3) added by PL 100-4]
(4)	Conditions on Permits — Prior to
the promulgation of the regulations re-
quired by paragraph (2), the Administra-
tor shall impose conditions in permits is-
sued to publicly owned treatment works
under section 402 of this Act or take such
other measures as the Administrator
deems appropriate to protect public
health and the environment from any ad-
verse effects which may occur from toxic
pollutants in sewage sludge.
[§405(d)(4) added by PL 100-4],
(5)	Limitation on Statutory Construc-
tion. — Nothing in this section is intend-
ed to waive more stringent requirements
established by this Act or any other law.
[§405(d)(5) added by PL 100-4]
(e) Manner of Sludge Disposal. — The
determination of the manner of disposal
or use of sludge is a local determination,
except that it shall be unlawful for any
person to dispose of sludge from a public-
ly owned treatment works or any other
treatment works treating domestic sewage
for any use for which regulations have
been established pursuant to subsection
(d) of this section, except in accordance
with such regulations.
[§405(e) revised by PL 100-4]
(0 Implementation of Regulations.—
(1) Through Section 402 Permits. —
Any permit issued under section 402 of
this Act to a publicly owned treatment
works or any other treatment works treat-
ing domestic sewage shall include require-
ments for the use and disposal of sludge
that implement the regulations estab-
lished pursuant to subsection (d) of this
section, unless such requirements have
been included in a permit issued under
the appropriate provisions of subtitle C of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, part C of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, or the Clean Air Act, or
under State permit programs approved by
the Administrator, where the Administra-
tor determines that such programs assure
compliance with any applicable require-
ments of this section. Not later than De-
cember 15, 1986, the Administrator shall
promulgate procedures for approval of
Stale programs pursuant to this para-
graph.
(2) Through Other Permits. — In the
case of a treatment works described in
paragraph (1) that is not subject to sec-
tion 402 of this Act and to which none of
the other above listed permit programs
nor approved State permit authority ap-
ply, the Administrator may issue a permit
to such treatment works solely to impose
requirements for the use and disposal of
sludge that implement the regulations es-
tablished pursuant to subsetion (d) of this
section. The Administrator shall include
in the permit appropriate requirements to
assure compliance with the regulations es-
tablished pursuant to subsetion (d) of this
section. The Administrator shall establish
procedures for issuing permits pursuant to
this paragraph.
[§405(0 added by PL 100-4]
(g) Studies and Projects.—
(1) Grant Program; Information Gath-
ering. The Administrator is authorized to
conduct or initiate scientific studies, dem-
onstration projects, and public informa-
tion and education projects which arc de-
signed to promote the safe and beneficial
management or use of sewage sludge for
such purposes as aiding the restoration of
abandoned mine sites, conditioning soil
for parks and recreation areas, agricultur-
al and horticultural uses, and other bene-
ficial purposes. For the purposes of carry-
ing out this subsection, the Administrator
may make grants to State water pollution
control agencies, other public or nonprofit
agencies, institutions, organizations, and
individuals. In cooperation with other
Federal departments and agencies, other
public and private agencies, institutions,
and organizations, the Administrator is
authorized to collect and disseminate in-

-------
formation pertaining to the safe and bene-
ficial use of sewage sludge.
(2) Authorization of Appropriations. —
For the purposes of carrying out the scien-
tific studies, demonstration projects, and
public information and education projects
authorized in this section, there is autho-
rized to be appropriated for fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1986, not
to exceed 15,000,000.
[§405(g) added by PL 100-4]
TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS
§501 [33 U.S.C. 1361] Administration
(a)	The Administrator is authorized to
prescribe such regulations as are neces-
sary to carry out his functions under this
Act.
(b)	The Administrator, with the con-
sent of the head of any other agency of
the United States, may utilize such of-
ficers and employees of such agency as
may be found necessary to assist in carry-
ing out the purposes of this Act.
(c)	Each recipient of financial assist-
ance under this Act shall keep such
records as the Administrator shall pre-
scribe, including records which fully dis-
close the amount and disposition by such
recipient of the proceeds of such assist-
ance, the total cost of the project or un-
dertaking in connection with which such
assistance is given or used, and the
amount of that portion of the cost of the
project or undertaking supplied by other
sources, and such other records as will
facilitate an effective audit.
(d)	The Administrator and the Comp-
troller General of the United States, or
any of their duly authorized representa-
tives, shall have access, for the purpose of
audit and examination, to any books, doc-
uments, papers, and records of the recipi-
ents that are pertinent to the grants re-
ceived under this Act. For the purpose of
carrying out audits and examinations with
respect to recipients of Federal assistance
under this Act, the Administrator is au-
thorized to enter into noncompetitive pro-
curement contracts with independent
Slate audit organizations, consistent with
chapter 75 of title 31, United States
Code. Such contracts may only be entered
into to the extent and in such amounts as
may be provided in advance in appropria-
tion Acts.
[§501 (d) amended by PL 100-4]
(e) (1) It is the purpose of this subsec-
tion to authorize a program which will
provide official recognition by the United
States Government to those industrial or-
ganizations and political subdivisions of
States which during the preceding year
demonstrated an outstanding technologi-
cal achievement or an innovative process,
method, or device in their waste treat-
ment and pollution abatement programs.
The Administrator shall, in consultation
with the appropriate State water pollution
control agencies, establish regulations un-
der which such recognition may be ap-
plied for and granted, except that no ap-
plicant shall be eligible for an award un-
der this subsection if such applicant is not
in total compliance with all applicable wa-
ter quality requirements under this Act,
or otherwise does not have a satisfactory
record with respect to environmental
quality.
(2)	The Administrator shall award a
certificate or plaque of suitable design to
each industrial organization or political
subdivision which qualifies for such recog-
nition under regulations established under
this subsection.
(3)	The President of the United States,
the Governor of the appropriate State, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and the President pro tempore of the Sen-
ate shall be notified of the award by the
Administrator and the awarding of such
recognition shall be published in the Fed-
eral Register.
(0 Upon the request of a State water
pollution control agency, personnel of the
Environmental Protection Agency may be
detailed to such agency for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
§502 [33 U.S.C. 1362] General Definitions
Except as otherwise specifically provid-
ed. when used in this Act:
(1)	The term "State water pollution
control agency" means the State agency
designated by the Governor having re-
sponsibility for enforcing State laws relat-
ing to the abatement of pollution.
(2)	The term "interstate agency"
means an agency of two or more States
established by or pursuant to an agree-
ment of compact approved by the Con-
gress, or any other agency of two or more.
Stales, having substantial powers or du-
ties pertaining to the control of pollution
as determined and approved by the Ad-
ministrator.
(3)	The term "State" means a State,
the District of Columbia, the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Common-
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-
lands.
[§502(3) amended by PL 100-4]
(4)	The term "municipality" means a
city, town, borough, county, parish, dis-
trict, association, or other public body cre-
ated by or pursuant to State law and hav-
ing jurisdiction over disposal of sewage,
industrial wastes, or other wastes, or an
Indian tribe or an authorized Indian trib-
al organization, or a designated and ap-
proved management agency under section
208 of this Act.
(5)	The term "person" means an indi-
vidual, corporation, partnership, associa-
tion. State, municipality, commission, or
political subdivision of a State, or any in-
terstate body.
(6)	The term "pollutant" means
dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator res-
idue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge,
munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat,
wrecked or discarded equipment, rock,
sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into
water. This term does not mean (A) "sew-
age from vessels" within the meaning of
section 312 of this Act; or (B) water, gas,
or other material which is injected into a
well to facilitate production of oil or gas,
or water derived in association with oil or
gas production and disposed of in a well,
if the well used either to facilitate produc-
tion or for disposal purposes is approved
by authority of the State in which the well
is located, and if such State determines
that such injection or disposal will not re-
sult in the degradation of ground or sur-
face water resources.
(7)	The term "navigable waters"
means the waters of the United States,
including the territorial seas.
(8)	The term "territorial seas" means
the belt of the seas measured from the
line of ordinary low water along that por-
tion of the coast which is in direct contact
with the open sea and the line marking
the seaward limit of inland waters, and
extending seaward a distance of three
miles.
(9)	The term "contiguous zone" means
ihe entire zone established or to be estab-
lished by the United States under article

-------
24 of the Convention of the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
(10)	The term "ocean" means any por-
tion of the high seas beyond the contigu-
ous zone.
(11)The	term "effluent limitation"
means any restriction established by a
State or the Administrator on quantities,
rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other constitu-
ents which are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters
of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, in-
cluding schedules of compliance.
(12)	The term "discharge of a pollu-
tant" and the term "discharge of pollu-
tants" each means (A) any addition of
any pollutant to navigable waters from
any point source, (B) any addition of any
pollutant to the waters of the contiguous
zone or the ocean from any point source
other than a vessel or other floating craft.
(13)	The term "toxic pollutant" means
those pollutants, or combinations of pollu-
tants, including disease-causing agents,
which after discharge and upon exposure,
ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into
any organism, either directly from the en-
vironment or indirectly by ingestion
through food chains, will, on the basis of
information available to the Administra-
tor, cause death, disease, behavioral ab-
normalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions (including
malfunctions in reproduction) or physical
deformations, in such organisms or their
offspring.
(14)	The term "point source" means
any discernible, confined and discrete con-
veyance, including but not limited to any
pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, or
vessel or other floating craft, from which
pollutants are or may be discharged. This
term does not include agricultural
stormwater discharges and return flows
from irrigated agriculture.
[§502(14) amended by PL 100-4]
[Editor's note: Section 507 of PL
100-4 states:
"Sec. 507. Definition of Point Source.
For purposes of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, the term "point
source" includes a landfill leachate collec-
tion system."]
(15)	The term "biological monitoring"
shall mean the determination of the ef-
fects on aquatic life, including accumula-
tion of pollutants in tissue, in receiving
waters due to the discharge of pollutants
(A) by techniques and procedures, includ-
ing sampling of organisms representative
of appropriate levels of the food chain ap-
propriate to the volume and the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of
the effluent, and (B) at appropriate fre-
quencies and locations.
(16)	The term "discharge" when used
without qualification includes a discharge
of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollu-
tants.
(17)	The term "schedule of compli-
ance" means a schedule of remedial mea-
sures including an enforceable sequence
of actions or operations leading to compli-
ance with an effluent limitation, other lim-
itation, prohibition, or standard.
(18)	The term "industrial user" means
those industries identified in the Standard
Industrial Classification Manual, Bureau
of the Budget, 1967, as amended and sup-
plemented, under the category "Division
D—Manufacturing" and such other clas-
ses of significant waste products as, by
regulation, the Administrator deems ap-
propriate.
(19)	The term "pollution" means the
man-made or man-induced alteration of
the chemical, physical, biological and ra-
diological integrity of water.
(20)	The term "medical waste" means
isolation wastes; infectious agents; human
blood and blood products; pathological
wastes; sharps; body parts; contaminated
bedding; surgical wastes and potentially
contaminated laboratory wastes; dialysis
wastes; and such idditional medical items
as the Administrator shall prescribe by
regulation.
[§502(20) added by PL 100-688]
§503 [33 U.S.C. 1363] Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board
(a)(1) There is hereby established in
the Environmental Protection Agency a
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board,
composed of the Administrator or his des-
ignee, who shall be Chairman, and nine
members appointed by the President,
none of whom shall be Federal officers or
employees. The appointed members, hav-
ing due regard for the purposes of this
Act, shall be selected from among repre-
sentatives of various State, interstate, and
local governmental agencies, of public or
private interests contributing to, affected
by, or concerned with pollution, and of
other public and private agencies, organi-
zations, or groups demonstrating an active
interest in the field of pollution prevention
and control, as well as other individuals
who are expert in this field.
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the
President shall hold office for a term of
three years, except that (i) any member
appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior
to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be ap-
pointed for the remainder of such term,
and (ii) the terms of office of the members
first talcing office after June 30, 1956,
shall expire as follows: three at the end of
one year after such date, three at the end
of two years after such date, and three at
the end of three years after such date, as
designated by the President at the time of
appointment, and (iii) the term of any
member under the preceding provisions
shall be extended until the date on which
his successor's appointment is effective.
None of the members appointed by the
President shall be eligible for reappoint-
ment within one year after the end of his
preceding term.
(B) The members of the Board who are
not officers or employees of the United
States, while attending conferences or
meetings of the Board or while otherwise
serving at the request of the Administra-
tor, shall be entitled to receive compensa-
tion at a rate to be fixed by the Adminis-
trator, but not exceeding $100 per diem,
including travel-time, and while away
from their homes or regular places of
business they may be allowed travel ex-
penses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
sistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C.
73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
(b)	The Board shall advise, consult
with, and make recommendations to the
Administrator on matters of policy relat-
ing to the activities and functions of the
Administrator under this Act.
(c)	Such clerical and technical assist-
ance as may be necessary to discharge the
duties of the Board shall be provided from
the personnel of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
§504 [33 U.S.C. 1364] Emergency Powers
(a) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this Act, the Administrator upon
receipt of evidence that a pollution source
or combination of sources is presenting an
imminent and substantial endangerment

-------
lo ihe health of persons or 10 the welfare
of persons where such endangerment is to
the livelihood of such persons, such as in-
ability to market shellfish, may bring suit
on behalf of the United States in the ap-
propriate district court to immediately re-
strain any person causing or contributing
to the alleged pollution to stop the dis-
charge of pollutants causing or contribut-
ing to such pollution or to take such other
action as may be necessary.
(b) [Repealed]
[§504(b) repealed by PL 96-510]
§505 [33 U.S.C. 1365] Citizen Suits
(a)	Except as provided in subsection (b)
of this section, and section 309(g)(6) any
citizen may commence a civil action on
his own behalf—
[§505(a) amended by PL 100-4]
(1)	against any person (including (i)
the United States, and (ii) any other gov-
ernmental instrumentality or agency to
the extent permitted by the eleventh
amendment to the Constitution) who is
alleged to be in violation of (A) an efflu-
ent standard or limitation under this Act
or (B) an order issued by the Administra-
tor or a State with respect to such a stan-
dard or limitation, or
(2)	against the Administrator where
there is alleged a failure of the Adminis-
trator to perform any act or duty under
this Act which is not discretionary with
the Administrator. The district courts
shall have jurisdiction, without regard to
the amount in controversy or the citizen-
ship of the parties, to enforce such an ef-
fluent standard or limitation, or such an
order, or to order the Administrator to
perform such act or duty, as the case may
be, and to apply any appropriate civil pen-
alties under section 309(d) of this Act.
(b)	No action may be commenced—
(1) under subsection (a)(1) of this sec-
tion—
(A)	prior to sixty days after the plain-
tiff has given notice of the alleged viola-
tion (i) to the Administrator, (ii) to the
Slate in which the alleged violation oc-
curs, and (lii) to any alleged violator of
the standard, limitation, or order, or
(B)	if the Administrator or State has
commenced and is diligently prosecuting
a civil or criminal action in a court of the
United States, or a State to require com-
pliance with the standard, limitation, or
order, but in any such action in a court of
the United States any citizen may inter-
vene as a matter of right.
(2) under subsection (a)(2) of this sec-
tion prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice of such action to the Ad-
ministrator, except that such action may
be brought immediately after such notifi-
cation in the case of an action under this
section respecting a violation of sections
306 and 307(a) of this Act Notice under
this subsection shall be given in such man-
ner as the Administrator shall prescribe
by regulation.
(c)(1)	Any action respecting a viola-
tion by a discharge source of an effluent
standard or limitation or an order respect-
ing such standard or limitation may be
brought under this section only in the ju-
dicial district in which such source is lo-
cated.
(2)	In such action under this section,
the Administrator, if not a party, may in-
tervene as a matter of right.
(3)	Protection of Interests of United
States. — Whenever any action is
brought under this section in a court of
the United States, the plaintiff shall serve
a copy of the complaint on the Attorney
General and the Administrator No con-
sent judgment shall be entered in an ac-
tion in which the United States is not a
party prior to 45 days following the re-
ceipt of a copy of the proposed consent
judgment by the Attorney General and
the Administrator.
[§505(c)(3) added by PL 100-4]
(d)	The court, in issuing any final order
in any action brought pursuant to this sec-
tion, may award costs of litigation (in-
cluding reasonable attorney and expert
witness fees) to any prevailing or substan-
tially prevailing party, whenever the court
determines such award is appropriate.
The court may, if a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction is sought,
require the filing of a bond or equivalent
security in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
[§505(d) amended by PL 100-4]
(e)	Nothing in this section shall restrict
any right which any person (or class of
persons) may have under any statute or
common law to seek enforcement of any
effluent standard or limitation or to seek
any other relief (including relief against
the Administrator or a State agency).
(0 For purposes of this section, the
term "effluent standard or limitation un-
der this Act" means (1) effective July 1,
1973, an unlawful act under subsection
(a) of section 301 of this Act: (3) an efflu-
ent limitation or other limitation under
section 301 or 302 of this Act; (4) stan-
dard of performance under section 306 of
this Act; (3) prohibition, effluent standard
or pretreatment standards under section
307 of this Act; (5) certification under
section 401 of this Act; (6) a permit or
condition thereof issued under section 402
of this Act, which is in effect under this
Act (including a requirement applicable
by reason of section 313 of this Act); or
(7) a regulation under section 405(d) of
this Act.
[§505(0 amended by PL 100-4]
(g)	For the purposes of this section the
term "citizen" means a person or persons
having an interest which is or may be ad-
versely affected.
(h)	A Governor of a State may comm-
mence a civil action under subsection (a),
without regard to the limitations of sub-
section (b) of this section, against the Ad-
ministrator where there is alleged a fail-
ure of the Administrator to enforce an
effluent standard or limitation under this
Act the violation of which is occurring in
another State and is causing an adverse
effect on the public health or welfare in
his State, or is causing a violation of any
water quality requirement in his State.
§506 [33 U.S.C. 1366] Appearance
The Administrator shall request the At-
torney General to appear and represent
the United States in any civil or criminal
action instituted under this Act to which
the Administrator is a party. Unless the
Attorney General notifies the Administra-
tor within a reasonable time, that he will
appear in a civil action, attorneys who are
officers or employees of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency shall appear and
represent the United States in such ac-
tion.
§507 [33 U.S.C. 1367] Employee
Protection
(a) No person shall fire, or in any other
way discriminate against, or cause to be
fired or discriminated against, any em-
ployee or any authorized representative of
employees by reason of the fact that such
employee or representative has filed, insti-
tuted, or caused to be filed or instituted
any proceeding under this Act, or has tes-
tified or is about to testify in any proceed-

-------
ing resulting from the administration or
enforcement of the provisions of this Act.
(b) Any employee or a representative of
employees who believes that he has been
fired or otherwise discriminated against
by any person in violation of subsection
(a) of this section may, within thirty days
after such alleged violation occurs, apply
to the Secretary of Labor for a review of
such firing or alleged discrimination. A
copy of the application shall be sent to
such person who shall be the respondent.
Upon receipt of such application, the Sec-
retary of Labor shall cause such investiga-
tion to be made as he deems appropriate.
Such investigation shall provide an oppor-
tunity for a public hearing at the request
of any party to such review to enable the
parties to present information relating to
such alleged violation. The parties shall
be given written notice of the time and
place of the hearing at least five days
prior to the hearing. Any such hearing
shall be of record and shall be subject to
section 554 of title 5 of the United States
Code. Upon receiving the report of such
investigation, the Secretary of Labor shall
make findings of fact. If he finds that such
violation did occur, he shall issue a deci-
sion, incorporating an order therein and
his findings, requiring the party commit-
ting such violation to take such affirma-
tive action to abate the violation as the
Secretary of Labor deems appropriate, in-
cluding, but not limited to, the rehiring or
reinstatement of the employee or repre-
sentative of employees to his former posi-
tion with compensation. If he finds that
there was no such violation, he shall issue
an order denying the application. Such
order issued by the Secretary of Labor
under this subparagraph shall be subject
to judicial review m the same manner as
orders and decisions of the Administrator
are subject to judicial review under this
Act.
(c)	Whenever an order is issued under
this section to abate such violation, at the
request of the applicant, a sum equal to
the aggregate amount of all costs and ex-
penses (including the attorney's fees), as
determined by the Secretary of Labor, to
have been reasonably incurred by the ap-
plicant for, or in connection with, the in-
stitution and prosecution of such proceed-
ings, shall be assessed against the person
committing such violation.
(d)	This section shall have no applica-
tion to any employee who, acting without
direction from his employer (or his agent)
deliberately violates any prohibition of ef-
fluent limitation or other limitation under
section 301 or 302 of this Act, standards
of performance under section 306 of this
Act, effluent standard, prohibition or pre-
treatment standard under section 307 of
this Act, or any other prohibition or limi-
tation established under this Act.
(e) The Administrator shall conduct
continuing evaluations of potential loss or
shifts of employment which may result
from the issuance of any effluent limita-
tion or order under this Act, including,
where appropriate, investigating threat-
ened plant closures or reductions in em-
ployment allegedly resulting from such
limitation or order. Any employee who is
discharged or laid off, threatened with
discharge or lay-off, or otherwise discrimi-
nated against by any person because of
the alleged results of any effluent limita-
tion or order issued under this Act, or any
representative of such employee, may re-
quest the Administrator to conduct a full
investigation of the matter. The Adminis-
trator shall thereupon investigate the mat-
ter and, at the request of any party, shall
hold public hearings on not less than five
days notice, and shall at such hearing re-
quire the parties, including the employer
involved, to present information relating
to the actual or potential effect of such
limitation or order on employment and on
any alleged discharge, lay off, or other
discrimination and the detailed reasons or
justification therefor. Any such hearing
shall be of record and shall be subject to
section 554 of title 5 of the United States
Code. Upon receiving the report of such
investigation, the Administrator shall
make findings of fact as to the effect of
such effluent limitation or order on em-
ployment and on the alleged discharge,
lay-off, or discrimination and shall make
such recommendations as he deems ap-
propriate. Such report, findings, and rec-
ommendations shall be available to the
public. Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to require or authorize the Ad-
ministrator to modify or withdraw any ef-
fluent limitation or order issued under this
Act.
§508 [33 U.S.C. 1368] Federal
Procurement
(a) No Federal agency may enter into
any contract with any person, who has
been convicted of any offense under sec-
tion 309(c) of this Act, for the procure-
ment of goods, materials, and services if
such contract is to be performed at any
facility at which the violation which gave
rise to such conviction occurred, and if
such facility is owned, leased, or super-
vised by such person. The prohibition in
the preceding sentence shall continue un-
til the Administrator certifies that the
condition giving rise to such conviction
has been corrected.
(b)	The Administrator shall establish
procedures to provide all Federal agencies
with the notification necessary for the
purposes of subsection (a) of this section.
(c)	In order to implement the purposes
and policy of this Act to protect and en-
hance the quality of the Nation's water,
the President shall, not more than one
hundred and eighty days after enactment
of this Act, cause to be issued an order (1)
requiring each Federal agency authorized
to enter into contracts and each Federal
agency which is empowered to extend
Federal assistance by way of grant, loan,
or contract to effectuate the purpose and
policy of this Act in such contracting or
assistance activities, and (2) setting forth
procedures, sanctions, penalties, and such
other provisions, as the President deter-
mines necessary to carry out such require-
ment.
(d)	The President may exempt any con-
tract, loan, or grant from all or part of the
provisions of this section where he deter-
mines such exemption is necessary in the
paramount interest of the United States
and he shall notify the Congress of such
exemption.
(e)	The President shall annually report
to the Congress on measures taken in
compliance with the purpose and intent of
this section, including, but not limited to.
the progress and problems associated with
such compliance.
§509 [33 U.S.C. 1369| Administrative
Procedure and Judicial Review
(a) (1) For the purposes of obtaining in-
formation under section 305 of this Act,
or carrying out section 507(e) of this Act,
the Administrator may issue subpenas for
the attendance and testimony of witnesses
and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, and he may
administer oaths. Except for effluent data,
upon a showing satisfactory to the Admin-
istrator that such papers, books, docu-
ments, or information or particular part
thereof, if made public, would divulge
trade secrets or secret processes, the Ad-

-------
ministrator shall consider such record, re-
port. or information or particular portion
thereof confidential in accordance with
the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of
the United States Code, except that such
paper, book, document, or information
may be disclosed to other officers, employ-
ees, or authorized representatives of the
United States concerned with carrying
out this Act, or when relevant in any pro-
ceeding under this Act. Witnesses sum-
moned shall be paid the same fees and
mileage that are paid witnesses in the
courts of the United States. In case of
contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena
served upon any person under this subsec-
tion, the district court of the United
States for any district in which such per-
son is found or resides or transacts busi-
ness, upon application by the United
States and after notice to such person,
shall have jurisdiction to issue an order
requiring such person to appear and give
testimony before the Administrator, to
appear and produce papers, books, and
documents before the Administrator, or
both, and any failure to obey such order
of the court may be punished by such
court as a contempt thereof.
(2) The district courts of the United
States are authorized, upon application by
the Administrator, to issue subpenas for
attendance and testimony of witnesses
and the production of relevant papers,
books, and documents, for purposes of ob-
taining information under sections 304(b)
and (c) of this Act. Any papers, books,
documents, or other information or part
thereof, obtained by reason of such a sub-
pena shall be subject to the same require-
ments as are provided in paragraph (1) of
this subsection.
(b)(1) Review of the Administrator's
action (A) in promulgating any standard
of performance under section 306, (B) in
making any determination pursuant to
section 306(b)(1)(C), (C) in promulgat-
ing any effluent standard, prohibition, or
pretreatment standard under section 307,
(D) in making any determination as to a
State permit program submitted under
section 402(b), (E) in approving or
promulgating any effluent limitation or
other limitation under sections 301, 302,
306, or 405, [,] (F) in issuing or denying
any permit under section 402, and (G) in
promulgating any individual control strat-
egy under section 304(1), may be had by
any interested person in the Circuit Court
of Appeals of the United States for the
Federal judicial district in which such
person resides or trapsacts business which
is directly affected by such action upon
application by such person. Any such ap-
plication shall be made within 120 days
from the date of such determination, ap-
proval, promulgation, issuance or denial,
or after such date only if such application
is based solely on grounds which arose
after such 120th day.
[§509(b)( 1) amended by PL 100-4]
(2)	Action of the Administrator with
respect to which review could have been
obtained under paragraph (1) of this sub-
section shall not be subject to judicial re-
view in any civil or criminal proceeding
for enforcement.
(3)	Award of Fees. In any judicial pro-
ceeding under this subsection, the court
may award costs of litigation (including
reasonable attorney and expert witness
fees) to any prevailing or substantially
prevailing party whenever it determines
that such award is appropriate.
[Former §509(b)(3) repealed and
§509(b)(4) as added by PL 100-4 redes-
ignated as (3) by PL 100-236]
(c) In any judicial proceeding brought
under subsection (b) of this section in
which review is sought of a determination
under this Act required to be made on the
record after notice and opportunity for
hearing, if any party applies to the court
for leave to adduce additional evidence,
and shows to the satisfaction of the court
that such additional evidence is material
and that there were reasonable grounds
for the failure to adduce such evidence in
the proceeding before the Administrator,
the court may order such additional evi-
dence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof)
to be taken before the Administrator in
such manner and upon such terms and
conditions as the court may deem proper.
The Administrator may modify his find-
ings as to the facts, or make new findings,
by reason of the additional evidence so
taken and he shall file such modified or
new findings, and his recommendation, if
any, for the modification or setting aside
of his original determination, with the re-
turn of such additional evidence.
§510 [33 U.S.C. 1370] State Authority
Except as expressly provided in this
Act, nothing in this Act shall (1) preclude
or deny the right of any State or political
subdivision thereof or interstate agency to
adopt or enforce (A) any standard or limi-
tation respecting discharges of pollutants,
or (B) any requirement respecting control
or abatement of pollution; except that if
an effluent limitation, or other limitation,
effluent standard, prohibition, pretreat-
ment standard, or standard of perfor-
mance is in effect under this Act, such
State or political subdivision or interstate
agency may not adopt or enforce any ef-
fluent limitation, or other limitation, efflu-
ent standard, prohibition, pretreatment
standard, or standard of performance
which is less stringent than the effluent
limitation, or other limitation, effluent
standard, prohibition, pretreatment stan-
dard, or standard of performance under
this Act; or (2) be construed as impairing
or in any manner affecting any right or
jurisdiction of the Slates with respect to
the waters (including boundary waters) of
such States.
§511 [33 U.S.C. 1371] Other Affected
Authority
(a)	This act shall not be construed as
(1) limiting the authority or functions of
any officer or agency of the United States
under any other law or regulation not in-
consistent with this Act; (2) affecting or
impairing the authority of the Secretary
of the Army (A) to maintain navigation
or (B) under the Act of March 3, 1899
(30 Stat. 1112); except that any permit
issued under section 404 of this Act shall
be conclusive as to the effect on water
quality of any discharge resulting from
any activity subject to section 10 of the
Act of March 3, 1899; or (3) affecting or
impairing the provisions of any treaty of
the United States.
(b)	Discharges of pollutants into the
navigable waters subject to the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1910 (36 Stat. 593; 33
U.S.C. 421) and the Supervisory Harbors
Act of 1888 (25 Stat. 209; 33 U.S.C.
441-451 b) shall be regulated pursuant to
this Act, and not subject to such Act of
1910 and the Act of 1888 except as to
effect on navigation and anchorage.
(c)	(I) Except for the provision of Fed-
eral financial assistance for the purpose of
assisting the construction of publicly
owned treatment works as authorized by
section 201 of this Act, and the issuance
of a permit under section 402 of this Act
for the discharge of any pollutant by a
new source as defined in section 306 of
this Act, no action of the Administrator
taken pursuant to this Act shall be

-------
deemed a major Federal action signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (83 Stat. 852); and
(2) Nothing in the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852)
shall be deemed to—
(A)	authorize any Federal agency au-
thorized to license or permit the conduct
of any activity which may result in the
discharge of a pollutant into the navigable
waters to review any effluent limitation or
other requirement established pursuant to
this Act or the adequacy of any certifica-
tion under section 401 of this Act; or
(B)	authorize any such agency to im-
pose, as a condition precedent to the issu-
ance of any license or permit, any effluent
limitation other than any such limitation
established pursuant to this Act.
(d) Notwithstanding this Act or any
other provision of law, the Administrator
(1) shall not require any State to consider
in the development of the ranking in order
of priority of needs for the construction of
treatment works (as defined in title II of
this Act), any water pollution control
agreement which may have been entered
into between the United States and any
other nation, and (2) shall not consider
any such agreement in the approval of
any such priority ranking.
§512 Separability
If any provision of this Act, or the ap-
plication of any provision of this Act to
any person or circumstance, is held inval-
id, the application of such provision to
other persons or circumstances, and the
remainder of this Act, shall not be affect-
ed thereby.
§513 [33 U.S.C. 1372] Labor Standards
The Administrator shall take such ac-
tion as may be necessary to insure that all
laborers and mechanics employed by con-
tractors or subcontractors on treatment
works for which grants are made under
this Act shall be paid wages at rates not
less than those prevailing for the same
type of work on similar construction in the
immediate locality, as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, in accordance with
the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended,
known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat.
1494; 40 U.S.C., sec. 276a through
276a-5). The Secretary of Labor shall
have, with respect to the labor standards
specified in this subsection, the authority
and functions set forth in Reorganization
Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R.
3176) and section 2 of the Act of June 13,
1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40
U.S.C. 276c).
§514(33 U.S.C. 1373] Public Health
Agency Coordination
The permitting agency under section
402 shall assist the applicant for a permit
under such section in coordinating the re-
quirements of this Act with those of the
appropriate public health agencies.
§515 [33 U.S.C. 1374] Effluent Standards
and Water Quality Information Advisory
Committee
(a)	(1) There is established an Effluent
Standards and Water Quality Informa-
tion Advisory Committee, which shall be
composed of a Chairman and eight mem-
bers who shall be appointed by the Ad-
ministrator within sixty days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(2)	All members of the Committee
shall be selected from the scientific com-
munity, qualified by education, training,
and experience to provide, assess, and
evaluate scientific and technical informa-
tion on effluent standards and limitations.
(3)	Members of the Committee shall
serve for a term of four years, and may be
reappointed.
(b)	(1) No later than one hundred and
eight days prior to the date on which the
Administrator is required to publish any
proposed regulations required by section
304(b) of this Act, any proposed standard
of performance for new sources required
by section 306 of this Act, or any pro-
posed toxic effluent standard required by
section 307 of this Act, he shall transmit
to the Committee a notice of intent to
propose such regulations. The Chairman
of the Committee within ten days after
receipt of such notice may publish a no-
tice of a public hearing by the Committee,
to be held within thirty days.
(2)	No later than one hundred and
twenty days after receipt of such notice,
the Committee shall transmit to the Ad-
ministrator such scientific and technical
information as is in its possession, includ-
ing that presented at any public hearing,
related to the subject matter contained in
such notice.
(3)	Information so transmitted to the
Administrator shall constitute a part of
the administrative record and comments
on any proposed regulations or standards
as information to be considered with other
comments and information in making any
final determinations.
(4) In preparing information for trans-
mittal, the Committee shall avail itself of
the technical and scientific services of any
Federal agency, including the United
States Geological Survey and any nation-
al environmental laboratories which may
be established.
(c)(1)	The Committee shall appoint
and prescribe the duties of a Secretary,
and such legal counsel as it deems neces-
sary to exercise and fulfill its powers and
responsibilities. The compensation of all
employees appointed by the Committee
shall be fixed in accordance with chapter
51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
title V of the United Slates Code.
(2) Members of the Committee shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate
to be fixed by the President but not in
excess of the maximum rate of pay for
GS-18, as provided in the General Sched-
ule under section 5332 of title V of the
United States Code.
(d)	Five members of the Committee
shall constitute a quorum, and official ac-
tions of the Committee shall be taken only
on the affirmative vote of at least five
members. A special panel composed of
one or more members upon order of the
Committee shall conduct any hearing au-
thorized by this section and submit the
transcript of such hearing to the entire
Committee for its action thereon.
(e)	The Committee is authorized to
make such rules as are necessary for the
orderly transaction of its business.
§516(33 U.S.C. 1375] Reports to
Congress
(a) Within ninety days following the
convening of each session of Congress, the
Administrator shall submit to the Con-
gress a report, in addition to any other
report required by this Act, on measures
taken toward implementing the objective
of this Act, including, but not limited to,
(1) the progress and problems associated
with developing comprehensive plans un-
der section 102 of this Act, area-wide
plans under section 208 of this Act, basin
plans under section 209 of this Act, and
plans under section 303(e) of this Act; (2)
a summary of actions taken and results
achieved in the field of water pollution
control research, experiments, studies,
and related matters by the Administrator
and other Federal agencies and by other

-------
persons and agencies under Federal
grants or contracts: (3) the progress and
problems associated with the development
of effluent limitations and recommended
control techniques; (4) the status State
programs, including a detailed summary
of the progress obtained as compared to
that planned under State program plans
for development and enforcement of wa-
ter quality requirements: (5) the identifi-
cation and status of enforcement actions
pending or completed under such Act dur-
ing the preceding year; (6) the status of
State, interstate, and local pollution con-
trol programs established pursuant to,
and assisted by, this Act; (7) a summary
of the results of the survey required to be
taken under section 210 of this Act; (8)
his activities including recommendations
under sections 109 through 111 of this
Act; and (9) all reports and recommenda-
tions made by the Water Pollution Con-
trol Advisory Board.
(b) (l)The Administrator, in coopera-
tion with the States, including water pol-
lution control agencies and other water
pollution control planning agencies, shall
make (A) a detailed estimate of the cost
of carrying out the provisions of this Act;
(B) a detailed estimate, biennially re-
vised, of the cost of construction of all
needed publicly owned treatment works in
all of the States and of the cost of con-
struction of all needed publicly owned
treatment works in each of the States: (C)
a comprehensive study of the economic
impact on affected units of government of
the cost of installation of treatment facili-
ties; and (D) a comprehensive analysis of
the national requirements for and the cost
of treating municipal, industrial, and oth-
er effluent to attain the water quality
objectives as established by this Act or
applicable State law. The Administrator
shall submit such detailed estimate and
such comprehensive study of such cost to
the Congress no later than February 10 of
each odd-numbered year. Whenever the
Administrator, pursuant to this subsec-
tion, requests and receives an estimate of
cost from a State, he shall furnish copies
of such estimate together with such de-
tailed estimate to Congress.
(2) Notwithstanding the second sen-
tence of paragraph (1) of this subsection,
the Administrator shall make a prelimi-
nary detailed estimate called for by sub-
paragraph (B) of such paragraph and
shall submit such preliminary detailed es-
timate to the Congress no later than Sep-
tember 3, 1974. The Administrator shall
require each State to prepare an estimate
of cost for such State, and shall utilize the
survey form EPA-1. O.M.B. No.
158—R0017, prepared for the 1973 de-
tailed estimate, except that such estimate
shall include all costs of compliance with
section 201(g)(2)(A) of this Act and wa-
ter quality standards established pursuant
to section 303 of this Act. and all costs of
treatment works as defined in section
212(2), including all eligible costs of con-
structing sewage collection systems and
correcting excessive infiltration or inflow
and all eligible costs of correcting com-
bined storm and sanitary sewer problems
and treating storm water flows. The sur-
vey form shall be distributed by the Ad-
ministrator to each State no later than
January 31, 1974.
(c)	The Administrator shall submit to
the Congress by October 1, 1978, a report
on the status of combined sewer overflows
in municipal treatment works operations.
The report shall include (1) the status of
any projects funded under this Act to ad-
dress combined sewer overflows, (2) a list-
ing by State of combined sewer overflow
needs identified in the 1977 State priority
listings, (3) an estimate for each applica-
ble municipality of the number of years
necessary, assuming an annual authoriza-
tion and appropriation for the construc-
tion grants program of $5,000,000,000 to
correct combined sewer overflow prob-
lems, (4) an analysis using representative
municipalities faced with major combined
sewer overflow needs, of the annual dis-
charges of pollutants from overflows in
comparison to treated effluent discharges,
(5) an analysis of the technological alter-
natives available to municipalities to cor-
rect major combined sewer overflow prob-
lems, and (6) any recommendations of the
Administrator for legislation to address
the problem of combined sewer overflows,
including whether a separate authoriza-
tion and grant program should be estab-
lished by the Congress to address com-
bined sewer overflows.
(d)	The Administrator shall submit to
the Congress by October I, 1978, a report
on the status of the use of municipal sec-
ondary effluent and sludge for agricultur-
al and other purposes that utilize the nu-
trient value of treated wastewater efflu-
ent. The report shall include (1) a
summary of results of research and devel-
opment programs, grants, and contracts
carried out by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency pursuant to sections 104 and
105 of this Act, regarding alternatives to
disposal, landfill, or incineration of sec-
ondary effluent of sludge, (2) an estimate
of the amount of sludge generated by pub-
lic treatment works and its disposition, in-
cluding an estimate of annual energy
costs to incinerate sludge, (3) an analysis
of current technologies for the utilization,
reprocessing, and other uses of sludge to
utilize the nutrient value of sludge, (4)
legal, institutional, public health, econom-
ic, and other impediments to the greater
utilization of treated sludge, and (5) any
recommendations of the Administrator
for legislation to encourage or require the
expanded utilization of sludge for agricul-
tural and other purposes. In carrying out
this subsection, the Administrator shall
consult with, and use the services of the
Tennessee Valley Authority and other de-
partments, agencies and instrumentalities
of the United States, to the extent it is
appropriate to do so.
(e) The Administrator, in cooperation
with the States, including water pollution
control agencies, and other water pollu-
tion control planning agencies, and water
supply and water resources agencies of
the States and the United States shall
submit to Congress, within two years of
the date of enactment of this section, a
report with recommendations for legisla-
tion on a program to require coordination
between water supply and wastewater
control plans as a condition to grants for
construction of treatment works under
this Act. No such report shall be submit-
ted except after opportunity for public
hearings on such proposed report.
[Editor's note: Section 516(f) has not
been enacted.]
(g) State Revolving Fund Report.—
(1) In General. — Not later than Feb-
ruary 10, 1990, the Administrator shall
submit to Congress a report on the finan-
cial status and operations of water pollu-
tion control revolving funds established by
the States under title VI of this Act. The
Administrator shall prepare such report
in cooperation with the States, including
water pollution control agencies and other
water pollution control planning and fi-
nancing agencies.

-------
(2) Contents. — The report under this
subsection shall also include the follow-
ing-
(A)	an inventory of the facilities that
are in significant noncompliance with the
enforceable requirements of this Act;
(B)	an estimate of the cost of construc-
tion necessary to bring such facilities into
compliance with such requirements;
(C)	an assessment of the availability of
sources of funds for financing such needed
construction, including an estimate of the
amount of funds available for providing
assistance for such construction through
September 30, 1999, from the water pol-
lution control revolving funds established
by the States under title VI of this Act;
(D)	an assessment of the operations,
loan portfolio, and loan conditions of such
revolving funds;
(E)	an assessment of the effect on user
charges of the assistance provided by such
revolving funds compared to the assist-
ance provided with funds appropriated
pursuant to section 207 of this Act; and
(F)	an assessment of the efficiency of
the operation and maintenance of treat-
ment works constructed with assistance
provided by such revolving funds com-
pared to the efficiency of the operation
and maintenance of treatment works con-
structed with assistance provided under
section 201 of this Act.
[§516(g) added by PL 100-4]
§517[33 U.S.C. 1376] General
Authorization
There are authorized to be appropriat-
ed to carry out this Act, other than sec-
tions 104, 105, 106(a), 107, 108, 112,
113, 114, 115, 206, 207, 208 (0 and (h),
209, 304, 311(c), (d), (i), (1), and (k),
314, 315, and 317, $250,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
5300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, $350,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000
for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1977, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1978,
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30,1979, $150,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1980,
$150,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1981, $161,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1982,
such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
years 1983 through 1985, and
$135,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
the fiscal years 1986 through 1990.
[§517 amended by PL 96-483; PL
100-4]
§518 [33 U.S.C. 1377] Indian Tribes
(a)	Policy. — Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect the applica-
tion of section 101(g) of this Act, and all
of the provisions of this section shall be
carried out in accordance with the provi-
sions of such section 101(g). Indian tribes
shall be treated as States for purposes of
such section 101(g).
(b)	Assessment of Sewage Treatment
Needs; Report. — The Administrator, in
cooperation with the Director of the Indi-
an Health Service, shall assess the need
for sewage treatment works to serve Indi-
an tribes, the degree to which such needs
will be met through funds allotted to
States under section 205 of this Act and
priority lists under section 216 of this Act,
and any obstacles which prevent such
needs from being met. Not later than one
year after the date of the enactment of
this section, the Administrator shall sub-
mit a report to Congress on the assess-
ment under this subsection, along with
recommendations specifying (1) how the
Administrator intends to provide assist-
ance to Indian tribes to develop waste
treatment management plans and to con-
struct treatment works under this Act,
and (2) methods by which the participa-
tion in and administration of programs
under this Act by Indian tribes can be
maximized.
(c)	Reservation of Funds. — The Ad-
ministrator shall reserve each fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 1986,
before allotments to the States under sec-
tion 205(e), one-half of one percent of the
sums appropriated under section 207.
Sums reserved under this subsection shall
be available only for grants for the devel-
opment of waste treatment management
plans and for the construction of sewage
treatment works to serve Indian tribes as
defined in subsection (h) and former Indi-
an reservations in Oklahoma (as deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Interior)
and Alaska Native Villages as defined in
Public Law 92-203.
[§518(c) added by PL 100-581]
(d)	Cooperative Agreements. — In or-
der to ensure the consistent implementa-
tion of the requirements of this Act, an
Indian tribe and the State or States in
which the lands of such tribe are located
may enter into a cooperative agreement,
subject to the review and approval of the
Administrator, to jointly plan and admin-
ister the requirements of this Act,
(e) Treatment as States. — The Ad-
ministrator is authorized to treat an Indi-
an tribe as a State for purposes of title II
and sections 104, 106, 303, 305, 308, 309,
314, 319, 401, 402. and 404 of this Act to
the degree necessary to carry out the
objectives of this section, but only if—
(1)the	Indian tribe has a governing
body carrying out substantial governmen-
tal duties and powers;
(2)	the functions to be exercised by the
Indian tribe pertain to the management
and protection of water resources which
are held by an Indian tribe, held by the
United States in trust for Indians, held by
a member of an Indian tribe if such prop-
erty interest is subject to a trust restric-
tion on alienation, or otherwise within the
borders of an Indian reservation; and
(3)	the Indian tribe is reasonably ex-
pected to be capable, in the Administra-
tor's judgment, of carrying out the func-
tions to be exercised in a manner consis-
tent with the terms and purposes of this
Act and of all applicable regulations.
Such treatment as a State may include
the direct provision of funds reserved un-
der subsection (c) to the governing bodies
of Indian tribes, and the determination of
priorities by Indian tribes, where not de-
termined by the Administrator in cooper-
ation with the Director of the Indian
Health Service. The Administrator, in co-
operation with the Director of the Indian
Health Service, is authorized to make
grants under title 11 of this Act in an
amount not to exceed 100 percent of the
cost of a project. Not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of
this section, the Administrator shall, in
consultation with Indian tribes, promul-
gate final regulations which specify how
Indian tribes shall be treated as States for
purposes of this Act. The Administrator
shall, in promulgating such regulations,
consult affected States sharing common
water bodies and provide a mechanism for
the resolution of any unreasonable conse-
quences that may arise as a result of dif-
fering water quality standards that may
be set by States and Indian tribes located
on common bodies of water. Such mecha-
nism shall provide for explicit consider-
ation of relevant factors including, but not

-------
limited to, the effects of differing water
quality permit requirements on upstream
and downstream dischargers, economic
impacts, and present and historical uses
and quality of the waters subject to such
standards. Such mechanism should pro-
vide for the avoidance of such unreason-
able consequences in a manner consistent
with the objective of this Act.
(0 Grants for Nonpoint Source Pro-
grams. — The Administrator shall make
grants to an Indian tribe under section
319 of this Act as though such tribe was a
Slate. Not more than one-third of one per-
cent of the amount appropriated for any
fiscal year under section 319 may be used
to make grants under this subsection. In
addition to the requirements of section
319, an Indian tribe shall be required to
meet the requirements of paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3) of subsection (d) of this sec-
tion in order to receive such a grant.
(g)	Alaska Native Organizations. —
No provision of this Act shall be con-
strued to—
(1)	grant, enlarge, or diminish, or in
any way affect the scope of the govern-
mental authority, if any, of any Alaska
Native organization, including any feder-
ally-recognized tribe, traditional Alaska
Native council, or Native Council orga-
nized pursuant to the Act of June 18,
1934 (48 Stat. 987), over lands or persons
in Alaska;
(2)	create or validate any assertion by
such organization or any form of govern-
mental authority over lands or person in
Alaska; or
(3)	in any way affect any assertion that
Indian country, as defined in section 1151
of title 18, United States Code, exists or
does not exist in Alaska.
(h)	Definitions. — For purposes of this
section, the term—
(1)	"Federal Indian reservation" means
all land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government, notwithstand-
ing the issuance of any patent, and includ-
ing rights-of-way running through the res-
ervation; and
(2)	"Indian tribe" means any Indian
tribe, band, group, or community recog-
nized by the Secretary of the Interior and
exercising governmental authority over a
Federal Indian reservation.
[New §518 added by PL 100-4]
§519 Short Title
This Act may be cited as the "Federal
Water Pollution Control Act" (commonly
referred to as the Clean Water Act).
(Former §518 redesignated as §519 by
PL 100-4]
TITLE VI—STATE WATER POLLU-
TION CONTROL REVOLVING
FUNDS.
[Title VI added by PL 100-4]
§601 ]33 U.S.C. 1381] Grants to States
for Establishment of Revolving Funds.
(a)	General Authority. Subject to the
provisions of this title, the Administrator
shall make capitalization grants to each
State for the purpose of establishing a wa-
ter pollution control revolving fund for
providing assistance (1) for construction
of treatment works (as defined in section
212 of this Act) which are publicly
owned, (2) for implementing a manage-
ment program under section 319, and (3)
for developing and implementing a con-
servation and management plan under
section 320.
(b)	Schedule of Grant Payments. —
The Administrator and each State shall
jointly establish a schedule of payments
under which the Administrator will pay to
the Staie the amount of each grant to be
made to the State under this title. Such
schedule shall be based on the State's in-
tended use plan under section 606(c) of
this Act, except that—
(1)such	payments shall be made in
quarterly installments, and
(2)	such payments shall be made as ex-
peditiously as possible, but in no event
later than the earlier of—
(A)	8 quarters after the date such
funds were obligated by the State, or
(B)	12 quarters after the date such
funds were allotted to the State.
§602 [33 U.S.C. 1382] Capitalization
Grant Agreements.
(a)	General Rule. — To receive a capi-
talization grant with funds made avail-
able under this title and section 205(m) of
this Act, a State shall enter into an agree-
ment with the Administrator which shall
include but not be limited to the specifica-
tions set forth in subsection (b) of this
section.
(b)	Specific Requirements. — The Ad-
ministrator shall enter into an agreement
under this section with a State only after
the Slate has established to the satisfac-
tion of the Administrator that—
(1)the	Slate will accept grant pay-
ments with funds to be made available
under this title and section 205(m) of this
Act in accordance with a paymen. sched-
ule established jointly by the Administra-
tor under section 601(b) of this Act and
will deposit all such payments in the wa-
ter pollution control revolving fund estab-
lished by the State in accordance -.vith this
title;
(2)	the Stale will deposit m the fund
from State moneys an amount equal to at
least 20 percent of the total amount oi all
capitalization grants which will be made
to the Slate with funds to be made avail-
able under this utle and section 205(m) of
this Act on or before the date on which
each quarterly gram payment will be
made to the State under this utle;
(3)	the State will enter into binding
commitments to provide assistance in ac-
cordance with the requirements of this ti-
tle in an amount equal to 120 percent of
the amount of each such grant payment
within 1 year after the receipt of such
grant payment:
(4)	all funds in the fund will be expend-
ed in an expeditious and timely manner;
(5)	all funds in the fund as a result of
capitalization grants under this title and
section 205(m) of this Act will first be
used to assure maintenance of progress, as
determined by the Governor of the State,
toward compliance with enforceable dead-
lines, goals, and requirements of this Act,
including the municipal compliance dead-
lines;
(6)	treatment works eligible under sec-
tion 603(c)(1) of this Act which will be
constructed in whole or in part before fis-
cal year 1995 with funds directly made
available by capitalization grants under
this title and section 205(m) of this Act
will meet the requirements of, or other-
wise be treated (as determined by the
Governor of the State) under sections
201(b), 201(g)(1), 201(g)(2), 201(g)(3),
201(g)(5), 201(g)(6), 201 (n)( 1), 201(o),
204(a)(1), 204(a)(2), 204(b)(1),
204(d)(2), 211, 218, 511(c)(1), and 513
of this Act in the same manner as treat-
ment works constructed with assistance
under title II of this Act;
(7)	in addition to complying with the
requirements of this title, the State will
commit or expend each quarterly grant
payment which it will receive under this

-------
utle in accordance with laws and proce-
dures applicable to the commitment or ex-
penditure of revenues of the State;
(8)	in carrying out the requirements of
section 606 of this Act, the State will use
accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures
conforming to generally accepted govern-
ment accounting standards;
(9)	the State will require as a condition
of making a loan or providing other assist-
ance, as described in section 603(d) of
this Act. from the fund that the recipient
of such assistance will maintain project
accounts in accordance with generally ac-
cepted government accounting standards
and
(10)	the State will make annual reports
to the Administrator on the actual use of
funds in accordance with section 606(d)
of this Act
§603 [33 L'.S.C. 1383] Water Pollution
Control Revolving Loan Funds.
(a)	Requirements for Obligation of
Grant Funds. Before a State may receive
a capitalization grant with funds made
available under this title and section
205(m) of this Act, the State shall first
establish a water pollution control revolv-
ing fund which complies with the require-
ments of this section.
(b)	Administration. — Each State wa-
ter pollution control revolving fund shall
be administered by an instrumentality of
the State with such powers and limita-
tions as may be required to operate such
fund in accordance with the requirements
and objectives of this Act.
(c)	Projects Eligible for Assistance. —
The amounts of funds available to each
State water pollution control revolving
fund shall be used only for providing fi-
nancial assistance (1) to any municipality
intermunicipal, interstate, or State agen-
cy for construction of publicly owned
treatment works (as defined in section
212 of this Act), (2) for the implementa-
tion of a management program estab-
lished under section 319 of this Act, and
(3) for development and implementation
of a conservation and management plan
under section 320 of this Act. The fund
shall be established, maintained, and
credited with repayments, and the fund
balance shall be available in perpetuity
for providing such financial assistance.
(d)	Types of Assistance. — Except as
otherwise limited by State law, a water
pollution control revolving fund of a State
under this section may be used only—
(1)	to make loans, on the condition
that—
(A)	such loans are made at or below
market interest rates, including interest
free loans, at terms not to exceed 20
years;
(B)	annual principal and interest pay-
ments will commence not later than 1
year after completion of any project and
all loans will be fully amortized not later
than 20 years after project completion;
(C)	the recipient of a loan will establish
a dedicated source of revenue for repay-
ment of loans; and
(D)	the fund will be credited with all
payments of principal and interest on all
loans;
(2)	to buy or refinance the debt obliga-
tion of municipalities and intermunicipal
and interstate agencies within the State at
or below market rates, where such debt
obligations were incurred after March 7,
1985;
(3)	to guarantee, or purchase insurance
for, local obligations where such action
would improve credit market access or re-
duce interest rates;
(4)	as a source of revenue or security
for the payment of principal and interest
on revenue or general obligation bonds is-
sued by the Stale if the proceeds of the
sale of such bonds will be deposited in the
fund;
(5)	to provide loan guarantees for simi-
lar revolving funds established by munici-
palities or intermunicipal agencies;
(6)	to earn interest on fund accounts;
and
(7)	for the reasonable costs of adminis-
tering the fund and conducting activities
under this title, except that such amounts
shall not exceed 4 percent of all grant
awards to such fund under this title.
(e) Limitation to Prevent Double Bene-
fits. — If a State makes, from its water
pollution revolving fund, a loan which will
finance the cost of facility planning and
the preparation of plans, specifications,
and estimates for construction of publicly
owned treatment works, the State shall
ensure that if the recipient of such loan
receives a grant under section 201(g) of
this Act for construction of such treat-
ment works and an allowance under sec-
tion 201 (1)( 1) of this Act for non-Federal
funds expended for such planning and
preparation, such recipient will promptly
repay such loan to the extent of such al-
lowance.
(f)	Consistency With Planning Re-
quirements. — A State may provide fi-
nancial assistance from its water pollution
control revolving fund only with respect to
a project which is consistent with plans, if
any, developed under sections 205(j), 208,
303(e), 319, and 320 of this Act.
(g)	Priority List Requirement. — The
State may provide financial assistance
from its water pollution control revolving
fund only with respect to a project for
construction of a treatment works de-
scribed in subsection (c)(1) if such project
is on the State's priority list under section
216 of this Act. Such assistance may be
provided regardless of the rank of such
project on such list.
(h)	Eligibility of Non-Federal Share of
Construction Grant Projects. — A State
water pollution control revolving fund
may provide assistance (other than under
subsection (d)(1) of this section) to a mu-
nicipality or intermunicipal or interstate
agency with respect to the non-Federal
share of the costs of a treatment works
project for which such municipality or
agency is receiving assistance from the
Administrator under any other authority
only if such assistance is necessary to al-
low such project to proceed.
§604(33 U.S.C. 1384] Allotment of
Funds.
(a)	Formula. — Sums authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section for
each of fiscal years 1989 and 1990 shall
be allotted by the Administrator in accor-
dance with section 205(c) of this Act.
(b)	Reservation of Funds for Planning.
—	Each State shall reserve each fiscal
year 1 percent of the sums allotted to such
State under this section for such fiscal
year, or $100,000. whichever amount is
greater, to carry out planning under sec-
tion 205(j) and 303(e) of this Act.
(c)	Allotment Period.—
(1)	Period of Availability for Grant
Award. — Sums allotted to a State under
this section for a fiscal year shall be avail-
able for obligation by the State during the
fiscal year for which sums are authorized
and during the following fiscal year.
(2)	Reallotment of Unobligated Funds.
—	The amount of any allotment not obli-
gated by the State by the last day of the
2-year period of availability established
by paragraph (1) shall be immediately
reallotted by the Administrator on the ba-
sis of the same ratio as is applicable to
sums allotted under title II of this Act for

-------
the second fiscal year of such 2-year peri-
od. None of the funds reallotted by the
Administrator shall be reallotted to any
State which has not obligated all sums
allotted to such State in the first fiscal
year of such 2-year period.
§605 [33 U.S.C. 1385] Corrective Action.
(a)	Notification of Noncompliance. —
If the Administrator determines that a
State has not complied with its agreement
with the Administrator under section 602
of this Act or any other requirement of
this title, the Administrator shall notify
the State of such noncompliance and the
necessary corrective action.
(b)	Withholding of Payments. — If a
State does not take corrective action with-
in 60 days after the date a State receives
notification of such action under subsec-
tion (a), the Administrator shdl withhold
additional payments to the State until the
Administrator is satisfied that the State
has taken the necessary corrective action.
(c)	Reallotment of Withheld Payments.
— If the Administrator is not satisfied
that adequate corrective actions have
been taken by the State within 12 months
after the State is notified of such actions
under subsection (a), the payments with-
held from the State by the Administrator
under subsection (b) shall be made avail-
able for reallotment in accordance with
the most recent formula for allotment of
funds under this title.
§606 [33 U.S.C. 1384] Audits, Reports,
and Fiscal Controls: Intended Use Plan.
(a)	Fiscal Control and Auditing Proce-
dure. — Each State electing to establish a
water pollution control revolving fund un-
der this title shall establish fiscal controls
and accounting procedures sufficient to
assure proper accounting during appropri-
ate accounting periods for—
(1)	payments received by the fund;
(2)	disbursements made by the fund;
and
(3)	fund balances at the beginning and
end of the accounting period.
(b)	Annual Federal Audits. — The Ad-
ministrator shall, at least on an annual
basis, conduct or require each State to
have independently conducted reviews
and audits as may be deemed necessary or
appropriate by the Administrator to carry
out the objectives of this section. Audits
of the use of funds deposited in the water
pollution revolving fund established by
such State shall be conducted in accor-
dance with the auditing procedures of the
General. Accounting Office, including
chapter 75 of title 31, United Slates
Code.
(c)	Intended Use Plan. — After provid-
ing for public comment and review, each
State shall annually prepare a plan identi-
fying the intended uses of the amounts
available to its water pollution control re-
volving fund. Such intended use plan shall
include, but not be limited to—
(1)	a list of those projects for construc-
tion of publicly owned treatment works on
the State's priority list developed pursu-
ant to section 216 of this Act and a list of
activities eligible for assistance under sec-
tions 319 and 320 of this Act;
(2)	a description of the short- and long-
term goals and objectives of its water pol-
lution control revolving fund;
(3)	information on the activities to be
supported, including a description of pro-
ject categories, discharge requirements
under titles III and [V of this Act, terms
of financial assistance, and communities
served;
(4)	assurances and specific proposals
for meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of sec-
tion 602(b) of this Act; and
(5)	the criteria and method established
for the distribution of funds.
(d)	Annual Report. — Beginning the
first fiscal year after the receipt of pay-
ments under this title, the State shall pro-
vide an annual report to the Administra-
tor describing how the State has met the
goals and objectives for the previous fiscal
year as identified in the plan prepared for
the previous fiscal year pursuant to sub-
section (c) including identification of loan
recipients, loan amounts, and loan terms
and similar details on other forms of fi-
nancial assistance provided from the wa-
ter pollution control revolving fund.
(e)	Annual Federal Oversight Review.
— The Administrator shall conduct an
annual oversight review of each State
plan prepared under subsection (c), each
State report prepared under subsection
(d), and other such materials as are con-
sidered necessary and appropriate in car-
rying out the purposes of this title. After
reasonable notice by the Administrator to
the State or the recipient of a loan from
water pollution control revolving fund, the
State or loan recipient shall make avail-
able to the Administrator such records as
the Administrator reasonably requires to
review and determine compliance with
this title.
(0 Applicability of Title II Provisions.
Except to the extent provided in this title,
the provisions of title II shall not apply to
grants under this title.
§607 [33 U.S.C. 1387] Authorization of
Appropriations.
There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out the purposes of this title the
following sums:
(1)	$1,200,000,000 per fiscal year for
each of fiscal years 1989 and 1990;
(2)	$2,400.0*00,000 for fiscal year 1991:
(3)	$1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 1992;
(4)	$1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 1993,
and
(5)	$600,000,000 for fiscal year 1994.
[Editor's note: This ends §2 of PL 92-
500. Now begins §3.]
§3 Authorizations for Fiscal Year 1972
(a)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, not to exceed $11,000,000 for the
purpose of carrying out section 5(n) (oth-
er than for salaries and related expenses)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as it existed immediately prior to the
date of the enactment of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972.
(b)	There is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1972, not to exceed $350,000,000 for
the purpose of making grants under sec-
tion 8 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as it existed immediately
prior to the date of the enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
(c)	The Federal share of all grants
made under section 8 of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act as it existed im-
mediately prior to the date of enactment
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 from sums
herein and heretofore authorized for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, shall be
that authorized by section 202 of such
Act as established by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972.
(d)	Sums authorized by this section
shall be in addition to any amounts here-
tofore authorized for such fiscal year for
sections 5(n) and 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as it existed imme-

-------
diately prior to the date of enactment of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
§4 [33 U.S.C. 1251 nt) Savings Provision
(a)	No suit, action, or other proceeding
lawfully commenced by or against the
Administrator or any other officer or em-
ployee of the United States in his official
capacity or in relation to the discharge of
his official duties under the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act as in effect im-
mediately prior to the date of enactment
of this Act shall abate by reason of the
taking effect of the amendment made by
section 2 of this Act. The court may, on
its own motion or that of any party made
at any time within twelve months after
such taking effect, allow the same to be
maintained by or against the Administra-
tor or such officer or employee.
(b)	All rules, regulations, orders, deter-
minations, contracts, certifications, autho-
rizations, delegations, or other actions du-
ly issued, made, or taken by or pursuant
to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as in effect immediately prior to the
date of enactment of this Act, and per-
taining to any functions, powers, require-
ments, and duties under the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act as in effect im-
mediately prior to the date of enactment
of this Act, shall continue in full force and
effect after the date of enactment of this
Act, until modified or rescinded in accor-
dance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as amended by this Act.
(c)	The Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act as in effect immediately prior to
the date of enactment of this Act shall
remain applicable to all grants made from
funds authorized for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, and prior fiscal years, in-
cluding any increases in the monetary
amount of any such grant which may be
paid from authorizations for fiscal years
beginning after June 30, 1972, except as
specifically otherwise provided in section
202 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act as amended by this Act and in
subsection (c) of section 3 of this Act.
§5 Oversight Study
In order to assist the Congress in the
conduct of oversight responsiblities the
Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study and review of the
research, pilot, and demonstration pro-
grams related to prevention and control of
water pollution, including waste treat-
ment and disposal techniques, which are
conducted, supported, or assisted by any
agency of the Federal Government pursu-
ant to any Federal law or regulation and
assess conflicts between, and the coordina-
tion and efficacy of, such programs, and
make a report to the Congress thereon by
October 1, 1973.
§6 [33 U.S.C. 1251 nt] International Trade
Study
(a) The Secretary of Commerce, in co-
operation with other interested Federal
agencies and with representatives of in-
dustry and the public, shall undertake im-
mediately an investigation and study to
determine—
(1)	the extent to which pollution abate-
ment and control programs will be im-
posed on, or voluntarily undertaken by.
United States manufacturers in the near
future and the probable short- and long-
range effects of the costs of such pro-
grams (computed to the greatest extent
practicable on an industry-by-industry ba-
sis) on (A) the production costs of such
domestic manufacturers, and (B) the
market prices of the goods produced by
them;
(2)	the probable extent to which pollu-
tion abatement and control programs will
be implemented in foreign industrial na-
tions in the near future and the extent to
which the production costs (computed to
the greatest extent practicable on an in-
dustry-by-mdustry basis) of foreign manu-
facturers will be affected by the costs of
such programs;
(3)	the probable competitive advantage
which any article manufactured in a for-
eign nation will likely have in relation to a
comparable article made in the United
States if that foreign nation—
(A)	does not require its manufacturers
to implement pollution abatement and
control programs.
(B)	requires a lesser degree of pollution
abatement and control in its programs, or
(C)	in any way reimburses or otherwise
subsidizes its manufacturers for the costs
of such program;
(4)	alternative means by which any
competitive advantage accruing to the
products of any foreign nation as a result
of any factor described in paragraph (3)
may be (A) accurately and quickly deter-
mined, and (B) equalized, for example, by
the imposition of a surcharge or duty, on a
foreign product in an amount necessary to
compensate for such advantage; and
(5) the impact, if any, which the impo-
sition of a compensating tariff of other
equalizing measure may have in encour-
aging foreign nations to implement pollu-
tion and abatement control programs.
(b) The Secretary shall make an initial
report to the President and Congress
within six months after the date of enact-
ment of this section of the results of the
study and investigation carried out pursu-
ant to this section and shall make addi-
tional reports thereafter at such times as
he deems appropriate taking into account
the development of relevant data, but not
less than once every twelve months.
§7 [33 U.S.C. 1251 nt] International
Agreements
The President shall undertake to enter
into international agreements to apply
uniform standards of performance for the
control of the discharge and emission of
pollutants from new sources, uniform con-
trols over the discharge and emission of
toxic pollutants, and uniform controls
over the discharge of pollutants into the
ocean. For this purpose the President
shall negotiate multilateral treaties, con-
ventions, resolutions, or other agreements,
and formulate, present, or support propos-
als at the United Nations and other ap-
propriate international forums.
§8(15 U.S.C. 633, 636] Loans to Small
Business Concerns for Water Pollution
Control Facility
(a) Section 7 of the Small Business Act
is amended by inserting at the end thereof
a new subsection as follows:
(g) (1) The Administration also is em-
powered to make loans (either directly or
in cooperation with banks or other lenders
through agreements to participate on an
immediate or deferred basis) to assist any
small business concern in affecting addi-
tions to or alterations in the equipment,
facilities (including the construction of
pretreatment facilities and interceptor
sewers), or methods of operation of such
concern to meet water pollution control
requirements established under the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, if the
Administration determines that such con-
cern is likely to suffer substantial econom-
ic injury without assistance under this
subsection.
(2) Any such loan—
(A) shall be made in accordance with
provisions applicable to loans made pursu-
ant to subsection (b)(5) of this section.

-------
except as otherwise provided in this sub-
section;
(B) shall be made only if the applicant
furnishes the Administration with a state-
ment in writing from the Environmental
Protection Agency, or, if appropriate, the
State, that such additions or alterations
are necessary and adequate to comply
with requirements established under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(3)	The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall, as soon
as practicable after the date of enactment
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 and not later
than one hundred and eighty days there-
after, promulgate regulations establishing
uniform rules for the issuance of state-
ments for the purpose of paragraph
(2)(B) of this subsection.
(4)	There is authorized to be appropri-
ated to the disaster loan fund established
pursuant to section 4(c) of this Act not to
exceed $800,000,000 solely for the pur-
pose of carrying out this subsection.
(b) Section 4(c)(1)(A) of the Small
Business Act is amended by striking out
"and 7(c)(2)" and inserting in lieu there-
of "7(c)(2), and 7(g)".
§9 Environmental Court
The President, acting through the At-
torney General, shall make a full and
complete investigation and study of the
feasibility of establishing a separate court,
or court system, having jurisdiction over
environmental matters and shall report
the results of such investigation and study
together with his recommendations to
Congress not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act.
§10 National Policies and Goals Study
The President shall make a full and
complete investigation and study of all of
the national policies and goals established
by law for the purpose of determining
what the relationship should be between
these policies and goals, taking into ac-
count the resources of the Nation. He
shall report the results of such investiga-
tion and study together with his recom-
mendations to Congress not later than
two years after the date of enactment of
this Act. There is authorized to be appro-
priated not to exceed $5,000,000 to carry
out the purposes of this section.
§11 Efficiency Study
The President shall conduct a full and
complete investigation and study of ways
and means of utilizing in the most effec-
tive manner all of the various resources,
facilities, and personnel of the Federal
Government in order most efficiently to
carry out the objective of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act. He shall utilize
in conducting such investigation and
study, the General Accounting Office. He
shall report the results of such investiga-
tion and study together with his recom-
mendations to Congress not later than
two hundred and seventy days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
§12 [33 U.S.C. 1281 nt] Environmental
Financing
(a)	This section may be cited as the
"Environmental Financing Act of 1972."
(b)	There is hereby created a body cor-
porate to be known as the Environmental
Financing Authority, which shall have
succession until dissolved by Act of Con-
gress. The Authority shall be subject to
the general supervision and direction of
the Secretary of the Treasury. The Au-
thority shall be an instrumentality of the
United States Government and shall
maintain such offices as may be necessary
or appropriate in the conduct of its busi-
ness.
(c)	The purpose of this section is to as-
sure that inability to borrow necessary
funds on reasonable terms does not pre-
vent any State or local public body from
carrying out any project for construction
of waste treatment works determined eli-
gible for assistance pursuant to subsection
(e) of this section.
(d)(1)	The Authority shall have a
Board of Directors consisting of five per-
sons, one of whom shall be the Secretary
of the Treasury or his designee as Chair-
man of the Board, and four of whom shall
be appointed by the President from
among the officers or employees of the
Authority or of any department or agency
of the United States Government.
(2) The Board of Directors shall meet
at the call of its Chairman. The Board
shall determine the general policies which
shall govern the operations of the Author-
ity. The Chairman of the Board shall se-
lect and effect the appointment of quali-
fied persons to fill the offices as may be
provided for in the bylaws, with such ex-
ecutive functions, powers, and duties as
may be prescribed by the bylaws or by the
Board of Directors, and such persons shall
be the executive officers of the Authority
and shall discharge all such executive
functions, powers, and duties. The mem-
bers of the Board, as such, shall not re-
ceive compensation for their services.
(e) (1) Until July 1, 1975, the Authori-
ty is authorized to make commitments to
purchase, and to purchase on terms and
conditions determined by the Authority,
any obligation or participation therein
which is issued by a State or local public
body to finance the non-Federal share of
the cost of any project for the construc-
tion of waste treatment works which the
Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has determined to be eligi-
ble for Federal financial assistance under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(2)	No commitment shall be entered in-
to, and no purchase shall be made, unless
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (A) has certified that
the public body is unable to obtain on
reasonable terms sufficient credit to fi-
nance its actual needs; (B) has approved
the project as eligible under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act; and (C) has
agreed to guarantee timely payment of
principal and interest on the obligation.
The Administrator is authorized to guar-
antee such timely payments and to issue
regulations as he deems necessary and
proper to protect such guarantees. Appro-
priations are hereby authorized to be
made to the Administrator in such sums
as are necessary to make payments under
such guarantees, and such payments are
authorized to be made from such appro-
priations.
(3)	No purchase shall be made of obli-
gations issued to finance projects, the per-
manent financing of which occurred prior
to the enactment of this section.
(4)	Any purchase by the Authority
shall be upon such terms and conditions
as to yield a return at a rate determined
by the Secretary of the Treasury taking
into consideration (A) the current aver-
age yield on outstanding marketable obli-
gations of the United States of compara-
ble maturity or in its stead whenever the
Authority has sufficient of its own long-
term obligations outstanding, the current
average yield on outstanding obligations
of the Authority of comparable maturity;
and (B) the market yields on municipal
bonds.

-------
(5) The Authority is authorized to
charge fees for its commitments and other
services adequate to cover all expenses
and to provide for the accumulation of
reasonable contingency reserves and such
fees shall be included in the aggregate
project costs.
(0 To provide initial capital to the Au-
thority the Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to advance the funds necessary
for this purpose. Each such advance shall
be upon such terms and conditions as to
yield a return at a rate not less than a rate
determined by the Secretary of the Trea-
sury taking into consideration the current
average yield on outstanding marketable
obligations of the United States of compa-
rable maturities. Interest payments on
such advances may be deferred, at the
discretion of the Secretary, but any such
deferred payments shall themselves bear
interest at the rate specified in this sec-
tion. There is authorized to be appropriat-
ed not to exceed $100,000,000, which
shall be available for the purposes of this
subsection.
(g)(1) The Authority is authorized,
with the approval of the Secretary of the
Treasury, to issue and have outstanding
obligations having such maturities and
bearing such rate or rates of interest as
may be determined by the Authority.
Such obligations may be redeemable at
the option of the Authority before maturi-
ty in such manner as may be stipulated
herein.
(2) As authorized in appropriation
Acts, and such authorizations may be
without fiscal year limitation, the Secre-
tary of the Treasury may in his discretion
purchase or agree to purchase any obliga-
tions issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of
this subsection, and for such purpose the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to
use as a public debt transaction the pro-
ceeds of the sale of any securities hereaf-
ter issued under the Second Liberty Bond
Act, as now or hereafter in force, and the
purposes for which securities may be is-
sued under the Second Liberty Bond Act
as now or hereafter in force, are extended
to include such purchases. Each purchase
of obligations by the Secretary of the
Treasury under this subsection shall be
upon such terms and conditions as to yield
a return at a rate not less than a rate
determined by the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, taking into consideration the current
average yield on outstanding marketable
obligations of the United Stales of compa-
rable maturities. The Secretary of the
Treasury may sell, upon such terms and
conditions and at such price or prices as
he shall determine, any of the obligations
acquired by him under this paragraph.
All purchases and sales by the Secretary
of the Treasury of such obligations under
this paragraph shall be treated as public
debt transactions of the United States.
(h)	The Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized and directed to make annual
payments to the Authority in such
amounts as are necessary to equal the
amount by which the dollar amount of
interest expense accrued by the Authority
on account of its obligations exceeds the
dollar amount of interest income accrued
by the Authority on account of obligations
purchased by it pursuant to subsection (e)
of this section.
(i)	The Authority shall have power—
(1)	to sue and be sued, complain and
defend, in its corporate name;
(2)	to adopt, alter, and use a corporate
seal, which shall be judicially noticed;
(3)	to adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws,
rules, and regulations as may be neces-
sary for the conduct of its business;
(4)	to conduct its business, carry on its
operations, and have offices and exercise
the powers granted by this section in any
State without regard to any qualification
or similar statute in any State;
(5)	to lease, purchase, or otherwise ac-
quire, own, hold, improve, use, or other-
wise deal in and with any property, real,
personal, or mixed, or any interest there-
in, wherever situated;
(6)	to accept gifts or donations of ser-
vices, or of property, real, personal, or
mixed, tangible or intangible, in aid of
any of the purposes of the Authority;
(7)	to sell, convey, mortgage, pledge,
lease, exchange, and otherwise dispose of
its property and assets;
(8)	to appoint such officers, attorneys,
employees, and agents as may be re-
quired, to define their duties, to fix and to
pay such compensation for their services
as may be determined, subject to the civil
service and classification laws, to require
bonds for them and pay the premium
thereof; and
(9)	to enter into contracts, to execute
instruments, to incur liablities, and to do
all things as are necessary or incidental to
the proper management of its affairs and
the proper conduct of its business.
(j) The Authority, its property, its fran-
chise. capital, reserves, surplus, security
holdings, and other funds, and its income
shall be exempt from all taxation now or
hereafter imposed by the United States or
by any State or local taxing authority,
except that (A) any real property and any
tangible personal property of the Authori-
ty shall be subject to Federal, State, and
local taxation to the same extent accord-
ing to its value as other such property is
taxed, and (B) any and all obligations is-
sued by the Authority shall be subject
both as to principal and interest to Feder-
al, State, and local taxation to the same
extent as the obligations of private corpo-
rations are taxed.
(k) All obligations issued by the Au-
thority shall be lawful investments, and
may be accepted as security for all fiduci-
ary, trust, and public funds, the invest-
ment or deposit of which shall be under
authority or control of the United States
or of any officer or officers thereof. All
obligations issued by the Authority pursu-
ant to this section shall be deemed to be
exempt securities within the meaning of
laws administered by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, to the same ex-
tent as securities which are issued by the
United States.
(1) In order to furnish obligations for
delivery by the Authority, the Secretary
of the Treasury is authorized to prepare
such obligations in such form as the Au-
thority may approve, such obligations
when prepared to be held in the Treasury
subject to delivery upon order by the Au-
thority. The engraved plates, dies, bed
pieces, and so forth, executed in connec-
tion therewith, shall remain in the custody
of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Au-
thority shall reimburse the Secretary of
the Treasury for any expenditures made
in the preparation, custody, and delivery
of such obligations.
(m) The Authority shall, as soon as
practicable after the end of each fiscal
year, transmit to the President and the
Congress an annual report of its opera-
tions and activities.
(n) The sixth sentence of the seventh
paragraph of section 5136 of the Revised
Statues, as amended (12 U.S.C. 24), is
amended by inserting "or obligations of
the Environmental Financing Authority"
immediately after "or obligations, partici-
pations, or other instruments of or issued
by the Federal National Mortgage Asso-

-------
ciation or the Government National
Mortgage Association"
(o) The budget and audit provisions of
the Government Corporation Control Act
(31 U.S.C 846) shall be applicable to the
Environmenal Financing Authority in the
same manner as they are applied to the
wholly owned Government corporations.
(p) Section 3689 of the Revised Stat-
ues, as amended (31 U.S.C. 711), is fur-
ther amended by adding a new paragraph
following the last paragraph appropriat-
ing moneys for the purposes under the
Treasury Department to read as follows:
"Payment to the Environmental Fi-
nancing Authority: For payment to the
Environmental Financing Authority un-
der subsection (h) of the Environmental
Financing Act of 1972."
[Editor's note: The Environmental Fi-
nancing Authority expired on June 30,
1975.]
§13 [33 U.S.C. 1251 nt] Sex
Discrimination
No person in the United States shall on
the ground of sex be excluded from partic-
ipation in. be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any pro-
gram or activity receiving Federal assist-
ance under this Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, or the Environmen-
tal Financing Act. This section shall be
enforced through agency provisions and
rules similar to those already established,
with respect to racial and other discrimi-
nation, under title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 However, this remedy is not
exclusive and will not prejudice or cut off
any other legal remedies available to a
discriminatee.
[Editor's note: The following sections
of the Clean Water Act Amendments of
1977 PL 95-217 did not amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act directly
but are relevant.]
§73(33 U.S.C. 1314 nt] Existing
Guidelines
Within 90 days after the date of enact-
ment of this Act, the Administrator shall
review every effluent guideline promulgat-
ed prior to the date of enactment of this
Act which is final or interim final (other
than those applicable to industrial catego-
ries listed in table 2 of Committee Print
Numbered 95-30 of the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives) and which ap-
plies lo those pollutants identified pursu-
ant to section 304(a)(4) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The Admin-
istrator shall review every guideline appli-
cable to industrial categories listed in
such table 2 on or before July 1, 1980.
Upon completion of each such review the
Administrator is authorized to make such
adjustments in any such guidelines as
may be necessary to carry out section
304(b)(4) of such Act. The Administrator
shall publish the results of each such re-
view, including, with respect to each such
guideline, the determination to adjust or
not adjust such guideline. Any such deter-
mination by the Administrator shall be
final except that if. on judicial review in
accordance with section 509 of such Act,
it is determined that the Administrator
either did not comply with the require-
ments of this section or the determination
of the Administrator was based on arbi-
trary and capricious action in applying
section 304(b)(4) of such Act to such
guideline, the Administrator shall make a
further review and redetermination of any
such guideline.
§74 Seafood Processing Study
The Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency shall conduct a
study to examine the geographical, hydro-
logical, and biological characteristics of
marine waters to determine the effects of
seafood processes which dispose of un-
treated natural wastes into such waters.
In addition, such study shall examine
technologies which may be used in such
processes to facilitate the use of the nutri-
ents in these wastes or to reduce the dis-
charge of such wastes into the marine en-
vironment. The results of such study shall
be submitted to Congress not later than
January 1, 1979.
§75 Cost Recovery Study
(a) The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (hereafter in
this section referred to as the "Adminis-
trator") shall study the efficiency of, and
the need for, the payment by industrial
users of any treatment works of that por-
tion of the cost of construction of such
treatment works (as determined by the
Administrator) which is allocable to the
treatment of industrial wastes to the ex-
tent attributable to the Federal share of
the cost of construction. Such study shall
include, but not be limited to, an analysis
of the impact of such a system of payment
upon rural communities and on industries
in economically distressed areas or areas
of high unemployment. No later than the
last day of the twelfth month which be-
gins after the date of the enactment of
this section, the Administrator shall sub-
mit a report to the Congress setting forth
the results of such study.
(b)	[Sec. 75(b) repealed by PL
96-483]
(c)	for purposes of this section, the
terms "industrial user" and "treatment
works" have the same meaning given such
terms in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
(d)	[Sec. 75(d) repealed by PL
96-483]
§76 [33 U.S.C. 1344 nt] Lake Chelan
Delegation
The Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, is autho-
rized to delegate to the State of Washing-
ton upon its request all or any part of
those functions vested in such Secretary
by section 404 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act and by sections 9, 10,
and 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, relat-
ing to Lake Chelan, Washington, if the
Secretary determines (1) that such State
has the authority, responsibility, and ca-
pability to carry out such functions, and
(2) that such delegation is in the public
interest. Such delegation shall be subject
to such terms and conditions as the Secre-
tary deems necessary, including, but not
limited to, suspension and revocation for
cause of such delegation.
§77 Secondary Treatment Facility Site
The Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency shall reimburse the
city of Boston, Massachusetts, an amount
equal to 75 per centum, but not to exceed
$15,000,000, of the cost of constructing a
modern correctional detention facility on
a site in such city, on condition that such
city convey to the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts all of its right, title, and inter-
est in and to that real property owned by
such city on Deer Island whicfi is the site
of the existing correctional detention fa-
cility for use by such Commonwealth as
the site for a publicly owned treatment
works providing secondary treatment.
There is authorized to be appropriated
$15,000,000 to carry out the purposes of
this section.

-------
§78 [33 U.S.C. 1281a] Total Treatment
System Funding
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, in any case where the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
finds that the total of all grants made un-
der section 201 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act for the same treatment
works exceeds the actual construction
costs for such treatment works (as defined
in that Act) such excess amount shall be a
grant of the Federal share (as defined in
that Act) of the cost of construction of a
sewage collection system if—
(1)	such sewage collection system was
constructed as part of the same total
treatment system as the treatment works
for which such section 201 grants were
approved, and
(2)	an application for assistance for the
construction of such sewage collection sys-
tem was filed in accordance with secion
702 of the Housing and Urban Develop-
ment Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3102)
before all such section 201 grants were
made and such section 702 grant could
not be approved due to lack of funding
under such section 702.
The total of all grants for sewage col-
lection systems made under this section
shall not exceed 52,800,000.
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
OF PL 100-4
[Editor's note: The following provi-
sions did not amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act directly, but have
some impact on its implementation.]
§317 {33 UJ5.C. 1330] National Estuary
Program
(a) Purposes and Policies.—
(1) Findings. — Congress finds and de-
clares that—
(A) the Nation's estuaries are of great
importance for fish and wildlife resources
and recreation and economic opportunity;
(8) maintaining the health and ecologi-
cal integrity of these estuaries is in the
national interest;
(C)	increasing coastal population, de-
velopment, and other direct and indirect
uses of these estuaries threaten their
health and ecological integrity;
(D)	long term planning and, manage-
ment will contribute to the continued pro-
ductivity of these areas, and will maxi-
mize their utility to the Nation; and
(E) belter coordination among Federal
and State programs affecting estuaries
will increase the effectiveness and efficien-
cy of the national effort to protect, pre-
serve, and restore these areas.
(2) Purposes. — The purposes of this
section are to—
(A)	identify nationally significant estu-
aries that are threatened by pollution, de-
velopment, or overuse;
(B)	promote comprehensive planning
for, and conservation and management of,
nationally significant estuaries;
(C)	encourage the preparation of man-
agement plans for estuaries of national
significance; and
(D)	enhance the coordination of estua-
rine research.
§318 Unconsolidated Quaternary Aquifer
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person may—
(1)	locate or authorize the location of a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile,
injection well, or land treatment facility
over the Unconsolidated Quaternary Aq-
uifer, or the recharge zone or streamflow
source zone of such aquifer, in the Rocka-
way River Basin, New Jersey (as such
aquifer and zones are described in the
Federal Register, January 24, 1984,
pages 2946-2948); or
(2)	place or authorize the placement of
solid waste in a landfill, surface impound-
ment, waste pile, injection well, or land
treatment facility over such aquifer or
zone. This section may be enforced under
sections 309(a) and (b) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. For pur-
poses of section 309(c) of such Act, a vio-
lation of this section shall be considered a
violation-of section 301 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
§407 [33 U.S.C. 1342 nt] Log Transfer
Facilities
(a) Agreement. — The Administrator
and Secretary of the Army shall enter in-
to an agreement regarding coordination of
permitting for log transfer facilities to
designate a lead agency and to process
permits required under section 402 and
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, where both such sections apply,
for discharges associated with the con-
struction and operation of log transfer fa-
cilities. The Administrator and Secretary
are authorized to act in accordance with
the terms of such agreement to assure
that, to the maximum extent practicable.
duplication, needless paperwork and de-
lay in the issuance of permits, and inequi-
table enforcement between and among fa-
cilities in different States, shall be elimi-
nated.
(b) Applications and Permits Before
October 22, 1985. — Where both of sec-
tions 402 and 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution control Act apply, log transfer
facilities which have received a permit un-
der section 404 of such Act before Octo-
ber 22, 1985, shall not be required to sub-
mit a new application for a permit under
section 402 of such Act. If the Adminis-
trator determines that the terms of a per-
mit issued on or before October 22, 1985,
under section 404 of such Act satisfies the
applicable requirements of sections 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of such Act, a
separate application for a permit under
section 402 of such Act shall not thereaf-
ter be required. In any case where the
Administrator demonstrates, after an op-
portunity for a hearing, that the terms of
a permit issued on or before October 22,
1985, under section 404 of such Act do
not satisfy the applicable requirements of
sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403
of such Act, modifications to the existing
permit under section 404 of such Act to
incorporate such applicable requirements
shall be issued by the Administrator as an
alternative to issuance of a separate new
permit under section 402 of such Act.
(c) Log Transfer Facility Defined. —
For the purposes of this section, the term
"log transfer facility" means a facility
which is constructed in whole or in part in
waters of the United States and which is
utilized for the purpose of transferring
commercially harvested logs to or from a
vessel or log raft, including the formation
of a log raft.
§508 [33 U.S.C. 1414a] Special Provisions
Regarding Certain Dumping Sites
(a) Finding. — The Congress finds that
the New York Bight Apex is no longer a
suitable location for the ocean dumping of
municipal sludge.
§509 Ocean Discharge Research Projects
(a) In General. — Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Adminis-
trator is authorized to issue a research
permit to the Orange County, California,
sanitation Districts for the discharge of
preconditioned municipal sewage sludge
into the ocean for the purpose of enabling
research to be conducted in assessing and

-------
analyzing the effects of disposing of sew-
age sludge by pipeline into ocean wa-
ters—
(1)	if the Administrator is satisfied that
such local governmental agency is active-
ly pursuing long-term land-based options
for the handling of its sludge with special
emphasis on remote disposal alternatives
set forth in the 1980 LA/OMA sludge
management project and on reuse of
sludge or use of recycled sludge; and
(2)	if the Administrator determines
that there is no likelihood of an unaccept-
able adverse effect on the environment as
a result of issuance of such permit and
that such permit would meet the require-
ments of paragraph (2) of section 301(h)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by this Act, and of the
sentences following the first sentence of
such section if such permit were being
issued under such section.
(b) Permit Terms.—
(1)	Period. — The permit for the dis-
charge of sludge shall be for a period of 5
years commencing on the date of such
discharge and shall not be extended or
renewed.
(2)	Monitoring. — Such permit shall
provide for monitoring (including whole
effluent monitoring) of permitted dis-
charges and other discharges into the
ocean in the same area and the effects of
such discharges (including cumulative ef-
fects) in conformance with requirements
established by the Administrator, after
consultation with appropriate Federal and
State agencies, and for the reporting of
such monitoring to Congress and the Ad-
ministrator every 6 months.
(3)	Volume of Discharge. — Such per-
mit shall provide that the volume of such
local agency's sludge disposed of by such
experimental pipeline shall be no more
than one and one-half times that being
disposed of by such remote disposal and
alternatives for the reuse of sludge and
the use of recycled sludge. In no event
shall the agency dispose of more than 50
percent of its sludge by the pipeline.
(4)	Termination — The permit shall
provide for termination of the permit if
the Administrator determines that the
disposal of sewage sludge is resulting in
an unacceptable adverse impact on fish,
shellfish, and wildlife. The Administrator
may terminate a permit issued under this
section if the Administrator determines
that there has been a decline in ambient
water quality of the receiving waters dur-
ing the period of the permit even if a di-
rect cause and effect relationship cannot
be shown If the effluent from a source
with a permit issued under this section is
contributing to a decline in ambient water
quality of the receiving waters, the Ad-
ministrator shall terminate such permit.
(c)	Limitation on Precedent. — The
facts and circumstances described in sub-
section (a) present a unique situation
which will not establish a precedent for
the relaxation of the requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act ap-
plicable to similarly situated discharges.
(d)	Report. — Such districts shall re-
port the results of the program and an
analysis of such program to Congress un-
der this section not later than four and
one-half years after issuance of the per-
mit.
§510 San Diego, California
(a)	Purpose. — The purpose of this sec-
tion is to protect the economy, public
health, environment, surface water and
public beaches, and water quality of the
city of San Diego, California, and sur-
rounding areas, which are endangered
and are being polluted by raw sewage em-
anating from the city of Tijuana, Mexico.
(b)	Construction Grants. — Upon ap-
proval of the necessary plans and specifi-
cations. the Administrator is authorized
to make grants to the Secretary of State,
acting through the American Section of
the International Boundary and Water
Commission (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the "Commission"), or any
other Federal agency or any other appro-
priate commission or entity designated by
the President. Such grants shall be for
construction of a project consisting of—
(1)	defensive treatment works to pro-
tect the residents of the city of San Diego,
California, and surrounding areas from
pollution resulting from any inadequacies
or breakdowns in wastewater treatment
works and systems in Mexico; and
(2)	treatment works in the city of San
Diego, California, to provide primary or
more advanced treatment of municipal
sewage and industrial waste from Mexico,
including the city of Tijuana, Mexico.
(c)	Limitation on Grants. — Notwith-
standing subsection (b), the Administra-
tor may make grants for construction of
treatment works described in subsection
(b)(2) only if, after public notice and
comment, the Administrator determines
that treatment works in Mexico, in con-
junction with any defensive treatment
works constructed under this or any other
Act. are not sufficient to protect the re-
sidents of the city of San Diego, Califor-
nia, and surrounding areas from water
pollution originating in Mexico.
(d)	Operation and Maintenance. —
The Commission or such other agency,
commission, or entity as may be designat-
ed under subsection (b) is authorized to
operate and maintain any treatment
works constructed under subsection (b) in
order to accomplish the purposes of this
section.
(e)	Approval of Plans. — Any treat-
ment works for which a grant is made
under this section shall be constructed in
accordance with plans developed by the
Commission or such other agency, com-
mission, or entity as may be designated
under subsection (b), in consultation with
the city of San Diego, and approved by
the Administrator to meet the construc-
tion standards which would be applicable
if such treatment works were being con-
structed under title II of the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act.
(0 Federal Share. — Construction of
the treatment works under subsection (b)
shall be at full Federal expense less any
costs paid by the State of California and
less any costs paid by the Government of
Mexico as a result of agreements negoti-
ated with the United States.
(g)	Ocean Outfall Permit. — Notwith-
standing section 301 (j) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, upon appli-
cation of the city of San Diego. Califor-
nia. the Administrator may issue a permit
under section 301(h) of such Act which
modifies the requirements of section
301(b)(1)(B) of such Act to permit the
discharge of pollutants for any ocean out-
fall constructed with Federal assistance
under this section if the Administrator
finds that issuing such permit is in the
best interests of achieving the goals and
requirements of such Act. The Adminis-
trator may waive the requirements of sec-
tion 301(h)(5) of such Act with respect to
the issuance of such permit if the Admin-
istrator finds that such waiver is in the
best interests of achieving the goals and
requirements of such Act.
(h)	Treatment of San Diego Sewage.
— If any treatment works constructed
pursuant to this section becomes no longer
necessary to provide protection from pol-
lution originating in Mexico, the city of
San Diego, California, may use such
treatment works to treat municipal and
individual waste originating in the city of
San Diego and surrounding areas if the
city of San Diego enters into a binding
agreement with the Administrator to pay
to the United States 45 percent of the

-------
costs incurred in the construction of such
treatment works.
(i) Definitions. — For purposes of this
section, the terms "construction" and
"treatment works" have the meanings
such terms have under section 212 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal years beginning after September 30.
1986, such sums as may be necessary to
the Administrator to make grants under
this section and such sums as may be nec-
essary to the Commission or such other
agency, commission, or entity as the Pres-
ident may designate under subsection (b),
to carry out this section.
§511 Limitation on Discharge of Raw
Sewage by New York City
(a) In General.—
(1)	North River Plant. — If the waste-
water treatment plant identified in the
consent decree as the North River plant
has not achieved advanced preliminary
treatment as required under the terms of
the consent decree by August 1. 1986, the
city of New York shall not discharge raw
sewage from the drainage area of such
plant (as defined in the consent decree)
into navigable waters after such date in
an amount which is greater for any
30-day period than an amount equal to
30 times the average daily amount of raw
sewage discharged from such drainage
area during the 12-month period ending
on the earlier of the date on which such
plant becomes operational or March 15,
1986 (as determined by the Administra-
tor), except as provided in subsection (b).
(2)	Red Hook Plant. — If the wastewa-
ter treatment plant identified in the con-
sent decree as the Red Hook plant has not
achieved advanced preliminary treatment
as required under the terms of the consent
decree by August 1,1987, the city of New
York shall not discharge raw sewage from
the drainage area of such plant (as de-
fined in the consent decree) into navigable
waters after such date in an amount
which is greater for any 30-day period
than an amount equal to 30 times the
average daily amount of raw sewage dis-
charged from such drainage area during
the 12-month period ending on the earlier
of the date on which such plant becomes
operational or March 15, 1987 (as deter-
mined by the Administrator), except as
provided in subsection (b).
(b) Waivers.—
(1) Interruption of Plant Operation. —
In the event of any significant interrup-
tion in the operation of the North River
plant or the Red Hook plant caused by an
event described in subparagraph (A), (B),
or (C) of paragraph (5) occurring after
the applicable deadline established under
subsection (a), the Administrator shall
waive the limitation of subsection (a) with
respect to such plant, but only to such
extent and for such limited period of time
as may be reasonably necessary for the
city of New York to resume operation of
such plant.
(2)	Increased Precipitation. — In the
event that the volume of precipitation oc-
curring after the applicable deadline es-
tablished under subsection (a) causes the
discharge of raw sewage to exceed the
limitation under subsection (a), the Ad-
ministrator shall waive the limitation of
subsection (a) with respect to either or
both such plants, but only to such extent
and for such limited period of time as the
Administrator determines to be necessary
to take into account the increased dis-
charge caused by such volume of precipi-
tation.
(3)	Variations in Certain North River
Drainage Area Discharges. — In the
event that an increase in discharges from
the North River drainage area consti-
tuting a violation of subsection (a)(1) is
due to a Tandom or seasonal variation,
and that any sewer hookup occurring, or
permit for a seweT hookup granted, after
July 31, 1986, is not responsible for such
violation, the Administrator shall waive
the limitation of subsection (a)(1), but on-
ly to such extent and for such limited peri-
od of time as the Administrator deter-
mines to be reasonably necessary to take
into account such random or seasonal
variation.
(4)	Variations in Certain Red Hook
Drainage Area Discharges. — In the
event that an increase in discharges from
the Red Hook drainage area constituting
a violation of subsection (a)(2) is due to a
random or seasonal variation, and that
any sewer hookup occurring, or permit for
a sewer hookup granted, after July 3,1,
1987, is not responsible for such violation,
the Administrator shall waive the limita-
tion of subsection (a)(2), but only to such
extent and for such limited period of time
as the Administrator determines to be
reasonably necessary to take into account
such random or seasonal variation.
(5)	Circumstances Beyond City's Con-
trol. — The Administrator shall extend
either deadline under paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (a) to such extent and
for such limited period of time as may be
reasonably required to take into account
any—
(A)	act of war,
(B)	unanticipated grave natural disas-
ter or other natural phenomenon of an
exceptional, inevitable, and irresistible
character, the effects of which could not
have been prevented or avoided by the
exercise of due care or foresight, or
(C)	other circumstances beyond the
control of the city of New York, except
such circumstances shall not include (i)
the unavailability of Federal funds under
section 201 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, (ii) the unavailability of
funds from the city of New York or the
State of New York, or (iii) a policy deci-
sion made by the city of New York or the
State of New York to delay the achieve-
ment of advanced preliminary treatment
at the North River plant or Red Hook
plant beyond the applicable deadline set
forth in subsection (a).
(c)	Penalties. — Except as otherwise
provided in subsection (b), any violation
of subsection (a) shall be considered to be
a violation of section 301 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. and all pro-
visions of such Act relating to violations
of such section 301 shall apply.
(d)	Consent Decree Defined. — For
purposes of this section, the term "consent
decree" means the consent decree entered
into by the Environmental Protection
Agency, the city of New York, and the
State of New York, on December 30,
1982, relating to construction and opera-
tion of the North River and Red Hook
wastewater treatment plants.
(e)	Cooperation. — The Administrator
shall work with the city of New York to
eliminate the discharge of raw sewage by
such city at the earliest practicable date.
(f)	Savings Clause. — Nothing in this
section shall be construed as modifying
the terms of the consent decree.
(g)	Sense of Congress. — It is the sense
of Congress that the Administrator should
not agree to any further modification of
the consent decree with respect to the
schedule for achieving advanced prelimi-
nary treatment.
(h)	Termination Dates. —
(1) North River Plant. — The provi-
sions of this section shall remain in effect
with respect to the North River drainage
area until such time as the North River
plant has achieved advanced preliminary
treatment (as defined in the consent de-
cree) for a period of six consecutive
months.

-------
(2) Red Hook Plant — The provisions
of this section shall remain in effect with
respect to the Red Hook drainage area
until such time as the Red Hook plant has
achieved advanced preliminary treatment
(as defined in the consent decree) for a
period of six consecutive months.
(1) Monitoring Activities. — The Ad-
ministrator shall promptly establish and
carry out a program wnhin available
funds to implement the moritoring activi-
ties which may be required under subsec-
tion (a).
(j) Establishment of Methodologies.
The Administrator shall establish the
methodologies, data base, and any other
information required for making determi-
nations under subsection (b)—
(1)	for the North River drainage area
(as defined in the consent decree) by July
31, 1986, unless the requirements of sub-
section (h)(1) have been sa:isfied, and
(2)	for the Red Hook drainage area (as
defined by the consent decree) by July 31,
1987, unless the requirements of subsec-
tion (h)(2) have been satisfied.
(k) Violations. — In carrying out this
section, if the Administrator finds that a
violation of subsection (a) has occurred,
the Administrator shall also determine,
within 30 days after such finding, whether
a provision of subsection (b) applies. If
the Administrator requires information
from the city of New York in order to
determine whether a provision of subsec-
tion (b) applies, the Administrator shall
request such information. If the city of
New York does not supply the informa-
tion requested by the Administrator, the
Administrator shall determine that sub-
section (b) does not apply. The city of
New York shall be responsible only for
such expenses as are necessary to provide
such requested information. Enforcement
action pursuant to subsection (c) shall be
commenced at the end of such 30 days
unless a provision of subsection (b) ap-
plies.
§512 0akwood Beach and Red Hook
Projects, New York
(a) Relocation of Natural Gas Facili-
ties. — Notwithstanding any provision of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the Administrator shall pay, to the extent
provided in appropriation Acts, in the
same proportion as the Federal share of
other project costs, all expenses for the
relocation of facilities for the distribution
of natural gas with respect to the entire
wastewater treatment works known as the
Oakwood Beach (EPA Grant Numbered
360392) and Red Hook (EPA Grant
Numbered 360394) projects, New York.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1986, not to exceed $7,000,000 to carry
out this section.
§513 Boston Harbor and Adjacent Waters
(a)	Grants. — The Administrator shall
make grants to the Massachusetts Water
Resource Authority for purposes of—
(1)	assessing the principal factors hav-
ing an adverse effect on the environmen-
tal quality of Boston Harbor and its adja-
cent waters;
(2)	developing and implementing a
management program to improve the wa-
ter quality of such Harbor and waters;
and
(3)	constructing necessary waste water
treatment works for providing secondary
treatment for the areas served by such
authority.
(b)	Federal Share. The Federal share
of projects described in subsection (a)
shall not exceed 75 percent of the cost of
construction thereof.
(c)	Emergency Improvements. — The
Administrator is authorized and directed
to make grants to the Massachusetts Wa-
ter Resource Authority for a project to
undertake emergency improvements at
the Deer Island Waste Water Treatment
Plant in Boston, Massachusetts. The Fed-
eral share of such project shall not exceed
75 percent of the cost of carrying out such
improvements.
(d)	Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated
5100,000,000 to carry out this section for
fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1986, to remain available until expended.
Such sums shall be in addition to and not
in lieu of any other amounts authorized to
be appropriated under title II of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act.
§514 Wastewater Reclamation Demon-
stration
(a)	Authority to Make Grants. — The
Administrator is authorized to make a
grant to the San Diego Water Reclama-
tion Agency, California, to demonstrate
and field test for public use innovative
processes which advance the technology
of wastewater reclamation and which pro-
mote the use of reclaimed wastewater.
(b)	Federal Share. — The Federal
share of grants made under this section
shall be 85 percent of the costs of con-
ducting such demonstration and field test.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated
not to exceed 52,000.000 to carry out this
section for fiscal years beginning after
September 30, 1986.
§515 Des Moines, Iowa
(a)	Grant. — The Administrator is au-
thorized to make a grant to the city of
Des Moines, Iowa, for construction of the
Central Sewage Treatment Plant compo-
nent of the Des Moines, Iowa, metropoli-
tan area project. The Federal share of
such project shall be 75 percent of the
cost of construction.
(b)	Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section not to exceed
$50,000,000 for fiscal years beginning af-
ter September 30, 1986. Such sums shall
be in addition to and not in lieu of any
other amounts authorized to be appropri-
ated under title II of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
§516(33 U.S.C. 1375 nt] Study of De
Minimis Discharges
(a)	Study. — The Administrator shall
conduct a study of discharges of pollu-
tants into the navigable waters and their
regulation under the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act to determine whether
or not there are discharges of pollutants
into such waters in amounts which, in
terms of volume, concentration, and type
of pollutant, are not significant and to de-
termine the most effective and appropri-
ate methods of regulating any such dis-
charges.
(b)	Report. — Not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this
Act. the Administrator shall submit to the
Committee on Public Works and Trans-
portation of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report on
the results of such study along with rec-
ommendations and findings concerning
the most effective and appropriate meth-
ods of regulating any discharges of pollu-
tants into the navigable waters in
amounts which the Administrator deter-
mines under such study to be not signifi-
cant.
§519 [33 U.S.C. 1375 nt] Study of
Pretreatment of Toxic Pollutants
(a) Study. — The Administrator shall
study—
(f) the adequacy of data on environ-
mental impacts of toxic industrial pollu-

-------
tants discharged from publicly owned
treatment works,
(2)	the extent to which secondary treat-
mem a; publicly owned treatment works
removes toxic pollutants;
(3)	the capability of publicly owned
treatment works to revise pretreatment
requirements under section 307(b)(1) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
(4)	possible alternative regulatory
strategies for protecting the operations of
publicly owned treatment works from in-
dustrial discharges, and shall evaluate the
extent to which each such strategy identi-
fied may be expected to achieve the goals
of this Act;
(5)	for each such alternative regulatory
strategy, the extent to which removal of
toxic pollutants by publicly owned treat-
ment works results in contamination of
sewage sludge and the extent to which
pretreatment requirements may prevent
such contamination or improve the ability
of publicly owned treatment works to
comply with sewage sludge criteria devel-
oped under section 405 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act; and
(6)	the adequacy of Federal, State, and
local resources to establish, implement,
and enforce multiple pretreatment limits
for toxic pollutants for each such alterna-
tive strategy.
(b) Report. — Not later than 4 years
after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall submit a re-
port on the results of such study along
with recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of pretreatment require-
ments to the Committee on Public Works
and Transportation of the House of Rep-
resentatives and the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works of the Senate.
§520 [33 U.S.C. 1375 nt] Studies of Water
Pollution Problems in Aquifers
(a) Studies. — The Administrator, in
conjunction with State and local agencies
and after providing an opportunity for full
public participation, shall conduct studies
for the purpose of identifying existing and
potential point and nonpoint sources of
pollution, and of identifying measures and
practices necessary to control such
sources of pollution, in the following
groundwater systems and aquifers:
(1)the	groundwater system of the Up-
per Santa Cruz Basin and the Avra-Altar
Basin of Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz
Counties, Arizona;
(2)	the Spokane-Rathdrum Valley Aq-
uifer, Washington and Idaho;
(3)	the Nassau and Suffolk Counties
Aquifer, New York;
(4)	the Whidbey Island Aquifer, Wash-
ington;
(5)	the Unconsolidated Quaternary Aq-
uifer, Rockaway River area, New Jersey;
(6)	contaminated ground water under
Litchfield, Hartford, Fairfield, Tolland,
and New Haven counties, Connecticut;
and
(7)	the Sparta Aquifer, Arkansas.
(b)	Reports. — Not later than 2 years
after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report on the studies conduct-
ed under this section.
(c)	Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated
$7,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after
September 30, 1986, to carry out this sec-
tion.
§522 [33 U.S.C. 1375 nt] Sulfide
Corrosion Study
(a)	Study. — The Administrator shall
conduct a study of the corrosive effects of
sulfides in collection and treatment sys-
tems, the extent to which the uniform im-
position of categorical pretreatment stan-
dards will exacerbate such effects, and the
range of available options to deal with
such effects.
(b)	Consultation. — The study re-
quired by this section shall be conducted
in consultation with the Los Angeles City
and County sanitation agencies.
(c)	Report. — Not later than 1 year
after the dale of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall submit a re-
port on the results of the study, together
with recommendations for measures to re-
duce the corrosion of treatment works, to
the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Represen-
tatives and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations. —
There is authorized to be appropriated
51,000,000 to carry out this section for
fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1986.
§523 [33 U.S.C. 1375 nt] Study of
Rainfall Induced InfiUtration into Sewer
Systems
(a)	Study. — The Administrator shall
study problems associated with rainfall in-
duced infiltration into wastewater treat-
ment sewer systems. As part of such
study, the Administrator shall study ap-
propriate methods of regulating rainfall
induced infiltration into the sewer system
of the East Bay Municipal Utility Dis-
trict, California.
(b)	Report. — Not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of such
study, along with recommendations on
reasonable methods to reduce such infil-
tration.
§524(33 U.S.C. 1375 nt] Dam Water
Quality Study
The Administrator, in cooperation with
interested States and Federal agencies,
shall study and monitor the effects on the
quality of navigable waters attributable to
the impoundment of water by dams. The
results of such study shall be submitted to
Congress not later than December 31,
1987.
§525 [33 U.S.C. 1375 ntj Study of
Pollution in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho
The Administrator shall conduct a com-
prehensive study of the sources of pollu-
tion in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, and the
Clark Fork River and its tributaries,
Idaho, Montana, and Washington, for the
purpose of identifying the sources of such
pollution. In conducting such study, the
Administrator shall consider existing
studies, surveys, and test results concern-
ing such pollution. The Administrator
shall report to Congress the findings and
recommendations concerning the study
conducted under this section.

-------
rt>
8s
s
B
ft
a

-------
Tuesday
November 8, 1983
Part It
Environmental
Protection Agency
Water Quality Standards Regulation

-------
51400
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday. November 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 3S, 120, and 131
IWH-FRL 2466-3]
Water Quality Standards Regulation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This Regulation revises and
consolidates in a new Part 131 the
existing regulations now codified in 40
CFR Parts 120 and 35 that govern the
development, review, revision and
approval of water quality standards
under Section 303 of the Clean Water
Act (the Act). The Regulation was
revised to reflect the experiences gained
in the program by both EPA and the
Slates. More explicit information is
included in the Regulation on what EPA
expects as part of State water quality
standards reviews. The Regulation also
clarifies that in promulgating Federal
standards, EPA is subject to the same
requirements as the States.
EFFECTIVE date: December 8,1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David K. Sabock, Environmental
Protection Agency, Chief, Criteria
Branch (WH-585). 401 M Street SW„
Washington, 20460 (202) 245-3042.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed changes to.40 CFR 120 and 35
on October 29.1982 (47 FR 49234) and
invited comments until February 10,
1983. Eleven public meetings were held
nationwide on the proposed revisions.
Nine hundred twenty people attended
those meetings. EPA received 1405
letters and statements on the proposal
prior to the closing of the public
comment period. Comments received on
the proposed Regulation may be
inspected at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 2818M, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington. D.C. 20460
during the Agency's normal working
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. For further
information contact the individual listed
above.
Information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
A Major changes made in the Proposed Rule
D. Regulatory Impact Analyses. Regulatory
Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction
Act Requirements
C List of Subjects in 40 CFR 131
Appendix A—Response to Public Comments
A. Major Changes Made in the Proposed
Regulation
The major additions and deletions
made in the proposed Rule are
discussed in this section. We have also
included a table summarizing all the
changes.
Commitment to the Coals of the Clean
Water Act
Several changes were made in the
Regulation to reassure the public that
EPA is committed to achieving the goals
of the Act. EPA accepted the
recommendations for including
regulatory language explicitly affirming
EPA's commitment to have standards
move toward the Section 101(a)(2) goals
of the Act and to use standards as a
basis of restoring and maintaining the
integrity of the Nation's waters.
A "Purpose" section (§ 131.2) has
been added to the Regulation. The
Purpose states that standards are to
protect public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water and
provide water quality for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish and
wildlife and recreation in and on the
water, as well as for agricultural and
industrial purposes and navigation. In
addition, this section describes the dual
role of water quality standards in
establishing the water quality goals for a
specific water body and in serving as
the regulatory basis for the
establishment of water quality based
treatment controls and strategies
beyond that level of treatment required
by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act.
The final regulation also clarifies that
when a State changes the designated
uses of its waters such that the uses of
the water body do not include the uses
specified in the Section 101(a)(2) goals
of the Act (i.e., the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and recreation in and on the
water), the State will have to
demonstrate, through a use attainability
analysis, that these uses are not
attainable based on physical, chemical,
biological or economic factors. This use
attainability analysis is required for
future changes that the State may make
and for previous actions that the State
took to designate uses for a water body
which did not include the uses specified
in Section 101(a)(2). Where water
quality improvements result in new
uses. States must revise their standards
to reflect these new uses (See
§ 131.10(1)). This provision continues an
existing EPA requirement although it
was omitted from the proposed
Regulation.
In addition, as discussed below, we
have revised the proposed
Antidegradation Policy to provide
special protection forhjgh quality
waters and waters which constitute an
outstanding National resource (See
§ 131.12) and we have eliminated the
benefit-cost analysis.
We believe that these and other
changes and clarifications in the Final
Rule demonstrate EPA's commitment to
the objectives, goals and spirit of the
Clean Water Act.
Changes in Uses
The provisions included in
§ 131.10(h)(1)—(6) of the proposed
Regulations, which dealt with
circumstances under which uses could
be changed, received substantial
comment. Many commenters objected
that the change in the phrase "States
must demonstrate" to "States must
determine" that certain conditions exist
would mean that EPA would require less
rigorous analyses for changing a use.
They indicated that "determine" merely
connotates a political process whereas
"demonstrate" implies substantial proof
supported by exacting analyses. EPA
believes that structured scientific and
technical analyses should be required to
justify removing or modifying
designated uses that are included in
Section 101(a)(2) of the Act or to justify
continuation of standards which do not
include these uses. EPA agrees that the
word "demonstrate" better reflects
Agency policy and has made that
change (see § 131.10(g)).
Some commenters asked whether
modifications in water quality
standards, such as defining a level of
protection for aquatic life or setting
seasonal standards, were changes in
standards subject to the public
participation requirements of § 131.20(b)
of the regulation. Yes, any modification
or change that a State makes in its
standards is subject to those
requirements.
Many commenters also objected to
the inclusion of a benefit-cost
assessment in justifying changes in uses.
Historically, economic considerations
have been a part of water quality
standards decisions. Senate Report No.
10 on the Federal Water Pollution
Control Amendments of 1965. 89th
Congress. 1st Session, included the
statement that "Economic, health,
esthetic, and conservation values which
contribute to the social and economic
welfare of an area must be taken into
account in determining the most
appropriate use oruses of a stream".
Section 303(c)(2) of the Act provides that
". . . standards shall be established
taking into consideration their use and
value for . . various water uses.
Under the 1975 regulation governing the
establishment of standards in Part
S 35.1550(c)(1). States were to ". . . take
into consideration environmental,

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51401
technological, social, economic, and
institutional factors" in determining the
attainability of standards for any
particular water segment. In addition,
there is and has been an economic
consideration in the antidegrada'ion
policy. The Agency recognizes that there
are inherent difficulties in a balancing of
the benefits of achieving, the Section
101(a)(2) goals of the Act with the costs.
As a result, the Agency was persuaded
that the provision in the existing rule
allowing changes in designated uses
where there would be substantial and
widespread economic impact better
reflected the process required by the
Act. For these reasons, the wording of
the existing regulation has been
retained.
Several commenters objected to
proposed § 131.10(h)(5) which allowed
States to remove or to modify
designated uses which are not
attainable based on physical factors.
After considering the comments, the
Agency decided to limit the reference to
physical factors to aquatic life
protection uses and to clarify the
existing policy.
Physical factors may be important in
evaluating whether uses are attainable.
However, physical limitations of the
stream may not necessarily be an
overriding factor. Common sense and
good judgment play an important role in
setting appropriate uses and criteria. In
setting criteria and uses. States must
assure the attainment of downstream
standards. The downstream uses may
not be affected by the same physical
limitations as the upstream uses. There
are instances where non-water quality
related factors preclude the attainment
of uses regardless of improvements in
water quality. This is particularly true
for fish and wildlife protection uses
where the lack of a proper substrate
may preclude certain forms of aquatic
life from using the stream for
propagation, or the lack of cover, depth,
flow, pools, riffles or impacts from
channelization, dams, diversions may
preclude particular forms of aquatic life
from the stream altogether. EPA
recognizes that while physical factors
also affect the recreational uses
appropriately designated for a water
body. States need to give consideration
to the incidental uses which may be
made of the water body. Even though it
may not make sense to encourage use of
a stream for swimming because of the
flow, depth or the velocity of the water. 1
the.States and EPA must recognize that
swimming and/or wading may occur
anyway. In order to protect public
health. States must set criteria to reflectl
recreational uses if it appears that V
recreation will in fact occur in the
stream.
In keeping with the purposes of the
Act, the wording of 1131.10(h)(4) of the
proposed Rule (now § 131.10(g)(4)) was
modified so that changes in uses could
only occur if dams, diversions or other
types of hydrologic modifications
preclude rather than just interfere with
the attainment of the designated uses. It
should also be pointed out that if
physical limitations of the water body
were used as the basis of not including
uses for a water body that are specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, those
physical factors must be reviewed every
three years.
While many commenters objected to
the number of reasons the States could
use in justifying changes in uses, the
Agency decided to keep the six factors,
with the changes described above,
because they better explain when
changes may be made. The terse
wording of the existing Rule does not
adequately explain when changes can
be made.
A number of comments related to use
attainability analyses. In demonstrating
that a use is not attainable, States will
be required to prepare and submit to
EPA a use attainability analysis. A use
attainability analysis is a multi-step
scientific assessment of the physical,
chemical, biological and economic
factors affecting the attainment of a use.
It includes a water body survey and
assessment, a wasteload allocation, and
an economic analysis, if appropriate.
A water body survey and assessment
examines the physical, chemical and
biological characteristics of the water
body to: identify and define the existing
uses of that water body; determine
whether the designated uses in the State
water quality standards are impaired,
and the reasons for the impairment; and
assist States in projecting the potential
uses that the water body could support
in the absence of pollution. A wasteload
allocation utilizes mathematical models
to predict the amount of reduction
necessary in pollutant loadings to
achieve the designated use. Economic
analyses are appropriate in determining
whether the more stringent requirements
would cause substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
These analyses should address the
incremental effects of water quality
standards beyond technology-based or
other State requirements. The Agency's
guidance suggests that States consider
effects due to compliance by private and
municipal dischargers. If the
requirements are not demonstrated to
have a substantial and widespread
impact on the affected community, the
standard must be maintained or made
compatible with the goals of the Act.
There was considerable comment on
whether the use attainability analyses
should be required, and if so when. In
keeping with section 510 of the Act, EPA
is not requiring States to conduct and
submit a use attainability analysis if
adding a use specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act or a use requiring
more stringent criteria. In the final rule,
EPA is requiring that States conduct and
submit to EPA a use attainability
analysis if the State (a) is designating
uses for the water body such that the
water body will not have all uses which
are included in Section 101(a)(2) of the
Act, (b) maintaining uses for the water
body which do not include all of the
uses in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act. (c)
removing a use included in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act or (d) modifying a
use included in Section 101(a)(2) of the
Act to require less stringent criteria. A
State need only conduct a use
attainability once for a given water
body and set of uses. During subsequent
triennial review, States will be required
to review the basis of not including uses
for the water body that are specified in
Section 101(a)(2) of the Act to show that
circumstances have not changed and
that protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife and/or recreation
in and on the water remain
unattainable. If such uses have become
attainable, the standard must be revised
accordingly (See § 131.20(a)). However,
States may wish to conduct a use
attainability analysis, even where not
required, if they believe that there will
be questions as to whether the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife and recreation in
and on the water is, in fact, attainable.
The guidance on conducting the water
body survey and assessment is included
in the Water Quality Standards
Handbook. The earlier draft of the
Handbook has been revised and
expanded. Test cases illustrating the
water body survey and assessment
guidance have been completed and are
included in the Handbook. In addition,
the Agency has published a Technical
Support Manual: Water Body Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting a Use
Attainability Analyses. These
publications may be obtained by writing
or calling David K. Sabock at the
address and phone number listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
By publishing guidance on conducting
use attainability analyses, EPA is not
requiring that specific approaches,
methods or procedures be used. Rather,
States are encouraged to consult with
EPA early in the process to agree on

-------
51402 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 217'/ Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate methods and procedures for
conducting any of the analyses before
the analyses are initiated and carried
out. States will have the flexibility of
tailoring the analyses to the specific
water body being examined as long as
the methods used are scientifically and
technically supportable.
EPA will review the adequacy of the
data, the suitability and appropriateness
of the analyses and how the analyses
were applied. In cases where the
analyses are inadequate, EPA will
identify how the analyses need to be
improved and will suggest the type of
evaluation or data needed. When the
State has initially consulted EPA on the
analyses to be used. EPA will be ahie to
expedite its review of the State's
analyses of any new or revised State
standard.
Criteria
EPA has revised the section on
criteria (§ 131.12 in the proposal;
renumbered to § 131.11 in the final rule]
in several respects. First. EPA has
accepted the recommendation that the
phrase "criteria are compatible with"
protecting a designated use is confusing
and unnecessary and should be
removed. The provision now reads:
"States must adopt those water quality
criteria that protect the designated use."
In addition. EPA consolidated parts of
the provisions and stated more
concisely the basis of EPA's review of
the appropriateness of State criteria.
Section 131.11(a) now reads: "Such
criteria mast be based on sound
scientific rationale and must contain
sufficient parameters or constituents to
protect the designated use. For waters
with multiple use designations, the
criteria shall support the most sensitive
use." eliminating the need for proposed
§ 131.12(c) (l)-(3).
A number of comments concerned
criteria for toxic pollutants. Some
questioned EPA's commitment to
controlling toxic pollutants based on the
fact that EPA was not "requiring" States
to adopt specific numerical toxic
pollutant criteria. EPA has made a
number of changes to more clearly
reflect our commitment. For example.
EPA has tried to restructure
§ 131.11(a)(2) on toxic pollutants to
assist States in providing the most
effective control of toxic pollutants as
possible. All States have a requirement
in their standards that their waters be
free from toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts. States are to review their
water quality data and information on
discharges to identify specific water
bodies where toxic pollutants may be
adversely impacting water quality or the
designated uses or where the level of a
toxic pollutant in the water is at a level
to warrant concern States are expected
to conduct such reviews beginning with
an in-depth analysis of water bodies
with knows toxic pollutant problems.
States are to adopt numerical or
narrative criteria for those toxic
pollutants of concern. Numerical criteria
are appropriate where a few specific
pollutants have been identified as the
concern, or where human health rather
than aquatic life is the controlling factor.
To implement such criteria, models are
used to translate the specific criterion
on a chemical-by-chemical basis into a
wasteload allocation to obtain a specific
permit limit.
However, where the effluent or
ambient conditions are complex, due to
multiple dischargers or multiple
pollutants, toxic pollutant limits may be
more appropriately set through narrative
criteria (such as the "free from
statements"). Where narrative criteria
are adopted, the State should indicate as
part of its water quality standards
submission, how it intends to regulate
the discharge of the toxic pollutants.
Biological monitoring is one mechanism
to test compliance with "free from"
narrative criteria. Biological monitoring
may include periodic sampling of the
ecosystem, trend monitoring and/or
periodic bioassays using the effluent.
Acute and chronic toxicity testing
methods have been developed that
enable a permit writer to ensure that the
discharge will not be toxic to aquatic
life. When using biological monitoring to
test compliance with narrative criteria,
reference should be made to the
maximum acceptable levels of toxicity
and the basic means by which these
levels are to be measured or otherwise
determined.
Both the pollutant-by-pollutant and
biological methods are being refined and
need to be applied in a conservative
fashion. They hold great promise and
are relatively inexpensive. In many
cases a combination of biological
monitoring and a chemical-by-chemical
approach will provide the best toxic
pollutant control.
Finally, a number of comments dealt
with site-specific criteria. It was
apparent from the comments that some
commenters had the mistaken
impression that EPA was advocating
that States use site-specific criteria
development procedures for setting all
criteria as opposed to using the national
Section 304(a) criteria. Site-specific
criteria development procedures are not
needed in all situations. Many of the
procedures are expensive. Site-specific
criteria development appears most
appropriate on water quality limited,
water bodies where:
•	Background water quality
parameters, such as pH, hardness
temperature, suspended solids, etc..
appear to differ significantly from the
laboratory water used in developing the
Section 304(a) criteria: or
•	The types of local aquatic
organisms m the region differ
significantly from those actually tested
in developing the Section 304(a) criteria.
The protocols for establishing site-
specific criteria, as well as the test cases
illustrating use of the protocols, are
included in the Water Quality
Standards HancRtook. EPA also has a
limited number of copies of
Recalculation of State Toxic Criteria
using the family recalculation procedure.
These publications may be obtained by
writing or calling David K. Sabock at the
address and phone number listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at
the beginning of this Rule.
Antidegradation Policy
The preamble to the proposed rule
discussed three options for changing the
existing antidegradation policy. Option
1, the proposed option, provided simply
that uses attained would be maintained.
Option 2 stated that not only would uses
attained be maintained but that high
quality waters, i.e. waters with quality
better than that needed to protect fish
and wildlife, would be maintained (that
is, the existing antidegradation policy
minus the "outstanding natural resource
waters" provision). Option 3 would have
allowed changes m an existing use if
maintaining that use would effectively
prevent any future growth in the
community or if the benefits of
maintaining the use do not bear a
reasonable relationship to the costs.
Although there was support for
Option 2, there was greater support for
retaining the full existing policy,
including the provision on outstanding
National resource waters. Therefore,
EPA has retained the existing
antidegradation policy (Section 131.12)
because it more accurately reflects the
degree of water quality protection
desired by the public, and is consistent
with the goals and purposes of the Act.
In retaining the policy EPA made four
changes. First, the provisions on
maintaining and protecting existing
instream uses and high quality waters
were retained, but the sentences stating
that no further water quality
degradation which would interfere with
or become injurious to existing instream
uses is allowed were deleted. The
deletions were made because the terms
"interfere" and "injurious" were subject
to misinterpretation as precluding any
activity which might even momentarily

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday. November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51403
add pollutants to the water. Moreover,
we believe the deleted sentence was
intended merely as a restatement of the
basic policy. Since the rewritten
provision, with the addition of a phrase
on water quality described in the next
sentence, stands alone as expressing the
basic thrust and intent of the
antidegradation policy, we deleted the
confusing phrases. Second, in
1131.12(a)(1) a phrase was added
requiring that the level of water quality
necessary to protect an existing use be
maintained and protected. The previous
policy required only that an existing use
be maintained. In § 131.12(a)(2) a phrase
was added that "In allowing such
degradation or lower water quality, the
State shall assure water quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully".
This means that the full use must
continue to exist even if some change in
water quality may be permitted. Third,
in the first sentence of § 131.12(a)(2) the
wording was changed from . .
significant economic or social
development. . ." to ". . . important
economic or social development. . . ."
In the context of the antidegradation
policy the word "important" strengthens
the intent of protecting higher quality
waters. Although common usage of the
words may imply otherwise, the correct
definitions of the two terms indicate that
the greater degree of environmental
protection is afforded by the word
"important."
Fourth, § 131.12(a)(3) dealing with the
designation of outstanding National
resource waters (ONRW) was changed
to provide a limited exception to the
absolute "no degradation" requirement.
EPA was concerned that waters which
properly could have been designated as
ONRW were not being so designated
because of the flat no degradation
provision, and therefore were not being
given special protection. The no
degradation provision was sometimes
interpreted as prohibiting any activity
(including temporary or short-term) from
being conducted. States may allow some
limited activities which result in
temporary and short-term changes in
water quality. Such activities are
considered to be consistent with the
intent and purpose of an ONRW.
Therefore, EPA has rewritten the
provision to read ". . . that water
quality shall be maintained and
protected," and removed the phrase "No
degradation shall be allowed. . . ."
In its entirety, the antidegradation
policy represents a three-tiered
approach to maintaining and protecting
various levels of water quality and uses.
At its base (Section 131.12(a)(1)), all
existing uses and the level of water
quality necessary to protect those uses
must be maintained and protected. This
provision establishes the absolute floor
of water quality in all waters of the
United States, The second level (Section
131.12(a)(2)) provides protection of
actual water quality in areas where the'
quality of the waters exceed levels
necessary to support propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in
and on the water ("fishable/
swimmable"). There are provisions
contained in this subsection to allow
some limited water quality degradation
after extensive public involvement, as
long as the water quality remains
adequate to be "fishable/swimmable."
Finally $ 131.23(a)(3) provides special
protection of waters for which the
ordinary u9e classifications and water
quality criteria do not suffice, denoted
"outstanding National resource water."
Ordinarily most people view this
subsection as protecting and
maintaining the highest quality waters
of the United States: that is clearly the
thrust of the provision. It does, however,
also offer special protection for waters
of "ecological significance." These are
water bodies which are important,
unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
whose water quality as measured by the
traditional parameters (dissolved
oxygen, pH, etc.) may not be particularly
high or whose character cannot be
adequately described by these
parameters.
General Policies
Except for a general statement that
States may adopt policies affecting the
application and implementation of
standards and that such policies are
subject to EPA review and approval, all
other elements of proposed Section
131.13 have been deleted, including the
detailed statement on mixing zones,
low flow exemptions, and variances.
Specific subsections on mixing zones,
low flow exemptions and variances
were deleted because, as the public
comments suggested, they were not
regulatory in nature and therefore were
more appropriately addressed in
guidance. More detailed information on
these subjects is included as guidance in
the Water Quality Standards
Handbook.
Many objected to the temporary
variance policy because it appeared to
be outside the normal water quality
standards setting process and because
the test for granting a variance was
different from that applied to changing a
designated use. While a variance does
not change a standard perse, there was
concern that such a policy would
stimulate "pollution shopping" or would
unfairly penalize firms that had
managed their operations to maintain a
profit while installing pollution control
equipment, to the advantage of those
that had not.
EPA has approved State-adopted
variances in the past and will continue
to do so if: each individual variance is
included as part of the water quality
standard, subject to the same public
review as other changes in water quality
standards and if each individual
variance-is granted based on a
demonstration that meeting the standard
would cause substantial and
widespread economic and social impact,
the same test as if the State were
changing a use based on substantial and
widespread social and economic impact.
EPA will review for approval individual
variances, not just an overall State
variance policy. A State may wish to
include a variance as part of a water
quality standard rather than change the
standard because the State believes that
the standard ultimately can be attained.
By maintaining the standard rather than
changing it, the State will assure further
progress is made in improving water
quality and attaining the standard. With
the variance provision, NPDES permits
may be written such that reasonable
progress is made toward attaining the
standards without violating Section
402(a)(1) of the Act which states that
NPDES permits must meet the
applicable water quality standards.
State Review
Section 131.20(a) was changed from
the proposal in several respects. These
changes were made in response to the
public's concern that the language in the
proposed regulation either removed or
diluted the Act's requirement to review
all standards every three years and that
EPA's proposed regulatory language did
not provide adequate recognition of the
goals of the Act. First, the language on
the 3-year review requirement was
changed to read exactly as the Act. It
now reads that "the State shall, from
time to time, but at least once every
three years, hold public hearings for the
purpose of reviewing applicable water
quality standards and. as appropriate,
modifying and adopting standards."
Second, a mandatory review and
upgrading requirement has been added.
On segments with water quality
standards that do not include all of the
uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the
Act. States must reexamine the basis of
that decision every three years to
determine whether any new
information, technology, etc. has
become available that would warrant
adding the protection and propagation

-------
51404 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 6, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
of fish, shellfish and wildlife and/or
recreation in and on the water.
Third. EPA has retained the concept
of allowing a State to select specific
water bodies for an irwieptb review of
the appropriateness of the water quality
standard. This was done in order to
make maximum use of limited resources
and ensure that the nvxt critical
environmental problems are addressed.
This review could include an
examination of tbe use, the existing
water quality criteria, and the need for
revised or additional criteria on
segments where tbe standards are not
pro)ected to be achieved with
implementation of the technology-based
requirements of the Act. Factors which
may cause a State to select a water
body for review include areas where
advanced treatment and combined
sewer overflow funding decisions are
pending, major water quality-based
permits are scheduled for issuance or
renewal, toxic pollutants have been
identified or are suspected of precluding
the attainment of water quality
standards. This list is not meant to be all
inclusive, and a State may have other
reasons for examining a particular
standard. The procedures established
for identifying and reviewing such water
bodies should be incorporated into the
State's Continuing Wanning Process.
There were numerous comments
either advocating mechanisms to ensure
the right of dischargers to petition the
State to review particular standards or
advocating tbe burden of proof be on the
discharger to justify any changes in
standards. EPA does not believe that it
should dictate particular administrative
mechanisms that States ose to initiate
the review of standards on particular
water bodies. However, we do believe
that whatever mechanism the State
uses, it should be Bade known to the
public and included in the State's
Continuing Planning Process document.
Summary of the Changes Made in the Proposed Regulation
Section
to in
the
proposed
regulation
Section
ka m
tbe tirval
tegutat«n
ty\ i
131 3
t31 4
m t
131 2
1*1 4
tJI.5
Scope_
PltfpOM-
State Authority
B*A*hoaty_
Mmflnum
Requirements
lor Water
Quatoy Side
Submissions.
Designation of
Uses
131 11
131 12
Analyses tor
| Chan^ng or
| Motfymg Use*
131 11 ' Catena	
I
I
t3t 12
131 13
131 20 131 20
Antidag/adafeon
Poficy
General Potoes
Stale Review and
Rs* isnjn of
Standarts-
No change ma*
New section Pupose Defines the duel purpose ef water VBtty standards. Standards establish the water quality goafs for a specific watv body
and serve a* a regulatory bavs for the esiaMshment of water quality based controls beyond the technology reqiared under the Act oonsntent
with Secfron foi(aK3 anrf *0W of tie Act
toner cfcaeges made mi toe dafcationa of "catena". "Secbe* 304(a) cam*" and "water quality standacds" (Mutton of "oses" and "attam" were
retrieved. A definition of a "Use Attainability Anafyaa" was added
Word "renewing" added to sentence "States ere responabte for renewing, establishing and rising water quetty standards
Tbe mwJag of thrs section hat taen sftgMy rawed to rtow tut EPA makes a detormwabon of vtoetier" State uaartwrds meet the Ave aaana.
Gwhsechoe (e) revoed to reed "whether the State hasfoSewe* its legal naiadum for revising or tdoptmg standards.
Subsection (d) modified to read "whether the State standards are based on appropriate letMmal and scientific data and analyses" rather than
whether (he decision maleng process a based on apprepnate technical and scientific data and anrt)aos>
SabaadQw (e) added to include mamem wquummli tor Stofia sotanesaun.
Line or Id) the statement now reads. "An AfiSdeyadation poUcy corsietem with 1131.12 "
Under (e) attar Attorney General the phrase "or other appropriate legal authonty withm the State** wes added
Statement added to (a) prohibiting designating a stream for waste transport or sssamiation
Added a new (b) that in designating uses ot a water body and the appropoafe cntena. States are to ensue the attanment and i
standards
Removed (c) Tbe Antidayldton Poficy e now doec^od at ) f3t t2
Section (b) renumbered (c), removed (ef. Seebo* if) renumbered W. and Section (g) renumbered (f)
Pai up aM' (h) now (g) has been changed it now requires that a State must demonstrate thai tbe (tseqneted sea. wfscto • not an eioing Me. a
not attawaSle /terns 4 and 6 were atso reworded Item 4 now reeds that changes « uses can be |uefcted rl dams, dweeeme or other %pea of
hydrotogtc modification	the attaanert of a «ae rath* toan pat interfere with the attainment of a use Uem 5 lands the constderatic
of physical factors to aquatic Me protection uses. Uem 6 has been totally changed tt ro* reads that chenges m uses can be made if controls
mv ttngom men thoae required by Section 301 (b> and 306 of the Act would result m lubsiintml end widespread econemc and sactal nped
In paragraph (0 now (h). ft and (3) are consolidated Subparagraph K) has been eliminated because of the revision to the Anttdapaoaiion Policy
(see 9 T31 121 Subparagraph now appeers ¦» } f3t 60). (2) and (3) to maintain and protect msireara water
qua&ty to protect exisfeng as as. m (aK2> "Tmporeanl' nepfeces "9gMicani m the ptvase on econonuc ShO sooal development, and "no
depadahon" was deleted from U)I3)
Paragraph (a) revrsed to ciarrfy thai Genetal Policies rf adopted are to be included »n a State s water quality standards and are aubfect to EPA
Fywew and approval
Sufceacfcons (bKc)(d) removed
Paiagtaph (a) Slate Review has been rewritten to track the wordmg m tbe Act on the three peer revtew of water euehty standards States are
required to review every three years State standards on segments mat do not mctuoe uses specified m Section toria)(2) of the Ad to
datemana whether these standards ace svi appropnete Finally a statement has been added that procedures Stales ose to identify water bocfees
lor review should be mcorpo«ated rrrto thev Conunumg Planning Process document
Under paragraph (c) after 30 days we added a phrase, oi the final State action to adopt and certify ' to ciartfy w&v the 30 day time peeod nana

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51405
Summary of the Changes Made in the Proposed Regulation—Continued
^"°n | Section
the No
the hnal
1
Title
Summary of changes
13121 13121
131 22 131 22
EPA Review and
Approval ot
ttrjlur QutMy
Standards
EPA Promulgation
of Water Ouatty
Standard*
No Change
Paragraphs (a) and (b) were clarified to indicate Admmtslrator may promulgate as wed as tusi propose standards
Under paragraph (c), a reowrement was added thai EPA m promulgating water quality standards is atso subfect to the pubbc panopeten
paqwrementt of U*s Regulation
J	L
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and
Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a Regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. It is difficult for EPA to assess
the likely net cost of this Regulation
because of the offsetting character of its
basic provisions. The Regulation does
establish new obligations on the States
for control of toxic pollutants. However,
the Regulation also increase the ability
of the States to determine the
attainability of stream uses, to set site-
specific criteria sufficient to protect
those uses, and to focus limited State
and Federal resources on reviewing
standards for priority water quality
limited segments. These changes are
designed to enable States to better use
water quality standards as a pragmatic
tool in improving water quality where
necessary to protect water uses. For
these reasons the Agency judges this not
to be a major Regulation under
Executive Order 12291.
This notice was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA and any EPA
response to those comments are
available for public inspection through
contracting the person listed at the
beginning of this notice.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. Section 601 et seq.. EPA must
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for all proposed regulations
that have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
EPA has determined that, for reasons
discussed above, this Rule does not
have significant adverse impact on
small entities.
The information collection provisions
in this rule have been approved by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.. and have
been assigned control number 2040-
0049.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 35
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 120
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 131
Water pollution control.
Intergovernmental relations,
Administrative practices and
procedures, Reporting and record
keeping.
Dated: November 2.1983.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
$35.1550 [Removed]
1.	Section 35.1550 is removed.
PART 120—WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
§§120.1-120.3 (Removed]
2.	Sections 120.1 through 120.3 are
removed.
§§ 120.27 and 120.43 (Removed]
3.	Sections 120.27 and 120.43 are
removed.
4.	Part 131 is added as set forth below:
4A. Subparts A. B, and C are added as
follows:
PART 131—WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Subpart A—General Provisions
Sec
131.1 Scope.
1312 Purpose.
131.3	Definitions.
131.4	Slate authority.
131.5	EPA authority
131.6	Minimum requirements for water
quality standards submission.
Subpart B—Establishment of Water Quality
Standards
131.10 Designation of uses.
131 11 Criteria.
131.12	Antidegradation policy.
131.13	General policies.
Subpart C—Procedures (or Review and
Revision of Water Quality Standards
Sec.
131 20 State Review and Revision of Water
Quality Standards.
131.21	EPA Review and Approval of Watei
Quality Standards
131.22	EPA Promulgation of Water Quality
Standards.
Authority: Clean Water Act. P.L. 92-500, as
amended- 33 U.S.C. 1251 el seq
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 131.1 Scope.
This part describes the requirements
and procedures for developing,
reviewing, revising and approving water
quality standards by the States as
authorized by Section 303(c) of the
Clean Water Act. The reporting or
recordkeeping (information) provisions
in this rule were approved by the Office
of Management and Budget under
3504(b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (approval
number 2040-0049).
§ 131.2 Purpose.
A water quality standard defines the
water quality goals of a water body, or
portion thereof, by designating the use
or uses to be made of the water and by
setting criteria necessary to protect the
uses. States adopt water quality
standards to protect public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of water
and serve the purposes of the Clean
Water Act (the Act). "Serve the
purposes of the Act" (as defined in
Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c) of the Act)
means that water quality standards
should, wherever attainable, provide
water quality for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and
wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water and take into consideration their
use and value of public water supplies,
propagation offish, shellfish, and
wildlife, recreation in and on the water,
and agricultural, industrial, and other
purposes including navigation.
Such standards serve the dual
purposes of establishing the water

-------
51406 Federal Register / Vol. 48» No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
quality goals for a specific water body
and serve as the regulatory basis for the
establishment of water-quality-based
treatment controls and strategies
beyond the technology-based levels of
treatment required by sections 301(b)
and 306 of the Act.
§ 131.3 Definitions.
(a)	The Act means the Clean Water
Act (Public Law 92-500, as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 elseq.)).
(b)	Criteria are elements of State
water quality standards, expressed as
constituent concentrations, levels, or
narrative statements, representing a
quality of water that supports a
particular use. When criteria are met,
water quality will generally protect the
designated use.
(c)	Section 304(a) criteria are
developed by EPA under authority of
Section 304(a) of the Act based on the
latest scientific information on the
relationship that the effect of a
constituent concentration has on
particular aquatic species and/or human
health. This information is issued
periodically to the States as guidance
for use in developing criteria.
(d)	Toxic pollutants are those
pollutants listed by the Administrator
under Section 307(a) of the Act.
(e)	Existing uses are those uses
actually attained in the water body on
or after November 28,1975, whether or
not they are included in the water
quality standards.
(f)	Designated uses are those uses
specified in water quality standards for
each water body or segment whether or
not they are being attained.
(g)	Use Attainability Analysis is a
structured scientific assessment of the
factors affecting the attainment of the
use which may include physical,
chemical, biological, and economic
factors as described in $ 131.10(g).
(h)	Water quality limited segment
means any segment where it is known
that water quality does not meet
applicable water quality standards,
and/or is not expected to meet
applicable water quality standards,
even after the application of the
technology-bases effluent limitations
required by Sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Act.
(i)	Water quality standards are
provisions of State or Fedaral law which
consist of a designated use or uses for
the waters of the United States and
water quality criteria for such waters
based upon such uses. Water quality
standards are to protect the public
health or welfare, enhance the quality of
water and serve the purposes of the Act.
(j) States include: the 50 States, the
District of Columbia. Guam, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Virgin
Islands. American Samoa, the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
§131.4 State authority.
States are responsible for reviewing,
establishing and revising water quality
standards. Under Section 510 of the Act.
States may develop water quality
standards more stringent than required
by this regulation.
§131.5 EPA authority.
Under Section 303(c) of the Act. EPA
is to review and to approve or
disapprove State-adopted water quality
standards. The review involves a
determination of: (a) Whether the State
has adopted water uses which are
consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act; (b) whether the state
has adopted criteria that protect the
designated water uses; (c) whether the
State has followed its legal procedures
for revising or adopting standards; (d)
whether the State standards which do
not include the uses specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act are based upon
appropriate technical and scientific data
and analyses, and (e) whether the State
submission meets the requirements
included in Section 131.6 of this part. If
EPA determines that State water quality
standards are consistent with the
factors listed in (a)—(e) of this
subsection. EPA approves the standards.
EPA must disapprove the State water
quality standards and promulgate
Federal standards under Section
303(c)(4) of the Act. if State adopted
standards are not consistent with the
factors listed in (a)—(e) of this
subsection. EPA may also promulgate a
new or revised standard where
necessary to meet the requirements of
the Act.
$131.6 Minimum requirements for water
quality standard* submission.
The following elements must be
included in each State's water quality
standards submitted to EPA for review:
(a)	Use designations consistent with
the provisions of Sections 101(a)(2) and
303(c)(2) of the Act.
(b)	Methods used and analyses
conducted to support water quality
standards revisions.
(c)	Water quality criteria sufficient to
protect the designated uses.
(d)	An antidegradation policy
consistent with § 131.12.
(e)	Certification by the State Attorney
General or other appropriate legal
authority within the State that the water
quality standards were duly adopted
pursuant to State law.
(f) General information which will aid
the Agency in determining the adequacy
of the scientific basis of the standards
which do not include the uses specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act as well as
information on general policies
applicable to State standards which
may affect their application and
implementation.
Subpart B—Establishment of Water
Quality Standards
§ 131.10 Designation of uses.
(a)	Each State must specify
appropriate water uses to be achieved
and protected. The classification of the
waters of the State must take into
consideration the use and valife of water
for public water supplies, protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and
wildlife, recreation in and on the water,
agricultural, industrial, and other
purposes including navigation. In no
case shall a State adopt waste transport
or waste assimilation as a designated
use for any waters of the United States.
(b)	In designating uses of a water
body and the appropriate criteria for
those uses, the State shall take into
consideration the water quality
standards of downstream waters and
shall ensure that its water quality
standards provide for the attainment
and maintenance of the water quality
standards of downstream waters.
(c)	States may adopt sub-categories of
a use and set the appropriate criteria to
reflect varying needs of-such sub-
categories of uses, for instance, to
differentiate between cold water and
warm water fisheries.
(d)	At a minimum, uses are deemed
attainable if they can be achieved by the
imposition of effluent limits required
under Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
and cost-effective and reasonable best
management practices for nonpoint
source control.
(e)	Prior to adding or removing any
use. or establishing sub-categories of a
use. the State shall provide notice and
an opportunity for a public hearing
under § 131.20(b) of this regulation.
(f)	States may adopt seasonal uses as
an alternative to reclassifying a water
body or segment thereof to uses
requiring less stringent water quality
criteria. If seasonal uses are adopted,
water quality criteria should be adjusted
to reflect the seasonal uses, however,
such criteria shall not preclude the
attainment and maintenance of a more
protective use in another season.
(g)	States may remove a designated
use which is not an existing use. as
defined in 1131.3, or establish sub-
categories of a use if the State can

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51407
demonstrate that attaining the
designated use is not feasible because:
(1)	Naturally occurring pollutant
concentrations prevent the attainment of
the use: or
(2)	Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or
low flow conditions or water levels
prevent the attainment of tbe use, unless
these conditions may be compensated
for by the discharge of sufficient volume
of effluent discharges without violating
State water conservation requirements
to enable uses to be met; or
(3)	Human caused conditions or
sources of pollution prevent the
attainment of the use and cannot be
remedied or would cause more
environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place; or
(4)	Dams, diversions or other types of
hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not
feasible to restore the water body to its
original condition or to operate such
modification in a way that would result
in the attainment of the use; or
(5)	Physical conditions related to the
natural features of the water body, such
as the lack of a proper substrate, cover,
flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like,
unrelated to water quality, preclude
attainment of aquatic life protection
uses; or
(6)	Controls more stringent than those
required by Sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Act would result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
(h)	States may not remove designated
uses if:
(1)	They are existing uses, as defined
in Section 131.3, unless a use requiring
more stringent criteria is added; or
(2)	Such uses will be attained by
implementing effluent limits required
under Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
and by implementing cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices
for nonpoint source control.
(i]	Where existing water quality
standards specify designated uses less
than those which are presently being
attained, the State shall revise its
standards to reflect the uses actually
being attained.
(j) A State must conduct a use
attainability analysis as described in
§ 131.3(g) whenever:
(1)	The State designates or has
designated uses that do not include the
uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the
Act, or
(2)	The State wishes to remove a
designated use that is specified in
Section 101(a)(2) of the Act or to adopt
subcategories of uses specified in
Section 101(a)(2) of the Act which
require less stringent criteria.
(k) A State is not required to conduct
a use attainability analysis under this
Regulation whenever designating uses
which include those specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act.
§131.11 Criteria.
(a)	Inclusion of pollutants:
(1)	States must adopt those water
quality criteria that protect the
designated use. Such criteria must be
based on sound scientific rationale and
must contain sufficient parameters or
constituents to protect the designated
use. For waters with multiple use
designations, the criteria shall support
the most sensitive use.
(2)	Toxic Pollutants—States must
review water quality data and
information on discharges to identify
specific water bodies where toxic
pollutants may be adversely affecting
water quality or the attainment of the
designated water use or where the
levels of toxic pollutants are at a level to
warrant concern and must adopt criteria
for such toxic pollutants applicable to
the water body sufficient to protect the
designated use. Where a State adopts
narrative criteria for toxic pollutants to
protect designated uses, the State must
provide information identifying the
method by which the State intends to
regulate point source discharges of toxic
pollutants on water quality limited
segments based on such narrative
criteria. Such information mBy be
included as part of the standards or may
be included in documents generated by
the State in response to the Water
Quality Planning and Management
Regulations (40 CFR Part 35).
(b)	Form of criteria: In establishing
criteria. States should:
(1) Establish numerical values based
on:
(1)	304(a) Guidance; or
(ii)	304(a) Guidance modified to reflect
site-specific conditions; or
(iii)	other scientifically defensible
methods;
(2)	establish narrative criteria or
criteria based upon biomonitoring
methods where numerical criteria
cannot be established or to supplement
numerical criteria.
1131.12 Antidegradation policy.
(a) The State shall develop and adopt
a statewide antidegradation policy and
identify the methods for implementing
such policy pursuant to this subpart. The
antidegradation policy and
implementation methods shall, at a
minimum, be consistent with the
following:
(1) Existing instream water uses and
the level of water quality necessary to
protect the existing uses shall be
maintained and protected.
(2)	Where the quality of the waters
exceed levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and recreation in and on the
water, that quality shall be maintained
and protected unless the State finds,
after full satisfaction of the
intergovernmental coordination and
public participation provisions of the
State's continuing planning process, that
allowing lower water quality is
necessary to accommodate important
economic or social development in the
area in which the waters are located. In
allowing such degradation or lower
water quality, the State shall assure
water quality adequate to protect
existing uses fully. Further, the State
shall assure that there shall be achieved
the highest statutory and regulatory
requirements for all new and existing
point sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices
for nonpoint source control.
(3)	Where high quality waters
constitute an outstanding National
resource, such as waters of National and
State parks and wildlife refuges and
waters of exceptional recreational or
ecological significance, that water
quality shall be maintained and
protected.
(4)	In those cases where potential
water quality impairment associated
with a thermal discharge is involved, the
antidegradation policy and
implementing method shall be
consistent with section 318 of the Act.
§ 131.13 General policies.
States may, at their discretion, include
in their State standards, policies
generally affecting their application and
implementation, such as mixing zones,
low flows and variances. Such policies
are subject to EPA review and approval.
Subpart C—Procedures for Review
and Revision of Water Quality
Standards
9 131.20 State review and revision of
water quality standards.
(a) State Review: The State shall from
time to time, but at least once every
three years, hold public hearings for the
purpose of reviewing applicable water
quality standards and. as appropriate,
modifying and adopting standards. Any
water body segment with water quality
standards that-do not include the uses
specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act
shall be re-examined every three years
to determine if any new information has
become available. If such new
information indicates that the uses
specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act
are attainable, the State shall revise its

-------
51408 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
standards accordingly. Procedures
States establish for identifying and
reviewing water bodies for review
should be incorporated into their
Continuing Planning Process.
(b)	Public Participation. The State
shall hold a public hearing for the
purpose of reviewing water quality
standards, in accordance with
provisions of State law, EPA'b water
quality management regulation (40 CFR
130.3(b)(6)) and public participation
regulation (40 CFR Part 25). The
proposed water quality standards
revision and supporting analyses shall
be made available to the public prior to
the hearing.
(c)	Submittal to EPA: The State shall
submit (he results of the review, any
supporting analysis for the use
attainability analysis, the methodologies
used for site-specific criteria
development, any general policies
applicable to water quality standards
and any revisions of the standards to
the Regional Administrator for review
and approval, within 30 days of the final
State action to adopt and certify the
revised standard, or if no revisions are
made as a result of the review, within 30
days of the completion of the review.
§131.21 EPA review and approval of water
quality standards.
(a)	After the State submits its
officially adopted revisions, the
Regional Administrator shall either
(1)	notify the State within 60 days that
the revisions are approved, or
(2)	notify the State within 90 days that
the revisions are disapproved. Such
notification of disapproval shall specify
the changes needed to assure
compliance with the requirements of the
Act and this regulation, and shall
explain why the State standard is not in
compliance with such requirements. Any
new or revised State standard must be
accompanied by some type of
supporting analysis.
(b)	The Regional Administrator's
approval or disapproval of a State water
quality standard shall be based on the
requirements of the Act as described in
51131.5, and 131.6.
(c)	A State water quality standard
remains in effect, even though
disapproved by EPA, until the State-
revises it or EPA promulgates a rule that
supersedes the State water quality
standard.
(d)	EPA shall, at least annually,
publish in the Federal Register a notice
of approvals under this section.
§131.22 EPA promulgation of water
quality standards.
(a) If the State does not adopt the
changes specified by the Regional
Administrator within 90 days after
notification of the Regional
Administrator's disapproval, the
Administrator shall promptly propose
and promulgate such standard.
(b)	The Administrator may also
propose and promulgate a regulation,
applicable to one or more States, setting
forth a new or revised standard upon
determining such a standard is
necessary to meet the requirements of
the Act.
(c)	In promulgating water quality
standards, the Administrator is subject
to the same policies, procedures,
analyses, and public participation
requirements established for States in
these regulations.
§§ 120.12 and 120.34 [ Redesignated as
§§131.31 and 131.33]
4fi. Sections 120.12 and 120.34 are
redesignated as | § 131.31 and 131.33
respectively and constitute Subpart D, of
new Part 131. The heading of new
§131.31 is revised to read "$131.31
Arizona". The table of contents for new
Subpart D is set forth below:
Subpart D—Federally Promulgate^ Water
Quality Standards
131.31 Arizona
131.33 Mississippi.
Authority: Clean Water Act, Pub. L. 92-500.
as amended: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
5. The heading for Part 120 is removed
and reserved.
(Note.—Appendix A will not appear in the
CFR.|
Appendix A—Response to Public
Comments
The public comments and statements
submitted to EPA on the proposed
Water Quality Standards Regulation
before the close of the comment period
are summarized in a separate
publication, "Summary of Public
Comments on the Proposed Water
Quality Standards Regulation," March
11.19S3. Limited numbers of the
Summary are available from David K.
Sabock at the address listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
This appendix describes EPA's
response to the recommendations for
changes in the proposed Regulation.
Similar recommendations have been
grouped together. Major additions and
deletions made in the Rule in response
to public comments are described in
greater detail in the Preamble. Subjects
discussed in the Preamble, along with
EPA's rationale for accepting or
rejecting the public's suggestions
include: commitment to the goals of the
Clean Water Act. changes in uses
(including comments on benefit-cost
assessments), criteria, the
antidegradation policy, general policies,
and State review.
Definitions
Several commenters asked what
waters were included in the Standards
program. We changed the term
"navigable waters" to "waters of the
United States" in the Regulation to
avoid confusion. The CWA defines
"navigable waters" as "waters of the
United States," a broader class of
waters than considered "navigable"
under some other statutes.
A number of recommendations were
made to improve the series of
definitions relating to uses. The terms
"uses" and "attain" were removed from
the list of definitions as being
unnecessary to define. A definition of
"Use Attainability Analysis" was added
as a means of providing a common basis
for understanding this analysis. This
definition is derived from the language
of the existing Regulation. The
recommendation that the definition of
"water quality limited segment" be
moved from the Preamble of the
proposed Rule to the definition section
of the final Rule was accepted. The
definition is important to understanding
certain provisions of the Rule and is,
therefore, logically part of the Rule.
Several suggestions were offered
regarding the definition of "criteria"
which resulted in the addition of "or
narrative statement" after
"concentration or level" and the
deletion of the final sentence to remove
the erroneous implication that only
numerical values may be established.
However, we rejected the suggestion
that we include in the definition of
criteria a statement that criteria are
purely scientific determinations and do
not consider the availability of
treatment technology or the costs or
economic impact of such treatment
requirements, because to do so would be
misleading. Section 304(a) criteria
developed by EPA are purely scientific
determinations, published as guidance
for the State's use. They are not
enforceable. Criteria adopted as part of
State water quality standards are set
taking into consideration the protection
of a particular designated use, and thus
may indirectly reflect a judgment as to
the availability of treatment
technologies needed to attain that use
and the dssociated«conomic impacts.
Such criteria, adopted as part of a State
standard, are enforceable.
State Review of Water Quality
Standards
There was considerable public
comment on the subject of State Review

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51409
of Water Quality Standards, primarily
directed to the apparent lack of EPA's
commitment to the goals and philosophy
of the Clean Water Act and the
substitution of a review of standards for
a limited number of priority water
bodies in lieu of a Statewide review of
standards at least once every 3 years.
These concerns were addressed in detail
in the Preamble and will only be briefly
discussed here.
Because of the overwhelming support
for the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act,
EPA added a requirement that any
stream segment with uses not specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act be re-
examined every 3 years by the Stale to
determine if new information has
become available. If such new
information indicates that the uses
specified in Section 101(a)(2) are
attainable, the State shall revise its
standards accordingly. This provision in
effect established a mandatory
requirement to "upgrade" water quality
standards as a balance to the provisions
allowing the "downgrading" of
standards. This policy also removes
problems dealing with equity
considerations among competing
dischargers. Dischargers on a stream
with an unduly "low" designated use
should not be given an advantage over
dischargers on streams whose
designated uses and criteria were
properly set to reflect attainable uses.
We have retained the statutory 3-year
review requirement. The proposed
regulation wa9 intended to implement
that requirement, but subsequent
statements on priority water bodies in
that subsection of the proposal and "
discussions in the Preamble and Water
Quality Standards Handbook tended to
confuse the issue. Many commenters
thought EPA was attempting to delete or
minimize that requirement. This is not
EPA's intention.
EPA has changed the language in part
131.20 to emphasize the statutory nature
of the 3-year review of all State
standards. However, EPA continues to
believe that the concept of focusing
limited State resources on specific water
bodies is an appropriate management
technique to ensure that the most
critical environmental problems are
adequately addressed. The Preamble
discusses this in more detaif.
In addition, many commenters
erroneously assumed that EPA was
proposing a rigid system for determining
priority water bodies. EPA has no rigid
priority system in mind other than
assuming the States will address known
problems first. Rather. EPA views
setting priorities as a basic management
tool and a necessary step for States to
make the best use of limited resources.
Priority lists are viewed as flexible
working documents, not as mandatory
lists. Public involvement in developing
these lists is encouraged.
Although there were suggestions that
EPA define for States the processes that
should be used in establishing the list of
priority water bodies, the Act does not
require such guidance and EPA does not
believe it is appropriate to do so.
However, whatever procedures States
establish should be incorporated into
the States Continuing Planning Process
document and be made known to the
public-at-large.
Antidegradation Policy
EPA's proposal, which would have
limited the antidegradation policy to the
maintenance of existing uses, plus three
alternative policy statements described
in the preamble to the proposal notice,
generated extensive public comment.
EPA's response is described in the
Preamble to this final rule and includes
a response to both the substantive and
philosophical comments offered. Public
comments overwhelmingly supported
retention of the existing policy and EPA
did so in the final rule.
EPA's response to several comments
dealing with the antidegradation policy,
which were not discussed in the
Preamble are discussed below.
Option three contained in the
Agency's proposal would have allowed
the possibility of exceptions to
maintaining existing uses. This option
was either criticized for being illegal or
was supported because it provided
additional flexibility for economic
growth. The latter commenters believed
that allowances should be made for
carefully defined exceptions to the
absolute requirement that uses attained
must be maintained. EPA rejects this
contention as being totally inconsistent
with the spirit and intent of both the
Clean Water Act and the underlying
philosophy of the antidegradation
policy. Moreover, although the Agency
specifically asked for examples of
where the existing antidegradation
policy had precluded growth, no
examples were provided. Therefore,
wholly apart from technical legal
concerns, there appears to be no
justification for adopting Option 3.
Most critics of the proposed
antidegradation policy objected to
removing the public's ability to affect
decisions on high quality waters and
outstanding national resource waters. In
attempting to explain how the proposed
antidegradation policy would be
implemented, the Preamble to the
proposed rule stated that no public
participation would be necessary in
certain instances because no change
was being made in a State's water
quality standard. Although that
statement was technically accurate, it
left the mistaken impression that all
public participation was removed from
the discussions on high quality waters
and that is not correct. A NPDES permit
would have to be issued or a 208 plan
amended for any deterioration in water
quality to be "allowed". Both actions
require notice and an opportunity for
public comment. However, EPA retained
the existing policy so this issue is moot.
Other changes in the policy affecting
ONRW are discussed in the Preamble.
Designation of Uses
The question of whether there is a
hierarchy of uses generated much
discussion. Many indicated there is no
hierarchy of uses since none of the uses
mentioned in Section 303(c) of the Clean
Air Water Act are ranked or were put
into any order of priority. However,
others believed that fish, wildlife and
recreation or potable water supply
clearly have precedence. The short
answer is that Congress, in setting the
goals in Section 101(a)(2). established
that, where attainable, water quality
"shall provide for the protection of fish,
shellfish, wildlife and recreation in and
on the water. . ." Therefore, EPA has
revised the proposed regulation to better
emphasize the uses specified in the
Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act. Under
the final regulation, wherever States
have set or set uses for a water body
which do not include all of the uses
specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act,
they must conduct a use attainability
analysis to demonstrate that these uses
are not attainable. Of course, if they are
not attainable, the State must select one
or more of the other uses included in
303(c)(2). While the States need only
conduct a use attainability analysis
once, every three years States will have
to review the basis of prior decisions to
designate uses a water body which do
not include uses specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act to determine if there
is any information which would warrant
a change in the standards. This change
responds positively to the criticism that
the proposed regulation settled for the
status quo and did not adequately
support the improvement of water
quality.
The provision in the proposal allowing
States to designate subcategories of
aquatic use*(Section 131.10(b)) has been
changed slightly in the final rule
(Section 131.10(c)) in response to
suggestions made by various
commenters. EPA is attempting to
convey the concept that some use
classifications included in the Act and

-------
51410 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
in State standards are so broad that
they do not adequately describe to the
public the actual use to be protected.
The final rule provides that a State may,
because of physical, chemical,
biological, and economic factors, wish to
adopt sub-categories of a use and set
criteria appropriate to protect a
particular use sub-category. The
alteration of the language from the
proposal to the final rule specifically
follows suggestions that uses other than
aquatic life protection should be
covered, and that factors other than
economics should be considered, m
designating particular sub-categories of
uses.
Many of the comments on setting sub-
categories of uses levels of aquatic
protection, and seasonal uses were
similar, focusing primarily on the
availability of guidance and the
adequacy of information on how to
establish levels of protection ob
seasonal uses. Guidance is available in
the Water Quality Standards Handbook
on what considerations are involved in
determining levels of protection and
seasonal uses to designating appropriate
uses for a water body. The availability
of information will vary depending on
the site involved. EPA intends to
continually improve the scientific and
technical basis of the guidance and to
revise such guidance from time to time.
Moreover, EPA will not approve
standards unless they are based on
sound scientific and technical analysis.
Establishing sub-categories of uses and
seasonal uses are optional
considerations on the part of the State.
Several commenters suggested that
EPA establish a minimum level of
protection. EPA believes it provides the
basic scientific information on various
levels of protection with the water
quality criteria recommendations under
Section 304(a) of the Act. However, for
EPA to mandate certain levels of
aquatic life protection within a use
would override the primary authority of
the State to adopt use classifications
and supporting criteria through public
hearings. EPA does not believe as being
valid the concern expressed by the
public that when establishing various
levels of protection that the most
sensitive species will not be protected.
The degree of protection may vary
depending upon what life stage of the
most sensitive species the public wishes
to protect. For example, water quality
criteria necessary to protect spawning of
aquatic life generally requires more
stringent water quality criteria than
does protection of the species during
other stages of its life cycle. If spawning
is not part of a designated use for a
specific water body, then less stringent
criteria levels may be established and
they will be adequate to protect the use
fully.
The public also was concerned that
uses or sub-categories of uses would not
be based on original habitat conditions.
It has never been the intention of the
water quality standards program to
bring all waters to a pristine condition
or necessarily to set standards based on
original habitat conditions. In the first
instance, some waters are naturally of
"poor" quality, and in the second, man
has changed the environment and there
are instances where an attempt to
correct or control some sources of
pollution either simply cannot be
effected or would cause more
environmental damage to correct than to
leave in place.
In response to comments that the
provision on seasonal uses was too
loose, we revised the wording to clarify
that the criteria may not be adjusted in a
way that precludes a more protective
use in another season.
A basic policy of the standards
program throughout its history has been
that the designation of a water body for
the purposes of waste transport or
waste assimilation is unacceptable. At
the public's suggestion, an explicit
statement of this policy has been added
to § 131.10(a). The objective is to
prevent water bodies from being used as
open sewers. Thus, this "no waste
transport" policy does not mean that
wastes cannot be conveyed by barge or
boat; such activity is encompassed by
the navigation use designation.
Use Attainability Analysis
Because of the wide range of
comments on the use attainability
analysis, EPA revised the regulation to
better define when such an analysis is
appropriate. The changes were
described in the Preamble.
EPA also reworded the proposed
concept of the use attainability analysis
to include, where appropriate, an
analysis of the economic impacts of
attaining a use consistent with or more
stringent than the Section 101(a)(2) goals
of the Act. EPA agrees with the
comments that attainability and
affordability are integral components of
the same analyses. This is consistent
with the previous regulation, which
provided that, in determining
attainability, States were to consider
economic factors ($ 35.1550(c)(1)).
In the proposed Rule, EPA
recommended conducting a benefit-cost
assessment in determining whether the
benefits of attaining a use bear a
reasonable relationship to the costs.
That concept has been removed from
the final Rule. As explained in the
preamble, the Agency was persuaded by
the arguments that there are inherent
conceptual and procedural difficulties in
balancing the benefits of achieving the
Section 101(a)(2) goals versus the costs.
The final regulation avoids these
problems while still recognizing the
relevance of economic factors in
determining attainability. The Agency
has retained the concept that economic
analysis be judged on substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
Defining Attainable Uses
Several recommendations were made
to delete references to Section 301(c)
from the definition of the minimum
baseline technology defining when a use
is considered attainable and cannot be
modified or removed. They also
suggested making 301(c) waivers subject
to the requirements of proposed
S 131.13(c). The Agency believes that it
is appropriate to use all applicable
sections-of the Act in defining the
minimum technology based
requirements of the Act; section 301(c) is
one such section. In addition, Section
301(c) prescribes the eligibility
requirements for a Section 301 waiver.
Therefore, EPA has not*made the
suggested changes relating to Section
301(c).
Others pointed out that the proposed
rule did not, but should, allow a mix of
point and nonpoint source controls in
determining whether a use is attainable.
It was not EPA's intent to prevent that
type of analysis, and the final regulation
has been clarified by combining the two
paragraphs on point and nonpoint
source controls with the word "and" in
$ 131.10(h)
Other comments on nonpoint sources
focused on the use of the terminology
"cost effective and reasonable best
management practices." EPA used the
term "cost effective and reasonable best
management practices" to cover the
development of nonpoint source controls
with Section 205(j) funding. We believe
generally that nonpoint source controls
developed as part of a State's water
quality management plan are cost
effective and reasonable. If a designated
use can be attained through such BMPs;
it would be inconsistent to allow a
change in the use. Some comments also
expressed concern that the Agency was
forcing a'mandatory regulatory program
for nonpoint source controls through the
Water Quality Standards Regulation.
The Agency does not believe that the
wording will impose any new
requirements for the development of
regulatory programs for nonpoint source
controls; rather, the regulation simply

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51411
takes into account those programs
which exist in ascertaining the minimum
requirements. States are still free to
review and revise their non-point source
requirements in accordance with Z08,
303(e), and 205(j).
One commenter recommended that
the Agency include in the section on use
attainability a discussion of the
relationship between best-management
practices and water quality standards
similar to that in U.S. EPA, State and
Areawide Memorandum, Number 32,
Nov. 14.1978. EPA has included that
memorandum in the chapter on "Water
Body Survey and Assessments for
Conducting Use Attainability Analyses"
in the Water Quality Standards
Handbook.
Changes in Uses
EPA received substantial comment on
§ 131.10(h)(l)-(6) and (i)(l)-(6) of the
proposed regulation, which deal with
the circumstances under which changes
may (or may not) be made in designated
uses. These sections have been revised;
the changes are discussed in Section A
of the Preamble.
Criteria
We accepted the comment that the
added test of criteria being "compatible
with" protecting a designated use might
raise the possibility of unnecessary
debate over what is compatible with
protecting a designated use. The
sentence was revised to read "States
must adopt water quality criteria that
protect a designated use." In response to
several comments, EPA also added
language to clarify that criteria must be
based on sound scientific rational and
must contain sufficient parameters or
constituents to protect the designated
use. Some commenters apparently
believe that the Agency continues to
have a policy of "presumptive
applicability" applied to the Federal
water quality criteria or that the
proposed Regulation recreated that
policy. That policy existed from July 10,
1978 to Nov. 28,1980, when it was
rescinded. No such policy now exists
nor is intended in the final rule. While
States are free to draw on EPA's 304(a)
criteria as support for State criteria, they
are equally free to use any other criteria
for which they have sound scientific
support.
Comments received from the public
clearly indicated concern that the
proposed rule did not appear to provide
sufficient emphasis on the control of
toxic pollutants. The proposed
paragraph on toxic pollutants was
therefore strengthened to provide that
States "must" review water quality data
and information on dischargers to
identify where toxic pollutants may be
adversely affecting the attainment of
designated water uses and "must" adopt
criteria to ensure the protection of the
designated uses. Furthermore, where
States adopt narrative statements for
toxic pollutants. EPA is requiring that
Slates submit along with their standards
submission information identifying the
method by which the State intends to
regulate point source discharges of toxic
pollutants based on the narrative
provisions. For example. States may
require biological monitoring of
dischargers' effluents such that a
particular tolerance or LCjo value is not
exceeded. EPA made these changes
because it agrees that more emphasis
needs to be placed on the control of
toxic dischargers. Information on
implementing methods will ensure that
EPA and State have a common
understanding of what the narrative
criteria really mean, and will facilitate
permit writing on water quality limited
streams.
The regulation provides several ways
of establishing water quality criteria,
including criteria development based on
site-specific characteristics. EPA's field
tests of the proposed guidance
supporting the concept of developing
site-specific criteria, the comments
received during the public review, and
the review conducted by the Agency's
Science Advisory Board identified
difficulties with the proposed guidance.
The final guidance has been carefully
revised to reflect the concerns and
comments received to ensure that the
mechanisms used to develop site-
specific criteria are scientifically
credible. Research will also continue on
improved techniques, and as validated
they will be made available to the
States.
General Policies
While many commenters supported
including,the General Policies provision
(Section 131.13) in the framework of the
Regulation.\others recommended
deleting the General Policies section
from the Regulation and including it in
guidance documents. Since much of the
language in that proposed part was in
fact guidance, EPA decided to delete
paragraphs (b)—(d). Only the first part of
the section which recognizes that States
do adopt policies that impact on the
implementation and application of water
quality standards and that such policies,
if adopted, are subject to EPA review
and approval was retained.
EPA believes that it is important for
the public to understand that while the
adoption of these policies is optional, if
adopted they are subject to EPA review
and approval. EPA will continue to
include a discussion of mixing zones,
low flows, variance and other general
program policies in a guidance
document, as has been done since 1975.
Detailed guidance on these optional
policies is included in the Water Quality
Standards Handbook.
Resource Capabilities
The issue of resources was of concern
to many. While some States over the
years haye collected the scientific and
technical information to set appropriate
water quality standards, others have
done significantly less data collection.
EPA recognizes that use attainability
analyses and site specific criteria
studies may require some States to
program more resources for setting their
water quality standards than in the past.
However, the use attainability analyses
apply only to water quality limited
segments—segments where standards
will not be attained even with
implementation of technology-based
controls of the Act, where the State
wishes to justify uses less than
"fishable/swimmable". Moreover,
nothing in the guidance or in the
requirement for conducting use
attainability analyses suggests that
every analysis be similar in scope and
detail or that they must be intrinsically
expensive and difficult. EPA expects
quite the opposite to be true; the
analyses only need to be sufficiently
detailed to support the specific
standards decision in question.
Consequently, when attempting to
establish appropriate aquatic protection
uses it will, for example, be relatively
simple to demonstrate to EPA that
certain aquatic life forms will be unable
to exist in an area because of physical
factors regardless of the level of water
quality attained, i.e., no level of water
quality will induce fish to spawn in
areas where the bottom strata are not
what the particular species requires for
spawning. In other instances, given the
environmental problems, number of
people involved, the cost of pollution
control to municipalities and industries,
and the political aspects of the situation,
the use attainability analyses may be
quite costly. Because resources are and
will likely continue to be a problem,
EPA recommends that States set
priorities for conducting these analyses.
The Agency also believes that it is
appropriate for States to enlist the
cooperation and resources of
dischargers in conducting these
analyses. EPA continues to believe that
there is considerable expertise and data
available from various State agencies
that can be tapped to assist in
establishing attainable standards. This

-------
51412 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
expertise does, of course, vary from
State to Slate but that situation exists
under any regulation EPA may
promulgate.
In addition to the technical concerns
on the development of site-specific
criteria addressed earlier in both the
Preamble and this Appendix, the public
expressed concern with the cost of the
procedures and the availability of State
personnel to conduct and manage such
procedures. Because it is a new concept
in terms of application in a regulation,
the Preamble to the proposed rule
discussed the procedures in detail. This
conveyed the impression that site-
specific criteria development would be
the basic method of setting water
quality criteria. EPA believes the States
will continue to base most of their
standards on EPA developed Section
304(a) criteria because of the resource
question and because of the fact that
site-specific criteria will not be
necessary in most water bodies. The
Final Rule allows States to develop site-
specific criteria; it does not require them
to do so. As with use attainability
analyses, States should set priorities
and enlist the assistance of dischargers
in conducting site specific criteria. EPA
will be providing training seminars for
State personnel in applying site-specific
criteria development procedures. EPA is
also developing simpler and improved
techniques.
State/Federal Roles
There were a number of diverse
comments on the sections of the
proposed rule dealing with "State
Review and Revision of Water Quality
Standards", "EPA Review and Approval
of Water Quality Standards" and "EPA
Promulgation of Water Quality
Standards".
Several comments on § 131.20 of the
proposed regulation "State Review and
Revision of Water Quality Standards",
requested specific mechanisms be
included in the regulation on how States
should generate data and information,
how to involve local government and
industry in the data collection and
decision making, how permittees could
request a review of inappropriate water
quality standards and how the public
participates in the water quality
standards revision process. All of these
comments were evaluated but few
changes were made other than those in
i 131.20 which were described earlier.
States are responsible, within the
guidelines of Section 303(c) of the Act
and the Water Quality Standards
Regulation, for setting water quality
standards. EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to specify particular
administrative mechanisms States must
use in that process. Ensuring such
administrative uniformity would be
disruptive to the States without yielding
any significant environmental benefit.
There was also a recommendation to
include in the rule the policy statement
that was in the preamble to the proposal
on the relationship of Section 24 of the
"Municipal Waste Water Treatment
Construction Grant Amendments of
1981" (Pub. L 97-117. December 29,1981,
33 U.S.C. 1313(a)), to water quality
standards reviews. The Agency chose
not to do so because, for the purposes of
Section 24, water quality standards
reviews are synonymous with the water
quality standards reviews under Section
303(c) of the Act and the one final rule.
A number of letters and statements
expressed concern that the various EPA
Regional Offices will interpret the
regulation differently. It is recognized
that with 10 Regional Offices
responsible for the review and approval
of State water quality standards, there is
potential for inconsistencies between
Regions on recommended data and
analyses. Of course, since water quality
problems in different regions may vary
considerably, the regions must also be
able to respond to those problems in
ways that make the most sense under
the particular circumstances. However,
it is believed that EPA's guidance and
Headquarters evaluations of the
Regional Offices will, to the extent
possible, minimize inconsistencies in the
interpretation of the Regulation by our
Regional Offices.
There were suggestions that EPA
change the rule to read that the State
water quality standards go into effect
only after EPA approval. Standards are
adopted by States under State law.
Consistent with the Clean Water Act,
EPA's policy has always been that a
State standard goes into effect when
adopted by the State and remains in
effect, even if disapproved, until the
State revises its standards or EPA
promulgates a Federal standard. This
interpretation is necessary because
otherwise there would be no standard at
all until Federal action was completed.
A State rescinds its prior standard
whenever it adopts a revised standard.
In addition, EPA approval of a standard
should not be interpreted as superseding
the State's right to amend its own laws.
By the same token, if EPA promulgates a
Federal standard, the State is obliged to
apply that standard in its pollution
control programs or until the State
adopts a State standard identical to or
more stringent than the Federal
standards.
EPA proposed to publish a notice of
approvals of State water quality
standards in the Federal Reglfter at
least annually. One letter requested that
EPA publish the notice of approvals at
the time the Agency take action. EPA
believes that this action is unnecessary
since publication of these notices (or
any delay in publishing them) in no way
affects the legal standing of the
standards or the status of EPA's
approval action. When a State adopts a
standard, it publishes a notice under
State law. This should be sufficient to
ensure that the regulated community is
informed of any changes in State water
quality standards. EPA's annual
publication will serve as a convenient
check.
A number of respondents
recommended that in promulgating State
standards. EPA move expeditiously to
avoid excessive delays. EPA's approach
in disapproving State standards is to
work with the State to assist the State in
revising its standard to meet the Act's
requirements. Only as a last resort will
EPA promulgate Federal standards. In
working with a State to revise its
standard, EPA will try to do so within
the timeframe of the Act. However, this
may not always be possible depending
on State administrative and/or
legislative procedures. However, we
intend to try harder to eliminate
unnecessary delay.
In response to a number of questions
raised, the final rule clearly states that
in promulgating State standards, the
Administrator will be subject to the
same public participation policies and
procedures established for States.
Interstate/International Water Quality
Standards Issues
In the Preamble to the proposed water
quality standards regulation, EPA
discussed its role in interstate and
international water quality standards
issues. There were those that believed
that EPA should include in the
regulation specific procedures for
resolving interstate/international
conflicts and require States to adopt
standards that meet treaty requirements.
Since these issues have been associated
with the standards program since its
inception and have been adequately
resolved previously without the need for
regulatory language, EPA sees no need
to include such language in the Final
Rule.
When interstate/international
conflicts arise. EPA will play a stronger
role in the standards process in addition
to the ordinary review and approval
procedures described in the regulation.
First, if an interstate conflict occurs
between States in the same EPA region,
the EPA Regional Administrator is in a

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday, November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51413
position to help resolve the dispute
through the ability to review and
approve each State's standards and by
participating in the standards
development process.
Interstate and interregional
organizations can also play a positive
role in thi9 situation. Second, if the issue
involves more than one EPA region and
the EPA regions are unable to resolve
the issues, then the EPA Administrator
can be requested to render a judgment.
While it is theroretically possible that
two States might have incompatible
standards, both of which meet the
requirements of the Act and this
regulation, such as situation is likely to
be rare. If it occurs, EPA will assist the
States in resolving the inconsistency.
The exact procedures will depend upon
the specific circumstances. Therefore,
we do not believe it is appropriate to
include specific procedures in the Water
Quality Standards Regulation to resolve
interstate conflicts.
Any specific treaty requirements have
the force of law. Therefore. State water
quality standards will have to meet any
treaty requirements.
Finally, in response to commenters'
suggestions, we have made some
editorial and format changes to clarify
the regulation. In addition, the
substantive changes made to
demonstrate the Agency's commitment
to the goals of the Act should also help
clarify the regulation.
|FR Doc 83-30233 Filed	845 4(n|
MLUNO COOC IMD-M-N

-------
*3
-------
IMtadft**	o*fk» o* mrrn	EPA 440/5 88-089
MrwMMi^NMiM	N
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION		1
GENERAL INFORMATION		2
USES OF A WATERBODY		5
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA				8
ADOPTION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS		12
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS		16
ANT I DEGRADATION POLICY		18
LIST OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 		20
SCHEMATIC OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROCESS		23
SUPPLEMENTAL READING LIST		25
LIST OF EPA REGIONAL OFFICES AND STATES COVERED		27
-------
INTRODUCTION
In response to widespread public concern about the condition
of our Nation's waters, the U. S. Congress enacted landmark
legislation in 1972. This statute, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act amendments of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean
Water Act of 1972 (CWA)), expanded and built upon existing laws
designed to control and prevent water pollution. Successive
amendments to the CWA of 1972 (the Clean Water Act of 1977 and
the Water Quality Act of 1907) have brought about stronger
environmental laws to protect our Nation's waters, one of our
most valuable resources.
The water quality standards program is one of the
cornerstones of the CWA. Through this program, the States set
water quality standards for waters within their jurisdictions.
Water quality standards define a. use for a waterbody and describe
the specific water quality criteria to achieve that use. Water
quality standards also contain antidegradation policies designed
to protect improvements in water quality.
This publication explains key features of the water quality
standards program, in question and answer format, and is intended
to provide general information to the public about the program.
For ease of reading, the document is divided into sections which
correspond to various elements of the water quality standards
program (i.e., water quality criteria, adoption of State
standards, etc.). The reader is referred to the Supplemental
Reading List on page 25 for sources of detailed technical
information.
Persons seeking additional information about EPA'8 water
quality standards program may contact:
STANDARDS BRANCH
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION (WH-585)
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
(202) 475-7315
-------
SECTION I_^
GENERAL INFORMATION
1.	What is the statutory authority for the water quality
standards program?
The water quality standards program operates under Section
303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly
referred to as the Clean Water Act, 1972) (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1313(c)). The current regulations implementing this section
of the CWA were published on November 8, 1983 (48 FR 51400)
and are codified at 40 CFR 131.
2.	What is the objective of the CWA as it applies to the water
quality standards program?
The objective of the CWA as it applies to the water quality
standards program is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters;
and, where attainable, to achieve a level of water quality
which provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.
3.	What is a water quality standard?
A water quality standard is a law or regulation which
consists of the beneficial designated use or uses of a
waterbody or a segment of a waterbody and the water qual ity
criteria which are necessary to protect the use or uses of
that particular waterbody. Water quality standards also
contain an antidegradation policy.
4.	What is the purpose of a water quality standard?
A water quality standard serves a twofold purpose: a) it
establishes the water quality goals for a specific waterbody
and b) it is the basis for establishing water quality based
treatment controls and strategies beyond the technology based
levels of treatment required by Sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987.
5.	Have changes been made in the water quality standards
program as a result of the Water Quality Act of 1987?
The Water Quality Act of 1987 affects the water quality
standards program in two significant ways:
a) It requires States to adopt numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants on the Section 307(a) toxic pollutant list when
Section 304(a) EPA criteria recommendations are available
and where the discharge or presence of those toxic
pollutants could reasonably be expected to interfere with
designated uses. (See related question Section III* #9).
2
-------
b) It authorizes EPA to treat Indian Tribes as States for
purposes of establishing water quality standards. It also
requires EPA to develop a mechanism to resolve unreasonable
consequences which may arise when an Indian Tribe and a
State adopt differing water quality standards on a common
body of water. (See related question. Section IV, #13).
6. Is the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
revising the existing water quality standards regulation
published November 8, 1983 (48 FR 51400) at 40 CFR 131 to
reflect changes made as a result of the Water Quality Act,
1987?
The EPA will revise the existing water quality standards
regulation to establish criteria by which an Indian Tribe
can qualify for treatment as a State for purposes of the
water quality standards program and to incorporate a
mechanism to resolve unreasonable consequences that may
arise when Indian Tribes and States adopt differing water
quality standards on common bodies of waters.
The EPA will issue guidance to -the States for adoption of
numeric criteria for toxic pollutants identified on the
toxic pollutant list and may amend its regulations to
establish legal requirements for adopting water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants.
7. Is a water quality standard adopted for each vaterbody
within a State?
Yes, a water quality standard should be adopted for each
waterbody within the boundaries of that State. However,
waterbodies may be segmented so that, where appropriate,
different standards may exist on different segments of the
same waterbody.
8.	Who is responsible for establishing water quality standards?
Water quality standards are adopted by the 50 States and
U.S. Territories (District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and the
Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands). EPA may also
establish water quality standards where the States or
Territories fail to adopt appropriate standards.
9.	What is the extent to which the Federal government is
involved in the water quality standards program?
The EPA reviews new or revised State water quality standards
to determine whether those standards meet the requirements
of the Clean Water Act. EPA, in its review, also
scrutinizes the standards of one State to ensure than they
do not interfere with the attainment of standards in the
3
-------
waters of another State. If EPA disapproves a State's water
quality standards, or determines that a new or revised water
quality standard is necessary to meet the requirements of
the Act, EPA may promulgate water quality standards. The EPA
also provides technical guidance and assistance to the
States to help them carry out the requirements of the program.
(See related question, Section IV, *12).
10. What waters are required to have a water quality standard?
Water quality standards apply to all "waters of the
United States" which are defined by regulation to cover
most surface waters of the United States and Territories,
including most wetlands.
4
-------
SECTION II.
USES OF A WATERBODY
1.	What is meant by the term designated use?
A designated use is one which is specified in the water
quality standards for a waterbody or segment of a waterbody.
Such a use may or may not presently be attained.
2.	What are some typical uses of a waterbody?
There can be many uses of a waterbody or a segment of a
waterbody. Typical uses include public water supplies,
propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes,
agricultural, industrial, navigation and other such uses.
The EPA does not recognize waste transport as an acceptable
use.
3.	How are designated uses established?
States have primary responsibility for establishing uaes of
a waterbody. Uses may be revised during required periodic
State reviews which are conducted in consultation with the
EPA and through public hearings. By law, standards reviews
must occur at least once every three years.
4.	Do designated uses of waters vary by State?
Each State develops its own use classification system
based on the generic uses cited in the CWA. The goals of the
CWA setting forth basic uses for support and propagation of
aquatic life and recreation in and on the water are used by
all States in some form. States may differentiate and
subcategorize the types of uses which are to be protected,
such as coldwater or varmwater fisheries, or specific
species which are to be protected, such as trout or bass.
States may also designate special uses to protect sensitive
or valuable aquatic life or habitat.
5.	What is an existing use?
An existing use is a use which was achieved on a waterbody
on or after November 28, 1975. EPA promulgated its original
water quality standards regulation on November 28, 1975,
which is the reason for this index date.
5
-------
6.	Why is it important to understand the difference between
designated use and existing use?
It is important to understand the distinction because an
existing use is one which has been met or attained and
cannot be modified or changed unless uses are added which
require more stringent criteria; designated uses, on the
other hand, may be changed based upon the findings of a Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA). (See Section V for additional
information about UAA's).
7.	How can non-existing designated uses be changed?
States perform Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) to determine
the proper use of a waterbody. States may modify or	change
a non-existing designated use, if attaining the use	is not
possible, due to the existence of one or more	of the
following factors:
a)	naturally occuring pollutant concentrations	which
prevent the attainment of the use, or
b)	natural, intermittent or low flow or water levels which
prevent the attainment of the use, or
c)	human caused conditions or sources of pollution which
prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be
corrected or would result in more deterioration of the
environment to correct than to leave in-place, or
d)	dams, diversions or other hydrologie modifications
which preclude attainment of the use, or
e)	physical conditions associated with the natural features
of the waterbody, unrelated to quality, which impede
atttainment of aquatic life protection uses, or
f)	controls more stringent than those required by Sections
301(b) and 306 of the CWA, which would be needed to
attain the use, would result in substantial and
widespread social and economic impact.
8.	What are Outstanding National Resource Waters? Bow are uses
for these waters established?
Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW) are high quality
or ecologically unique waters such as those within the
jurisdiction of National and State Parks and wildlife
refuges. The primary intent of establishing ONRW is to
protect the highest quality and/or unique waters. The
6
-------
Outstanding National Resource Waters category also protects
waters of ecological significance. These are waters which
are important, unique or sensitive ecologically, such as
swamps or hot springs, where the commonly applied use
classifications and supporting criteria do not always serve
to protect such waters.
Outstanding National Resource Waters are designated as such
by the States. The States establish the criteria which
protect the characteristics which prompted a waterbody to be
designated ONRW.
7
-------
SECTION III.
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
1.	What are water quality criteria and what is the relationship
between water quality criteria and the water quality
standards program?
The term "water quality criteria" has two different
definitions under the CWA. First, under Section 304(a), EPA
publishes water quality criteria which consist of scientific
information regarding the concentrations of specific
chemicals in water which protect aquatic life or human
health. These criteria may be used by the States as a basis
for developing enforceable water quality standards. Second,
water quality criteria are elements of State water quality
standards adopted under Section 303(c) of the CWA. They
describe the quality of water which will support a
particular use. When criteria are properly selected and
met, it is expected that water quality will protect the
designated use.
2.	Who develops Section 304(a) criteria and in what format?
Section 304(a) criteria are issued by the EPA and are based
on the latest scientific information available on the effect
of a pollutant on human health and aquatic life. Section
304(a) criteria are published as guidance documents to
assist the States in setting water quality standards and
have no force of .law.
3.	What kind of information is contained in Section 304(a)
criteria guidance documents?
Section 304(a) criteria guidance documents contain two
important types of information: a) scientific data on the
effects of pollutants on human health and aquatic life and
recreation and; b) quantitive concentrations or qualitative
assessments of the pollutants in water which will generally
ensure water quality adequate to support a particular water
pse.
4.	Is' there a summary document which lists EPA's Section
304(a) criteria?
Yes, the document. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. contains
summaries of all the contaminants for which EPA has developed
criteria recommendations. The current edition, published in
May 1987, is known as the Gold Book.
5.	How are concentrations of chemicals or pollutants in water
expressed?
Concentrations of chemicals or pollutants in water are
typically expressed as x ug/1 (micrograms per liter).
8
-------
6.	Do the Section 304(a) water quality criteria provide
protection for humans from contaminants in fish flesh?
Yes. Water quality criteria for the protection of human
health from consumption of aquatic organisms are available
for most of the toxic pollutants. The criteria are based on
the assumption that humans consume 6.5 grams of contaminated
aquatic organisms each day and that the average body weight
of a human is 70 kg or 150 pounds. These criteria use a
specific bioconcentration factor (BCF) for each pollutant
derived from laboratory studies and are average values
designed to protect human health.
7.	How do the EPA water quality criteria based on fish
consumption relate to limits developed by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)?
The EPA's water quality criteria for fish consumption and
limits developed by the FDA serve different functions. The
FDA action levels are regulatory numbers which are used to
prohibit the sale of fish when contaminant concentrations in
fish flesh exceed the FDA limit. The EPA water quality
criteria for protection of human health are non-reg-
ulatory, scientific recommendations for levels in ambient
water, which if not exceeded, will ensure that safe levels
are maintained in fish flesh.
8.	What are water quality advisories and how will they be
used?
Water quality advisories will be similar to Section 304(a)
criteria but, in most cases, are calculated from more
limited data bases. These documents will contain the best
scientific information available concerning aquatic life and
human health effects of selected chemicals in surface
waters. Advisories are to be issued where guidance is
needed but where toxicity data are limited. Generally, no
new data will be generated to develop advisories.
Advisories will, however, be subject to change whenever
significant new data are received. Advisories may be used
for any purpose that 304(a) criteria are used. The EPA will
issue advisories following public comment and final Agency
review and approval.
9.	What is the Section 307(a) list of priority pollutants?
The Section 307(a) list of priority pollutants contains 65
compounds and families of compounds which are among the most
persistent, prevelant and toxic of chemicals known to man.
These 65 compounds and families of compounds have been
translated into 126 individual toxic pollutants. The list
of priority pollutants appears in Section VII.
9
-------
10. How are criteria expressed?
Criteria are expressed in either numeric or narrative form.
11.	What is the chief difference between numeric and narrative
criteria?
Narrative criteria are expressed in concise statements
generally in a "free from" format while numeric criteria are
expressed as concentrations of chemicals in water which
should protect designated uses.
12.	To what does the term "free from" refer?
"Free from" is a term adopted by EPA to express qualitative
criteria. For example, "free from toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts".
13.	Are States required to use numeric as opposed to narrative
criteria in their State water quality standards?
EPA believes that an effective State water quality standards
program should include both chemical specific (i.e., ambient
criteria) and narrative approaches. Numeric criteria for
specific chemicals are important where the cause of toxicity
is known or for protection against potential human health
impacts. Ambient water quality criteria may also be the
best way to address nonpoint source pollution problems.
A narrative standard can be the basis for limiting toxicity
where a specific toxic pollutant can be identified as
causing the toxicity, but there is no numeric criterion in
State standards. The narrative standard can also be used to
limit whole efffluent toxicity where it is not known which
chemical or chemicals are causing the toxicity.
14.	What is meai^t by site-specific criteria?
Site-specific criteria are criteria relevant to a given
localized site and reflect local environmental conditions.
Site-specific criteria are sometimes justified because: a)
species inhabiting a given site may be more or less
sensitive than those used in developing the Section 304(a)
criteria guidance document; or b) water chemistry (e.g.,
pH, hardness, temperature, suspended solids, etc.) appear to
differ significantly from the laboratory waters used in
developing Section 304(a) criteria.
15.	Who develops site-specific criteria, the EPA or individual
States?
Normally, States develop site specific criteria. The EPA
has developed guidance for deriving site-specific	water
quality criteria. These are contained i^» the Water Quality
10
-------
Standards Handbook. published by the Office of ' Water
Regulations and Standards of EPA in December 1983. States
considering developing site-specific water quality criteria
are urged to consult with the appropriate EPA Regional
Office before beginning to develop site-specific criteria.
A list of EPA Regional Offices appears in Section X.
11
-------
SECTION IV.
ADOPTION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
1.	What is the process used by States to establish water
quality standards?
Each State has its own unique legal and administrative
procedures for adopting water quality standards. Therefore,
there are no standardized procedures for the review and
adoption of State standards. There is, however, a minimum
Federal requirement that public hearings be held. The
schematic diagram in Section VIII depicts a typical water
quality standards review and revision process.
2.	Which body or entity within a State is responsible for
adoption of State water quality standards?
This also varies from State to State. Water quality
standards are statutes or rules. In some cases, they are
adopted by the legislative body of the State and are signed
into law by the Governor of that State. In other States,
water quality standards are adopted through administrative
agency rulemaking which is occasionally subject to
legislative oversight. Information with respect to adoption
of a States' water quality standards may be obtained by
contacting the State's Water Pollution Control Agency or its
equivalent.
3 Have all States adopted water quality standards?
Yes, the 50 States, and the U.S. Territories, have developed
water quality standards.
4.	Is there a statutorily imposed timeframe for States to
review, revise and adopt water quality standards?
Section 303 (c) of the CWA, as amended, requires States to
hold public hearings at least once each three year period,
for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality
standards and/or adopting new standards.
5.	How do States determine which waters are to be examined in-
depth in the three year cycle?
The States, in conjunction with EPA, select waterbodies for
which water quality standards are to be reviewed in-depth. To
make this determination, the States and EPA are aided by the
following sources of information: a) Section 304(1) lists of
waters; b) State 305(b) Reports (those reports provide an
assessment of the condition of the waters within the bound-
aries of each State); c) the waters identified under
Section 303(d) of the CWA; d) the construction grants pri-
ority list; and e) segments where major National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits have expired.
12
-------
Additionally, any waterbody with water quality standards not
consistent with the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the CWA must
be reexamined every three years.
6.	Have States begun to adopt numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants in triennial reviews as required by the Water
Quality Act of 1987?
States have begun adopting numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants in triennial reviews and will continue to do so.
While the Water Quality Act of 1987 specifically requires
the adoption of numeric criteria for toxics, the
identification and control of toxic pollutants has been a
priority of the water -quality standards program for many
years.
7.	What is the role of the EPA following adoption of State
water quality standards?
Following adoption of water quality standards, a Governor,
or his designee, submits the officially adopted standards to
the appropriate CPA Regional Administrator for review (a
list of EPA Regional Offices is contained in Section X).
The Regional Administrator reviews the State's standards to
determine compliance with the CWA and implementing
regulations. The Regional Administrator may approve or
disapprove State water quality standards based on that
review.
8.	What action may the EPA take if a State adopted water
quality standard does not meet the requirements of the CWA?
A Regional Administrator who determines that a State's water
quality standards do not meet the requirements of the
statute must inform the State of the changes which are
needed to bring the standards up to the required level. If
the State does not make the required changes, EPA will begin
the process of promulgating a Federal regulation setting
forth a new or revised water quality 4 standard for the
waters affected.
The EPA Administrator also has authority to promulgate
Federal regulations when he determines that a new or revised
standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA,
even if the State has not submitted water quality standards
to EPA.
9.	Can Federally promulgated water quality standards be
withdrawn?
Federally promulgated water quality standards are withdrawn
when States adopt standards which meet statutory
requirements.
13
-------
10.	Has the EPA promulgated Federal water quality standards
which are enforceable on the States?
The EPA issued final water quality standards for the
following States: Kentucky, Arizona, Nebraska, Mississippi,
Alabama, North Carolina and Ohio.
Following subsequent corrective action by the States, EPA
has withdrawn its water quality standards, except those for
Arizona which establish nutrient standards for eleven
streams and standards for Kentucky establishing a chloride
criterion for the aquatic life use designation.
11.	What process is used at the Federal level to promulgate
water quality standards?
The EPA, when promulgating water quality standards, must
adhere to the same substantive requirements as the States
for adopting standards. Procedural requirements may,
however, differ. When the EPA issues a Federally
promulgated State standard, it will, at a minimum, -propose
the water quality standard in the Federal Register, solicit
public comments on the proposed standard, hold a public
hearing, analyze and incorporate public comments and issue a
final water quality standard.
12.	Does the EPA provide any technical assistance or guidance to
the States to enable them to carry out the provisions of the
water quality standards program?
In addition to the Section 304(a) criteria guidance, the EPA
develops appropriate technical guidance materials to assist
the States in meeting the requirements of the water quality
standards program. These guidance materials are
supplemented by workshops and meetings conducted by EPA
personnel. Further, EPA personnel are available for
consultation on all aspects of a State's water quality
standards program. The Federal Government and the State's
are partners in the effort to clean-up the Nation's waters
and a free exchange of information and ideas is encouraged.
13.	What are the provisions of the Clean Water Act as they relate
to establishing water quality standards on Indian Lands?
Section 518 of the CWA contains a provision which allows
Indian Tribes to be treated as States for purposes of the
water quality standards program. If certain qualifications
are met, Indian Tribes can establish water quality standards
for waters under their jurisdiction, pursuant to Section
303(c) of the CWA.
Section 518 also requires the EPA to provide a mechanism
for the resolution of any unreasonable consequences that may
14
-------
arise as a result of differing water quality standards that
may be set by States and Indian Tribes located on common
bodies of waters. Before passage of the 1987 amendments to
the CWA, if a State lacked authority over Indian Lands,
water quality standards on those Indian Lands could be
accomplished only through a Federal promulgation, in order
to be recognized under the Clean Water Act.
14.	Is there a mechanism to ensure that water quality standards
are enforced?
Under the Act, water quality standards are not directly
enforceable but are a basis for establishing discharge
limits in NPDES and Section 404 permits. The permits are
legally enforceable and failure to comply with NPDES or
Section 404 permit limits can result in enforcement action.
States have the option, under Section 510 of the Act, to make
water quality standards directly enforceable.
15.	What role can the public play in the water quality standards
setting process in the States?
Citizens of the United States have a vested interest in the
condition of the Nation's waters. One of the first
opportunities for input into the water quality standards
setting process is through participation in public hearings
which, by law, are held by States at least once every
three years. These hearings provide an opportunity for the
public to make recommendations on improvements or
modifications of water quality standards. This public forum
is a powerful vehicle through which citizens may make their
concerns known to public officials.
16.	Where can an individual locate information on the water
quality standards of a particular State?
Information on the water quality standards of a particular
State may be obtained from the State's Water Pollution
Control Agency or its equivalent. Information may also be
obtained from the EPA through its Regional Offices (listed
in Section X) or from the EPA, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, 401 M
Street, S.W., (WH-585), Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 475-
7315.
15
-------
SECTION Vj.
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
1.	If all States currently have water quality standards, why is
there a need to review and revise existing standards?
The States are required by law to review their water quality
standards at least once every three years and revise them,
if appropriate. States review standards because new
scientific and technical data may be available which have a
bearing on the review. Further, environmental changes over
time may warrant the need for a review. Where standards do
not meet goal uses, they must be periodically reviewed to
see if uses can be attained. Additionally, water quality
standards may have been established for the protection and
propagation of aquatic life and for recreation in and on the
water without sufficient data to determine whether the uses
were attainable. Finally, changes in the CWA or EPA's
regulations may necessitate reviewing standards to ensure
continued compliance.
2.	How do States determine whether a water quality standard is
appropriate?
States review intensive survey data, the Section 304(1)
list of waters, monitoring data and Section 305(b) data and
any other available data for a waterbody to determine
whether standards are appropriate. Through these analyses,
the States can determine the basis of any identified
impaired uses. Physical, chemical or biological factors are
examined to assess whether the criteria are appropriate.
3. What is a Use Attainability Analysis?
A Use Attainability Analysis is a multi-faceted assessment
of the physical, chemical, biological and economic factors
which affect the attainment of a use.
4. Why is a Use Attainability Analysis important?
A Use Attainability Analysis is important because it enables
the States to answer the following questions about the
conditions of its waters:
a.	What is the existing use to be protected?
b.	What is the extent to which pollution (as opposed to
physical factors) contributes to the impairment of a
use?
c.	What is the level of point source control required to
restore or enhance the use?
16
-------
d. What is the level of nonpoint source control required to
restore or enhance the use?
4.	What are the components of a Use Attainability Analysis?
A Use Attainability Analysis consists of a waterbody survey
and assessment, a wasteload allocation and an economic
analysis, if appropriate.
5.	Who conducts a Use Attainability Analysis?
Use Attainability Analysis are the responsibility of the
States. The actual studies may be performed by other
entities (e.g., outside consultants hired by the States).
6.	Under what conditions must a State conduct a Use
Attainability Analysis?
A State i_s required to conduct a Use Attainability Analysis
when it designates or has designated uses not meeting the
Section 101(a)(2) goals of the CWA.
A State is not required to conduct a Use Attainability
Analysis when it designates uses consistent with the uses
identified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA.
7.	Nay a State modify a non-existing, designated use to one
which is less stringent?
States may modify non-existing designated uses when it can
be demonstrated, through a Use Attainability Analysis, that
attaining the higher designated use is not feasible. Factors
affecting a waterbody, such as natural high water temperatures,
physical impediments or natural background pollutant levels,
may effectively prevent a non-existing designated use from
being met.
17
-------
SECTION VI.
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY
1.	What is the purpose of the EPA's antidegradation policy?
The EPA's antidegradation policy sets minimum requirements
for State antidegradation policies which conserve, maintain
and protect existing uses and water quality.
2.	What is the origin of the EPA's antidegradation policy?
The Federal antidegradation policy was established by the
Secretary of Interior in February 1968 and incorporated into
the water quality standards regulation issued by EPA in
November 1975. That policy was clarified and included in
the water quality standards regulation published on November
8, 1983 (48 FR 51400) and now codified at 40 CFR 131.12.
Section 303(d) of the Water Quality Act, 1987 reinforces the
Agency's antidegradation policy.
3.	What does the antidegradation policy require?
The antidegradation policy consists of three tiers. Tier
1 requires that existing uses of a water segment and the
level of quality necessary to protect the use must be
maintained. Tier 2 requires protection of actual water
quality (unless certain conditions are met) in segments
where water quality exceeds levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation
in and on the water. Tier 3 requires special protection of
waters for which typical use classifications may not be
sufficient to protect Outstanding National Resource Waters
(See Section II, Question #8).
4.	Once a designated use is attained, must it be maintained?
Yes, the antidegradation policy ensures that designated
uses, once achieved, must be properly maintained.
5.	Are States required to adopt their own antidegradation
policies?
Each State is required to adopt an antidegradation policy
and implementation method. EPA's water quality standards
regulation (published November 8, 1983) specifies the basic
requirements which must be contained in policies adopted by
the State's.
State's are not specifically required to incorporate
antidegradation policies in their water quality standards
regulations. The policy must, however, be formally adopted
and be specifically referenced in the water quality
standards regulations so that the relationship between the
standards and the policy is clearly understood.
18
-------
6.	Are State antidegradation policies and implementation plans
subject to review and approval by the EPA?
The EPA has authority to review State antidegradation
policies and to promulgate such policies if a State fails
to make changes consistent with the CWA.
7.	What happens if a State does not properly implement its
antidegradation policy?
If the State fails to apply its antidegradation policy when
issuing a State NPDES permit, EPA may object to the permit
as "outside the requirements of the Act", thus barring
issuance of the permit by the State until steps are taken to
comply with the antidegradation policy. Citizens affected
by the permit may also challenge it in State court on the
grounds that it does not comply with the State
antidegradation policy. In addition, particularly if there
is a pattern of problems, EPA can consider whether the
State's conduct indicates that its antidegradation -policy
is, in fact, not consistent with 40 CFR Section 131.12, in
which case, EPA would have authority to promulgate its own
antidegradation policy applicable to waters in the State.
8.	Can the application of the antidegradation policy be
expected to adversely impact economic growth and
development?
The antidegradation policy has been developed so that it
minimizes adverse effects on economic growth and development
while at the same time it protects the water quality goals
of the CWA.
9.	Where can an individual locate additional information on the
antidegradation policy of each State?
Additional information can be obtained from the Water
Quality Standards Coordinator in each Regional Office (see
Section X) or from the EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Criteria' and Standards Division (WH-585),
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 475-7315. The Supplemental
Reading List in Section IX contains reference sources on
application of the antidegradation policy.
19
-------
SECTION VII.
LIST OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Flouranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane)
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)
Methyl bromide (bromomethane)
Bromoform (tribromomethane)
Dichlorobromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexachloromyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4, 6-dinitro-o-cres"ol
N-nitrosodimethy1amine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamin
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-N-Butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
I,2-benzanthracene	(benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene (benzo(b) fluoranthene)
II,12-benzofluoranthene	(benzo(b) fluoranthene)
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi) perylene)
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
20
-------
1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene (dibenzo(,h)anthracene)
Indeno (,1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-pheynylene pyrene)
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE (p.p-DDX)
4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
Alpha-endosulfan
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloreothane
Hexachloroethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa cresol
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
1.1-dichloroethylene
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
2.4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
2,4-dimethylphenol
Beta-endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
21
-------
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor exopide (BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls)
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
Toxaphene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide, Total
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Silver
Zinc
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
22
-------
SECTION VI11.
SCHEMATIC OF WQS PROCESS
FIGURE 1
-------
SCHEMATIC OF WQS PROCESS
FIGURE 2
major elements of the water quality-based
stanoaros-to-permits process
L Identify Watar Quallty»Llmitad Sagmanta and
Sat Control Prlorltlaa; Implamant Local
Monitoring Program, If Nacaaaary
IL Ravlaw and Ravlaa (or Raafflrm) Watar
Quality Standard*
III. Davalop Watar Ouallty-Baaad Control
Raqulramanta
IV. Incorporate Idantlflad WQL Sagmanta, Prtorttlaa,
Ravlaad/Raafflrmad Standarda, TMOLa» Efftgant
Limit a, and Paaalblai Nonpolnt Sourea Controia
into Updatad WQM Plana
V. laaua Wat or Quallty-faaad Parmita; Malta
Wat or Ouallty-Baaad Conatruetlon Or ant
DacJalona; implamant Nonpctat Sourea Controla
VI. Monitor Municipal and induatrfal Sourcaa for
Compliance Partorm Amoiant Monitoring to
Ooeumont Protaetion of Oaaignatad Uaaa
24
-------
SECTION IX.
SUPPLEMENTAL READING LIST
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality
Inventory: 1986 Report to Congress. November 1987. *
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water.
1986.	May 1987. **
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions and Answers on
Antidegradation. August 1985. *
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Clean Water
Strategies: Meeting the Challenges of the Future. December
1987.	*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. September 1985. *
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analysis. Volume 1. November 1983. *
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analysis. Estuarine Systems. Volume II. November
1983.	*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Anavlses; Lake Systems. Volume III. November
1984.	*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Standards
Handbook. December 1983. *
Water Quality Standards Regulation. (40 CFR Parts 35, 120 and
131). November 8, 1983. Volume 48. No. 217. *
* Copies may be obtained, at no cost, from the:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION (WH-585)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20460
25
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL READING LIST
(CONTINUED)
** Copies may be obtained from the:
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
NORTH CAPITAL AND H STREETS, NW
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20401
ORDER NUMBER : 955-002-00000-8
PURCHASE PRICE: $23.00
9A
-------
SECTION X.
LIST OF EPA REGIONAL OFFICES AND STATES COVERED
For further information contact the Water Quality Standards
Coordinator in each Regional Office:
REGION 1
Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
FTS: 8-835-3715'
DDD: (617) 565-3715
Hours: 8:30am - 5:00pm EST/EDT
(CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND,
VERMONT)
REGION 2
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS: 8-264-2525
DDD: (212)264-2525
Hours: 8:00am - 6:00pm EST/EDT
(NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, PUERTO RICO, VIRGIN ISLANDS)
REGION 3
Environmental Protection Agency
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS: 8-597-9800
DDD: (215)597-9800
Hours 8:00am - 4:30pm EST/EDT
(DELAWARE. MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)
REGION 4
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta. GA 30365
FTS: 8-257-4727
DDD: (404)347-2727
Hours: 7:00am - 5:45pm EST/EDT
(ALABAMA. FLORIDA, GEORGIA. KENTUCKY, MISSISSIPPI.
NORTH CAROLINA. SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE)
27
-------
LIST OF EPA REGIONAL OFFICES AND STATES COVERED
(CONTINUED)
REGION 5
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS: 8-353-2000
DDD: (312) 353-2000
Hours: 8:00am - 4:30pm CST/CDT
(ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, OHIO, WISCONSIN)
REGION 6
Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas. TX 75202
FTS: 8-255-6444
DDD: (214)655-6444
Hours: 8:00am - 4:30pm CST/CDT
(ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS)
REGION 2
Environmental Protection Agency
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS: 8-757-2800
DDD: (913)236-2800
Hours: 7:30am - 5:00pm CST/CDT
(IOWA, KANSAS. MISSOURI, NEBRASKA)
REGION 8
Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS: 8-564-1603
DDD: (303)293-1603
Hours: 8:00am - 4:30pm MST/MDT
(COLORADO, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, WYOMING)
28
-------
LIST OF EPA REGIONAL OFFICES AND STATES COVERED
(CONTINUED1
REGION 9
Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS: 8-454-8071
DDD: (415)974-8071
Hours: 8:00am - 4:30pm PST/PDT
(ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, NEVADA, AMERICAN SAMOA, GUAM,
TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, COMMONWEALTH
OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS)
REGION 10
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS: 8-399-5810
DDD: (206)442-5810
Hours: 8:00am - 4:30pm PST/PDT
(ALASKA, IDAHO, OREGON, WASHINGTON)
29
-------
ft
fp
3
s
n
-------
United States	Office of Water	EPA-823-B-93-002
Environmental Protection	(4305)	September 1993
Agency
&EPA Water Quality Standards
Handbook
Second Edition
"... to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters."
Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act
O& Recycled/Recyclable
/A ) Printed on paper that contains
QC-/ at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
READER RESPONSE CARD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is trying hard to be responsive to the needs of our customers. We would
appreciate knowing if this document has been helpful to you. Please take a minute to complete and return this postage-paid evaluation
form to us so that we can better serve you.
1.	How helpful was the information contained in this publication? Circle one number: 1	2	3	4	5
Somewhat	Quite	Very
2.	Does the publication discuss the subject to your satisfaction? ( ) Yes ( ) No
3.	Is the level of detail appropriate for your use? ( ) Yes ( ) No
4.	How clearly is the publication written or the material presented? Circle one number: 1	2	3	4	5
Unclear	About right Very
5.	How effective are the graphics and illustrations? Circle one number:	1	2	3	4	5
Ineffective	Quite	Very
6.	What is your affiliation? Check one:
(	) Local government representative	( ) Attorney or legal representative	() Academia: Circle one: Student * Instructor
(	) State government representative	( ) Environmental group	Level: 	Elementary School
(	) Federal government representative	(	) Private citizen		Junior High or Middle School
(	) Consultant	( ) Trade or industrial association		High School
(	) Other:		University
7. Do you have any suggestions for improving this publication?
8.	UPDATES. If you would like to be added to the mailing list to receive updates of this publication, please check here |	[ and
tell us who you are by completing box ft 10 below.
9.	CATALOG OF DOCUMENTS. The Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, is responsible for developing
standards, criteria, and advisories that relate to water quality and public drinking water supplies, and for developing effluent
guidelines, limitations and standards for industries discharging directly to surface water or indirectly to publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants. If you would like to receive a copy of the Catalog of OST Publications which lists all documents related to these
topics and includes information on how you may obtain copies of them, please check here |	j and complete box #10 below.
10.	Your Name:	
Address:		
Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and mail it to us. Thanks for your assistance.
THIS RESPONSE CARD IS FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER: EPA-823-B-93-002
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
Water Quality Standards Branch
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
September 1993
-------
FOREWORD
Dear Colleague:
The following document entitled Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition provides guidance
issued in support of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131, as amended). This Handbook includes
the operative provisions of the first volume of the Handbook issued in 1983 and incorporates subsequent guidance
issued since 1983. The 1993 Handbook contains only final guidance previously issued by EPA—it contains no
new guidance.
Since the 1983 Handbook has not been updated in ten years, we hope that this edition will prove valuable
by pulling together current program guidance and providing a coherent document as a foundation for State and
Tribal water quality standards programs. The Handbook also presents some of the evolving program concepts
designed to reduce human and ecological risks, such as endangered species protection; criteria to protect wildlife,
wetlands, and sediment quality; biological criteria to better define desired biological communities in aquatic
ecosystems; and nutrient criteria.
This Handbook is intended to serve as a "living document," subject to future revisions as the water quality
standards program moves forward, and to reflect the needs and experiences of EPA and the States. To this end,
the Handbook is published in a loose leaf format designed to be placed in a three ring binder. EPA anticipates
publishing changes to the Handbook periodically and providing them to Handbook recipients. To ensure that you
will receive these updates, please copy the update request form in Appendix W and mail it to the address below.
The Handbook also contains a listing, by title and date, of the guidance issued since the Handbook was
first published in 1983 that is incorporated in the Second Edition. Copies of these documents are available upon
request.
The Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition provides guidance on the national water quality
standards program. EPA regional offices and States may have additional guidance that provides more detail on
selected topics of regional interest. For information on regional or State guidance, contact the appropriate
regional water quality standards coordinator listed in Appendix U.
EPA invites participation from interested parties in the water quality standards program, and appreciates
questions on this guidance as well as suggestions and comments for improvement. Questions or comments may
be directed to the EPA regional water quality standards coordinators or to:
David Sabock, Chief
Water Quality Standards Branch
Mail Code 4305
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Telephone (202) 260-1315
William R. Diamond, Director
Standards and Applied Science Division
(9/15/93)
iii
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Note to the Reader
The Water Quality Standards Handbook, first issued in 1983, is a compilation of EPA's
guidance on the water quality standards program and provides direction for States in reviewing,
revising and implementing water quality standards. The Water Quality Standards Handbook -
Second Edition retains all the guidance in the 1983 Handbook unless such guidance was specifically
revised in subsequent years. An annotated list of the major guidance and policy documents on the
water quality standards program issued since 1983 is included in the Introduction section. Material
in the Handbook contains only guidance previously issued by EPA; it contains no new guidance.
The guidance contained in each of the documents listed in the Introduction is either:
1) incorporated in its entirety, or summarized, in the text of the appropriate section of this
Handbook, or 2) attached as an appendix (see Table of Contents). If there is uncertainty or
perceived inconsistency on any of the guidance incorporated into this Handbook, the reader is
directed to review the original guidance documents or call the Water Quality Standards Branch at
(202) 260-1315. Copies of all original guidance documents not attached as appendices may be
obtained from the source listed for each document in the Reference section of this Handbook.
Copies of this Handbook may be obtained from:
Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone: (202) 260-7786 (voice mail publication request line)
Robert S. Shippen
Editor
NEW POLICY SIGNED
On October 1, 1993, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water issued the Office of
Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals
Criteria.
Since the policy document was signed to late for inclusion in the Handbook, the complete
policy document is being sent to the recipients of this Handbook under separate cover. Later this
fiscal year, you will receive an update, for insertion into the Handbook, reflecting this policy
document and other new policy and guidance that may be produced in the interim.
iv
(9/15/93)
-------
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword 	iii
Note to the Reader 	iv
Table of Contents	v
Glossary 	GLOSS-1
Introduction 	INT-1
History of the Water Quality Standards Program	INT-1
Handbook Changes Since 1983 	INT-5
Overview of the Water Quality Standards Program 	INT-8
The Role of WQS in the Water Quality Management Program 	INT-13
Future Program Directions	INT-14
Chapter 1 - General Provisions (40 CFR 131 - Subpart A)
1.1	Scope - 40 CFR 131.1 	1-1
1.2	Purpose - 40 CFR 131.2	1-1
1.3	Definitions - 40 CFR 131.3	1-1
1.4	State Authority - 40 CFR 131.4 	1-2
1.5	EPA Authority - 40 CFR 131.5	1-3
1.6	Requirements for Water Quality Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6	1-4
1.7	Dispute Resolution Mechanism - 40 CFR 131.7	1-4
1.8	Requirements for Indian Tribes To Qualify for the WQS Program - 40 CFR
131.8	1-9
1.9	Adoption of Standards for Indian Reservation Waters 	 1-18
Endnotes	1-21
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses (40 CFR 131.10)
2.1	Use Classification - 40 CFR 131.10(a) 	2-1
2.2	Consider Downstream Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(b) 	2-4
2.3	Use Subcategories - 40 CFR 131.10(c)	2-5
2.4	Attainability of Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(d)	2-5
2.5	Public Hearing for Changing Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(e)	2-6
2.6	Seasonal Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(f)	2-6
2.7	Removal of Designated Uses - CFR 40 	2-6
2.8	Revising Uses to Reflect Actual Attainment - 40 CFR 131.10(i)	2-8
2.9	Use Attainability Analyses - 40 CFR 131.10(j) and (k) 	2-9
(9/15/93)
v
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR 131.11)
3.1	EPA Section 304(a) Guidance	3-1
3.2	Relationship of Section 304(a) Criteria to State Designated Uses	 3-10
3.3	State Criteria Requirements 	3-12
3.4	Criteria for Toxicants	3-13
3.5	Forms of Criteria 	3-24
Endnotes	3-34
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation (40 CFR 131.12)
4.1	History of Antidegradation	4-1
4.2	Summary of the Antidegradation Policy	4-1
4.3	State Antidegradation Requirements	4-2
4.4	Protection of Existing Uses - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(1)	4-3
4.5	Protection of Water Quality in High-Quality Waters - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) .... 4-6
4.6	Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW) - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3)	4-8
4.7	Antidegradation Application and Implementation 	4-10
Chapter 5 - General Policies (40 CFR 131.13)
5.1	Mixing Zones 	5-1
5.2	Critical Low-Flows	5-9
5.3	Variances From Water Quality Standards	5-11
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
(40 CFR 131 - Subpart C)
6.1	State Review and Revision	6-1
6.2	EPA Review and Approval 	6-8
6.3	EPA Promulgation	6-13
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-based Approach to Pollution Control
7.1	Determine Protection Level 	7-2
7.2	Conduct Water Quality Assessment 	7-3
7.3	Establish Priorities	7-5
7.4	Evaluate Water Quality Standards for Targeted Waters 	7-6
7.5	Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities	7-7
7.6	Establish Source Controls 	7-8
7.7	Monitor and Enforce Compliance 	7-12
7.8	Measure Progress 	7-13
References 	REF-1
Summary of Updates	SUM-1
vi	(9/15/93)
-------
Table of Contents
Appendices:
A -	Water Quality Standards Regulation - 40 CFR 131.
B -	Chronological Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards Promulgation Actions.
C -	Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, April 1990.
D -	National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands, July 1990.
E - An Approach for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands Protection,
July 1991.
F - Coordination Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Development of Water Quality
Criteria and Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act, July 1992.
G -	Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation, August 1985.
H -	Derivation of the 1985 Aquatic Life Criteria.
I -	List of EPA Water Quality Criteria Documents.
J -	Reserved
K -	Procedures for the Initiation of Narrative Biological Criteria, October 1992.
L -	Reserved.
M -	Reserved.
N -	IRIS [Integrated Risk Information System] Background Paper.
O-	Reserved.
P -	List of 126 Section 307(a) Priority Toxic Pollutants.
Q -	Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian Tribes - April 1989.
R - Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality
Program, May 1991.
S - Reserved.
T - Use Attainability Analysis Case Studies.
U - List of EPA Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators.
(9/15/93)
vii
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
V - Water Quality Standards Program Document Request Forms.
W - Update Request Form for Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition.
viii
(9/15/93)
-------
GLOSSARY
o
o
CZJ
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Glossary
GLOSSARY
The "Act" refers to the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500, as amended (33 USC 1251, et seep (40
CFR 131.3.)
"Acute" refers to a stimulus severe enough to rapidly induce an effect; in aquatic toxicity tests, an
effect observed in 96- hours or less is typically considered acute. When referring to aquatic
toxicology or human health, an acute affect is not always measured in terms of lethality
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Acute-chronic ratio" (ACR) is the ratio of the acute toxicity of an effluent or a toxicant to its chronic
toxicity. It is used as a factor for estimating chronic toxicity on the basis of acute toxicity data,
or for estimating acute toxicity on the basis of chronic toxicity data (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Acutely toxic conditions" are those acutely toxic to aquatic organisms following their short-term
exposure within an affected area (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Additivity" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a total toxic effect
equal to the arithmetic sum of the effects of the individual toxicants (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Ambient toxicity" is measured by a toxicity test on a sample collected from a water body (USEPA,
1991a.)
"Antagonism" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a less-than-additive
total toxic effect (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Aquatic community" is an association of interacting populations of aquatic organisms in a given water
body or habitat (USEPA, 1990; USEPA, 1991a.)
"Averaging period" is the period of time over which the receiving water concentration is averaged for
comparison with criteria concentrations. This specification limits the duration of concentrations
above the criteria (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Bioaccumulation" is the process by which a compound is taken up by an aquatic organism, both from
water and through food (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Bioaccumulation factor" (BAF) is the ratio of a substance's concentration in tissue versus its
concentration in ambient water, in situations where the organism and the food chain are exposed
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Bioassay" is a test used to evaluate the relative potency of a chemical or a mixture of chemicals by
comparing its effect on a living organism with the effect of a standard preparation on the same
type of organism. Bioassays are frequently used in the pharmaceutical industry to evaluate the
potency of vitamins and drugs (USEPA, 1991a.)
(9/15/93)
GLOSS-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"Bioavailability" is a measure of the physicochemical access that a toxicant has to the biological
processes of an organism. The less the bioavailability of a toxicant, the less its toxic effect on
an organism (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Bioconcentration" is the process by which a compound is absorbed from water through gills or
epithelial tissues and is concentrated in the body (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Bioconcentration factor" (BCF) is the ratio of a substance's concentration in tissue versus its
concentration in water, in situations where the food chain is not exposed or contaminated. For
non-metabolized substances, it represents equilibrium partitioning between water and organisms
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Biological criteria" are narrative expressions or numeric values of the biological characteristics of
aquatic communities based on appropriate reference conditions. As such, biological criteria serve
as an index of aquatic community health. It is also known as biocriteria (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Biological integrity" is the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting unimpaired water bodies of
a specified habitat as measured by community structure and function (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Biological monitoring" describes the use of living organisms in water quality surveillance to indicate
compliance with water quality standards or effluent limits and to document water quality trends.
Methods of biological monitoring may include, but are not limited to, toxicity testing (such as
ambient toxicity testing or whole-effluent toxicity testing) and biological surveys. It is also
known as biomonitoring (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Biological survey or biosurvey" is collecting, processing, and analyzing a representative portion of
the resident aquatic community to determine its structural and/or functional characteristics
(USEPA. 1991a.)
"Biomagnification" is the process by which the concentration of a compound increases in species
occupying successive trophic levels (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Cancer potency slope factor" (q,*) is an indication of a chemical's human cancer-causing potential
derived using animal studies or epidemiological data on human exposure; based on extrapolation
of high-dose levels over short periods of time to low-dose levels and a lifetime exposure period
through the use of a linear model (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Chronic" defines a stimulus that lingers or continues for a relatively long period of time, often one-
tenth of the life span or more. Chronic should be considered a relative term depending on the
life span of an organism. The measurement of a chronic effect can be reduced growth, reduced
reproduction, etc., in addition to lethality (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Community component" is a general term that may pertain to the biotic guild (fish, invertebrates,
algae), the taxonomic category (order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy (herbivore,
omnivore, predator), or the organizational level (individual, population, assemblage) of a
biological entity within the aquatic community (USEPA, 1991a.)
GLOSS-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Glossary
"Completely mixed condition" is defined as no measurable difference in the concentration of a
pollutant exists across a transect of the water body (e.g., does not vary by 5%) (USEPA,
1991a.)
"Criteria" are elements of State water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels,
or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. When
criteria are met, water quality will generally protect the designated use (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Criteria continuous concentration" (CCC) is the EPA national water quality criteria recommendation
for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organisms can be
exposed indefinitely without causing unacceptable effect (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Criteria maximum concentration" (CMC) is the EPA national water quality criteria recommendation
for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organisms can be
exposed for a brief period of time without causing an acute effect (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Critical life stage" is the period of time in an organism's lifespan in which it is the most susceptible
to adverse effects caused by exposure to toxicants, usually during early development (egg,
embryo, larvae). Chronic toxicity tests are often run on critical life stages to replace long
duration, life cycle tests since the most toxic effect usually occurs during the critical life stage
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Design flow" is the flow used for steady-state waste load allocation modeling (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Designated uses" are those uses specified in water quality standards for each water body or segment
whether or not they are being attained (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Discharge length scale" is the square root of the cross-sectional area of any discharge outlet (USEPA,
1991a.)
"Diversity" is the number and abundance of biological taxa in a specified location (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Effective concentration" (EC) is a point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause an
observable adverse effect (such as death, immobilization, or serious incapacitation) in a given
percentage of the test organisms (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Existing uses" are those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975,
whether or not they are included in the water quality standards (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Federal Indian Reservation," "Indian Reservation," or "Reservation" is defined as all land within
the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government,
notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the
reservation (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Final acute value" (FAV) is an estimate of the concentration of the toxicant corresponding to a
cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for all genera for which acceptable
acute tests have been conducted on the toxicant (USEPA, 1991a.)
(9/15/93)
GLOSS-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"Frequency" is how often criteria can be exceeded without unacceptably affecting the community
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Harmonic mean flow" is the number of daily flow measurements divided by the sum of the
reciprocals of the flows. That is, it is the reciprocal of the mean of reciprocals (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Indian Tribe" or "Tribe" describes any Indian Tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the
Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reservation
(40 CFR 131.3.)
"Inhibition concentration" (IC) is a point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause a
given percent reduction (e.g., IC25) in a non-lethal biological measurement of the test
organisms, such as reproduction or growth (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Lethal concentration" is the point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would be lethal to a
given percentage of the test organisms during a specified period (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Lipophilic" is a high affinity for lipids (fats) (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Load allocations" (LA) the portion of a receiving water TMDL that is attributed either to one of its
existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources (USEPA,
1991a.)
"Lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level" (LOAEL) is the lowest concentration of an effluent or toxicant
that results in statistically significant adverse health effects as observed in chronic or subchronic
human epidemiology studies or animal exposure (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Magnitude" is how much of a pollutant (or pollutant parameter such as toxicity), expressed as a
concentration or toxic unit is allowable (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Minimum level" (ML) refers to the level at which the entire analytical system gives recognizable mass
spectra and acceptable calibration points when analyzing for pollutants of concern. This level
corresponds to the lowest point at which the calibration curve is determined (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Mixing zone" is an area where an effluent discharge undergoes initial dilution and is extended to cover
the secondary mixing in the ambient water body. A mixing zone is an allocated impact zone
where water quality criteria can be exceeded as long as acutely toxic conditions are prevented
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Navigable waters" refer to the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas (33 USC
1362.)
"No-observed-adverse-effect-level" (NOAEL) is a tested dose of an effluent or a toxicant below which
no adverse biological effects are observed, as identified from chronic or subchronic human
epidemiology studies or animal exposure studies (USEPA, 1991a.)
GLOSS-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Glossary
"No-observed-effect-concentration" (NOEC) is the highest tested concentration of an effluent or a
toxicant at which no adverse effects are observed on the aquatic test organisms at a specific time
of observation. Determined using hypothesis testing (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Nonthreshold effects" are associated with exposure to chemicals that have no safe exposure levels,
(i.e., cancer) (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Persistent pollutant" is not subject to decay, degradation, transformation, volatilization, hydrolysis,
or photolysis (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Pollution" is defined as the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological
and radiological integrity of water (33 USC 1362.)
"Priority pollutants" are those pollutants listed by the Administrator under section 307(a) of the Act
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Reference ambient concentration" (RAC) is the concentration of a chemical in water which will not
cause adverse impacts to human health; RAC is expressed in units of mg/1 (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Reference conditions" describe the characteristics of water body segments least impaired by human
activities. As such, reference conditions can be used to describe attainable biological or habitat
conditions for water body segments with common watershed/catchment characteristics within
defined geographical regions.
"Reference tissue concentration" (RTC) is the concentration of a chemical in edible fish or shellfish
tissue which will not cause adverse impacts to human health when ingested. RTC is expressed
in units of mg/kg (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Reference dose" (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to human population that is likely to be
without appreciable risk of deleterious effect during a lifetime; derived from NOAEL or LOAEL
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Section 304(a) criteria" are developed by EPA under authority of section 304(a) of the Act based on
the latest scientific information on the relationship that the effect of a constituent concentration
has on particular aquatic species and/or human health. This information is issued periodically
to the States as guidance for use in developing criteria (40 CFR 131.3.)
"States" include: the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines qualify
for treatment as States for the purposes of water quality standards (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Steady-state model" is a fate and transport model that uses constant values of input variables to
predict constant values of receiving water quality concentrations (USEPA, 1991a.)
"STORET" is EPA's computerized water quality database that includes physical, chemical, and
biological data measured in water bodies throughout the United States (USEPA, 1991a.)
(9/15/93)
GLOSS-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"Sublethal" refers to a stimulus below the level that causes death (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Synergism" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a greater-than-additive
total toxic effect (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Threshold effects" result from chemicals that have a safe level (i.e., acute, subacute, or chronic
human health effects) (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Total maximum daily load" (TMDL) is the sum of the individual waste load allocations (WLAs) and
load allocations (LAs); a margin of safety is included with the two types of allocations so that
any additional loading, regardless of source, would not produce a violation of water quality
standards (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Toxicity test" is a procedure to determine the toxicity of a chemical or an effluent using living
organisms. A toxicity test measures the degree of effect on exposed test organisms of a specific
chemical or effluent (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Toxic pollutant" refers to those pollutants, or combination of pollutants, including disease-causing
agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any
organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains,
will, or on the basis of information available to the administrator, cause death, disease,
behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including
malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring (33
USC section 1362.)
"Toxic units" (TUs) are a measure of toxicity in an effluent as determined by the acute toxicity units
(TUa) or chronic toxicity units (TUc) measured (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Toxic unit acute" (TUa) is the reciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes 50 percent of the
organisms to die by the end of the acute exposure period (i.e., 100/LC50) (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Toxic unit chronic" (TUc) is the reciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes no observable
effect on the test organisms by the end of the chronic exposure period (i.e., 100/NOEC)
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Use attainability analysis" (UAA) is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the
attainment of the use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors
as described in section 131.10(g) (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Waste load allocation" (WLA) is the portion of a receiving water's TMDL that is allocated to one
of its existing or future point sources of pollution (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Water quality assessment" is an evaluation of the condition of a water body using biological surveys,
chemical-specific analyses of pollutants in water bodies, and toxicity tests (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Water quality limited segment" refers to any segment where it is known that water quality does not
meet applicable water quality standards and/or is not expected to meet applicable water quality
GLOSS-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Glossary
standards even after application of technology-based effluent limitations required by sections
301(b)(1)(A) and (B) and 306 of the Act (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Water quality standards" (WQS) are provisions of State or Federal law which consist of a designated
use or uses for the waters of the United States, water quality criteria for such waters based upon
such uses. Water quality standards are to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality
of the water and serve the purposes of the Act (40 CFR 131.3.)
"Waters of the United States" refer to:
(1)	all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use
in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and
flow of the tide;
(2)	all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(3)	all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds the use or degradation of which would affect or could affect interstate or
foreign commerce, including any such waters:
(i)	which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or
other purposes;
(ii)	from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign
commerce; or
(iii)	which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce.
(4)	all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this
definition;
(5)	tributaries of waters in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this definition;
(6)	the territorial sea; and
(7)	wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified
in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this definition. "Wetlands" are defined as those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the
requirements of the Act (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also
meet the criteria for this definition) are not waters of the United States. (40 CFR 232.2.)
(9/15/93)
GLOSS-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"Whole-effluent toxicity" is the total toxic effect of an effluent measured directly with a toxicity test
(USEPA, 1991a.)
GLOSS-8
(9/15/93)
-------
INTRODUCTION
po
O
©
d
o
d
o
z
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Introduction
HISTORY OF THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Statutory History
The first comprehensive legislation for water
pollution control was the Water Pollution Control
Act of 1948 (Public Law 845, 80th Congress).
This law, passed after a half century of debate on
the responsibility of the Federal Government for
resolving water pollution problems, adopted
principles of State-Federal cooperative program
development, limited Federal enforcement
authority, and provided limited financial
assistance. These concepts were continued in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of
1956 (Public Law 660, 84th Congress) and in the
Water Quality Act of 1965. Under the 1965 Act,
States were directed to develop water quality
standards for interstate waters. As a result of
enforcement complexities and other problems,
however, this approach was not sufficiently
effective. In the FWPCA Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500), Congress established a
discharge permit system and provided a broader
Federal role through more extensive Federal
grants to finance local sewage treatment systems
and through Federal (EPA) setting of
technology-based effluent limitations. The 1972
Amendments extended the water quality standards
program to intrastate waters and provided for
implementation of water quality standards through
discharge permits.
Section 303(c) of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments
(33 USC 1313(c)) established the statutory basis
for the current water quality standards program.
It completed the transition from the previously
established program of water quality standards for
interstate waters to one requiring standards for all
surface waters of the United States.
Although the major innovation of the 1972
FWPCA was technology-based controls, Congress
maintained the concept of water quality standards
both as a mechanism to establish goals for the
Nation's waters and as a regulatory requirement
when standardized technology controls for point
source discharges and/or nonpoint source controls
were inadequate. In recent years, Congress and
EPA have given these water quality-based controls
new emphasis in the continuing quest to enhance
and maintain water quality to protect the public
health and welfare.
Briefly stated, the key elements of section 303(c)
are as follows:
(1)	A water quality standard is defined as the
designated beneficial uses of a water
segment and the water quality criteria
necessary to support those uses;
(2)	The minimum beneficial uses to be
considered by States in establishing water
quality standards are specified as public
water supplies, propagation of fish and
wildlife, recreation, agricultural uses,
industrial uses, and navigation;
(3)	A requirement specifies that State standards
must protect public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water, and serve the
purposes of the Clean Water Act;
(4)	A requirement specifies that States must
review their standards at least once each 3-
year period using a process that includes
public participation;
(9/15/93)
INT-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
(5) The process is described for EPA review of
State standards that might ultimately result in
the promulgation of a superseding Federal
rule in cases where a State's standards are
not consistent with the applicable
requirements of the CWA, or in situations
where the Agency determines that Federal
standards are necessary to meet the
requirements of the Act.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
including the major 1977, 1981, and 1987
Amendments are commonly referred to as the
"Clean Water Act" (the Act or CWA).
On February 4, 1987, Congress enacted the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4), making
substantial additions to the Clean Water Act and
directly affecting the standards program.
Congress concluded that toxic pollutants in water
constitute one of the most pressing water pollution
problems. The Water Quality Act provided a new
approach to controlling toxic pollutants by
requiring "... States to identify waters that do
not meet water quality standards due to the
discharge of toxic substances, to adopt numerical
criteria for the pollutants in such waters, and to
establish effluent limitations for individual
discharges to such water bodies" (from Senator
Mitchell, 133 Congressional Record S733). As
now amended, the Clean Water Act requires that
States adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants
listed under section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act
for which section 304(a) criteria have been
published, if the presence of these pollutants is
likely to adversely affect the water body's use.
Guidance on these changes is discussed in detail
in section 3.4 of this Handbook. Additionally,
for the first time, the Act explicitly recognizes
antidegradation (see section 303(d)(4) of the Act).
Regulatory History
EPA first published a water quality standards
regulation in 1975 (40 CFR 130.17, promulgated
in 40 F.R. 55334, November 28, 1975) as part of
EPA's water quality management regulations,
mandated under section 303(e) of the Act. The
first Water Quality Standards Regulation did not
specifically address toxic pollutants or any other
criteria. It simply required "appropriate" water
quality criteria necessary to support designated
uses.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the public and
Congress raised concerns about toxic pollutant
control. EPA realized that promulgating effluent
guidelines or effluent standards under section 307
of the Act would not comprehensively address
toxic pollutants. So, EPA decided to use the
statutory connection between water quality
standards and NPDES permits provided by section
301(b)(1)(C) to effectively control a range of toxic
pollutants from point sources. To best accomplish
this process, the Agency decided to amend the
Water Quality Standards Regulation to explicitly
address toxic criteria requirements in State
INT-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Introduction
standards. Other legal and programmatic issues
also necessitated a revision of the Standards
Regulation. The culmination of this effort was
the promulgation of the present Water Quality
Standards Regulation on November 8, 1983 (54
F.R. 51400).
The present Water Quality Standards Regulation
(40 CFR Part 131) is a much more comprehensive
regulation than its predecessor. In subpart B, the
Regulation addresses both the designated use
component and the criteria component of a water
quality standard. Section 131.11 of the
Regulation requires States to review available
information and "... to identify specific water
bodies where toxic pollutants may be adversely
affecting water quality . . . and must adopt
criteria for such toxic pollutants applicable to the
water body sufficient to protect the designated
use." The Regulation provides that either or both
numeric and narrative criteria may be
appropriately used in water quality standards.
Since the middle of the 1980's, EPA's annual
program guidance to the States reflected the
increasing emphasis on controlling toxics. States
were strongly encouraged to adopt criteria in their
standards for the pollutants listed pursuant to
section 307(a) of the Act, especially where EPA
has published criteria guidance under section
304(a) of the Act.
State reaction to EPA's initiative was mixed.
Several States proceeded to adopt large numbers
of numeric toxic pollutant criteria, although
primarily for the protection of aquatic life. Other
States relied on a narrative "free from" toxicity
criterion, using so-called "action levels" for toxic
pollutants or for calculating site-specific criteria.
Few States specifically addressed human health
protection outside the National Primary Drinking
Water Standards promulgated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
In support of its 1983 regulation, EPA
simultaneously issued program guidance entitled
Water Quality Standards Handbook (December
1983). The foreword to the guidance noted that
(9/15/93)
EPA's approach to controlling toxics included
both chemical-specific numeric criteria and
biological testing in whole-effluents or ambient
waters. More detailed programmatic guidance on
the application of biological testing was provided
in the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA 44/4-85-032,
September 1985). This document provides the
information needed to convert chemical-specific
and biologically based criteria into permit limits
for point source dischargers.
State water quality standards reviews submitted
began to show the effects of EPA's efforts. More
and more numeric criteria for toxics were being
included in State standards as well as more
aggressive use of the "free from toxics" narratives
in setting protective NPDES permit limits.
However, because of perceived problems in
adopting numeric toxic pollutant criteria in State
rulemaking proceedings, many States were
reluctant to adopt numeric toxics criteria. Thus,
in 1987, Congress responded to the lack of
numeric criteria for toxic pollutants within State
standards by mandating State adoption of such
criteria.
In response to this new congressional mandate,
EPA redoubled its efforts to promote and assist
State adoption of water quality standards for
priority toxic pollutants. EPA's efforts included
the development and issuance of guidance to the
States on December 12, 1988, which contained
acceptable implementation procedures for several
new sections of the Act, including sections
303(c)(2)(B).
INT-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
EPA, in devising guidance for section
303(c)(2)(B), attempted to provide States with the
maximum flexibility that complied with the
express statutory language but also with the
overriding congressional objective: prompt
adoption and implementation of numeric toxics
criteria. EPA believed that flexibility was
important so that each State could comply with
section 303(c)(2)(B) and to the extent possible,
accommodate its existing water quality standards
regulatory approach. The options EPA identified
are described in section 3.4.1 of this Handbook.
EPA's December 1988 guidance also addressed
the timing issue for State compliance with section
303(c)(2)(B). The statutory directive was clear:
all State standards triennial reviews initiated after
passage of the Act must include a consideration of
numeric toxic criteria.
States significantly responded to the 1987
requirement for numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants. For example, in 1986 on average,
each State had 10 numeric criteria for freshwater
aquatic life. By February 1990, the average
number of freshwater aquatic life criteria was
increased to 30. Also, States averaged 36
numeric criteria for human health in February
1990. However, by September 1990, many States
had failed to fully satisfy the requirements of
section 303(c)(2)(B).
The addition of section 303(c)(2)(B) to the Clean
Water Act was an unequivocal signal to the States
that Congress wanted toxics criteria in the State's
water quality standards. EPA, consistent with
this mandate, initiated Federal promulgation of
toxic criteria for those States that had not
complied with the Act. EPA proposed Federal
criteria for toxic pollutants for 22 States and
Territories, based on a preliminary assessment of
compliance, on November 19, 1991 (56 F.R.
58420), and promulgated toxic criteria for 14 of
those States on December 22, 1992 (57 F.R.
60848).
INT-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Introduction
HANDBOOK CHANGES SINCE 1983
In December, 1983, EPA published its first Water
Quality Standards Handbook. The 1983
Handbook was designed to help States implement
the Water Quality Standards Regulation as revised
in November 1983 (48 F.R. 51400). Since then,
Congress enacted the Water Quality Act of 1987
(Public Law 100-4), making substantial additions
to the Clean Water Act (CWA) directly affecting
the standards program. In response to the Water
Quality Act of 1987, and as a result of Federal
promulgation actions, EPA amended the Water
Quality Standards Regulation several times (see
Appendices A and B). Since 1983 EPA also
issued additional guidance to assist in the
implementation of the WQS Regulation. Water
Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
incorporates all the WQS guidance issued since
the 1983 Handbook was published. A summary
of these guidance documents are as follows.
EPA Guidance on the Water Quality Act of
1987
On February 4, 1987, Congress enacted the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4), making
substantial additions to the Clean Water Act
directly affecting the standards program. Section
303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires
States to adopt numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants listed under section 307(a) of the Clean
Water Act for which section 304(a) criteria have
been published, if the presence of these pollutants
is likely to affect a water body's use. EPA
published Guidance for State Implementation of
WQS for CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) on December
12, 1988 (USEPA, 1988b). This guidance is
incorporated into this Handbook at section 3.4.1.
The 1987 Act also added a new section 518,
which requires EPA to promulgate a regulation
specifying how the Agency will authorize
qualified Indian Tribes to administer CWA
programs including section 303 (water quality
standards) and section 401 (certification)
programs. Section 518 also requires EPA, in
promulgating this regulation, to establish a
mechanism to resolve unreasonable consequences
that may result from an Indian Tribe and a State
adopting differing water quality standards on
common bodies of water. EPA promulgated a
final regulation on December 12, 1991 (56 F.R.
64875). Guidance on water quality standards for
Indian Tribes is contained in chapter 1.
Other EPA Guidance
Since 1983, EPA also developed additional
policies and guidance on virtually all areas of the
WQS Regulation. Following is a complete list of
these guidance documents.
State Water Quality Standards Approvals: Use
Attainability Analysis Submittals (USEPA,
1984d), clarifies EPA policy on several
issues regarding approval of water body use
designations less than the
fishable/swimmable goal of the CWA. See
section 6.2 for a discussion of this topic.
Interpretation of the Term "Existing Use"
(USEPA, 1985e), expands on EPA's
interpretation of when a use becomes an
"existing use" as defined by the WQS
Regulation. Discussion of "existing uses" is
contained in section 4.4.
Selection of Water Quality Criteria in State Water
Quality Standards (USEPA, 1985f),
established EPA policy regarding the
selection of appropriate water quality criteria
for toxic pollutants in State water quality
standards. This guidance preceded both the
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
Uses (USEPA, 1985b), and the 1988
guidance on section 303(c)(2)(B) of the
CWA, discussed above. Both of these later
documents expand upon the February 1985
guidance, but the policy established therein
(9/15/93)
INT-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
has not been substantively changed.
Adoption of criteria for toxic pollutants is
discussed in section 3.4.
Variances in Water Quality Standards (USEPA,
1985g), reinterprets the factors that could be
considered when granting water quality
standards variances. Variances are discussed
in section 5.3.
Antidegradation, Waste loads, and Permits
(USEPA, 1985h), clarifies that the
antidegradation policy is an integral
component of water quality standards and
must be considered when developing waste
load allocations and NPDES permits.
Antidegradation is discussed in chapter 4.
Questions and Answers on Antidegradation
(Appendix G), provides guidance on various
aspects of the antidegradation policy where
questions had arisen since the 1983
Regulation and Handbook were published.
Antidegradation Policy (USEPA, 1985i),
reiterates the need for all States to have: (1)
an antidegradation policy that fully complies
with the Federal requirements, and (2) a
procedure for consistently implementing that
policy.
Answers to Questions on Nonpoint Sources and
WQS (USEPA, 1986e), responded to two
questions on nonpoint source pollution and
water quality standards. The relationship
between nonpoint source pollution and water
quality standards is discussed in section 7.
Determination of "Existing Uses" for Purposes of
Water Quality Standards Implementation
(USEPA, 1986f), responds to concerns
expressed to EPA on the interpretation of
when a recreational use becomes an
"existing use" as defined by the Regulation.
Discussion of "existing uses" is contained in
section 4.4.
Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality
Standards (USEPA, 1987d), provides further
guidance on nonpoint sources pollution and
water quality standards reflecting the
requirements of section 319 of the CWA as
added by the 1987 CWA amendments.
EPA Designation of Outstanding National
Resource Waters (USEPA, 1989f), restates
the basis for EPA's practice of not
designating State waters as Outstanding
National Resource Waters (ONRW) where a
State does not do so. ONRWs are discussed
in section 4.6.
Guidance for the Use of Conditional Approvals
for State WQS (USEPA, 1989g), provides
guidelines for regional offices to use in
granting State water quality standards
approvals conditioned on the performance of
specified actions by the State. Conditional
approvals are discussed in section 6.2.3.
Application of Antidegradation Policy to the
Niagara River (USEPA, 1989c), provides
guidance on acceptable interpretations of the
antidegradation policy to help attain the
CWA objective to "restore and maintain" the
integrity of the Nation's waters.
Designation of Recreation Uses (USEPA, 1989h),
summarizes previously issued guidance, and
outlines a number of acceptable State options
for designating recreational uses. The use
designation process is discussed in chapter 2.
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
for Surface Waters (Appendix C), provides
guidance on the effective development and
application of biological criteria in the water
quality standards program. Biological
criteria are discussed in section 3.5.3.
National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for
Wetlands (Appendix D), provides guidance
for meeting the EPA priority to develop
water quality standards for wetlands.
INT-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Introduction
Section 401 certification and FERC licenses
(USEPA, 1991h), clarifies the range of
water quality standards elements that States
need to apply when making CWA section
401 certification decisions. Section 401 of
the CWA is discussed in section 7.6.3.
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control, (USEPA, 1991a),
provides technical guidance for assessing and
regulating the discharge of toxic substances
to the waters of the United States.
Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program
(USEPA, 199li), provides the basis for
EPA's policy that biological surveys shall be
fully integrated with toxicity and chemical-
specific assessment methods in State water
quality programs. Further discussion of this
policy is contained in section 3.3.
Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands
(Appendix E), evaluates EPA's numeric
aquatic life criteria to determine how they
can be applied to wetlands. Wetland aquatic
life criteria are discussed in section 3.5.6.
Endangered Species Act Joint Guidance
(Appendix F), establishes a procedure by
which EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service will consult on the development of
water quality criteria and standards.
The guidance contained in each of the above
documents is either incorporated into the text of
the appropriate section of this Handbook or
attached as appendices (see Table of Contents).
The reader is directed to the original guidance
documents for the explicit guidance on the topics
discussed. Copies of all original guidance
documents not attached as appendices may be
obtained from the source listed for each document
in the Reference section of this Handbook.
The Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second
Edition is reorganized from the 1983 Handbook.
An overview to Water Quality Standards and
Water Quality Management programs has been
added, and chapters 1 through 6 are organized to
parallel the provisions of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation. Chapter 7 briefly
introduces the role of water quality standards in
the water quality-based approach to pollution
control.
The Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second
Edition retains all the guidance in the 1983
Handbook unless such guidance was specifically
revised in subsequent years.
(9/15/93)
INT-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
OVERVIEW OF THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
A water quality standard defines the water quality
goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by
designating the use or uses to be made of the
water, by setting criteria necessary to protect the
uses, and by preventing degradation of water
quality through antidegradation provisions. States
adopt water quality standards to protect public
health or welfare, enhance the quality of water,
and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
"Serve the purposes of the Act" (as defined in
sections 101(a), 101(a)(2), and 303(c) of the Act)
means that water quality standards:
•	include provisions for restoring and
maintaining chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of State waters;
•	wherever attainable, achieve a level of water
quality that provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,
and recreation in and on the water
("fishable/swimmable"); and
•	consider the use and value of State waters
for public water supplies, propagation of fish
and wildlife, recreation, agriculture and
industrial purposes, and navigation.
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act provides
the statutory basis for the water quality standards
program. The regulatory requirements governing
the program, the Water Quality Standards
Regulation, are published at 40 CFR 131. The
Regulation is divided into four subparts (A
through D), which are summarized below.
General Provisions (40 CFR 131 - Subpart A)
Subpart A includes the scope (section 131.1) and
purpose (section 131.2) of the Regulation,
definitions of terms used in the Regulation
(section 131.3), State (section 131.4) and EPA
(section 131.5) authority for water quality
standards, and the minimum requirements for a
State water quality standards submission (section
131.6).
On December 12, 1991, the EPA promulgated
amendments to Subpart A of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation in response to the CWA
section 518 requirements (see 56 F.R. 64875).
The Amendments:
•	establish a mechanism to resolve
unreasonable consequences that may result
from an Indian Tribe and a State adopting
differing water quality standards on common
bodies of water (section 131.7); and
•	add procedures by which an Indian Tribe can
qualify for the section 303 water quality
standards and section 401 certification
programs of the Clean Water Act (section
131.8).
The sections of Subpart A are discussed in chapter
1.
Establishment of Water Quality Standards -
(Subpart B)
Subpart B contains regulatory requirements that
must be included in State water quality standards:
designated uses (section 131.10), criteria that
protect the designated uses (section 131.11), and
an antidegradation policy that protects existing
uses and high water quality (section 131.12).
Subpart B also provides for State discretionary
policies, such as mixing zones and water quality
standards variances (section 131.13).
Each of these sections is summarized below and
discussed in detail in chapters 2 through 5
respectively.
Designation of Uses
The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires
that States specify appropriate water uses to be
INT-8
(9/15/93)
-------
Introduction
achieved and protected by taking into
consideration the use and value of the water body
for public water supply, for propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreational,
agricultural, industrial, and navigational purposes.
In designating uses for a water body, States
examine the suitability of a water body for the
uses based on the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the water body, its
geographical setting and scenic qualities, and the
social-economic and cultural characteristics of the
surrounding area. Each water body does not
necessarily require a unique set of uses. Instead,
the characteristics necessary to support a use can
be identified so that water bodies having those
characteristics might be grouped together as
supporting particular uses.
Any water body with standards not consistent with
the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act must be
reexamined every 3 years to determine if new
information has become available that would
warrant a revision of the standard. In addition,
the Regulation requires that where existing water
quality standards specify designated uses less than
those which are presently being attained, the State
shall revise its standards to reflect the uses
actually being attained.
When reviewing uses, States must perform and
submit to EPA a use attainability analysis if:
•	either the State designates or has designated
uses that do not include the uses specified in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act;
•	the State wishes to remove a designated use
that is specified in section 101(a)(2); or
•	the State wishes to adopt subcategories of
uses specified in section 101(a)(2) that
require less stringent criteria than are
currently adopted.
States may adopt seasonal uses as an alternative to
reclassifying a water body or segment thereof to
uses requiring less stringent criteria. In no case
may a State remove an existing use. No use
attainability analysis is required when designating
uses that include those specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act.
Criteria Development and Review
States adopt water quality criteria with sufficient
coverage of parameters and of adequate stringency
to protect designated uses. In adopting criteria to
protect the designated uses, States may:
•	adopt the criteria that EPA publishes under
section 304(a) of the Act;
•	modify the section 304(a) guidance to reflect
site-specific conditions; or
•	use other scientifically defensible methods.
Section 131.11 encourages States to adopt both
numeric and narrative criteria. Numeric criteria
are important where the cause of toxicity is
known or for protection against pollutants with
potential human health impacts or potential for
bioaccumulation. Narrative toxic criteria, based
on whole-effluent toxicity (WET) testing, can be
the basis for limiting toxicity in waste discharges
where a specific pollutant can be identified as
causing or contributing to the toxicity but there
are no numeric criteria in the State standards or
where toxicity cannot be traced to a particular
pollutant. Whole-effluent toxicity testing is also
appropriate for discharges containing multiple
pollutants because WET testing provides a method
for evaluating synergistic and antagonistic effects
on aquatic life.
Section 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt
criteria for all section 307(a) toxic pollutants for
which the Agency has published criteria under
section 304(a) of the Act, if the discharge or
presence of the pollutant could reasonably be
expected to interfere with the designated uses of
the water body. The section 307(a) list contains
65 compounds and families of compounds, which
the Agency has interpreted to include 126
"priority" toxic pollutants for regulatory purposes.
If data indicate that it is reasonable to expect that
(9/15/93)
INT-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
one or more of the section 307(a) toxic pollutants
will interfere with the attainment of the designated
use, or is actually interfering with the designated
use, then the State must adopt a numeric limit for
the specific pollutant. Section 303(c)(2)(B) also
provides that where EPA-recommended numeric
criteria are not available, States shall adopt
criteria based on biological monitoring or
assessment methods.
Antidegradation Policy and Imple-
mentation Methods
Water quality standards include an antidegradation
policy and methods through which the State
implements the antidegradation policy. Section
131.12 sets out a three-tiered approach for the
protection of water quality.
"Tier 1" (40 CFR 131.12(a)(1)) of antidegradation
maintains and protects existing uses and the
water quality necessary to protect these uses. An
existing use can be established by demonstrating
that fishing, swimming, or other uses have
actually occurred since November 28, 1975, or
that the water quality is suitable to allow such
uses to occur, whether or not such uses are
designated uses for the water body in question.
"Tier 2" (section 131.12(a)(2)) protects the water
quality in waters whose quality is better than that
necessary to protect "fishable/ swimmable" uses
of the water body. 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) requires
that certain procedures be followed and certain
showings be made (an "antidegradation review")
before lowering water quality in high-quality
waters. In no case may water quality on a Tier II
water body be lowered to the level at which
existing uses are impaired.
"Tier 3" (section 131.12 (a)(3)) protects
outstanding national resource waters (ONRWs),
which are provided the highest level of protection
under the antidegradation policy. ONRWs
generally include the highest quality waters of the
United States. However, the ONRW
antidegradation classification also offers special
protection for waters of "exceptional ecological
INT-10
significance," i.e., those water bodies which are
important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
whose water quality, as measured by the
traditional parameters such as dissolved oxygen
or pH, may not be particularly high. Waters of
exceptional ecological significance also include
waters whose characteristics cannot adequately be
described by traditional parameters (such as
wetlands and estuaries).
Antidegradation implementation procedures
address how States will ensure that the permits
and control programs meet water quality standards
and antidegradation policy requirements.
General Policies
The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
States to include in their standards State policies
and provisions regarding water quality standards
implementation, such as mixing zones, variances,
and low-flow exemptions subject to EPA review
and approval. These policies and provisions
should be specified in the State's water quality
standards document. The State's rationale and
supporting documentation should be submitted to
EPA for review during the water quality standards
review and approval process.
Mixing Zones
States may, at their discretion, allow mixing
zones for dischargers. The States' water quality
standards should describe the methodology for
determining the location, size, shape, outfall
design, and in-zone quality of mixing zones.
Careful consideration must be given to the
(9/15/93)
-------
Introduction
appropriateness of a mixing zone where a
substance discharged is bioaccumulative,
persistent, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or
teratogenic.
Low-Flow Provisions
State water quality standards should protect water
quality for the designated and existing uses in
critical low-flow situations. States may, however,
designate a critical low-flow below which
numerical water quality criteria do not apply.
When reviewing standards, States should review
their low-flow provisions for conformance with
EPA guidance.
Water Quality Standards Variances
As an alternative to removing a designated use, a
State may wish to include a variance as part of a
water quality standard, rather than change the
standard across the board, because the State
believes that the standard ultimately can be
attained. By maintaining the standard rather than
changing it, the State will assure that further
progress is made in improving water quality and
attaining the standard. EPA has approved State-
adopted variances in the past and will continue to
do so if:
•	the variance is included as part of the water
quality standard;
•	the variance is subjected to the same public
review as other changes in water quality
standards;
•	the variance is granted based on a
demonstration that meeting the standard is
not feasible due to the presence of any of the
same conditions as if the State were
removing a designated use (these conditions
are listed in section 131.10(g) of the
Regulation); and
•	existing uses will be fully protected.
Water Quality Standards Review and Revision
Process - (Subpart C)
The Clean Water Act requires States to hold a
public hearing(s) to review their water quality
standards at least once every 3 years and revise
them if appropriate. After State water quality
standards are officially adopted, a Governor or
designee submits the standards to the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator for review. EPA
reviews the State standards to determine whether
the analyses performed are adequate. The
Agency also evaluates whether the designated uses
and criteria are compatible throughout the water
body and whether the downstream water quality
standards are protected. After reviewing the
standards, EPA makes a determination whether
the standards meet the requirements of the law
and EPA's water quality standards regulations. If
EPA disapproves a standard, the Agency indicates
what changes must be made for the standard to be
approved. If a State fails to make the required
changes, EPA promulgates a Federal standard,
setting forth a new or revised water quality
standard applicable to the State.
State Review and Revision
States identify additions or revisions necessary to
existing standards based on their 305(b) reports,
other available water quality monitoring data,
previous water quality standards reviews, or
requests from industry, environmental groups, or
the public. Water quality standards reviews and
revisions may take many forms, including
additions to and modifications in uses, in criteria,
in the antidegradation policy, in the
antidegradation implementation procedures, or in
other general policies.
Some States review parts of their water quality
standards every year. Other States perform a
comprehensive review every 3 years. Such
reviews are necessary because new scientific and
technical data may become available.
Environmental changes over time may also
necessitate the need for the review.
(9/15/93)
INT-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
EPA Review
When States adopt new or revised WQS, the State
is required under CWA section 303(c) to submit
such standards to EPA for review and
approval/disapproval. EPA reviews and
approves/disapproves the standards based on
whether the standards meet the requirements of
the CWA. As a result of the EPA review
process, three actions are possible:
® EPA approval (in whole or in part) of the
submitted State water quality standards; or
•	EPA disapproval (in whole or in part) of the
submitted State water quality standards; or
•	EPA conditional approval (in whole or in
part) of the submitted State water quality
standards.
Revisions to State water quality standards that
meet the requirements of the Act and the WQS
Regulation are approved by the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator. If only a partial approval
is made, the Region, in notifying the State,
identifies the portions which should be revised
(e.g., segment-specific requirements).
If the Regional Administrator determines that the
revisions submitted are not consistent with or do
not meet the requirements of the Act or the WQS
Regulation, the Regional Administrator
disapproves the standards within 90 days with a
written notification to the State. The letter
notifies the State that the Administrator will
initiate promulgation proceedings if the State fails
to adopt and submit the necessary revisions within
90 days after notification. The State water quality
standard remains in effect, even though
disapproved by EPA, until the State revises it or
EPA promulgates a rule that supersedes the State
water quality standard.
Federally Promulgated Water Quality
Standards - (Subpart D)
As discussed above, EPA may promulgate Federal
Water Quality Standards. Section 303 of the
Clean Water Act permits the Administrator to
promulgate Federal standards:
•	if a revised or new water quality standards
submitted by the State is determined by the
Administrator not to be consistent with the
applicable requirements of the Act; or
•	in any case where the Administrator
determines that a new or revised standard is
necessary to meet the requirements of the
Act.
Federal promulgations are codified under Subpart
D of the Regulation.
INT-12
(9/15/93)
-------
Introduction
THE ROLE OF WQS IN THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
State water quality standards play a central
role in a State's water quality management
program, which identifies the overall mechanism
States use to integrate the various Clean Water
Act quality control requirements into a coherent
management framework. This framework
includes, for example:
° setting and revising standards for water
bodies;
•	Water Quality Assessments to determine
attainment of designated uses;
•	CWA section 305(b) water quality
monitoring to provide information upon
which water quality-based decisions will be
made, progress evaluated, and success
measured;
•	calculating total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs), waste load allocations (WLAs)
for point sources of pollution, and load
allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources of
pollution;
•	developing a water quality management plan,
certified by the Governor and approved by
EPA, which lists the standards and
prescribes the regulatory and construction
activities necessary to meet the standards;
•	preparing section 305(b) reports and lists
that document the condition of the State's
water quality;
•	developing, revising, and implementing an
effective CWA section 319 program and
CZARA section 6217 program to control
NPS pollution;
•	making decisions involving CWA section
401 certification of Federal permits or
licenses; and
•	issuing NPDES permits for all point source
discharges. Permits are written to meet
applicable water quality standards.
The Act provides the basis for two different kinds
of pollution control programs. Water quality
standards are the basis of the water quality-based
control program. The Act also provides for
technology-based limits known as best available
treatment technology economically achievable for
industry and secondary treatment for publicly
owned treatment works. In some cases,
application of these technologically based controls
will result in attaining water quality standards.
Where such is not the case, the Act requires the
development of more stringent limitations to meet
the water quality standards.
Regulations, policy, and guidance have been
issued on all the activities mentioned in this
section. Chapter 7 contains a brief discussion of
how water quality standards relate to many of
these activities in the water quality-based
approach to pollution control, but additional
details on these other programs is beyond the
scope of this Handbook. For further information,
see the EPA guidance documents referenced in
chapter 7.
(9/15/93)
INT-13
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
FUTURE PROGRAM DIRECTIONS
Since the 1960's, the water science program has
moved from solving a limited set of problems in
a limited set of waters to one that is solving a
broad range of complex problems in categories of
U.S. waters and addressing cross-media aspects of
water quality decisions. Initial efforts focused on
the more visible sources of pollution such as
organic loadings, solids, oil, and grease, and then
shifted to toxics and more complex mixtures of
pollutants.
Developments in two areas have significantly
affected the scientific underpinnings of the water
program. First is the science of risk assessment
used to estimate risk to human health and the
environment from exposure to contaminants.
Second is our ability to measure pollutants in the
environment at an increasing level of precision.
The evolution of methods and capabilities within
these two scientific disciplines has significantly
advanced the sophistication of scientific analyses
used to manage the water program.
As the water science program moves toward the
21st Century, we must provide technical
information and tools that allow States, the
regulated community, and the public to
understand and apply the methods, criteria, and
standards to environmental systems. This
includes updating science and adapting
technologies as appropriate to keep the foundation
of our program solid as well as employing or
modifying these approaches when appropriate for
new problems.
The CWA provides broad authority through its
goals and policy, such as:
... to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters (section
101(a)); and
. . . wherever attainable . . . water
quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife ... to protect
the water of the United States (section
101(a)(2)).
The breadth of this authority is also reflected in
specific EPA mandates such as those in section
304(a):
[EPA] shall develop and publish . . .
criteria for water accurately reflecting
the latest scientific knowledge (A) on
the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on health and welfare . . . (B)
on the concentration and dispersion of
pollutants . . . through biological,
physical, and chemical processes; and
(C) the effects of pollutants on
biological community diversity,
productivity, stability . . . including
eutrophication and rates of . . .
sedimentation . . . (CWA section
304(a)(1)); and
[EPA] shall develop and publish . . .
information (A) on the factors
necessary to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological
integrity . . . (B) on the factors
necessary for the protection and
propagation of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife . . . and to allow recreational
activities in and on the water . . .".)
(304(a)(2))(CWA section 304(a)(2))
EPA has traditionally focused on criteria for
chemical pollutants, but has also developed
criteria for a limited number of physical (e.g.,
color, turbidity, dissolves solids) and biological
(bacteria, "free from" nuisance aquatic life)
parameters (NAS/NAE, 1973; USEPA, 1976).
However, as EPA's water quality protection
program has evolved, it has become apparent that
chemical criteria alone, without the criteria for the
biological and physical/habitat components of
INT-14
(9/15/93)
-------
Introduction
water bodies, are insufficient to fully achieve the
goals of the CWA.
Future directions in the criteria and standards
program will focus on providing scientific and
technical tools to aid regional, State, and local
environmental managers in (1) implementating the
standards program, and (2) developing new
science and technology that will reduce human
and ecological risks resulting from exposure to
unaddressed contaminants and prevent pollution
from point and nonpoint sources.
Setting future national program priorities will be
based on the consideration of risk assessment;
statutory and court-mandated obligations; the
expressed needs of regional, State, and local
environmental managers and the regulated
community; and the potential effectiveness of a
program to influence real environmental
improvement.
EPA will be developing methodologies and
criteria in areas beyond the traditional chemical-
specific type criteria of the past. Areas of
scientific examination and potential regulatory
controls include criteria to protect wildlife,
wetlands, and sediment quality; biological criteria
to better define desired biological communities in
aquatic ecosystems; and nutrient criteria. EPA
has also moved in the direction of the physical
and habitat components of water quality protection
in other water quality programs. For example,
the CWA section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR
230) evaluate physical characteristics (such as
suspended particulates, flow, and hydroperiod),
and habitat components (such as food web
organisms, breeding/nesting areas, and cover).
Implementation of these various types of criteria
will be influenced by the environmental concerns
in specific watersheds.
To protect human health, program emphasis will
shift to focus on the human health impacts of
pathogenic microorganisms in ambient waters that
cause illness in humans, and will address concerns
about the risk that contaminated fish may pose to
sensitive populations whose daily diet includes
large quantities of fish.
In an expanded effort to protect ecology, there
will be increasing emphasis on the watershed
approach by assessing all potential and actual
threats to a watershed's integrity. Risk
assessment of the watershed and setting priorities
based on those risks will become increasingly
important in future program efforts in criteria and
standards as supporting elements to the watershed
approach.
Over the next few years, there will be more
emphasis on developing effective risk reduction
strategies that include both traditional and non-
traditional controls and approaches.
Future program directions in criteria development
and then adoption and implementation of water
quality standards will be based on the principle of
ecological and human health risk reduction
through sound and implementable science.
Endangered Species Act
An important consideration in future criteria and
standards development will be the conduct of the
consultation provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and the implementation of any
revisions to standards resulting from those
consultations. Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act requires all Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the
Services) to assure that any action authorized,
funded, or implemented by a Federal agency does
not jeopardize the existence of endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of their critical habitat. The
definition of a Federal action is very broad and
encompasses virtually every water program
administered by EPA.
The responsibility for ensuring that consultation
occurs with the Services lies with EPA, although
in fulfilling the requirements a non-Federal
representative may be designated for informal
(9/15/93)
INT-15
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
consultation. (Note: Consultation may be formal
or informal; the latter form is the most prevalent.)
Protection of threatened and endangered species
and their habitat is a critical national priority, and
the criteria and standards programs can be
effective tools to meet this national priority. All
aspects of standards, including aquatic life
criteria, uses, antidegradation, and implementation
actions related to the standards are subject to
consultation. All future revised aquatic life
criteria, sediment, wildlife, and biological criteria
will be subject to the consultation requirements as
will their adoption into enforceable standards.
To form an effective partnership between the
Services and EPA in creating a framework for
meeting the responsibilities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and applicable EPA
regulations, the Services and EPA entered into a
joint guidance agreement in July 1992 (see
Appendix F). This agreement sets forth the
procedures to be followed by the Services and
EPA to assure compliance with section 7 of the
ESA in the development of water quality criteria
published pursuant to section 304(a) of the CWA
and the adoption of water quality standards under
section 303(c). This agreement also indicated that
the regional and field offices of EPA and the
Services could establish sub-agreements specifying
how they would implement the joint national
guidance.
During the preparation of this second edition
Handbook, the Services and EPA initiated a work
group to develop a more extensive joint
agreement. This group was charged with the
responsibility of reviewing the July 1992
agreement, making appropriate revisions to the
water quality criteria and standards sections, and
adding a new section discussing the consultation
procedures to be followed for the NPDES permit
program. When the revised agreement is
approved by the Agencies, it will replace the
agreement included in this Handbook as Appendix
F.
Both the current agreement and the proposed
revision seek to ensure a nationally consistent
consultation process that allows flexibility to deal
with site-specific issues and to streamline the
process to minimize the regulatory burden. The
overriding goal is to provide for the protection
and support of the recovery of threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems on which
they depend.
INT-16
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(40 CFR 131 - Subpart A)
Table of Contents
1.1	Scope - 40 CFR 131.1	1-1
1.2	Purpose - 40 CFR 131.2 	1-1
1.3	Definitions - 40 CFR 131.3	1-1
1.3.1	States	1-1
1.3.2	Waters of the United States 	1-2
1.4	State Authority - 40 CFR 131.4	1-2
1.5	EPA Authority - 40 CFR 131.5 	1-3
1.6	Requirements for Water Quality Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6	1-4
1.7	Dispute Resolution Mechanism - 40 CFR 131.7 	1-4
1.7.1	Responsibility Is With Lead EPA Regional Administrator	1-5
1.7.2	When Dispute Resolution May Be Initiated	1-5
1.7.3	Who May Request Dispute Resolution and How	1-6
1.7.4	EPA Procedures in Response to Request 	1-6
1.7.5	When Tribe and State Agree to a Resolution 	1-6
1.7.6	EPA Options for Resolving the Dispute	1-7
1.7.7	Time Frame for Dispute Resolution 	1-8
1.8	Requirements for Indian Tribes To Qualify for the WQS Program - 40 CFR 131.8 . . 1-9
1.8.1	Criteria Tribes Must Meet	1-9
1.8.2	Application for Authority To Administer the Water Quality Standards
Program 	1-13
1.8.3	Procedure Regional Administrator Will Apply		1-14
1.8.4	Time Frame for Review of Tribal Application 		1-16
1.8.5	Effect of Regional Administrator's Decision 		1-16
1.8.6	Establishing Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands		1-16
1.8.7	EPA Promulgation of Standards for Reservations 		1-18
1.9	Adoption of Standards for Indian Reservation Waters	 1-18
1.9.1	EPA's Expectations for Tribal Water Quality Standards 		1-18
1.9.2	Optional Policies	1-19
1.9.3	Tribal Submission and EPA Review 		1-19
1.9.4	Regional Reviews 	1-19
Endnotes 	1-21
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
[TTJ
Scope - 40 CFR 131.1
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131) describes State requirements and procedures
for developing, reviewing, revising, and adopting
water quality standards (WQS), and EPA
requirements and procedures for reviewing,
approving, disapproving, and promulgating water
quality standards as authorized by section 303(c)
of the Clean Water Act. This Handbook serves
as guidance for implementing the Water Quality
Standards Regulation and its provisions.

Purpose - 40 CFR 131.2
A water quality standard defines the water quality
goals for a water body, or portion thereof, by
designating the use or uses to be made of the
water, by setting criteria necessary to protect the
uses, and by protecting water quality through
antidegradation provisions. States adopt water
quality standards to protect public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve
the purposes of the Clean Water Act (the Act).
"Serve the purposes of the Act" means that water
quality standards should:
•	wherever attainable, achieve a level of water
quality that provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
for recreation in and on the water, and take
into consideration the use and value of public
water supplies, and agricultural, industrial, and
other purposes, including navigation (sections
101(a)(2) and 303(c) of the Act); and
•	restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters
(section 101(a)).
CLEAN WATER ACT GOALS
•	Achieve a level of water quality that
provides for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
for recreation in and on the water,
where attainable.
•	Restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.
These standards serve dual purposes: They
establish the water quality goals for a specific
water body, and they serve as the regulatory basis
for establishing water quality-based treatment
controls and strategies beyond the
technology-based levels of treatment required by
sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act.
[TJJ
Definitions - 40 CFR 131.3
Terms used in the Water Quality Standards
Regulation are defined in section 131.3 of the
regulation. These definitions, as well as others
appropriate to the water quality standards
program, are contained in the glossary of this
Handbook. No additional guidance is necessary
to explain the definitions; however, some
background information on the definitions of
"States" and "waters of the United States" may be
helpful.
1.3.1 States
Indian Tribes may now qualify for the water
quality standards and 401 certification programs.
The February 4, 1987, Amendments to the Act
(9/15/93)
1-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
added a new section 518 requiring EPA to
promulgate regulations specifying how the Agency
will treat qualified Indian Tribes as States for the
purposes of, the section 303 (water quality
standards) programs, the section 401
(certification) programs, and other programs. On
December 12, 1991, the EPA promulgated
amendments to Subpart A of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation in response to the CWA
section 518 requirements (see 56 F.R. 64893).
These amendments modified the definition of
States by adding the phrase "... and Indian
Tribes that EPA determines qualify for treatment
as States for purposes of water quality standards."
1.3.2 Waters of the United States
Section 303(c) of the CWA requires States to
adopt water quality standards for "navigable
waters," which are defined at section 502(7) of
the Act as "waters of the United States." The
Water Quality Standards Regulation contains no
definition of "waters of the United States,"
although this term is used in the definition of
"water quality standards." The phrase "waters of
the United States" has been defined elsewhere in
Federal regulations (e.g., in regulations governing
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and section 404 programs (40
CFR sections 122.2, 230.3, and 232.3,
respectively). This definition appears in the
glossary of this Handbook and is used in
interpreting the phrase "water quality standards."
The definition of "waters of the United States"
emphasizes protection of a broad range of waters,
including interstate and intrastate lakes, streams,
wetlands, other surface waters, impoundments,
tributaries of waters, and the territorial seas.
EPA believes that some States may not be
providing the same protection to wetlands that
they provide to other surface waters. Therefore,
EPA wishes to emphasize that wetlands deserve
the same protection under water quality standards.
For more information on the application of water
quality standards to wetlands, see Appendix D of
this Handbook.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
•	Interstate/intrastate lakes
•	Streams
•	Wetlands
•	Other surface waters
•	Impoundments
•	Tributaries of waters
•	Territorial seas
Concerns have been raised regarding applicability
of water quality standards to riparian areas other
than riparian wetlands. "Riparian areas" are areas
in a stream's floodplain with life characteristic of
a floodplain. Wetlands are often found in
portions of riparian areas. The Clean Water Act
requires States to adopt water quality standards
only for "waters of the United States," such as
wetland portions of riparian areas that meet the
regulatory definition. Of course, States may, at
their discretion, choose to adopt water quality
standards or other mechanisms to protect other
riparian areas.
State Authority - 40 CFR 131.4
States (including Indian Tribes qualified for the
purposes of water quality standards) are
responsible for reviewing, establishing, and
revising water quality standards. Under section
510 of the Act, States may develop water quality
standards more stringent than required by the
Water Quality Standards Regulation.
Under section 401 of the Act, States also have
authority to issue water quality certifications for
federally permitted or licensed activities. This
authority is granted because States have
jurisdiction over their waters and can influence
the design and operation of projects affecting
those waters. Section 401 is intended to ensure
that Federal permits and licenses comply with
applicable water quality requirements, including
State water quality standards, and applies to all
1-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
Federal agencies that grant a license or permit.
(For example, EPA-issued permits for point
source discharges under section 402 and
discharges of dredged and fill material under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for
activities in navigable waters that may affect
navigation under sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act (RHA); and licenses required for
hydroelectric projects issued under the Federal
Power Act). Section 401 certifications are
normally issued by the State in which the
discharge originates.
States may deny certification, approve
certification, or approve certification with
conditions. If the State denies certification, the
Federal permitting or licensing agency is
prohibited from issuing the permit or license.
Certifications are subject to objection by
downstream States where the downstream State
determines that the proposed activity would
violate its water quality standards. [For more
information on the 401 certification process, refer
to Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities
for States and Eligible Indian Tribes (USEPA,
1989a).]
EPA Authority - 40 CFR 131.5
Under section 303(c) of the Act, EPA is to review
and to approve or disapprove State-adopted water
quality standards. This review involves a
determination of whether:
•	the State has adopted water uses consistent
with the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
•	the State has adopted criteria that protect the
designated water uses;
•	the State has followed its legal procedures for
revising or adopting standards;
•	the State standards that do not include the uses
specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act are
based upon appropriate technical and scientific
data and analyses; and
•	the State submission meets the requirements
included in section 131.6 of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation.
EPA reviews State water quality standards to
ensure that the standards meet the requirements of
the Clean Water Act. If EPA determines that
State water quality standards are consistent with
the five factors listed above, EPA approves the
standards. EPA disapproves the State water
quality standards and may promulgate Federal
standards under section 303(c)(4) of the Act if
State-adopted standards are not consistent with the
factors listed above. Section 510 of the Act
provides that the States are not precluded from
adopting requirements regarding control or
abatement of pollution as long as such
requirements are not less stringent than the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. The
Agency is not authorized to disapprove a State
water quality standard on the basis that EPA
considers the standard to be too stringent. EPA
may also promulgate a new or revised standard
where necessary to meet the requirements of the
Act. In certain cases, EPA may conditionally
approve a State's standards. A conditional
approval is appropriate only:
•	to correct minor deficiencies in a State's
standards; and
•	when a State agrees to a specific time schedule
to make the corrections in as short a time as
possible. Section 6.2 provides guidance on
conditional approvals.
(9/15/93)
1-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
EPA also has the authority to issue section 401
certification where a State or interstate agency has
no authority to do so.
1.6
Requirements for Water Quality
Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6
The following elements must be included in each
State's water quality standards submittal to EPA
for review:
•	use designations consistent with the provisions
of sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act;
•	methods used and analyses conducted to
support water quality standards revisions;
•	water quality criteria sufficient to protect the
designated uses, including criteria for priority
toxic pollutants and biological criteria;
•	an antidegradation policy and implementation
methods consistent with section 131.12 of the
Water Quality Standards Regulation;
•	certification by the State Attorney General or
other appropriate legal authority within the
State that the water quality standards were duly
adopted pursuant to State law; and
•	general information to aid the Agency in
determining the adequacy of the scientific
bases of the standards that do not include the
uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act
as well as information on general policies
applicable to State standards that may affect
their application and implementation.
EPA may also request additional information from
the State to aid in determining the adequacy of the
standards.
53
Dispute Resolution Mechanism - 40
CFR 131.7
result of differing water quality standards that
may be set by States and Indian Tribes located on
common bodies of water." EPA's primary
responsibility in response to this requirement is to
establish a practical procedure to address and,
where possible, resolve such disputes as they
arise. However, the Agency's authority is
limited.
For example, EPA does not believe that section
518 grants EPA authority to override section 510
of the Act. EPA believes that the provisions of
section 510 would apply to Indian Tribes that
qualify for treatment as States. Section 518(e)
and its accompanying legislative history suggest
that Congress intended for section 510 to apply to
Tribes as well as States. Were Tribes prohibited
from establishing standards more stringent than
minimally approvable by EPA, there would be
little need for the dispute resolution mechanism
required by section 518(e)(2). Therefore, EPA
does not believe that section 518 authorizes the
Agency to disapprove a State or Tribe water
quality standard and promulgate a less stringent
standard as a means of resolving a State/Tribe
dispute.
EPA also believes there are strong policy reasons
to allow Tribes to set any water quality standards
consistent with the Water Quality Standards
Regulation. First, it puts Tribes and States on
equal footing with respect to standards setting.
There is no indication that Congress intended to
treat Tribes as "second class" States under the
Act. Second, treating Tribes as essentially
equivalent to States is consistent with EPA's 1984
Indian Policy. Third, EPA believes it would be
unfeasible to require Tribes to adopt "minimum"
standards allowed under Federal law. EPA has
no procedures in place for defining a "minimum"
level of standards for Indian Tribes. EPA
evaluates only whether the standards are stringent
enough, not how much more stringent than any
Federal minimum.
Section 518 of the Act requires EPA to establish
a "mechanism for the resolution of any
unreasonable consequences that may arise as a
1-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
1.7.1	Responsibility Is With Lead EPA
Regional Administrator
EPA's role in dispute resolution is to work with
all parties to the dispute in an effort to reach an
agreement that resolves the dispute. The Agency
does not automatically support the Indian position
in all disputes over water quality standards.
Rather, EPA employees serving as mediators or
arbitrators will serve outside the normal Agency
chain of command and are expected to act in a
neutral fashion.
The lead EPA Regional Administrator will be
determined using OMB Circular A-95. The lead
Region is expected to enlist the aid of other
affected Regions in routine dispute resolution.
EPA Headquarters will also oversee the process to
ensure that the interests of all affected Regions
are represented. Designation as the lead Region
for resolving a dispute or programmatic issues
within EPA does not mean that the lead Region
has a license to act unilaterally. Rather,
designation as lead Region assigns the
responsibility to ensure that the process leading to
a decision is fair to all parties.
The Regional Administrator may include other
parties besides Tribes and States in the dispute
resolution process. In some cases, the inclusion
of permittees or landowners subject to nonpoint
source restrictions may be needed to arrive at a
meaningful resolution of the dispute. However,
only the Tribe and State are in a position to
implement a change in water quality standards and
are, thus, the only "necessary" parties in the
dispute resolution.
1.7.2	When Dispute Resolution May Be
Initiated
The regulation establishes conditions under which
the Regional Administrator would be responsible
for initiating a dispute resolution action. Such
actions would be initiated where, in the judgment
of the Regional Administrator:
• there are unreasonable consequences;
•	the dispute is between a State and a Tribe
(i.e., not between a Tribe and another Tribe or
a State and another State);
•	a reasonable effort has been made to resolve
the dispute before requesting EPA
involvement;
•	the requested relief is within the authority of
the Act (i.e., not a request to replace State or
Tribe standards that comply with the Act with
less stringent Federal standards);
•	the differing standards have been adopted
pursuant to State or Tribe law and approved by
EPA;
•	a valid written request for EPA involvement
has been submitted to the Regional
Administrator by the State or Tribe.
Although the Regional Administrator may decline
to initiate a dispute resolution action based on any
of the above factors, EPA is willing to discuss
specific situations. EPA is also willing to
informally mediate disputes between Tribes
consistent with the procedures for mediating
disputes between States (see 48 F.R. 51412).
The regulation does not define "unreasonable
consequences" because:
•	it would be a presumptuous and unjustified
Federal intrusion into local and State concerns
for EPA to define what an unreasonable
consequence might be as a basis for a national
rule;
•	EPA does not want to unnecessarily narrow
the scope of problems to be addressed by the
dispute resolution mechanism; and
•	the possibilities of what might constitute an
unreasonable consequence are so numerous as
to defy a logical regulatory requirement.
Also, the occurrence of such "unreasonable"
consequences is dependent on the unique
(9/15/93)
1-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
circumstances associated with the dispute. For
example, what might be viewed as an
unreasonable consequence on a stream segment in
a large, relatively unpopulated, water-poor area
with a single discharge would likely be viewed
quite differently in or near an area characterized
by numerous discharges and/or large water
resources. The Regional Administrator has
discretion to determine when consequences
warrant initiating a dispute resolution action.
1.7.3 Who May Request Dispute Resolution
and How
Either the State or the Tribe may request EPA
involvement in the dispute. The requesting party
must include the following items in its written
request:
•	a statement describing the unreasonable
consequences;
® description of the actions taken to resolve the
dispute before requesting EPA involvement;
•	a statement describing the water quality
standards provision (such as the particular
criterion) that has resulted in the unreasonable
consequences;
•	factual data substantiating the claim of
unreasonable consequences; and
•	a statement of relief sought (that is, the desired
outcome of the dispute resolution action).
1.7.4	EPA Procedures in Response to Request
When the Regional Administrator decides that
EPA involvement is appropriate (based on the
factors discussed in section 1.7.2, above), the
Regional Administrator will notify the parties in
writing that EPA dispute resolution action is being
initiated and will solicit their written response.
The Regional Administrator will also make
reasonable efforts to ensure that other interested
individuals or groups have notice of this action.
These "reasonable efforts" will include, and are
not limited to, the following:
•	written notice to responsible Indian and State
Agencies and other affected Federal Agencies;
•	notice to the specific individual or entity that
is claiming that an unreasonable consequence
is resulting from differing standards having
been adopted for a common water body;
•	public notice in local newspapers, radio, and
television, as appropriate;
•	publication in trade journal newsletters; and
•	other appropriate means.
1.7.5	When Tribe and State Agree to a
Resolution
EPA encourages Tribes and States to resolve the
differences without EPA involvement and to
consider jointly establishing a mechanism to
resolve disputes before such disputes arise. The
Regional Administrator has responsibility to
review and either approve or disapprove the
Tribe-State agreement. Section 518(d) provides
that Tribe-State agreements in general for water
quality management are to be approved by EPA.
As a general rule, EPA will defer to the
procedure for resolving disputed jointly
established by the Tribe and State so long as the
procedure and the end result are consistent with
the provisions of the CWA and Water Quality
Standards Regulation.
1-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
1.7.6 EPA Options for Resolving the Dispute
The dispute resolution mechanism included in the
final "Indian Rule" provides EPA Regional
Administrators with several alternative courses of
action. The alternatives are mediation,
non-binding arbitration, and a default procedure.
The first technique, mediation, would allow the
Regional Administrator to appoint a mediator
whose primary function would be to facilitate
discussions between the parties with the objective
of arriving at a State/Tribe agreement or other
resolution acceptable to the parties. The mediated
negotiations could be informal or formal, public
or private. The mediator could also establish an
advisory group, consisting of representatives from
the affected parties, to study the problem and
recommend an appropriate resolution.
The second technique, non-binding arbitration,
would require the Regional Administrator to
appoint an arbitrator (or arbitration panel) whose
responsibilities would include gathering all
information pertinent to the dispute, considering
the factors listed in the Act, and recommending
an appropriate solution. The parties would not be
obligated, however, to abide by the arbitrator's or
arbitration panel's decision. The arbitrator or
arbitration panel would be responsible for issuing
a written recommendation to all parties and the
Regional Administrator. Arbitrators or arbitration
panel members who are EPA employees would be
allowed to operate independently from the normal
chain of commend within the Agency while
conducting the arbitration process. Arbitrators or
arbitration panel members would not be allowed
to have ex parte communication pertaining to the
dispute, except that they would be allowed to
contact EPA's Office of the General Counsel for
legal advise.
EPA has also provided for a dispute resolution
default procedure to be used where one or more
parties refuse to participate in mediation or
arbitration. The default procedure will be used
only as a last resort, after all other avenues of
resolving the dispute have been exhausted. This
dispute resolution technique would be similar to
arbitration, but has been included as a separate
Regional Administrator option because arbitration
generally refers to a process whereby all parties
participate voluntarily.
The default procedure simply provides for the
Agency to review available information and to
issue a recommendation for resolving the dispute.
EPA's recommendation in this situation would
have no enforceable impact. The Agency hopes
that public presentation of its position will result
in either public pressure or reconsideration by
either affected party to continue resolution
negotiations. Any written recommendation
resulting from this procedure would be provided
to all parties involved in the dispute.
EPA envisions a number of possible outcomes
that, individually or in combination, would likely
resolve most of the disputes that would arise.
These actions might include, but are not limited
to, the following:
•	a State or Tribe agrees to revise the limits of
a permit to ensure that downstream water
quality standards are met;
•	a State or Tribe agrees to permanently remove
a use (consistent with 40 CFR 131.10(g));
•	a State or Tribe issues a variance from water
quality standards for a particular discharge;
•	a permittee or landowner agrees to provide
additional water pollution control;
•	EPA assumes permit-issuing authority for a
State or Tribe and re-issues a permit to ensure
that downstream water quality standards are
met; or
•	EPA promulgates Federal water quality
standards where a State or Tribe standard does
not meet the requirements of the Act.
In some cases (last example, above), EPA
recognizes that the Agency will have to act to
(9/15/93)
1-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
resolve the dispute. An example would be where
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for an upstream discharger does
not provide for the attainment of the water quality
standards for a downstream jurisdiction. The
existing NPDES permitting and certification
processes under the Act may be used by the
downstream jurisdiction to prevent such
situations. Today's rule does not alter or
minimize the role of these processes in
establishing appropriate permit limits to ensure
attainment of water quality standards. States and
Tribes are encouraged to participate in these
permitting and certification processes rather than
wait for unreasonable consequences to occur.
In these cases, EPA believes that the Agency has
authority to object to the upstream NPDES permit
and, if necessary, to assume permitting authority.
This authority was upheld in a case in which EPA
assumed authority to issue a permit for a North
Carolina discharge that, among other factors, did
not meet Tennessee's downstream water quality
standards.1
Mediators and arbitrators may be EPA employees,
employees of other Federal agencies, or other
individuals with appropriate qualifications.
Because of resource constraints, EPA anticipates
that mediators and arbitrators will generally be
EPA employees rather than consultants.
Employees from other Federal agencies would be
selected where appropriate, subject to their
availability. EPA intends for mediators and
arbitrators to conduct the dispute resolution
mechanism in a fair and impartial manner, and
will select individuals who have not been involved
with the particular dispute. Members of
arbitration panels will be selected by the Regional
Administrator in consultation with the parties. In
some cases, such panels may consist of one
representative from each party to the dispute plus
one neutral panel member. Implicit in the
regulation is the sense that mediators and
arbitrators will act fairly and impartially.
Although not specifically covered in the
regulation, EPA believes it is well within the
Regional Administrator's power to remove any
mediator or arbitrator for any reason (including
showing bias or unfairness or taking illegal or
unethical actions).
Arbitrators and arbitration panel members shall be
selected to include only individuals who are
agreeable to all affected parties, are
knowledgeable concerning the water quality
standards program requirements, have a basic
understanding of the political and economic
interests of Tribes, and will fulfill the duties fairly
and impartially. These requirements are not
applicable to mediators. EPA did not provide for
State or Tribe approval of mediators because EPA
believes that such an approval process would
provide too great an opportunity to delay the
initiation of the mediation process and because the
role of the mediator is limited to acting as a
neutral facilitator. There is no prohibition against
the Regional Administrator consulting with the
parties regarding a mediator; there is just no
requirement to do so.
Where one of the parties to the dispute believes
that an arbitrator has recommended an action to
resolve the dispute which is not authorized by the
Act, the regulation allows the party to appeal the
arbitrator's decision to the Regional
Administrator. Such requests must be in writing
and must include a statement of the statutory basis
for altering the arbitrator's recommendation.
1.7.7 Time Frame for Dispute Resolution
The regulation does not include a fixed time
frame for resolving disputes. While EPA intends
to proceed as quickly as possible and to encourage
parties to the dispute to resolve it quickly and to
establish informal time frames, the variety of
potential disputes to be resolved would appear to
preclude EPA from specifying a single regulatory
time limit. EPA believes it is better to obtain a
reasonable agreement or decision than to
arbitrarily establish a time frame within which an
agreement or decision must be made.
1-8
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
1.8fc Requirements for Indian Tribes To
Qualify for the WQS Program - 40
CFR 131.8
Consistent with the statutory requirement of
section 518 of the Act, the Water Quality
Standards Regulation establishes procedures by
which an Indian Tribe may qualify for the water
quality standards and section 401 certification
programs. Section 131.8 of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation is intended to ensure that
Tribes treated as States for standards are
qualified, consistent with Clean Water Act
requirements, to conduct a standards program
protective of public health and the environment.
The procedures are not intended to act as a
barrier to tribal program assumption. For the
section 401 certification program, 131.4(c)
establishes that where EPA determines that a
Tribe is qualified for the water quality standards
program, that Tribe would, without further effort
or submission of information, also qualify for the
section 401 certification program.
Section 518 authorizes EPA to qualify a Tribe for
programs involving water resources that are:
. . . held by an Indian Tribe, held by the
U.S. in trust for Indians, held by a member
of an Indian Tribe if such property interest
is subject to a trust restriction on alienation,
or otherwise within the borders of an Indian
reservation ....
Tribes are limited to obtaining program
authorization only for water resources within the
borders of the reservation over which they possess
authority to regulate water quality. The meaning
of the term "reservation" must, of course, be
determined in light of statutory law and with
reference to relevant case law. EPA considers
trust lands formally set apart for the use of
Indians to be "within a reservation" for purposes
of section 518 (e)(2), even if they have not been
formally designated as "reservations."2 This
means it is the status and use of the land that
determines if it is to be considered "within a
reservation" rather than the label attached to it.
EPA believes that it was the intent of Congress to
limit Tribes authority to lands within the
reservation. EPA bases this conclusion, in part,
on the definition of "Indian Tribe" found in CWA
section 518(h)(2). EPA also does not believe that
section 518(e)(2) prevents EPA from recognizing
tribal authority over non-Indian water resources
located within the reservation if the Tribe can
demonstrate (1) the requisite authority over such
water resources, and (2) the authority to regulate
as necessary to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare of its tribal members.
1.8.1 Criteria Tribes Must Meet
New section 131.8 of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation includes the criteria Tribes are
required to meet to be authorized to administer
the water quality standards and 401 certification
programs. These criteria are provided in section
518 of the Act. The Tribe must:
(9/15/93)
1-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
•	be federally recognized;
•	carry out substantial governmental duties and
powers over a Federal Indian reservation;
•	have appropriate authority to regulate the
quality of reservation waters; and
•	be reasonably expected to be capable of
administering the standards program.
The first criterion requires the Tribe to be
recognized by the Department of the Interior.
The Tribe may address this requirement by stating
that it is included on the list of federally
recognized Tribes published periodically by the
Department of the Interior, or by submitting other
appropriate documentation (e.g., the Tribe is
federally recognized but not yet included on the
Department of the Interior list).
The second criterion requires the Tribe to have a
governing body that is carrying out substantial
governmental duties and powers. EPA defines
"substantial governmental duties and powers" to
mean that the Tribe is currently performing
governmental functions to promote the health,
safety, and welfare of the affected population
within a defined geographical area. Examples of
such functions include, but are not limited to, the
power to tax, the power of eminent domain, and
police power. Federal recognition by the
Department of the Interior does not, in and of
itself, satisfy this criterion. Tribes must submit a
narrative statement describing the form of tribal
government, describing the types of essential
governmental functions currently performed, and
identifying the sources of authorities to perform
these functions (e.g., tribal constitutions, codes).
The third criterion, concerning tribal authority,
means that EPA may authorize an Indian Tribe to
administer the water quality standards program
only where the Tribe already possesses and can
adequately demonstrate authority to manage and
protect water resources within the reservation
borders. The Clean Water Act authorizes use of
existing tribal regulatory authority for managing
EPA programs, but the Act does not grant
additional authority to Tribes. EPA recognizes
that, in general, Tribes possess the authority to
regulate activities affecting water quality on the
reservation. The Agency does not believe,
however, that it is appropriate to recognize tribal
authority and approve tribal administration of the
water quality standards program in the absence of
verifying documentation. EPA will not delegate
water quality standards program authority to a
Tribe unless the Tribe adequately shows that it
possesses the requisite authority.
EPA does not read the Supreme Court's decision
in Brendale3 as preventing EPA from recognizing
Tribes' authority to regulate water quality on fee
lands within the reservation, even if section 518
is not an express delegation of authority. The
primary significance of Brendale is its result,
fully consistent with Montana v. United States,4
which previously had held:
To be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent
sovereign power to exercise some forms of
civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their
reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands.
A tribe may regulate ... the activities of
non-members who enter consensual
relationships with the tribe or its members,
through commercial dealing, contracts,
leases, or other arrangements. ... A tribe
may also retain inherent power to exercise
civil authority over the conduct of non-
Indians on fee lands within its reservation
when that conduct threatens or has some
direct effect on the political integrity, the
economic security, or the health or welfare
of the tribe.
The ultimate decision regarding tribal authority
must be made on a Tribe-by-Tribe basis, and EPA
has finalized the proposed process for making
those determinations. EPA sees no reason in light
of Brendale to assume that Tribes would be per se
unable to demonstrate authority over water quality
management on fee lands within reservation
borders. EPA believes that as a general matter
there are substantial legal and factual reasons to
1-10
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
assume that Tribes ordinarily have the legal
authority to regulate surface water quality within
a reservation.
In evaluating whether a Tribe has authority to
regulate a particular activity on land owned in fee
by nonmembers but located within a reservation,
EPA will examine the Tribe's authority in light of
the evolving case law as reflected in Montana and
Brendale. The extent of such tribal authority
depends on the effect of that activity on the Tribe.
As discussed above, in the absence of a contrary
statutory policy, a Tribe may regulate the
activities of non-Indians on fee lands within its
reservation when those activities threaten or have
a direct effect on the political integrity, the
economic security, or the health or welfare of the
Tribe.
The Supreme Court, in recent cases, has explored
several options to ensure that the impacts upon
Tribes of the activities of non-Indians on fee land,
under the Montana test, are more than de
minimis, although to date the Court has not
agreed, in a case on point, on any one
reformulation of the test. In response to this
uncertainty, the Agency will apply, as an interim
operating rule, a formulation of the standard that
will require a showing that the potential impacts
of regulated activities on the Tribe are serious and
substantial.
The choice of an Agency operating rule
containing this standard is taken solely as a matter
of prudence in light of judicial uncertainty and
does not reflect an Agency endorsement of this
standard per se. Moreover, as discussed below,
the Agency believes that the activities regulated
under the various environmental statutes generally
have serious and substantial impacts on human
health and welfare. As a result, the Agency
believes that Tribes usually will be able to meet
the Agency's operating rule, and that use of such
a rule by the Agency should not create an
improper burden of proof on Tribes or create the
administratively undesirable result of checker-
boarding reservations.
Whether a Tribe has jurisdiction over activities by
nonmembers will be determined case by case,
based on factual findings. The determination as
to whether the required effect is present in a
particular case depends on the circumstances.
Nonetheless, the Agency may also take into
account the provisions of environmental statutes,
and any legislative findings that the effects of the
activity are serious, in making a generalized
finding that Tribes are likely to possess sufficient
inherent authority to control reservation
environmental quality.5 As a result, in making
the required factual findings as to the impact of a
water-related activity on a particular Tribe, it may
not be necessary to develop an extensive and
detailed record in each case. The Agency may
also rely on its special expertise and practical
experience regarding the importance of water
management, recognizing that clean water,
including critical habitat (e.g., wetlands, bottom
sediments, spawning beds), is absolutely crucial to
the survival of many Indian reservations.
The Agency believes that congressional enactment
of the Clean Water Act establishes a strong
Federal interest in effective management of water
quality. Indeed, the primary objective of the
CWA "is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (section 101(a)), and to achieve that
objective, the Act establishes the goal of
eliminating all discharges of pollutants into the
navigable waters of the United States and attaining
a level of water quality that is fishable and
swimmable (sections 101(a)(1) and (2)). Thus the
statute itself constitutes, in effect, a legislative
determination that activities affecting surface
water and critical habitat quality may have serious
and substantial impacts.
EPA also notes that, because of the mobile nature
of pollutants in surface waters and the relatively
small length or size of stream segments or other
water bodies on reservations, it would be very
difficult to separate the effects of water quality
impairment on non-Indian fee land within a
reservation as compared with those on tribal
(9/15/93)
1-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
portions. In other words, any impairment that
occurs on, or as a result of, activities on non-
Indian fee lands is very likely to impair the water
and critical habitat quality of the tribal lands.
This also suggests that the serious and substantial
effects of water quality impairment within the
non-Indian portions of a reservation are very
likely to affect the tribal interest in water quality.
EPA believes that a "checkerboard" system of
regulation, whereby the Tribe and State split up
regulation of surface water quality on the
reservation, would ignore the difficulties of
assuring compliance with water quality standards
when two different sovereign entities are
establishing standards for the same small stream
segments.
EPA also believes that Congress has expressed a
preference for tribal regulation of surface water
quality to ensure compliance with CWA goals.
This is confirmed by the text and legislative
history of section 518 itself. The CWA
establishes a policy of "recognizing],
preserving], and protecting] the primary
responsibilities and rights of States to prevent,
reduce, and eliminate pollution, [and] to plan the
development and use (including restoration,
preservation, and enhancement) of land and water
resources" (section 101(b)). By extension, the
treatment of Indian Tribes as States means that
Tribes are to be primarily responsible for the
protection of reservation water resources. As
Senator Burdick, floor manager of the 1987 CWA
Amendments, explained, the purpose of section
518 was to "provide clean water for the people of
this Nation" (133 Congressional Record S1018,
daily ed., Jan. 21, 1987). This goal was to be
accomplished, he asserted, by giving "tribes . . .
the primary authority to set water quality
standards to assure fishable and swimmable water
and to satisfy all beneficial uses.'"5
In light of the Agency's statutory responsibility
for implementing the environmental statutes, its
interpretations of the intent of Congress in
allowing for tribal management of water quality
within the reservation are entitled to substantial
deference.7
The Agency also believes that the effects on tribal
health and welfare necessary to support tribal
regulation of non-Indian activities on the
reservation may be easier to establish in the
context of water quality management than with
regard to zoning, which was at issue in Brendale.
There is a significant distinction between land use
planning and water quality management. The
Supreme Court has explicitly recognized such a
distinction: "Land use planning in essence chooses
particular uses for the land; environmental
regulation . . . does not mandate particular uses
of the land but requires only that, however the
land is used, damage to the environment is kept
within prescribed limits."8 The Court has relied
on this distinction to support a finding that States
retain authority to carry out environmental
regulation even in cases where their ability to
carry out general land use regulation is preempted
by Federal law.9
Further, water quality management serves the
purpose of protecting public health and safety,
which is a core governmental function whose
exercise is critical to self-government. The
special status of governmental actions to protect
public health and safety is well established. By
contrast, the power to zone can be exercised to
achieve purposes that have little or no direct
nexus to public health and safety.10 Moreover,
water pollution is by nature highly mobile, freely
migrating from one local jurisdiction to another,
sometimes over large distances. By contrast,
zoning regulates the uses of particular properties
with impacts that are much more likely to be
contained within a given local jurisdiction.
1-12
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
Operationally, EPA's generalized findings
regarding the relationship of water quality to
tribal health and welfare will affect the legal
analysis of a tribal submission by, in effect,
supplementing the factual showing a Tribe makes
in applying for authority to administer the water
quality standards program. Thus, a tribal
submission meeting the requirements of section
131.8 of this regulation will need to make a
relatively simple showing of facts that there are
waters within the reservation used by the Tribe or
tribal members (and thus that the Tribe or tribal
members could be subject to exposure to
pollutants present in, or introduced into, those
waters), and that the waters and critical habitat
are subject to protection under the Clean Water
Act. The Tribe must also explicitly assert that
impairment of such waters by the activities of
non-Indians would have a serious and substantial
effect on the health and welfare of the Tribe.
Once the Tribe meets this initial burden, EPA
will, in light of the facts presented by the Tribe
and the generalized statutory and factual findings
regarding the importance of reservation water
quality discussed above, presume that there has
been an adequate showing of tribal jurisdiction on
fee lands, unless an appropriate governmental
entity (e.g., an adjacent Tribe or State)
demonstrates a lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the Tribe.
The Agency recognizes that jurisdictional disputes
between Tribes and States can be complex and
difficult and that it will, in some circumstances,
be forced to address such disputes. However,
EPA's ultimate responsibility is protection of the
environment. In view of the mobility of
environmental problems, and the interdependence
of various jurisdictions, it is imperative that all
affected sovereigns work cooperatively for
environmental protection rather than engage in
confrontations over jurisdiction.
To verify authority, the Tribe is required to
include a statement signed by the tribal legal
counsel, or an equivalent official, explaining the
legal basis for the Tribe's regulatory authority.
Tribe also is required to provide appropriate
additional documentation (e.g., maps, tribal
codes, and ordinances).
The fourth criterion requires that the Tribe, in the
Regional Administrator's judgment, should be
reasonably capable of administering an effective
standards program. The Agency recognizes that
certain Tribes have not had substantial experience
in administering surface water quality programs.
For this reason, the Agency requires that Tribes
either show that they have the necessary
management and technical skills or submit a plan
detailing steps for acquiring the necessary
management and technical skills. The plan must
also address how the Tribe will obtain the funds
to acquire the administrative and technical
expertise. When considering tribal capability, the
Agency will also consider whether the Tribe can
demonstrate the existence of institutions that
exercise executive, legislative, and judicial
functions, and whether the Tribe has a history of
successful managerial performance of public
health or environmental programs.
1.8.2 Application for Authority To Administer
the Water Quality Standards Program
The specific information required for tribal
applications to EPA is described in 40 CFR. The
application is required, in general, to include a
statement on tribal recognition by the Department
of the Interior, documentation that the tribal
governing body has substantial duties and powers,
documentation of tribal authority to regulate water
quality on the federally recognized reservation, a
narrative statement of tribal capability to
administer water quality standards programs, and
any other information requested by the Regional
Administrator.
When evaluating tribal experience in public health
and environmental programs (under paragraph
131.8(b)(4)(ii), EPA will look for indications that
the Tribe has participated in such programs,
whether the programs are administered by EPA,
other Federal agencies, or Tribes. For example,
several Tribes are known to have participated in
developing areawide water management plans or
(9/15/93)
1-13
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
tribal water quality standards. EPA will also look
for evidence of historical budget allocations
dealing with public health or environmental
programs along with any experience in monitoring
related programs.
The regulation allows a Tribe to describe either
how it presently has the capability to manage an
effective water quality standards program or how
it proposes to acquire the additional administrative
and technical expertise to manage such a program.
EPA will carefully review for reasonableness any
plans that propose to acquire expertise. EPA will
not approve tribal capability demonstrations where
such plans do not include reasonable provisions
for acquisition of needed personnel as well as
reliable funding sources. This requirement is
consistent with other Clean Water Act programs.
Tribes may wish to apply for section 106 funds to
support their water quality standards programs
and may include this source in any discussion of
obtaining necessary funds.
If the Tribe has qualified to administer other
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act
programs, then the Tribe need only provide the
information that has not been submitted
previously.
Qualifying for administration of the water quality
standards program is optional for Indian Tribes
and there is no time frame limiting when such
application may be made. As a general policy,
EPA will not deny a tribal application. Rather
than formally deny the Tribe's request, EPA will
continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe in
a continuing effort to resolve deficiencies in the
application or the tribal program so that tribal
authorization may occur. EPA also concurs with
the view that the intent of Congress and the EPA
Indian Policy is to support tribal governments in
assuming authority to manage various water
programs. Authority exists for EPA to re-assert
control over certain water programs due to the
failure of the State or Tribe to execute the
programs properly. Specifically, in the water
quality standards program, the Administrator has
authority to promulgate Federal standards.
1.8.3 Procedure Regional Administrator Will
Apply
The review procedure established in section 131.8
is the same procedure applicable to all water
programs. Although experience with the initial
application in other programs indicated some
delay in the process, EPA believes that as EPA
and the Tribes gain experience with the
procedures, delays will be minimal.
The EPA review procedure in paragraph 131.8(c)
specifies that following receipt of tribal
applications, the Regional Administrator will
process such applications in a timely manner.
The procedure calls for prompt notification to the
Tribe that the application has been received,
notification within 30 days to appropriate
governmental entities (e.g., States and other
governmental entities located contiguous to the
reservation and that possess authority to regulate
water quality under section 303 of the Act) of the
application and the substance and basis for the
Tribe's assertion of authority over reservation
waters, and allowance of 30 days for review of
the Tribe's assertion of authority.
EPA recognizes that city and county governments
which may be subject to or affected by tribal
standards may also want to comment on the
Tribe's assertion of authority. Although EPA
believes that the responsibility to coordinate with
local governments falls primarily on the State, the
Agency will make an effort to provide notice to
local governments by placing an announcement in
appropriate newspapers. Because the rule limits
EPA to considering comments from governmental
entities with Clean Water Act section 303
authority, such newspaper announcements will
advise interested parties to direct comments on
tribal authority to appropriate State governments.
Where a Tribe's assertion of authority is
challenged, the Regional Administrator, in
consultation with the Tribe, the governmental
entity challenging the Tribe's assertion of
authority, and the Secretary of the Interior, will
determine whether the Tribe has adequately
1-14
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
demonstrated authority to regulate water quality
on the reservation. Where the Regional
Administrator concludes that the Tribe has not
adequately demonstrated its authority with respect
to an area in dispute, then tribal assumption of the
standards program would be restricted
accordingly. If the authority in dispute were
focused on a limited area, this would not
necessarily delay the Agency's decision to
authorize the Tribe to administer the program for
the nondisputed areas.
The procedure allowing participation by other
governmental entities in EPA's review of tribal
authority does not imply that States or Federal
agencies (other than EPA) have veto power over
tribal applications for treatment as a State.
Rather, the procedure is simply intended to
identify any competing jurisdictional claim and
thereby ensure that the Tribe has the necessary
authority to administer the standards program.
EPA will not rely solely on the assertions of a
commenter who challenges the Tribe's authority;
EPA will make an independent evaluation of the
tribal showing and all available information.
When evaluating tribal assertions of authority,
EPA will apply the test from Montana v. United
States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and will consider the
following:
•	all information submitted with the Tribe's
assertion of authority;
•	all information submitted during the required
30-day comment period by the governmental
entities identified in 40 CFR 131.8(c)(2); and
•	all information obtained by the Agency via
consultation with the Department of the
Interior (such consultation is required where
the Tribe's assertion of authority is
challenged).
EPA and the Department of the Interior have
agreed to procedures for conducting consultations
between the agencies. The procedure established
as the Secretary of the Interior's designees the
Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs,
and the Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian
Affairs (Trust and Economic Development). EPA
will forward a copy of the application and any
documents asserting a competing or conflicting
claim of authority to such designees as soon as
possible. For most applications, an EPA-DOI
conference will be scheduled from 1 to 3 weeks
after the date the Associate Solicitor receives the
application. Comments from the Interior
Department will discuss primarily the law
applicable to the issue to assist EPA in its own
deliberations. Responsibility for legal advice to
the EPA Administrator or other EPA decision
makers will remain with the EPA General
Counsel. EPA does not believe that the
consultation process with the Department of the
Interior should involve notice and opportunity for
States and Tribes because such parties are
elsewhere provided appropriate opportunities to
participate in EPA's review of tribal authority.
EPA will take all reasonable means to advise
interested parties of the decision reached
regarding challenges of tribal assertions of
authority. At least, written notice will be
provided to State(s) and other governmental
entities sent notice of the tribal application. In
addition, the Water Quality Standards Regulation
requires EPA to publish an annual list of
standards approval actions taken within the
preceding year. EPA will expand that listing to
include Indian Tribes qualifying for treatment as
States in the preceding year.
Comments on tribal compliance with criteria
necessary for assuming the program is limited to
the criterion for tribal authority. The Clean
Water Act does not require EPA to provide public
comment on the entire tribal application, nor does
EPA believe that public comment will assist with
EPA's decision- making regarding the other
criteria. (The other criteria are the recognition of
the Tribe by the Department of the Interior, a
description of the tribal governing body, and the
capability of the Tribe to administer an effective
standards program.) EPA believes that providing
public comment on these three criteria would
(9/15/93)
1-15
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
unnecessarily complicate and potentially delay the
process.
1.8.4	Time Frame for Review of Tribal
Application
EPA has not specified a time frame for review of
tribal application. The Agency believes it is
impossible to approve or disapprove all
applications within a designated time frame.
Because EPA has no reasonable way to
predetermine how complete initial applications
might be, what challenges might arise, or how
numerous or complex the issues might be, the
Agency deems it inappropriate to attempt to
establish time frames that might not allow
sufficient time for resolution. Similarly, EPA's
experience with States applying for various EPA
programs indicates that, at times, meetings and
discussions between EPA and the States are
necessary before all requirements are met. The
Agency believes that the same communication
with Tribes will be important to ensure
expeditious processing of tribal applications.
1.8.5	Effect of Regional Administrator's
Decision
A decision by the Regional Administrator that a
Tribe does not meet the requirements for
administering the water quality standards program
does not preclude the Tribe from resubmitting the
application at a future date. Rather than formally
deny the Tribe's request, EPA will continue to
work cooperatively with the Tribe in a continuing
effort to resolve deficiencies in the application or
the tribal program so that tribal authorization may
occur. EPA believes that the intent of Congress
and of EPA's Indian Policy is to support tribal
governments in assuming authority to manage
various water programs.
Where the Regional Administrator determines that
the tribal application satisfies all of the
requirements of section 131.8, the Regional
Administrator will promptly notify the Tribe that
the Tribe has qualified to administer the water
quality standards program.
1.8.6 Establishing Water Quality Standards on
Indian Lands
Where Tribes qualify to be treated as States for
the purposes of water quality standards, EPA has
the responsibility to assist the Tribe in establishing
standards that are appropriate for the reservation
and consistent with the Clean Water Act. EPA
recognizes that Tribes have limited resources for
development of water quality standards.
EPA considers the following three options
acceptable to complete the task of establishing
water quality standards on Indian lands:
•	the Tribe may negotiate a cooperative
agreement with an adjoining State to apply the
State's standards to the Indian lands;
•	the Tribe may incorporate the standards from
an adjacent State as the Tribe's own; or
® the Tribe may independently develop and adopt
standards that account for unique site-specific
conditions and water body uses.
The first two options would be the quickest and
least costly ways for establishing tribal water
quality standards. Under option 1, the negotiated
agreement could also cover requirements such as
monitoring, permitting, certifications, and
enforcement of water quality standards on the
reservation. Option 2 would make full use of
information and data developed by the State which
may apply to the reservation. Tribes, as
sovereign governments, have the legal authority to
negotiate cooperative agreements with a State to
apply that State's standards to waters on the
reservation or to use State standards as the basis
for tribal standards. These options do not suggest
that the Tribe relinquishes its sovereign powers or
enforcement authority or that the State can
unilaterally apply its standards to reservation
waters.
Option 3 would require more time and resources
to implement because it would require the Tribe
to create an entire set of standards "from
1-16
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
scratch." EPA does not intend to discourage this
approach, but notes that Indian Tribes may want
to make full use, where appropriate, of programs
of adjacent States. Tribes should use this
Handbook as guidance when developing
standards.
EPA emphasizes that the development of tribal
water quality standards is an iterative process, and
that the standards development option initially
selected by the Tribe can change in subsequent
years. For example, a Tribe may want to use
option 1 or 2 to get the standards program started.
This does not preclude the Tribe from developing
its own water quality standards in subsequent
years.
Tribes establishing standards for the first time
should carefully consider which water body uses
are appropriate. Once designated uses are
adopted, removing the use or adopting a
subcategory of use would be subject to the
requirements of section 131.10 of the Water
Quality Standards Regulation.
EPA expects that, where Tribes qualify to be
treated as States for the puiposes of water quality
standards, standards will be adopted and
submitted to EPA for review within 3 years (a
triennium) from the date that the Tribe is notified
that it is qualified to administer the standards
program. This time frame corresponds to that
provided to States under the provisions of the
1965 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, when
the water quality standards program was created.
EPA believes that this is an equitable
arrangement, and that the Tribes should be
allowed sufficient time to develop their programs
and adopt appropriate standards for reservation
waters.
Once EPA determines that a Tribe qualifies to
administer the standards program, tribal
development, review, and adoption of water
quality standards are subject to the same
requirements that States are subject to under the
Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing
regulations.
Until Tribes qualify for the standards program and
adopt standards under the Clean Water Act, EPA
will, when possible, assume that existing water
quality standards remain applicable. EPA's
position on this issue was expressed in a
September 9, 1988, letter from EPA's then
General Counsel, Lawrence Jensen, to Dave
Frohnmayer, Attorney General for the State of
Oregon. This letter states: "if States have
established standards that purport to apply to
Indian reservations, EPA will assume without
deciding that those standards remain applicable
until a Tribe is authorized to establish its own
standards or until EPA otherwise determines in
consultation with a State and Tribe that the State
lacks jurisdiction . . . ." This policy is not an
assertion that State standards apply on
reservations as a matter of law, but the policy
merely recognizes that fully implementing a role
for Tribes under the Act will require a transition
period. EPA may apply State standards in this
case because (1) there are no Federal standards
that apply generally, and (2) to ignore previously
developed State standards would be a regulatory
void that EPA believes would not be beneficial to
the reservation water quality. However, EPA will
give serious consideration to Federal promulgation
of water quality standards on Indian lands where
EPA finds a particular need.
Where a State asserts authority to establish future
water quality standards for a reservation, EPA
policy is to ensure that the affected Tribe is made
aware of the assertion so that any issues the Tribe
may wish to raise can be reviewed as part of the
normal standards setting process. EPA also
encourages State-Tribe communication on
(9/15/93)
1-17
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
standards issues, with one possible outcome being
the establishment of short-term cooperative
working agreements pertaining to standards and
NPDES permits on reservations.
1.8.7 EPA Promulgation of Standards for
Reservations
If EPA determines that a Tribe possesses
authority to regulate water quality on a
reservation but the Tribe declines to seek
authority to administer the water quality standards
program, EPA has the authority under section 303
of the Act to promulgate Federal water quality
standards. EPA's responsibility stems from the
Act's directive to establish water quality standards
for all "navigable waters." Depending on the
circumstances, EPA may use the standards of an
adjacent State as a starting point for such a
promulgation. EPA will prioritize the
promulgations based on various factors, not the
least of which is availability of Agency resources
to undertake the Federal rulemaking process.
Because the Federal promulgation process is slow
and complex, EPA may promulgate water quality
standards in conjunction with re-issuing permits
on the reservations.
The intent of the Clean Water Act is for States
and Tribes qualifying for treatment as States to
have the first opportunity to set standards. Thus,
EPA prefers to work cooperatively with States
and Tribes on water quality standards issues and
to initiate Federal promulgation actions only
where absolutely necessary.
EPA's entire policy with respect to Federal
promulgation is straightforward. EPA much
prefers to work with the States and have them
adopt standards that comply with CWA
requirements. Where Federal promulgation is
necessary to achieve CWA compliance, however,
EPA will act. This same philosophy will apply to
Indian Tribes authorized to administer the
program.
1.9
Adoption of Standards for Indian
Reservation Waters
This guidance recognizes that Tribes have varying
abilities to develop water quality standards. Some
Tribes have more technical capability and
experience in drafting implementable regulations
than other Tribes and may be capable of adopting
more complex standards. However, most Tribes
may not have access to sufficient resources, either
in personnel or in contractor funds, to pursue this
course. Moreover, EPA does not have the
resources to provide substantial technical
assistance to individual Tribes to develop other
than basic water quality standards.
1.9.1 EPA's Expectations for Tribal Water
Quality Standards
Tribal water quality standards, initially at least,
should focus on basic contents and reflect existing
uses and existing water quality. The standards
must be established for an inventory of "waters of
the United States," including wetlands. The
Tribes should focus on the basic structure of a
water quality standards system: designated uses
for identified water segments, appropriate
narrative and numeric criteria, an antidegradation
policy, and other general implementation policies.
How complex or sophisticated these elements need
to be depends upon the abilities of the Tribe and
the environmental concerns affected by tribal
standards.
EPA has consistently recommended to Tribes that
they use directly, or with slight modification, the
standards of the adjacent States as a beginning for
tribal standards. Tribal water quality standards
should be developed considering the quality and
designated uses of waters entering and leaving
reservations. It is important that the Tribes
recognize what the surrounding State (or another
Indian reservation) water quality standards are
even though there is no requirement to match
those standards, although the water quality
standards regulation does require consideration of
downstream water quality standards (see section
2.2, this Handbook).
1-18
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
At a minimum, tribal water quality standards
should be established upstream and downstream
from point sources where NPDES permits are
applicable. It is also desirable that water quality
standards be applied to waters where significant
nonpoint sources enter so that the effectiveness of
best management practices on the reservation's
waters can be evaluated.
Water quality criteria should be carefully selected
recognizing that making criteria more stringent in
subsequent water quality standards reviews is
more feasible than attempting relaxation of
stringent criteria. While there is no mandatory
list of criteria, the following should be considered
the minimum:
•	narrative "free froms";
•	dissolved oxygen;
•	pH;
•	temperature;
•	bacteriological criteria (for recreational and
ceremonial uses); and
•	toxics (including nonconventionals, e.g.,
ammonia and chlorine). [Use of option 1,
section 2.1.3, is recommended.]
1.9.2 Optional Policies
The Tribes must also specify which optional
policies they wish to use pursuant to 40 CFR
131.13 (see chapter 6, this Handbook). These
include the following:
•	mixing zones for point sources;
•	variances for point sources;
•	design low-flow specification for the
application of numeric criteria; and
•	schedules of compliance for criteria in
NPDES, and permits.
Guidance for applying these policies are generally
available in either this Handbook or in the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a).
1.9.3	Tribal Submission and EPA Review
The initial submission of the tribal water quality
standards must contain the items listed in 40 CFR
131.6 plus use attainability analyses for all waters
not classified "fishable/swimmable" (see section
2.9, this Handbook). In addition, it should
contain identification of endangered or threatened
aquatic species or wildlife subject to protection by
water quality standards. There should also be
included a record containing information on the
regulatory and public participation aspects of the
water quality standards, public comments made,
and the Tribe's responses to those comments and
other relevant material required by 40 CFR
131.20.
1.9.4	Regional Reviews
The Regions should carefully coordinate the
reviews within the Water Management Divisions
to ensure:
•	that the required items in section 131.6 are
included;
•	that all waters with NPDES permits have water
quality standards; and
•	that the tribal rulemaking meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 131.20.
In commenting on tribal water quality standards,
the Regions should identify situations where the
dispute resolution mechanism in 40 CFR 131.7
may ultimately be called into play and should
attempt to de-fuse such situations as early as
possible in the standards adoption process. One
possibility is to encourage Tribes and States to
establish review procedures before any specific
problem develops as suggested in section 131.7(e)
of the regulation.
(9/15/93)
1-19
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Where NPDES permits exist, the downstream
jurisdiction and the Region should determine if
total maximum daily loads or waste load
allocations will be needed. Where this burden
falls on the Tribe, EPA may need to assist the
Tribe in these assessments or perform the
necessary modeling for the Tribe. The Region
also should assess the scope of any section 401
procedures needed in future NPDES permit
renewals. The interstate nature of tribal water
quality standards may become important to EPA
because of the recent Arkansas v. Oklahoma U.S.
Supreme Court case (112 section 1046, February
26, 1992), especially when EPA is the permit
writing authority.
NOTE: Additional discussion
supporting the Agency's rulemaking
with respect to Indian Tribes and
EPA's views on related questions may
be found in the preamble discussion to
the final rule (56 F.R. 64893,
December 12, 1991).
1-20
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
Endnotes
1.	Champion International Corp. v. EPA, 850 F.2d 182 (4th Cir. 1988)
2.	Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 111 S.Ct.
905, 910 (1991).
3.	Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 492 U.S. 408, (1989)
4.	Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. at 565-66 (citations omitted).
5.	See, e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 476-77 and notes
6, 7 (1987).
6.	Id.
1. Washington Dept. of Ecology v. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1985); see generally
Chevron, USA v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843-45 (1984).
8.	California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 587 (1987).
9.	Id. at 587-89.
10.	See e.g. Brendale, 492 U.S. at 420 n.5 (White, J.) (listing broad range of consequences of
state zoning decision).
(9/15/93)
1-21
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
CHAPTER 2
DESIGNATION OF USES
(40 CFR 131.10)
Table of Contents
2.1	Use Classification - 40 CFR 131.10(a)	2-1
2.1.1	Public Water Supplies 	2-1
2.1.2	Protection and Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife	2-1
2.1.3	Recreation	2-2
2.1.4	Agriculture and Industry 	2-3
2.1.5	Navigation 	2-4
2.1.6	Other Uses 	2-4
2.2	Consider Downstream Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(b)	2-4
2.3	Use Subcategories - 40 CFR 131.10(c)	2-5
2.4	Attainability of Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(d)	2-5
2.5	Public Hearing for Changing Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(e)	2-6
2.6	Seasonal Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(f) 	2-6
2.7	Removal of Designated Uses - CFR 40	2-6
2.7.1	Step 1 - Is the Use Existing? 	2-6
2.7.2	Step 2 - Is the Use Specified in Section 101(a)(2)? 	2-8
2.7.3	Step 3 - Is the Use Attainable? 	2-8
2.7.4	Step 4 - Is a Factor from 131.10(g) Met?	2-8
2.7.5	Step 5 - Provide Public Notice 	2-8
2.8	Revising Uses to Reflect Actual Attainment - 40 CFR 131.10(i) 	2-8
2.9	Use Attainability Analyses - 40 CFR 131.10(j) and (k)	2-9
2.9.1	Water Body Survey and Assessment - Purpose and Application	2-9
2.9.2	Physical Factors 	2-10
2.9.3	Chemical Evaluations	2-12
2.9.4	Biological Evaluations	2-12
2.9.5	Approaches to Conducting the Physical, Chemical, and Biological
Evaluations 	2-15
2.9.6	Estuarine Systems 	2-18
2.9.7	Lake Systems	2-23
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
CHAPTER 2
DESIGNATION OF USES
[irj
Use Classification - 40 CFR 131.10(a)
A water quality standard defines the water quality
goals of a water body or portion thereof, in part,
by designating the use or uses to be made of the
water. States adopt water quality standards to
protect public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water, and serve the purposes of the
Clean Water Act. "Serve the purposes of the
Act" (as defined in sections 101(a)(2), and 303(c)
of the Act) means that water quality standards
should:
and midlife, and provide for recreation in and on
the water ("fishable/swimmable") where attainable
(see 40 CFR 131.10(j)).
DESIGNATED USES
40 CFR 131.3(f)
Uses specified in Water Quality
Standards for each water body or
segment whether or not they are
being attained.
•	provide, wherever attainable, water quality for
the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and
on the water ("fishable/swimmable"), and
•	consider the use and value of State waters for
public water supplies, propagation of fish and
wildlife, recreation, agriculture and industrial
purposes, and navigation.
These sections of the Act describe various uses of
waters that are considered desirable and should be
protected. The States must take these uses into
consideration when classifying State waters and
are free to add use classifications. Consistent
with the requirements of the Act and Water
Quality Standards Regulation, States are free to
develop and adopt any use classification system
they see as appropriate, except that waste
transport and assimilation is not an acceptable use
in any case (see 40 CFR 131.10(a)). Among the
uses listed in the Clean Water Act, there is no
hierarchy. EPA's Water Quality Standards
Regulation emphasizes the uses specified in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act (first bullet, above).
To be consistent with the 101(a)(2) interim goal
of the Act, States must provide water quality for
the protection and propagation offish, shellfish,
2.1.1	Public Water Supplies
This use includes waters that are the source for
drinking water supplies and often includes waters
for food processing. Waters for drinking water
may require treatment prior to distribution in
public water systems.
2.1.2	Protection and Propagation of Fish,
Shellfish, and Wildlife
This classification is often divided into several
more specific subcategories, including coldwater
fish, warmwater fish, and shellfish. For example,
some coastal States have a use specifically for
oyster propagation. The use may also include
protection of aquatic flora. Many States
differentiate between self-supporting fish
populations and stocked fisheries. Wildlife
protection should include waterfowl, shore birds,
and other water-oriented wildlife.
To more fully protect aquatic habitats and provide
more comprehensive assessments of aquatic life
use attainment/non-attainment, it is EPA's policy
that States should designate aquatic life uses that
(9/15/93)
2-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
appropriately address biological integrity and
adopt biological criteria necessary to protect those
uses (see Appendix R).
TYPES OF USES
CWA SECTION 303(c)(2)(A)
•	Public water supplies
•	Protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife
•	Recreation
•	Agriculture
•	Industry
•	Navigation
•	Coral reef preservation
•	Marinas
•	Groundwater recharge
•	Aquifer protection
•	Hydroelectric power
2.1.3 Recreation
Recreational uses have traditionally been divided
into primary contact and secondary contact
recreation. The primary contact recreation
classification protects people from illness due to
activities involving the potential for ingestion of,
or immersion in, water. Primary contact
recreation usually includes swimming,
water-skiing, skin-diving, surfing, and other
activities likely to result in immersion. The
secondary contact recreation classification is
protective when immersion is unlikely. Examples
are boating, wading, and rowing. These two
broad uses can be logically subdivided into an
almost infinite number of subcategories (e.g.,
wading, fishing, sailing, powerboating, rafting.).
Often fishing is considered in the recreational use
categories.
Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand,
may not be attainable in certain waters, such as
wetlands, that do not have sufficient water, at
least seasonally. However, States are encouraged
to recognize and protect recreational uses that do
not directly involve contact with water, including
hiking, camping, and bird watching.
A number of acceptable State options may be
considered for designation of recreational uses.
Option 1
Designate primary contact recreational uses for all
waters of the State, and set bacteriological criteria
sufficient to support primary contact recreation.
This option fully conforms with the requirement
in section 131.6 of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation to designate uses consistent with the
provisions of sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of
the CWA. States are not required to conduct use
attainability analyses (for recreation) when
primary contact recreational uses are designated
for all waters of the State.
Option 2
Designate either primary contact recreational uses
or secondary contact recreational uses for all
waters of the State and, where secondary contact
recreation is designated, set bacteriological
criteria sufficient to support primary contact
recreation. EPA believes that a secondary contact
recreational use (with criteria sufficient to support
primary contact recreation) is consistent with the
CWA section 101(a)(2) goal. The rationale for
this option is discussed in the preamble to the
Water Quality Standards Regulation, which states:
". . . even though it may not make sense to
encourage use of a stream for swimming because
of the flow, depth or the velocity of the water, the
States and EPA must recognize that swimming
and/or wading may occur anyway. In order to
protect public health, States must set criteria to
reflect recreational uses if it appears that
recreation will in fact occur in the stream."
Under this option, future revisions to the
bacteriological criterion for specific stream
segments would be subject to the downgrading
provisions of the Federal Water Quality Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 131.10).
2-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
Option 3
Designate either primary contact recreation,
secondary contact recreation (with bacteriological
criteria sufficient to support primary contact
recreation), or conduct use attainability analyses
demonstrating that recreational uses consistent
with the CWA section 101(a)(2) goal are not
attainable for all waters of the State. Such use
attainability analyses are required by section
131.10 of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation, which also specifies six factors that
may be used by States in demonstrating that
attaining a use is not feasible. Physical factors,
which are important in determining attainability of
aquatic life uses, may not be used as the basis for
not designating a recreational use consistent with
the CWA section 101(a)(2) goal. This precludes
States from using 40 CFR 131.10(g) factor 2
(pertaining to low-flows) and factor 5 (pertaining
to physical factors in general). The basis for this
policy is that the States and EPA have an
obligation to do as much as possible to protect the
health of the public. In certain instances, people
will use whatever water bodies are available for
recreation, regardless of the physical conditions.
In conducting use attainability analyses (UAAs)
where available data are scarce or nonexistent,
sanitary surveys are useful in determining the
sources of bacterial water quality indicators.
Information on land use is also useful in
predicting bacteria levels and sources.
Other Options
• States may apply bacteriological criteria
sufficient to support primary contact recreation
with a rebuttable presumption that the
indicators show the presence of human fecal
pollution. Rebuttal of this presumption,
however, must be based on a sanitary survey
that demonstrates a lack of contamination from
human sources. The basis for this option is
the absence of data demonstrating a
relationship between high densities of
bacteriological water quality indicators and
increased risk of swimming-associated illness
in animal-contaminated waters. Maine is an
example of a State that has successfully
implemented this option.
•	Where States adopt a standards package that
does not support the swimmable goal and does
not contain a UAA to justify the omission,
EPA may conditionally approve the package
provided that (1) the State commits, in writing,
to a schedule for rapid completion of the
UAAs, generally within 90 days (see
conditional approval guidance in section 6.2 of
this Handbook); and (2) the omission may be
considered a minor deficiency (i.e., after
consultation with the State, EPA determines
that there is no basis for concluding that the
UAAs would support upgrading the use of the
water body). Otherwise, failure to support the
swimmable goal is a major deficiency and
must be disapproved to allow prompt Federal
promulgation action.
•	States may conduct basinwide use attainability
analyses if the circumstances relating to the
segments in question are sufficiently similar to
make the results of the basinwide analyses
reasonably applicable to each segment.
States may add other recreation classifications as
they see fit. For example, one State protects
"consumptive recreation" (i.e., "human
consumption of aquatic life, semi-aquatic life, or
terrestrial wildlife that depend on surface waters
for survival and well-being"). States also may
adopt seasonal recreational uses (see section 2.6,
this Handbook).
2.1.4 Agriculture and Industry
The agricultural use classification defines waters
that are suitable for irrigation of crops,
consumption by livestock, support of vegetation
for range grazing, and other uses in support of
farming and ranching and protects livestock and
crops from injury due to irrigation and other
exposures.
The industrial use classification includes industrial
cooling and process water supplies. This
(9/15/93)
2-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
classification protects industrial equipment from
damage from cooling and/or process waters.
Specific criteria would depend on the industry
involved.
The Report of the Committee on Water Quality
Criteria, the "Green Book" (FWPCA, 1968) and
Water Quality Criteria 1972, the "Blue Book"
(NAS/NAE, 1973) provide information for certain
parameters on protecting agricultural and
industrial uses, although section 304(a)(1) criteria
for protecting these uses have not been
specifically developed for numerous other
parameters, including toxics.
Where criteria have not been specifically
developed for agricultural and industrial uses, the
criteria developed for human health and aquatic
life are usually sufficiently stringent to protect
these uses. States also may establish criteria
specifically designed to protect these uses.
2.1.5	Navigation
This use classification is designed to protect ships
and their crews and to maintain water quality so
as not to restrict or prevent navigation.
2.1.6	Other Uses
States may adopt other uses they consider to be
necessary. Some examples include coral reef
preservation, marinas, groundwater recharge,
aquifer protection, and hydroelectric power.
States also may establish criteria specifically
designed to protect these uses.
2.2 | Consider Downstream Uses - 40 CFR
131.10(b)
When designating uses, States should consider
extraterritorial effects of their standards. For
example, once States revise or adopt standards,
upstream jurisdictions will be required, when
revising their standards and issuing permits, to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the
downstream standards.
Despite the regulatory requirement that States
ensure downstream standards are met when
designating and setting criteria for waters,
occasionally downstream standards are not met
owing to an upstream pollutant source. The
Clean Water Act offers three solutions to such
problems.
First, the opportunity for public participation for
new or revised water quality standards provides
potentially affected parties an approach to
avoiding conflicts of water quality standards.
States and Tribes are encouraged to keep other
States informed of their water quality standards
efforts and to invite comment on standards for
common water bodies.
Second, permit limits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
(see section 402 of the Act) are required to be
developed such that applicable water quality
standards are achieved. The permit issuance
process also includes opportunity for public
participation and, thus, provides a second
opportunity to consider and resolve potential
problems regarding extraterritorial effects of
water quality standards. In a decision in Arkansas
v. Oklahoma (112 section 1046, February 26,
1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
Clean Water Act clearly authorized EPA to
require that point sources in upstream States not
violate water quality standards in downstream
States, and that EPA's interpretation of those
standards should govern.
Third, NPDES permits issued by EPA are subject
to certification under the requirements of section
401 of the Act. Section 401 requires that States
grant, deny, or condition "certification" for
2-4
(9/15/93)
-------
federally permitted or licensed activities that may
result in a discharge to waters of the United
States. The decision to grant or to deny
certification, or to grant a conditional certification
is based on a State's determination regarding
whether the proposed activity will comply with
applicable water quality standards and other
provisions. Thus, States may deny certification
and prohibit EPA from issuing an NPDES permit
that would violate water quality standards.
Section 401 also allows a State to participate in
extraterritorial actions that will affect that State's
waters if a federally issued permit is involved.
In addition to the above sources for solutions,
when the problem arises between a State and an
Indian Tribe qualified for treatment as a State for
water quality standards, the dispute resolution
mechanism could be invoked (see section 1.7, of
this Handbook).
[2^| Use Subcategories - 40 CFR 131.10(c)
States are required to designate uses considering,
at a minimum, those uses listed in section 303(c)
of the Clean Water Act (i.e., public water
supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife,
recreation, agriculture and industrial purposes,
and navigation). However, flexibility inherent in
the State process for designating uses allows the
development of subcategories of uses within the
Act's general categories to refine and clarify
specific use classes. Clarification of the use class
is particularly helpful when a variety of surface
waters with distinct characteristics fit within the
same use class, or do not fit well into any
category. Determination of non-attainment in
waters with broad use categories may be difficult
and open to alternative interpretations. If a
determination of non-attainment is in dispute,
regulatory actions will be difficult to accomplish
(USEPA, 1990a).
The State selects the level of specificity it desires
for identifying designated uses and subcategories
of uses (such as whether to treat recreation as a
single use or to define a subcategory for
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
secondary recreation). However, the State must
be at least as specific as the uses listed in sections
101(a) and 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.
Subcategories of aquatic life uses may be on the
basis of attainable habitat (e.g., coldwater versus
warmwater habitat); innate differences in
community structure and function (e.g., high
versus low species richness or productivity); or
fundamental differences in important community
components (e.g., warmwater fish communities
dominated by bass versus catfish). Special uses
may also be designated to protect particularly
unique, sensitive, or valuable aquatic species,
communities, or habitats.
Data collected from biosurveys as part of a
developing biocriteria program may assist States
in refining aquatic life use classes by revealing
consistent differences among aquatic communities
inhabiting different waters of the same designated
use. Measurable biological attributes could then
be used to divide one class into two or more
subcategories (USEPA, 1990a).
If States adopt subcategories that do not require
criteria sufficient to fully protect the goal uses in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act (see section 2.1,
above), a use attainability analysis pursuant to 40
CFR 131.10(j) must be conducted for waters to
which these subcategories are assigned. Before
adopting subcategories of uses, States must
provide notice and opportunity for a public
hearing because these actions are changes to the
standards.
2.41 Attainability of Uses - 40 CFR
l—J 131.10(d)
When designating uses, States may wish to
designate only the uses that are attainable.
However, if the State does not designate the uses
specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, the State
must perform a use attainability analysis under
section 131.10(j) of the regulation. States are
encouraged to designate uses that the State
believes can be attained in the future.
(9/15/93)
2-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"Attainable uses" are, at a minimum, the uses
(based on the State's system of water use
classification) that can be achieved 1) when
effluent limits under sections 301(b)(1)(A) and (B)
and section 306 of the Act are imposed on point
source dischargers and 2) when cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices are imposed
on nonpoint source dischargers.
-beiB
Public Hearing for Changing Uses
CFR 131.10(e)
40
The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires
States to provide opportunity for public hearing
before adding or removing a use or establishing
subcategories of a use. As mentioned in section
2.2 above, the State should consider
extraterritorial effects of such changes.
2.6 I Seasonal Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(f)
In some areas of the country, uses are practical
only for limited seasons. EPA recognizes
seasonal uses in the Water Quality Standards
Regulation. States may specify the seasonal uses
and criteria protective of that use as well as the
time frame for the "... season, so long as the
criteria do not prevent the attainment of any more
restrictive uses attainable in other seasons."
For example, in many northern areas, body
contact recreation is possible only a few months
out of the year. Several States have adopted
primary contact recreational uses, and the
associated microbiological criteria, for only those
months when primary contact recreation actually
occurs, and have relied on less stringent
secondary contact recreation criteria to protect for
incidental exposure in the "non-swimming"
season.
Seasonal uses that may require more stringent
criteria are uses that protect sensitive organisms
or life stages during a specific season such as the
early life stages of fish and/or fish migration
(e.g., EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen (see Appendix I) recommends
more stringent dissolved oxygen criteria for the
early life stages of both coldwater and warmwater
fish).
2J\
Removal of Designated Uses - CFR 40
131.10(g) and (h)
Figure 2-1 shows how and when designated uses
may be removed.
2.7.1 Step 1 - Is the Use Existing?
Once a use has been designated for a particular
water body or segment, the water body or water
body segment cannot be reclassified for a
different use except under specific conditions. If
a designated use is an existing use (as defined in
40 CFR 131.3) for a particular water body, the
existing use cannot be removed unless a use
requiring more stringent criteria is added (see
2-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
Figure 2-1. Process for Removing a Designated Use
(9/15/93)
2-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
section 4.4, this Handbook, for further discussion
of existing uses). However, uses requiring more
stringent criteria may always be added because
doing so reflects the goal of further improvement
of water quality. Thus, a recreational use for
wading may be deleted if a recreational use for
swimming is added, or the State may add the
swimming use and keep the wading use as well.
2.7.2	Step 2 - Is the Use Specified in Section
101(a)(2)?
If the State wishes to remove a designated use
specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, the State
must perform a use attainability analysis (see
section 131.10(j)). Section 2.9 of this Handbook
discusses use attainability analyses for aquatic life
uses.
2.7.3	Step 3 - Is the Use Attainable?
A State may change activities within a specific use
category but may not change to a use that requires
less stringent criteria, unless the State can
demonstrate that the designated use cannot be
attained. (See section 2.4, above, for the
definition of "attainable uses.") For example, if
a State has a broad aquatic life use, EPA
generally assumes that the use will support all
aquatic life. The State may demonstrate that, for
a specific water body, such parameters as
dissolved oxygen or temperature will not support
trout but will support perch when
technology-based effluent limitations are applied
to point source dischargers and when
cost-effective and reasonable best management
practices are applied to nonpoint sources.
2.7.4	Step 4 - Is a Factor from 131.10(g) Met?
Even after the previous steps have been
considered, the designated use may be removed,
or subcategories of a use established, only under
the conditions given in section 131.10(g). The
State must be able to demonstrate that attaining
the designated use is not feasible because:
(1)	naturally occurring pollutant concentrations
prevent the attainment of the use;
(2)	natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low-
flow conditions or water levels prevent the
attainment of the use, unless these
conditions may be compensated for by the
discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges without violating State water
conservation requirements to enable uses to
be met;
(3)	human-caused conditions or sources of
pollution prevent the attainment of the use
and cannot be remedied or would cause
more environmental damage to correct than
to leave in place;
(4)	dams, diversions, or other types of
hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible
to restore the water body to its original
condition or to operate such modification in
a way that would result in the attainment of
the use;
(5)	physical conditions related to the natural
features of the water body, such as the lack
of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth,
pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to
[chemical] water quality, preclude
attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
(6)	controls more stringent than those required
by sections 301(b)(1)(A) and (B) and 306 of
the Act would result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
2.7.5 Step 5 - Provide Public Notice
As provided for in section 131.10(e), States must
provide notice and opportunity for public hearing
in accordance with section 131.20(b) (discussed in
section 6.1 of this Handbook). Of course, EPA
intends for States to make appropriate use of all
public comments received through such notice.
2-8
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
2.81 Revising Uses to Reflect Actual
Attainment - 40 CFR 131.10(1)
When performing its triennial review, the State
must evaluate what uses are being attained. If a
water body is designated for a use that requires
less stringent criteria than, a use that is being
attained, the State must revise the use on that
water body to reflect the use that is being
attained.
2.9 | Use Attainability Analyses - 40 CFR
'—¦"l" 131.10(j) and (k)
Under section 131.10(j) of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation, States are required to
conduct a use attainability analysis (UAA)
whenever:
(1)	the State designates or has designated uses
that do not include the uses specified in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act; or
(2)	the State wishes to remove a designated use
that is specified in section 101(a)(2) of the
Act or adopt subcategories of uses specified
in section 101(a)(2) that require less
stringent criteria.
States are not required to conduct UAAs when
designating uses that include those specified in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act, although they may
conduct these or similar analyses when
determining the appropriate subcategories of
section 101(a)(2) goal uses.
States may also conduct generic use attainability
analyses for groups of water body segments
provided that the circumstances relating to the
segments in question are sufficiently similar to
make the results of the generic analyses
reasonably applicable to each segment.
As defined in the Water Quality Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 131.3), a use attainability
analysis is:
... a structured scientific assessment of
the factors affecting the attainment of a use
which may include physical, chemical,
biological, and economic factors as
described in section 131.10(g).
The evaluations conducted in a UAA will
determine the attainable uses for a water body
(see sections 2.4 and 2.8, above).
The physical, chemical, and biological factors
affecting the attainment of a use are evaluated
through a water body survey and assessment. The
guidance on water body survey and assessment
techniques that appears in this Handbook is for
the evaluation of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife
uses only (EPA has not developed guidance for
assessing recreational uses). Water body surveys
and assessments conducted by the States should be
sufficiently detailed to answer the following
questions:
•	What are the aquatic use(s) currently being
achieved in the water body?
•	What are the causes of any impairment of the
aquatic uses?
•	What are the aquatic use(s) that can be attained
based on the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the water body?
The analysis of economic factors determines
whether substantial and widespread economic and
social impact would be caused by pollution
control requirements more stringent than (1) those
required under sections 301(b)(1)(A) and (B) and
(9/15/93)
2-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
section 306 of the Act for point source
dischargers, and (2) cost-effective and reasonable
best management practices for nonpoint source
dischargers.
2.9.1 Water Body Survey and Assessment -
Purpose and Application
The purpose of this section is to identify the
physical, chemical, and biological factors that
may be examined to determine whether an aquatic
life protection use is attainable for a given water
body. The specific analyses included in this
guidance are optional. However, they represent
the type of analyses EPA believes are sufficient
for States to justify changes in uses designated in
a water quality standard and to determine uses
that are attainable. States may use alternative
analyses as long as they are scientifically and
technically supportable. This guidance
specifically addresses streams and river systems.
More detailed guidance is given in the Technical
Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume I (USEPA, 1983c). EPA has
also developed guidance for estuarine and marine
systems and lakes, which is summarized in
following sections. More detailed guidance for
these aquatic systems is available in the Technical
Support Manual, Volume II, Estuarine Systems,
and Volume HI, Lake Systems (USEPA, 1984a,b).
Several approaches for analyzing the aquatic life
protection uses to determine if such uses are
appropriate for a given water body are discussed.
States are encouraged to use existing data to
perform the physical, chemical, and biological
evaluations presented in this guidance document.
Not all of these evaluations are necessarily
applicable. For example, if an assessment reveals
that the physical habitat is the limiting factor
precluding a use, a chemical evaluation would not
be required. In addition, wherever possible,
States also should consider grouping together
water bodies having similar physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics either to treat
several water bodies or stream segments as a
single unit or to establish representative conditions
applicable to other similar water bodies or stream
segments within a river basin. Using existing
data and establishing representative conditions
applicable to a number of water bodies or
segments should conserve the limited resources
available to the States.
Table 2-1 summarizes the types of physical,
chemical, and biological factors that may be
evaluated when conducting a UAA. Several
approaches can be used for conducting the
physical, chemical, and biological evaluations,
depending on the complexity of the situation.
Details on the various evaluations can be found in
the Technical Support Manual: Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume /(USEPA, 1983c).
A survey need not consider all of the parameters
listed; rather, the survey should be designed on
the basis of the water body characteristics and
other considerations relevant to a particular
survey.
These approaches may be adapted to the water
body being examined. Therefore, a close
working relationship between EPA and the States
is essential so that EPA can assist States in
determining the appropriate analyses to be used in
support of any water quality standards revisions.
These analyses should be made available to all
interested parties before any public forums on the
water quality standards to allow for full discussion
of the data and analyses.
2.9.2 Physical Factors
Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act recognizes
the importance of preserving the physical integrity
of the Nation's water bodies. Physical habitat
plays an important role in the overall aquatic
ecosystem and impacts the types and number of
species present in a particular body of water.
Physical parameters of a water body are examined
to identify factors that impair the propagation and
protection of aquatic life and to determine what
uses could be obtained in the water body given
such limitations. In general, physical parameters
such as flow, temperature, water depth, velocity,
2-10
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
PHYSICAL FACTORS
~	instream
characteristics
-	size (mean
width/depth)
-	flow/velocity
-	annual hydrology
-	total volume
-	reaeration rates
-	gradient/pools/
riffles
-	temperature
-	sedimentation
-	channel
modifications
-	channel stability
4 substrate
composition and
characteristics
4 channel debris
4 sludge deposits
~	riparian
characteristics
4 downstream
characteristics
CHEMICAL FACTORS
4 dissolved oxygen
4 toxicants
4 suspended solids
4 nutrients
-	nitrogen
-	phosphorus
4 sediment oxygen
demand
4 salinity
4 hardness
4 alkalinity
4 pH
4 dissolved solids
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
4 biological
inventory
(existing use
analysis)
-	fish
-	macroinvertebrates
-	microinvertebrates
-	phytoplankton
-	periphyton
-	macrophytes
4 biological
potential
analysis
-	diversity indices
-	HSI models
-	tissue analyses
-	recovery index
-	intolerant species analysis
-	omruvore-carnivore
analysis
4 biological
potential
analysis
-	reference reach
comparison
Table 2-1. Summary of Typical Factors Used in Conducting a Water Body Survey and
Assessment
substrate, reaeration rates, and other factors are
used to identify any physical limitations that may
preclude attainment of the designated use.
Depending on the water body in question, any of
the physical parameters listed in Table 2-1 may be
appropriately examined. A State may use any of
these parameters to identify physical limitations
and characteristics of a water body. Once a State
has identified any physical limitations based on
evaluating the parameters listed, careful
consideration of "reversibility" or the ability to
restore the physical integrity of the water body
should be made.
Such considerations may include whether it would
cause more environmental damage to correct the
problem than to leave the water body as is, or
whether physical impediments such as dams can
be operated or modified in a way that would
allow attainment of the use.
Several assessment techniques have been
developed that correlate physical habitat
characteristics to fishery resources. The
identification of physical factors limiting a fishery
is a critical assessment that provides important
data for management of the water body. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed
habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) and habitat
(9/15/93)
2-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
suitability indices (HSI). Several States have
begun developing their own models and
procedures for habitat assessments. Parameters
generally included in habitat assessment
procedures are temperature, turbidity, velocity,
depth, cover, pool and riffle sizes, riparian
vegetation, bank stability, and siltation. These
parameters are correlated to fish species by
evaluating the habitat variables important to the
life cycle of the species. The value of habitat for
other groups of aquatic organisms such as
macroinvertebrates and periphyton also may be
considered. Continued research and refinement of
habitat evaluation procedures reflect the
importance of physical habitat.
If physical limitations of a stream restrict the use,
a variety of habitat modification techniques might
restore a habitat so that a species could thrive
where it could not before. Some of the
techniques that have been used are bank
stabilization, flow control, current deflectors,
check dams, artificial meanders, isolated oxbows,
snag clearing when determined not to be
detrimental to the life cycle or reproduction of a
species, and installation of spawning beds and
artificial spawning channels. If the habitat is a
limiting factor to the propagation and/or survival
of aquatic life, the feasibility of modifications
might be examined before additional controls are
imposed on dischargers.
2.9.3 Chemical Evaluations
The chemical characteristics of a water body are
examined to determine why a designated use is
not being met and to determine the potential of a
particular species to survive in the water body if
the concentration of particular chemicals were
modified. The State has the discretion to
determine the parameters required to perform an
adequate water chemistry evaluation. A partial
list of the parameters that may be evaluated is
provided in Table 2-1.
As part of the evaluation of the water chemistry
composition, a natural background evaluation is
useful in determining the relative contribution of
natural background contaminants to the water
body; this may be a legitimate factor that
effectively prevents a designated use from being
met. To determine whether the natural
background concentration of a pollutant is
adversely impacting the survival of species, the
concentration may be compared to one of the
following:
•	304(a) criteria guidance documents; or
•	site-specific criteria; or
•	State-derived criteria.
Another way to obtain an indication of the
potential for the species to survive is to determine
if the species are found in other waterways with
similar chemical concentrations.
In determining whether human-caused pollution is
irreversible, consideration needs to be given to the
permanence of the damage, the feasibility of
abating the pollution, or the additional
environmental damage that may result from
removing the pollutants. Once a State identifies
the chemical or water quality characteristics that
are limiting attainment of the use, differing levels
of remedial control measures may be explored.
In addition, if instream toxicants cannot be
removed by natural processes and cannot be
removed by human effort without severe
long-term environmental impacts, the pollution
may be considered irreversible.
In some areas, the water's chemical characteristics
may have to be calculated using predictive water
quality models. This will be true if the receiving
water is to be impacted by new dischargers,
changes in land use, or improved treatment
facilities. Guidance is available on the selection
and use of receiving water models for biochemical
oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia
for instream systems (USEPA, 1983d,e) and
dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus for
lake systems, reservoirs, and impoundments
(USEPA, 1983f).
2-12
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
2.9.4 Biological Evaluations
In evaluating what aquatic life protection uses are
attainable, the biology of the water body should
be evaluated. The interrelationships between the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
are complex, and alterations in the physical
and/or chemical parameters result in biological
changes. The biological evaluation described in
this section encourages States to:
•	provide a more precise statement of which
species exist in the water body and should be
protected;
•	determine the biological health of the water
body; and
•	determine the species that could potentially
exist in the water body if the physical and
chemical factors impairing a use were
corrected.
•	By knowing what species are present, the
biologist can analyze, in general terms, the
health of the water body. For example, if the
fish species present are principally carnivores,
the quality of the water is generally higher
than in a water body dominated by omnivores.
It also allows the biologist to assess the
presence or absence of intolerant species.
•	Identification of the species enables the State to
develop baseline conditions against which to
evaluate any remedial actions. The
development of a regional baseline based upon
several site-specific species lists increases an
understanding of the regional fauna. This
allows for easier grouping of water bodies
based on the biological regime of the area.
•	By identifying the species, the decision-maker
has the data needed to explain the present
condition of the water body to the public and
the uses that must be maintained.
This section of the guidance will present the
conceptual framework for making these
evaluations. States have the discretion to use
other scientifically and technically supportable
assessment methodologies deemed appropriate for
specific water bodies on a case-by-case basis.
Further details on each of the analyses presented
can be found in the Technical Support Manual for
Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (USEPA,
1983c).
Biological Inventory (Existing Use Analysis)
The identification of which species are in the
water body and should be protected serves several
purposes:
^	M
(9/15/93)
The evaluation of the existing biota may be simple
or complex depending on data availability. As
much information as possible should be gathered
on the categories of organisms listed in Table 2-1.
It is not necessary to obtain complete data for all
six categories. However, it is recommended that
fish should be included in any combination of
categories chosen because:
•	the general public can relate better to
statements about the condition of the fish
community;
•	fish are typically present even in the smallest
streams and in all but the most polluted
waters;
•	fish are relatively easy to identify, and samples
can be sorted and identified at the field site;
•	life-history information is extensive for many
fish species so that stress effects can be
evaluated (Karr, 1981). In addition, since fish
are mobile, States are encouraged to evaluate
other categories of organisms.
2-13
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Before any field work is conducted, existing data
should be collected. EPA can provide data from
intensive monitoring surveys and special studies.
Data, especially for fish, may be available from
State fish and game departments, recreation
agencies, and local governments, or through
environmental impact statements, permit reviews,
surveys, and university or other studies.
Biological Condition/Biological Health
Assessment
The biological inventory can be used to gain
insight into the biological health of the water body
by evaluating:
•	species richness or the number of species;
•	presence of intolerant species;
•	proportion of omnivores and carnivores;
•	biomass or production; and
•	number of individuals per species.
The role of the biologist becomes critical in
evaluating the health of the biota because the
knowledge of expected richness or expected
species comes only from understanding the
general biological traits and regimes of the area.
Best professional judgments by local biologists are
important. These judgments are based on many
years of experience and on observations of the
physical and chemical changes that have occurred
over time.
Many methods for evaluating biotic communities
have been and continue to be developed. The
Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses (USEPA, 1983c) and Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers (USEPA, 1989e) describe methods that
States may want to consider using in their
biological evaluations.
A number of other methods have been and are
being developed to evaluate the health of
biological components of the aquatic ecosystem
including short-term in situ or laboratory
bioassays and partial or full life-cycle toxicity
tests. These methods are discussed in several
EPA publications, including the Biological
Methods Manual (USEPA, 1972). Again, it is
not the intent of this document to specify tests to
be conducted by the States. This will depend on
the information available, the predictive accuracy
required, site-specific conditions of the water
body being examined, and the cooperation and
assistance the State receives from the affected
municipalities and industries.
Biological Potential Analysis
A significant step in the use attainability analysis
is the evaluation of what communities could
potentially exist in a particular water body if
pollution were abated or if the physical habitat
were modified. The approach presented is to
compare the water body in question to reference
reaches within a region. This approach includes
the development of baseline conditions to facilitate
the comparison of several water bodies at less
cost. As with the other analyses mentioned
previously, available data should be used to
minimize resource impacts.
The biological potential analysis involves:
•	defining boundaries of fish faunal regions;
•	selecting control sampling sites in the
reference reaches of each area;
° sampling fish and recording observations at
each reference sampling site;
•	establishing the community characteristics
for the reference reaches of each area; and
•	comparing the water body in question to the
reference reaches.
In establishing faunal regions and sites, it is
important to select reference areas for sampling
sites that have conditions typical of the region.
The establishment of reference areas may be
based on physical and hydrological characteristics.
The number of reference reaches needed will be
2-14
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
determined by the State depending on the
variability of the waterways within the State and
the number of classes that the State may wish to
establish. For example, the State may want to
use size, flow, and substrate as the defining
characteristics and may consequently desire to
establish classes such as small, fast running
streams with sandy substrate or large, slow rivers
with cobble bottom. It is at the option of the
State to:
•	choose the parameters to be used in classifying
and establishing reference reaches; and
•	determine the number of classes (and thus the
refinement) within the faunal region.
This approach can also be applied to other aquatic
organisms such as macroinvertebrates (particularly
freshwater mussels) and algae.
Selection of the reference reaches is of critical
importance because the characteristics of the
aquatic community will be used to establish
baseline conditions against which similar reaches
(based on physical and hydrological
characteristics) are compared. Once the reference
reaches are established, the water body in
question can be compared to the reference reach.
The results of this analysis will reveal whether the
water body in question has the typical biota for
that class or a less desirable community and will
provide an indication of what species may
potentially exist if pollution were abated or the
physical habitat limitations were remedied.
2.9.5 Approaches to Conducting the Physical,
Chemical, and Biological Evaluations
In some cases, States that assess the status of their
aquatic resources, will have relatively simple
situations not requiring extensive data collection
and evaluation. In other situations, however, the
complexity resulting from variable environmental
conditions and the stress from multiple uses of the
resource will require both intensive and extensive
studies to produce a sound evaluation of the
system. Thus, procedures that a State may
develop for conducting a water body assessment
should be flexible enough to be adaptable to a
variety of site-specific conditions.
A common experimental approach used in
biological assessments has been a hierarchical
approach to the analyses. This can be a rigidly
tiered approach. An alternative is presented in
Figure 2-2.
The flow chart is a general illustration of a
thought process used to conduct a use attainability
analysis. The process illustrates several
alternative approaches that can be pursued
separately or, to varying degrees, simultaneously
depending on:
•	the amount of data available on the site;
•	the degree of accuracy and precision
required;
•	the importance of the resource;
•	the site-specific conditions of the study
area; and
•	the controversy associated with the site.
The degree of sophistication is variable for each
approach. Emphasis is placed on evaluating
available data first. If information is found to be
lacking or incomplete, then field testing or field
surveys should be conducted.
The major elements of the process are briefly
described below.
Steps 1 and 2
Steps 1 and 2 are the basic organizing steps in the
evaluation process. By carefully defining the
objectives and scope of the evaluation, there will
be some indication of the level of sophistication
required in subsequent surveys and testing. States
and the regulated community can then adequately
plan and allocate resources to the analyses. The
designated use of the water body in question
(9/15/93)
2-15
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Figure 2-2. Steps in a Use Attainability Analysis
2-16
(9/15/93)
-------
should be identified as well as the minimum
chemical, physical, and biological requirements
for maintaining the use. Minimum requirements
may include, for example, dissolved oxygen
levels, flow rates, temperature, and other factors.
All relevant information on the water body should
be collected to determine if the available
information is adequate for conducting an
appropriate level of analysis. It is assumed that
all water body evaluations, based on existing data,
will either formally or informally be conducted
through Steps 1 and 2.
Steps 3 and 4
If the available information proves inadequate,
then decisions regarding the degree of
sophistication required in the evaluation process
will need to be made. These decisions will, most
likely, be based on the five criteria listed in Step
3 of Figure 2-2. Based on these decisions,
reference areas should be chosen (Step 4), and
one or more of the testing approaches should be
followed.
Steps 5A, B, C, D
These approaches are presented to illustrate
several possible ways of analyzing the water
body. For example, in some cases chemical data
may be readily available for a water body but
little or no biological information is known. In
this case, extensive chemical sampling may not be
required, but enough samples should be taken to
confirm the accuracy of the available data set.
Thus, to accurately define the biological condition
of the resource, 5C may be chosen, but 5A may
be pursued in a less intensive way to supplement
the chemical data already available.
Step 5A is a general survey to establish relatively
coarse ranges for physical and chemical variables,
and the numbers and relative abundances of the
biological components (fishes, invertebrates,
primary producers) in the water body. Reference
areas may or may not need to be evaluated here,
depending on the types of questions being asked
and the degree of accuracy required.
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
Step 5B focuses more narrowly on site-specific
problem areas with the intent of separating, where
possible, biological impacts due to physical
habitat alteration versus those due to chemical
impacts. These categories are not mutually
exclusive but some attempt should be made to
define the causal factors in a stressed area so that
appropriate control measures can be implemented
if necessary.
Step 5C would be conducted to evaluate possibly
important trends in the spatial and/or temporal
changes associated with the physical, chemical,
and biological variables of interest. In general,
more rigorous quantification of these variables
would be needed to allow for more sophisticated
statistical analyses between reference and study
areas which would, in turn, increase the degree of
accuracy and confidence in the predictions based
on this evaluation. Additional laboratory testing
may be included, such as tissue analyses,
behavioral tests, algal assays, or tests for flesh
tainting. Also, high-level chemical analyses may
be needed, particularly if the presence of toxic
compounds is suspected.
Step 5D is, in some respects, the most detailed
level of study. Emphasis is placed on refining
cause-effect relationships between physical-
chemical alterations and the biological responses
previously established from available data or steps
5A through 5C. In many cases, state-of-the-art
techniques will be used. This pathway would be
conducted by the States only where it may be
necessary to establish, with a high degree of
confidence, the cause-effect relationships that are
producing the biological community
characteristics of those areas. Habitat
requirements or tolerance limits for representative
or important species may have to be determined
for those factors limiting the potential of the
ecosystem. For these evaluations, partial or full
life-cycle toxicity tests, algal assays, and sediment
bioassays may be needed along with the shorter
term bioassays designed to elucidate sublethal
effects not readily apparent in toxicity tests
(e.g., preference-avoidance responses,
(9/15/93)
2-17
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
production-respiration estimates, and
bioconcentration estimates).
Steps 6 and 7
After field sampling is completed, all data must
be integrated and summarized. If this information
is still not adequate, then further testing may be
required and a more detailed pathway chosen.
With adequate data, States should be able to make
reasonably specific recommendations concerning
the natural potential of the water body, levels of
attainability consistent with this potential, and
appropriate use designations.
The evaluation procedure outlined here allows
States a significant degree of latitude for
designing assessments to meet their specific goals
in water quality and water use.
2.9.6 Estuarine Systems
This section provides an overview of the factors
that should be considered in developing use
attainability analyses for estuaries. Anyone
planning to conduct a use attainability analysis for
an estuary should consult the Technical Support
Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for
Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, Volume II:
Estuarine Systems (USEPA, 1984a) for more
detailed guidance. Also, much of the information
for streams and rivers that is presented above and
in Volume I of the Technical Support Manual,
particularly with respect to chemical evaluations,
will apply to estuaries and is not repeated here.
The term "estuaries" is generally used to denote
the lower reaches of a river where tide and river
flows interact. Estuaries are very complex
receiving waters that are highly variable in
description and are not absolutes in definition,
size, shape, aquatic life, or other attributes.
Physical, chemical, and biological attributes may
require consideration unique to estuaries and are
discussed below.
Physical Processes
Estuarine flows are the result of a complex
interaction of the following physical factors:
•	tides;
•	wind shear;
•	freshwater inflow (momentum and buoyancy);
•	topographic frictional resistance;
•	Coriolis effect;
•	vertical mixing; and
•	horizontal mixing.
In performing a use attainability study, one may
simplify the complex prototype system by
determining which of these effects or combination
of effects is most important at the time scale of
the evaluation (days, months, seasons, etc.).
Other ways to simplify the approach to analyzing
an estuary is to place it in a broad classification
system to permit comparison of similar types of
estuaries. The most common groupings are based
on geomorphology, stratification, circulation
patterns, and time scales. Each of these
groupings is discussed below.
Geomorphological classifications can include types
such as drowned river valleys (coastal plain
estuaries), fjords, bar-built estuaries, and other
estuaries that do not fit the first three
classifications (those produced by tectonic
activity, faulting, landslides, or volcanic
eruptions).
Stratification is most often used for classifying
estuaries influenced by tides and freshwater
inflows. Generally, highly stratified estuaries
have large river discharges flowing into them,
partially mixed estuaries have medium river
discharges; and vertically homogeneous have
small river discharges.
Circulation in an estuary (i.e., the velocity
patterns as they change over time) is primarily
affected by the freshwater outflow, the tidal
inflow, and the effect of wind. In turn, the
difference in density between outflow and inflow
2-18
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
sets up secondary currents that ultimately affect
the salinity distribution across the estuary. The
salinity distribution is important because it affects
the distribution of fauna and flora within the
estuary. It is also important because it is
indicative of the mixing properties of the estuary
as they may affect the dispersion of pollutants
(flushing properties). Additional factors such as
friction forces and the size and geometry of the
estuary also contribute to the circulation patterns.
The complex geometry of estuaries, in
combination with the presence of wind, the effect
of the Earth's rotation (Coriolis effect), and other
effects, often results in residual currents (i.e., of
longer period than the tidal cycle) that strongly
influence the mixing processes in estuaries.
Consideration of time scales of the physical
processes being evaluated is very important for
any water quality study.
Short-term conditions are much more influenced
by a variety of short-term events that perhaps
have to be analyzed to evaluate a "worst case"
scenario. Longer term (seasonal) conditions are
influenced predominantly by events that are
averaged over the duration of that time scale.
Estuary Substrate Composition
Characterization of sediment/substrate properties
is important in a use attainability analysis because
such properties:
• determine the extent to which toxic compounds
in sediments are available to the biota; and
• determine what types of plants and animals
could potentially become established, assuming
no interference from other factors such as
nutrient, dissolved oxygen (DO), and/or toxics
problems.
The bottom of most estuaries is a mix of sand,
silt, and mud that has been transported and
deposited by ocean currents or by freshwater
sources. Rocky areas may also be present,
particularly in the fjord-type estuary. None of
these substrate types is particularly hospitable to
aquatic plants and animals, which accounts in part
for the paucity of species seen in an estuary.
The amount of material transported to the estuary
will be determined by the types of terrain through
which the river passes, and upon land use
practices that may encourage runoff and erosion.
It is important to take land use practices into
consideration when examining the attainable uses
of the estuary. Deposition of particles varies with
location in the estuaries and velocity of the
currents.
It is often difficult for plants to colonize estuaries
because of a lack of suitable anchorage points and
because of the turbidity of the water, which
restricts light penetration (McLusky, 1971).
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
(macrophytes) develops in sheltered areas where
silt and mud accumulate. These plants help to
slow the currents, leading to further deposition of
silt. The growth of plants often keeps pace with
rising sediment levels so that over a long period
of time substantial deposits of sediment and plant
material may be seen.
SAV serves very important roles as habitat and as
a food source for much of the biota of the
estuary. Major estuary studies have shown that
the health of SAV communities serves as an
important indicator of estuary health.
Adjacent Wetlands
Tidal and freshwater wetlands adjacent to the
estuary can serve as a buffer to protect the estuary
(9/15/93)
2-19
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
from external phenomena. This function may be
particularly important during wet weather periods
when relatively high stream flows discharge high
loads of sediment and pollutants to the estuary.
The wetlands slow the peak velocity, to some
extent alleviate the sudden shock of salinity
changes, and filter some of the sediments and
nutrients that would otherwise be discharged
directly into the estuary.
Hydrology and Hydraulics
The two most important sources of freshwater to
the estuary are stream flow and precipitation.
Stream flow generally represents the greatest
contribution to the estuary. The location of the
salinity gradient in a river-controlled estuary is to
a large extent a function of stream flow. Location
of the iso-concentration lines may change
considerably, depending upon whether stream
flow is high or low. This in turn may affect the
biology of the estuary, resulting in population
shifts as biological species adjust to changes in
salinity. Most estuarine species are adapted to
survive temporary changes in salinity either by
migration or some other mechanism (e.g.,
mussels can close their shells). However, many
cannot withstand these changes indefinitely.
Response of an estuary to rainfall events depends
upon the intensity of rainfall, the drainage area
affected by the rainfall, and the size of the
estuary. Movement of the salt front is dependent
upon tidal influences and freshwater flow to the
estuary. Variations in salinity generally follow
seasonal patterns such that the salt front will
occur farther down-estuary during a rainy season
than during a dry season. The salinity profile
also may vary from day to day, reflecting the
effect of individual rainfall events, and may
undergo major changes due to extreme
meteorological events.
Anthropogenic activity also may have a significant
effect on salinity in an estuary. When feeder
streams are used as sources of public water supply
and the withdrawals are not returned, freshwater
flow to the estuary is reduced, and the salt wedge
is found farther up the estuary. If the water is
returned, usually in the form of wastewater
effluent, the salinity gradient of the estuary may
not be affected, although other problems
attributable to nutrients and other pollutants in the
wastewater may occur.
Salinity also may be affected by the way that
dams along the river are operated. Flood control
dams result in controlled discharges to the estuary
rather than relatively short but massive discharge
during high-flow periods. Dams operated to
impound water for water supplies during low-flow
periods may drastically alter the pattern of
freshwater flow to the estuary, and although the
annual discharge may remain the same, seasonal
changes may have significant impact on the
estuary and its biota.
Influence of Physical Characteristics on Use
Attainability
"Segmentation" of an estuary can provide a useful
framework for evaluating the influence of
estuarine physical characteristics such as
circulation, mixing, salinity, and geomorphology
on use attainability. Segmentation is the
compartmentalization of an estuary into subunits
with homogeneous physical characteristics. In the
absence of water pollution, physical
characteristics of different regions of the estuary
tend to govern the suitability for major water
uses. Once the segment network is established,
each segment can be subjected to a use
attainability analysis. In addition, the
segmentation process offers a useful management
structure for monitoring conformance with water
quality goals in future years.
The segmentation process is an evaluation tool
that recognizes that an estuary is an interrelated
ecosystem composed of chemically, physically,
and biologically diverse areas. It assumes that an
ecosystem as diverse as an estuary cannot be
effectively managed as only one unit because
different uses and associated water quality goals
will be appropriate and feasible for different
regions of the estuary. However, after developing
a network based upon physical characteristics,
2-20
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
sediment boundaries can be refined with available
chemical and biological data to maximize the
homogeneity of each segment.
A potential source of concern about the
construction and utility of the segmentation
scheme for use attainability evaluations is that the
estuary is a fluid system with only a few obvious
boundaries, such as the sea surface and the
sediment-water interface. Fixed boundaries may
seem unnatural to scientists, managers, and users,
who are more likely to view the estuary as a
continuum than as a system composed of
separable parts. The best approach to dealing
with such concerns is a segmentation scheme that
stresses the dynamic nature of the estuary. The
scheme should emphasize that the segment
boundaries are operationally defined constructs to
assist in understanding a changeable,
intercommunicating system of channels,
embayments, and tributaries.
To account for the dynamic nature of the estuary,
it is recommended that estuarine circulation
patterns be a prominent factor in delineating the
segment network. Circulation patterns control the
transport of and residence times for heat, salinity,
phytoplankton, nutrients, sediment, and other
pollutants throughout the estuary. Salinity should
be another important factor in delineating the
segment network. The variations in salinity
concentrations from head of tide to the mouth
typically produce a separation of biological
communities based on salinity tolerances or
preferences.
Chemical Parameters
The most critical chemical water quality indicators
for aquatic use attainment in an estuary are
dissolved oxygen, nutrients and chlorophyll-a, and
toxicants. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is an important
water quality indicator for all fisheries uses. In
evaluating use attainability, assessments of DO
impacts should consider the relative contributions
of three different sources of oxygen demand:
•	photosynthesis/respiration demand from
phytoplankton;
•	water column demand; and
•	benthic oxygen demand.
If use impairment is occurring, assessments of the
significance of each oxygen sink can be used to
evaluate the feasibility of achieving sufficient
pollution control to attain the designated use.
Chlorophyll-a is the most popular indicator of
algal concentrations and nutrient overenrichment,
which in turn can be related to diurnal DO
depressions due to algal respiration. Typically, the
control of phosphorus levels can limit algal
growth near the head of the estuary, while the
control of nitrogen levels can limit algal growth
near the mouth of the estuary; however, these
relationships are dependent upon factors such as
nitrogen phosphorus ("N/P") ratios and light
penetration potential, which can vary from one
estuary to the next. Excessive phytoplankton
concentrations, as indicated by chlorophyll-a
levels, can cause adverse DO impacts such as:
•	wide diurnal variations in surface DO due to
daytime photosynthetic oxygen production and
nighttime oxygen depletion by respiration; and
•	depletion of bottom DO through the
decomposition of dead algae.
Excessive chlorophyll-a levels also result in
shading, which reduces light penetration for
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV).
Consequently, the prevention of nutrient over-
enrichment is probably the most important water
quality requirement for a healthy SAV
community.
The nutrients of greatest concern in the estuary
are nitrogen and phosphorus. Their sources
typically are discharges from sewage treatment
plants and industries and runoff from urban and
agricultural areas. Increased nutrient levels lead
to phytoplankton blooms and a subsequent
(9/15/93)
2-21
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
reduction in DO levels and light penetration, as
discussed above.
Sewage treatment plants are typically the major
source of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, to
estuaries in urban areas. Agricultural land uses
and urban land uses represent significant nonpoint
sources of nutrients, particularly nitrogen. It is
important to base control strategies on an
understanding of the sources of each type of
nutrient, both in the estuary and in its feeder
streams.
Point sources of nutrients are typically much more
amenable to control than nonpoint sources.
Because phosphorus removal for municipal
wastewater discharges is typically less expensive
than nitrogen removal operations, the control of
phosphorus discharges is often the method of
choice for the prevention or reversal of use
impairment in the upper estuary (i.e., tidal fresh
zone). However, nutrient control in the upper
reaches of the estuary may cause algal blooms in
the lower reaches, e.g., control of phosphorus in
the upper reaches may reduce the algal blooms
there, but in doing so also increase the amount of
nitrogen transported to the lower reaches where
nitrogen is the limiting nutrient causing a bloom
there. Tradeoffs between nutrient controls for the
upper and lower estuary should be considered in
evaluating measures for prevention of reversing
use impairment.
Potential interferences from toxic substances, such
as pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, and
chlorinated effluents, also need to be considered
in a use attainability study. The presence of
certain toxicants in excessive concentrations
within bottom sediments of the water column may
prevent the attainment of water uses (particularly
fisheries propagation/harvesting and sea grass
habitat uses) in estuary segments that satisfy water
quality criteria for DO, chlorophyll-a/nutrient
enrichment, and fecal coliform.
2-22
Biological Community Characteristics
The Technical Support Manual, Volume II
(USEPA, 1984a) provides a discussion of the
organisms typically found in estuaries in more
detail than is appropriate for this Handbook.
Therefore, this discussion will focus on more
general characteristics of estuarine biota and their
adaptations to accommodate a fluctuating
environment.
Salinity, light penetration, and substrate
composition are the most critical factors to the
distribution and survival of plant and animal
communities in an estuary. The estuarine
environment is characterized by variations in
circulation, salinity, temperature, and dissolved
oxygen supply. Colonizing plants and animals
must be able to withstand the fluctuating
conditions in estuaries.
The depth to which attached plants may become
established is limited by turbidity because plants
require light for photosynthesis. Estuaries are
typically turbid because of large quantities of
detritus and silt contributed by surrounding
marshes and rivers. Algal growth also may hinder
light penetration. If too much light is withheld
from the lower depths, animals cannot rely
heavily on visual cues for habitat selection,
feeding, or finding a mate.
Estuarine organisms are recruited from the sea,
freshwater environments, and the land. The
major environmental factors to which organisms
must adjust are periodic submersion and
desiccation as well as fluctuating salinity,
temperature, and dissolved oxygen.
Several generalizations concerning the responses
of estuarine organisms to salinity have been noted
(Vernberg, 1983) and reflect a correlation of an
organism's habitat to its tolerance:
• organisms living in estuaries subjected to wide
salinity fluctuations can withstand a wider
range of salinities than species that occur in
high-salinity estuaries;
(9/15/93)
-------
•	intertidal zone animals tend to tolerate wider
ranges of salinities than do subtidal and
open-ocean organisms;
•	low intertidal species are less tolerant of low
salinities than are high intertidal species; and
•	more sessile animals are likely to be more
tolerant of fluctuating salinities than organisms
that are highly mobile and capable of
migrating during times of salinity stress.
Estuaries are generally characterized by low
diversity of species but high productivity because
they serve as the nursery or breeding grounds for
some species. Methods to measure the biological
health and diversity of estuaries are discussed in
USEPA (1984a).
Techniques for Use Attainability Evaluations
In assessing use levels for aquatic life protection,
determination of the present use and whether this
corresponds to the designated use is evaluated in
terms of biological measurements and indices.
However, if the present use does not correspond
to the designated use, physical and chemical
factors are used to explain the lack of attainment
and the highest level the system can achieve.
The physical and chemical evaluations may
proceed on several levels depending on the level
of detail required, amount of knowledge available
about the system (and similar systems), and
budget for the use attainability study. As a first
step, the estuary is classified in terms of physical
processes so that it can be compared with
reference estuaries in terms of differences in
water quality and biological communities, which
can be related to man-made alteration (i.e.,
pollution discharges).
The second step is to perform desktop or simple
computer model calculations to improve the
understanding of spatial and temporal water
quality conditions in the present system. These
calculations include continuous point source and
simple box model-type calculations. A more
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
detailed discussion of the desktop and computer
calculations is given in USEPA (1984a).
The third step is to perform detailed analyses
through the use of more sophisticated computer
models. These tools can be used to evaluate the
system's response to removing individual point
and nonpoint source discharges, so as to assist
with assessments of the cause(s) of any use
impairment.
2.9.7 Lake Systems
This section will focus on the factors that should
be considered in performing use attainability
analyses for lake systems. Lake systems are in
most cases linked physically to rivers and streams
and exhibit a transition from riverine habitat and
conditions to lacustrine habitat and conditions.
Therefore, the information presented in section
2.9.1 through 2.9.5 and the Technical Support
Manual, Volume I (USEPA, 1983c) will to some
extent apply to lake systems. EPA has provided
guidance specific to lake systems in the Technical
Support Manual for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems (USEPA,
1984b). This manual should be consulted by
anyone performing a use attainability analysis for
lake systems.
Aquatic life uses of a lake are defined in
reference to the plant and animal life in a lake.
However, the types and abundance of the biota
are largely determined by the physical and
chemical characteristics of the lake. Other
contributing factors include the location,
climatological conditions, and historical events
affecting the lake.
Physical Parameters
The physical parameters that describe the size,
shape, and flow regime of a lake represent the
basic characteristics that affect physical, chemical,
and biological processes. As part of a use
attainability analysis, the physical parameters must
be examined to understand non-water quality
factors that affect the lake's aquatic life.
(9/15/93)
2-23
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
The origins of a lake determine its morphologic
characteristics and strongly influence the physical,
chemical, and biological conditions that will
prevail. Therefore, grouping lakes formed by the
same process often will allow comparison of
similar lake systems. Measurement of the
following morphological characteristics may be of
importance to a water body survey:
•	surface area;
•	volume;
•	inflow and outflow;
•	mean depth;
•	maximum depth;
•	length;
•	length of shoreline;
•	depth-area relationships;
•	depth-volume relationships; and
•	bathymetry (submerged contours).
These physical parameters can in some cases be
used to predict biological parameters. For
example, mean depth has been used as an
indicator of productivity. Shallow lakes tend to
be more productive, and deep, steep-sided lakes
tend to be less productive. These parameters may
also be used to calculate other characteristics of
the lake such as mass flow rate of a chemical,
surface loading rate, and detention time.
Total lake volume and inflow and outflow rates
are physical characteristics that indirectly affect
the lake's aquatic community. Large inflows and
outflows for lakes with small volumes produce
low detention times or high flow-through rates.
Aquatic life under these conditions may be
different than when relatively small inflows and
outflows occur for a large-volume lake where
long detention times occur.
The shape factor (lake length divided by lake
width) also may be correlated to chemical and
biological characteristics. This factor has been
used to predict parameters such as chlorophyll-a
levels in lakes. For more detailed lake analysis,
information describing the depth-area and
depth-volume relationships and information
describing the bathymetry may be required.
In addition to the physical parameters listed
above, it is also important to obtain and analyze
information concerning the lake's contributing
watershed. Two major parameters of concern are
the drainage area of the contributing watershed
and the land uses of that watershed. Drainage
area will aid in the analysis of inflow volumes to
the lake due to surface runoff. The land use
classification of the area around the lake can be
used to predict flows and also nonpoint source
pollutant loadings to the lake.
The physical parameters discussed above may be
used to understand and analyze the various
physical processes that occur in lakes. They can
also be used directly in simplistic relationships
that predict productivity to aid in aquatic use
attainability analyses.
Physical Processes
Many complex and interrelated physical processes
occur in lakes. These processes are highly
dependent on the lake's physical parameters,
location, and characteristics of the contributing
watershed. Several of the major processes are
discussed below.
Lake Currents
Water movement in a lake affects productivity and
the biota because it influences the distribution of
nutrients, microorganisms, and plankton. Lake
currents are propagated by wind, inflow/outflow,
and the Coriolis force. For small shallow lakes,
particularly long and narrow lakes, inflow/outflow
characteristics are most important, and the
predominant current is a steady-state flow through
the lake. For very large lakes, wind is the
primary generator of currents, and except for
local effects, inflow/outflow have a relatively
minor effect on lake circulation. Coriolis effect,
a deflecting force that is the function of the
Earth's rotation, also plays a role in circulation in
large lakes such as the Great Lakes.
2-24
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
Heat Budget
Temperature and its distribution within lakes and
reservoirs affects not only the water quality within
the lake but also the thermal regime and quality of
a river system downstream of the lake. The
thermal regime of a lake is a function of the heat
balance around the body of water. Heat transfer
modes into and out of the lake include heat
transfer through the air-water interface,
conduction through the mud-water interface, and
inflow and outflow heat advection.
Heat transfer through the air-water interface is
primarily responsible for typical annual
temperature cycles. Heat is transferred across the
air-water interface by three different processes:
radiation exchange, evaporation, and conduction.
The heat flux of the air-water interface is a
function of location (latitude/longitude and
elevation), season, time of day, and
meteorological conditions (cloud cover,
dew-point, temperature, barometric pressure, and
wind).
Light Penetration
Transmission of light through the water column
influences primary productivity (phytoplankton
and macrophytes), distribution of organisms, and
behavior of fish. The reduction of light through
the water column of a lake is a function of
scattering and absorption. Light transmission is
affected by the water surface film, floatable and
suspended particulates, turbidity, dense
populations of algae and bacteria, and color.
An important parameter based on the transmission
of light is the depth to which photosynthetic
activity is possible. The minimum light intensity
required for photosynthesis has been established
to be about 1.0 percent of the incident surface
light (Cole, 1979). The portion of the lake from
the surface to the depth at which the 1.0 percent
intensity occurs is referred to as the "euphotic
zone."
Lake Stratification
Lakes in temperate and northern latitudes typically
exhibit vertical density stratification during certain
seasons of the year. Stratification in lakes is
primarily due to temperature differences, although
salinity and suspended solids concentrations may
also affect density. Typically, three zones of
thermal stratification are formed.
The upper layer of warmer, lower density water
is termed the "epilimnion," and the lower,
stagnant layer of colder, higher density water is
termed the "hypolimnion." The transition zone
between the epilimnion and the hypolimnion,
referred to as the "metalimnion," is characterized
by the maximum rate of temperature decline with
depth (the thermocline). During stratification, the
presence of the thermocline suppresses many of
the mass transport phenomena that are otherwise
responsible for the vertical transport of water
quality constituents within a lake. The aquatic
community present in a lake is highly dependent
on the thermal structure.
With respect to internal flow structure, three
distinct classes of lakes are defined:
•	strongly stratified, deep lakes characterized by
horizontal isotherms;
•	weakly stratified lakes characterized by
isotherms that are tilted along the longitudinal
axis of the reservoir; and
•	non-stratified, completely mixed lakes
characterized by isotherms that are essentially
vertical.
Retardation of mass transport between the
hypolimnion and the epilimnion results in sharply
differentiated water quality and biology between
the lake strata. One of the most important
differences between the layers is often dissolved
oxygen. As this is depleted from the hypolimnion
without being replenished, life functions of many
organisms are impaired, and the biology and
(9/15/93)
2-25
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
biologically mediated reactions fundamental to
water quality are altered.
Vertical stratification of a lake with respect to
nutrients can also occur. Dissolved nutrients are
converted to particulate organic material through
photosynthetic processes in the epilimnion in
ecologically advanced lakes. This assimilation
lowers the ambient nutrient concentrations in the
epilimnion. When the algae die and sink to the
bottom, nutrients are carried to the hypolimnion
where they are released by decomposition.
Temperature also has a direct effect on biology of
a lake because most biological processes (e.g.,
growth, respiration, reproduction, migration,
mortality, and decay) are strongly influenced by
ambient temperature.
Annual Circulation Pattern and Lake
Classification
Lakes can be classified on the basis of their
pattern of annual mixing. These classifications
are described below.
(1)	Amictic - Lakes that never circulate and are
permanently covered with ice, primarily in
the Antarctic and very high mountains.
(2)	Holomictic - Lakes that mix from top to
bottom as a result of wind-driven
circulation. Several subcategories are
defined:
•	Oligomictic - Lakes characterized by
circulation that is unusual, irregular, and
short in duration; generally small to
medium tropical lakes or very deep
lakes.
•	Monomictic - Lakes that undergo one
regular circulation per year.
•	Dimictic - Lakes that circulate twice a
year, in spring and fall, one of the most
common types of annual mixing in cool
temperate regions such as central and
eastern North America.
• Polymictic - Lakes that circulate
frequently or continuously, cold lakes
that are continually near or slightly
above 4°C, or warm equatorial lakes
where air temperature changes very
little.
(3) Meromictic - Lakes that do not circulate
throughout the entire water column. The
lower water stratum is perennially stagnant.
Lake Sedimentation
Deposition of sediment received from the
surrounding watershed is an important physical
process in lakes. Because of the low water
velocities through the lake or reservoir, sediments
transported by inflowing waters tend to settle out.
Sediment accumulation rates are strongly
dependent both on the physiographic
characteristics of a specific watershed and on
various characteristics of the lake. Prediction of
sedimentation rates can be estimated in two basic
ways:
•	periodic sediment surveys on a lake; and
•	estimation of watershed erosion and bed load.
Accumulation of sediment in lakes can, over
many years, reduce the life of the water body by
reducing the water storage capacity. Sediment
flow into the lake also reduces light penetration,
eliminates bottom habitat for many plants and
2-26
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
animals, and carries with it adsorbed chemicals
and organic matter that settle to the bottom and
can be harmful to the ecology of the lake. Where
sediment accumulation is a major problem, proper
watershed management including erosion and
sediment control must be put into effect.
Chemical Characteristics
Freshwater chemistry is discussed in section 2.9.3
and in the Technical Support Manual, Volume /
(USEPA, 1983c). Therefore, the discussion here
will focus on chemical phenomena that are of
particular importance to lakes. Nutrient cycling
and eutrophication are the primary factors of
concern in this discussion, but the effects of pH,
dissolved oxygen, and redox potential on lake
processes are also involved.
Water chemistry in a lake is closely related to the
stages in the annual lake turnover. Once a
thermocline has formed, the dissolved oxygen
levels in the hypolimnion tend to decline. This
occurs because the hypolimnion is isolated from
surface waters by the thermocline and there is no
mechanism for aeration.
The decay of organic matter and the respiration of
fish and other organisms in the hypolimnion serve
to deplete DO. Extreme depletion of DO may
occur in ice- and snow-covered lakes in which
light is insufficient for photosynthesis. If
depletion of DO is great enough, fish kills may
result. With the depletion of DO, reducing
conditions prevail and many compounds that have
accumulated in the sediment by precipitation are
released to the surrounding water. Chemicals
solubilized under such conditions include
compounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, iron,
manganese, and calcium. Phosphorus and
nitrogen are of particular concern because of their
role in the eutrophication process in lakes.
Nutrients released from the bottom sediments
during stratified conditions are not available to
phytoplankton in the epilimnion. However, during
overturn periods, mixing of the layers distributes
the nutrients throughout the water column. The
high nutrient availability is short-lived because the
soluble reduced forms are rapidly oxidized to
insoluble forms that precipitate out and settle to
the bottom. Phosphorus and nitrogen are also
deposited through sorption to particles that settle
to the bottom and as dead plant material that is
added to the sediments.
Of the many raw materials required by aquatic
plants (phytoplankton and macrophytes) for
growth, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus are the
most important. Carbon is available from carbon
dioxide, which is in almost unlimited supply.
Since growth is generally limited by the essential
nutrient that is in lowest supply, either nitrogen or
phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient for
growth of primary producers. If these nutrients
are available in adequate supply, massive algal
and macrophyte blooms may occur with severe
consequences for the lake. Most commonly in
lakes, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for
aquatic plant growth. In these situations,
adequate control of phosphorus, particularly from
anthropogenic sources, can control growth of
aquatic vegetation. Phosphorus can in some
cases, be removed from the water column by
precipitation, as described in the Technical
Support Manual, Volume 111 (USEPA, 1984b).
Eutrophication and Nutrient Cycling
The term "eutrophication" is used in two general
ways: (1) eutrophication is defined as the process
of nutrient enrichment in a water body; and (2)
eutrophication is used to describe the effects of
nutrient enrichment, that is, the uncontrolled
growth of plants, particularly phytoplankton, in a
lake or reservoir. The second use also
encompasses changes in the composition of animal
communities in the water body. Both uses are
commonly found in the literature, and the
distinction, if important, must be discerned from
the context of use.
Eutrophication is often greatly accelerated by
anthropogenic nutrient enrichment, which has
been termed "cultural eutrophication." Nutrients
are transported to lakes from external sources,
(9/15/93)
2-27
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
and once in the lake, may be recycled internally.
A consideration of attainable uses in a lake must
include an understanding of the sources of
nitrogen and phosphorus, the significance of
internal cycling, especially of phosphorus, and the
changes that might be anticipated if eutrophication
could be controlled.
Significance of Chemical Phenomena to Use
Attainability
The most critical water quality indicators for
aquatic use attainment in a lake are DO, nutrients,
chlorophyll-a, and toxicants. In evaluating use
attainability, the relative importance of three
forms of oxygen demand should be considered:
respiratory demand of phytoplankton and
macrophytes during non-photosynthetic periods,
water column demand, and benthic demand. If use
impairment is occurring, assessments of the
significance of each oxygen sink can be useful in
evaluating the feasibility of achieving sufficient
pollution control, or in implementing the best
internal nutrient management practices to attain a
designated use.
Chlorophyll-a is a good indicator of algal
concentrations and of nutrient overenrichment.
Excessive phytoplankton concentrations, as
indicated by high chlorophyll-a levels, can cause
adverse DO impacts such as:
•	wide diurnal variation in surface DO due to
daytime photosynthesis and nighttime
respiration, and
•	depletion of bottom DO through the
decomposition of dead algae.
As discussed previously, nitrogen and phosphorus
are the nutrients of concern in most lake systems,
particularly where anthropogenic sources result in
increased nutrient loading. It is important to base
control strategies on an understanding of the
sources of each type of nutrient, both in the lake
and in its feeder streams.
Also, the presence of toxics such as pesticides,
herbicides, and heavy metals in sediments or the
water column should by considered in evaluating
uses. These pollutants may prevent the attainment
of uses (particularly those related to fish
propagation and maintenance in water bodies) that
would otherwise be supported by the water quality
criteria for DO and other parameters.
Biological Characteristics
A major concern for lake biology is the
eutrophication due to anthropogenic sources of
nutrients. The increased presence of nutrients
may result in phytoplankton blooms that can, in
turn, have adverse impacts on other components
of the biological community. A general trend that
results from eutrophication is an increase in
numbers of organisms but a decrease in diversity
of species, particularly among nonmotile species.
The biological characteristics of lakes are
discussed in more detail in the Technical Support
Manual, Volume 111.
Techniques for Use Attainability Evaluations
Techniques for use attainability evaluations of
lakes are discussed in detail in the Technical
Support Manual, Volume 111. Several empirical
(desktop) and simulation (computer-based
mathematical) models that can be used to
characterize and evaluate lakes for use
attainability are presented in that document and
will not be included here owing to the complexity
of the subject.
2-28
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
CHAPTER 3
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(40 CFR 131.11)
Table of Contents
3.1	EPA Section 304(a) Guidance 	3-1
3.1.1	State Use of EPA Criteria Documents	3-1
3.1.2	Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection	3-2
3.1.3	Criteria for Human Health Protection 	3-3
3.2	Relationship of Section 304(a) Criteria to State Designated Uses 	 3-10
3.2.1	Recreation	3-10
3.2.2	Aquatic Life and Wildlife	3-11
3.2.3	Agricultural and Industrial Uses	3-11
3.2.4	Public Water Supply	3-11
3.3	State Criteria Requirements	3-12
3.4	Criteria for Toxicants 	3-13
3.4.1	Priority Toxic Pollutant Criteria	3-13
3.4.2	Criteria for Nonconventional Pollutants	3-23
3.5	Forms of Criteria	3-23
3.5.1	Numeric Criteria	3-24
3.5.2	Narrative Criteria 	3-24
3.5.3	Biological Criteria	3-26
3.5.4	Sediment Criteria	3-28
3.5.5	Wildlife Criteria 	3-31
3.5.6	Numeric Criteria for Wetlands	3-33
Endnotes 	3-34
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
CHAPTER 3
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
The term "water quality criteria" has two different
definitions under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Under section 304(a), EPA publishes water
quality criteria that consist of scientific
information regarding concentrations of specific
chemicals or levels of parameters in water that
protect aquatic life and human health (see section
3.1 of this Handbook). The States may use these
contents as the basis for developing enforceable
water quality standards. Water quality criteria are
also elements of State water quality standards
adopted under section 303(c) of the CWA (see
sections 3.2 through 3.5 of this Handbook).
States are required to adopt water quality criteria
that will protect the designated use(s) of a water
body. These criteria must be based on sound
scientific rationale and must contain sufficient
parameters or constituents to protect the
designated use.
[nj
EPA Section 304(a) Guidance
EPA and a predecessor agency have produced a
series of scientific water quality criteria guidance
documents. Early Federal efforts were the
"Green Book" (FWPCA, 1968) and the "Red
Book" (USEPA, 1976). EPA also sponsored a
contract effort that resulted in the "Blue Book"
(NAS/NAE, 1973). These early efforts were
premised on the use of literature reviews and the
collective scientific judgment of Agency and
advisory panels. However, when faced with the
need to develop criteria for human health as well
as aquatic life, the Agency determined that new
procedures were necessary. Continued reliance
solely on existing scientific literature was deemed
inadequate because essential information was not
available for many pollutants. EPA scientists
developed formal methodologies for establishing
scientifically defensible criteria. These were
subjected to review by the Agency's Science
Advisory Board of outside experts and the public.
This effort culminated on November 28, 1980,
when the Agency published criteria development
guidelines for aquatic life and for human health,
along with criteria for 64 toxic pollutants
(USEPA, 1980a,b). Since that initial publication,
the aquatic life methodology was slightly amended
(Appendix H), and additional criteria were
proposed for public comment and finalized as
Agency criteria guidance. EPA summarized the
available criteria information in the "Gold Book"
(USEPA, 1986a), which is updated from time to
time. However, the individual criteria documents
(see Appendix I), as updated, are the official
guidance documents.
EPA's criteria documents provide a
comprehensive toxicological evaluation of each
chemical. For toxic pollutants, the documents
tabulate the relevant acute and chronic toxicity
information for aquatic life and derive the criteria
maximum concentrations (acute criteria) and
criteria continuous concentrations (chronic
criteria) that the Agency recommends to protect
aquatic life resources. The methodologies for
these processes are described in Appendices H
and J and outlined in sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of
this Handbook.
3.1.1 State Use of EPA Criteria Documents
EPA's water quality criteria documents are
available to assist States in:
•	adopting water quality standards that include
appropriate numeric water quality criteria;
•	interpreting existing water quality standards
that include narrative "no toxics in toxic
amounts" criteria;
(9/15/93)
3-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
•	making listing decisions under section 304(1)
of the CWA;
•	writing water quality-based NPDES permits
and individual control strategies; and
•	providing certification under section 401 of
the CWA for any Federal permit or license
(e.g., EPA-issued NPDES permits, CWA
section 404 permits, or Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission licenses).
In these situations, States have primary authority
to determine the appropriate level to protect
human health or welfare (in accordance with
section 303(c)(2) of the CWA) for each water
body. However, under the Clean Water Act,
EPA must also review and approve State water
quality standards; section 304(1) listing decisions
and draft and final State-issued individual control
strategies; and in States where EPA writes
NPDES permits, EPA must develop appropriate
water quality-based permit limitations. The States
and EPA therefore have a strong interest in
assuring that the decisions are legally defensible,
are based on the best information available, and
are subject to full and meaningful public comment
and participation. It is very important that each
decision be supported by an adequate record.
Such a record is critical to meaningful comment,
EPA's review of the State's decision, and any
subsequent administrative or judicial review.
Any human health criterion for a toxicant is based
on at least three interrelated considerations:
•	cancer potency or systemic toxicity,
•	exposure, and
•	risk characterization.
States may make their own judgments on each of
these factors within reasonable scientific bounds,
but documentation to support their judgments,
when different from EPA's recommendation, must
be clear and in the public record. If a State relies
on EPA's section 304(a) criteria document (or
other EPA documents), the State may reference
and rely on the data in these documents and need
not create duplicative or new material for
inclusion in their records. However, where site-
specific issues arise or the State decides to adopt
an approach to any one of these three factors that
differs from the approach in EPA's criteria
document, the State must explain its reasons in a
manner sufficient for a reviewer to determine that
the approach chosen is based on sound scientific
rationale (40 CFR 131.11(b)).
3.1.2 Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection
The development of national numerical water
quality criteria for the protection of aquatic
organisms is a complex process that uses
information from many areas of aquatic
toxicology. (See Appendix H for a detailed
discussion of this process.) After a decision is
made that a national criterion is needed for a
particular material, all available information
concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by,
aquatic organisms is collected and reviewed for
acceptability. If enough acceptable data for 48- to
96-hour toxicity tests on aquatic plants and
animals are available, they are used to derive the
acute criterion. If sufficient data on the ratio of
acute to chronic toxicity concentrations are
available, they are used to derive the chronic or
long-term exposure criteria. If justified, one or
both of the criteria may be related to other water
quality characteristics, such as pH, temperature,
or hardness. Separate criteria are developed for
freshwaters and saltwaters.
The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
States to develop numerical criteria or modify
3-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
EPA's recommended criteria to account for
site-specific or other scientifically defensible
factors. (Ed. note: EPA is currently revising the
1984 guideline for developing site-specific
criteria. These revisions will be made available
shortly as an update to this Handbook.) When a
criterion must be developed for a chemical for
which a national criterion has not been
established, the regulatory authority should refer
to the EPA guidelines (Appendix H).
Magnitude for Aquatic Life Criteria
Water quality criteria for aquatic life contain two
expressions of allowable magnitude: a criterion
maximum concentration (CMC) to protect against
acute (short-term) effects; and a criterion
continuous concentration (CCC) to protect against
chronic (long-term) effects. EPA derives acute
criteria from 48- to 96-hour tests of lethality or
immobilization. EPA derives chronic criteria
from longer term (often greater than 28-day) tests
that measure survival, growth, reproduction, or in
some cases, bioconcentration. Where appropriate,
the calculated criteria may be lowered to be
protective of economically important species.
Duration for Aquatic Life Criteria
The quality of an ambient water typically varies in
response to variations of effluent quality, stream
flow, and other factors. Organisms in the
receiving water are not experiencing constant,
steady exposure but rather are experiencing
fluctuating exposures, including periods of high
concentrations, which may have adverse effects.
Thus, EPA's criteria indicate a time period over
which exposure is to be averaged, as well as a
maximum concentration, thereby limiting the
duration of exposure to elevated concentrations.
For acute criteria, EPA recommends an averaging
period of 1 hour. That is, to protect against acute
effects, the 1-hour average exposure should not
exceed the CMC. For chronic criteria, EPA
recommends an averaging period of 4 days. That
is, the 4-day average exposure should not exceed
the CCC.
Frequency for Aquatic Life Criteria
To predict or ascertain the attainment of criteria,
it is necessary to specify the allowable frequency
for exceeding the criteria. This is because it is
statistically impossible to project that criteria will
never be exceeded. As ecological communities
are naturally subjected to a series of stresses, the
allowable frequency of pollutant stress may be set
at a value that does not significantly increase the
frequency or severity of all stresses combined.
EPA recommends an average frequency for
excursions of both acute and chronic criteria not
to exceed once in 3 years. In all cases, the
recommended frequency applies to actual ambient
concentrations, and excludes the influence of
measurement imprecision. EPA established its
recommended frequency as part of its guidelines
for deriving criteria (Appendix H). EPA selected
the maximum 3-year return interval with the
intent of providing a degree of protection roughly
equivalent to a 7Q10 design flow condition, and
with some consideration of rates of ecological
recovery from a variety of severe stresses.
Because of the nature of the ecological recovery
studies available, the severity of criteria
excursions could not be rigorously related to the
resulting ecological impacts. Nevertheless, EPA
derives its criteria intending that a single marginal
criteria excursion (i.e., a slight excursion over a
1-hour period for acute or over a 4-day period for
chronic) would require little or no time for
recovery. If the frequency of marginal criteria
excursions is not high, it can be shown that the
frequency of severe stresses, requiring measurable
recovery periods, would be extremely small.
EPA thus expects the 3-year return interval to
provide a very high degree of protection.
3.1.3 Criteria for Human Health Protection
This section reviews EPA's procedures used to
develop assessments of human health effects in
developing water quality criteria and reference
ambient concentrations. A more complete human
health effects discussion is included in the
Guidelines and Methodology Used in the
(9/15/93)
3-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Preparation of Health Effects Assessment Chapters
of the Consent Decree Water Documents
(Appendix J). The procedures contained in this
document are used in the development and
updating of EPA water quality criteria and may be
used in updating State criteria and in developing
State criteria for those pollutants lacking EPA
human health criteria. The procedures may also
be applied as site-specific interpretations of
narrative standards and as a basis for permit limits
under 40 CFR 122.44 (d)(l)(vi).
Magnitude and Duration
Water quality criteria for human health contain
only a single expression of allowable magnitude;
a criterion concentration generally to protect
against long-term (chronic) human health effects.
Currently, national policy and prevailing opinion
in the expert community establish that the
duration for human health criteria for carcinogens
should be derived assuming lifetime exposure,
taken to be a 70-year time period. The duration
of exposure assumed in deriving criteria for
noncarcinogens is more complicated owing to a
wide variety of endpoints: some developmental
(and thus age-specific and perhaps gender-
specific), some lifetime, and some, such as
organoleptic effects, not duration-related at all.
Thus, appropriate durations depend on the
individual noncarcinogenic pollutants and the
endpoints or adverse effects being considered.
Human Exposure Considerations
A complete human exposure evaluation for toxic
pollutants of concern for bioaccumulation would
encompass not only estimates of exposures due to
fish consumption but also exposure from
background concentrations and other exposure
routes, The more important of these include
recreational and occupational contact, dietary
intake from other than fish, intake from air
inhalation, and drinking water consumption. For
section 304(a) criteria development, EPA typically
considers only exposures to a pollutant that occur
through the ingestion of water and contaminated
fish and shellfish. This is the exposure default
assumption, although the human health guidelines
provide for considering other sources where data
are available (see 45 F.R. 79354). Thus the
criteria are based on an assessment of risks
related to the surface water exposure route only
(57 F.R. 60862-3).
The consumption of contaminated fish tissue is of
serious concern because the presence of even
extremely low ambient concentrations of
bioaccumulative pollutants (sublethal to aquatic
life) in surface waters can result in residue
concentrations in fish tissue that can pose a human
health risk. Other exposure route information
should be considered and incorporated in human
exposure evaluations to the extent available.
Levels of actual human exposures from
consuming contaminated fish vary depending upon
a number of case-specific consumption factors.
These factors include type of fish species
consumed, type of fish tissue consumed, tissue
lipid content, consumption rate and pattern, and
food preparation practices. In addition, depending
on the spatial variability in the fishery area, the
behavior of the fish species, and the point of
application of the criterion, the average exposure
of fish may be only a small fraction of the
expected exposure at the point of application of
the criterion. If an effluent attracts fish, the
average exposure might be greater than the
expected exposure.
With shellfish, such as oysters, snails, and
mussels, whole-body tissue consumption
commonly occurs, whereas with fish, muscle
tissue and roe are most commonly eaten. This
difference in the types of tissues consumed has
implications for the amount of available
bioaccumulative contaminants likely to be
ingested. Whole-body shellfish consumption
presumably means ingestion of the entire burden
of bioaccumulative contaminants. However, with
most fish, selective cleaning and removal of
internal organs, and sometimes body fat as well,
from edible tissues, may result in removal of
much of the lipid material in which
bioaccumulative contaminants tend to concentrate.
3-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
Fish Consumption Values
EPA's human health criteria have assumed a
human body weight of 70 kg and the consumption
of 6.5 g of fish and shellfish per day. Based on
data collected in 1973-74, the national per capita
consumption of freshwater and estuarine fish was
estimated to average 6.5 g/day. Per capita
consumption of all seafood (including marine
species) was estimated to average 14.3 g/day.
The 95th percentile for consumption of all seafood
by individuals over a period of 1 month was
estimated to be 42 g/day. The mean lipid content
of fish tissue consumed in this study was
estimated to be 3.0 percent (USEPA, 1980c).
Currently, four levels of fish consumption are
provided in EPA guidance (USEPA, 1991a):
•	6.5 g/day to represent an estimate of average
consumption of fish and shellfish from
estuarine and freshwaters by the entire U.S.
population. This fish consumption level is
based on the average of both consumers and
nonconsumers of fish.
•	20 g/day to represent an estimate of the
average consumption of fish and shellfish
from marine, estuarine, and freshwaters by
the U.S. population. This average fish
consumption level also includes both
consumers and nonconsumers of fish.
•	165 g/day to represent consumption of fish
and shellfish from marine, estuarine, and
freshwaters by the 99.9th percentile of the
U.S. population consuming the most fish or
seafood.
•	180 g/day to represent a "reasonable worst
case" based on the assumption that some
individuals would consume fish at a rate
equal to the combined consumption of red
meat, poultry, fish, and shellfish in the
United States.
EPA is currently updating the national estuarine
and freshwater fish and shellfish consumption
default values and will provide a range of
recommended national consumption values. This
range will include:
•	mean values appropriate to the population at
large; and
•	values appropriate for those individuals who
consume a relatively large proportion of fish
in their diets (maximally exposed
individuals).
Many States use EPA's 6.5 g/day consumption
value. However, some States use the above-
mentioned 20 g/day value and, for saltwaters,
37 g/day. In general, EPA recommends that the
consumption values used in deriving criteria from
the formulas in this chapter reflect the most
current, relevant, and/or site-specific information
available.
Bioaccumulation Considerations
The ratio of the contaminant concentrations in fish
tissue versus that in water is termed either the
bioconcentration factor (BCF) or the
bioaccumulation factor (BAF). Bioconcentration
is defined as involving contaminant uptake from
water only (not from food). The bioaccumulation
factor (BAF) is defined similarly to the BCF
except that it includes contaminant uptake from
both water and food. Under laboratory
conditions, measurements of tissue/water
partitioning are generally considered to involve
uptake from water only. On the other hand, both
processes are likely to apply in the field since the
entire food chain is exposed.
The BAF/BCF ratio ranges from 1 to 100, with
the highest ratios applying to organisms in higher
trophic levels, and to chemicals with logarithm of
the octanol-water partitioning coefficient (log P)
close to 6.5.
Bioaccumulation considerations are integrated into
the criteria equations by using food chain
multipliers (FMs) in conjunction with the BCF.
(9/15/93)
3-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
The bioaccumulation and bioconcentration factors
for a chemical are related as follows:
BAF = FM x BCF
By incorporating the FM and BCF terms into the
criteria equations, bioaccumulation can be
addressed.
In Table 3-1, FM values derived from the work
of Thomann (1987, 1989) are listed according to
log P value and trophic level of the organism.
For chemicals with log P values greater than
about 7, there is additional uncertainty regarding
the degree of bioaccumulation, but generally,
trophic level effects appear to decrease due to
slow transport kinetics of these chemicals in fish,
the growth rate of the fish, and the chemical's
relatively low bioavailability. Trophic level 4
organisms are typically the most desirable species
for sport fishing and, therefore, FMs for trophic
level 4 should generally be used in the equations
for calculating criteria. In those very rare
situations where only lower trophic level
organisms are found, e.g., possibly oyster beds,
an FM for a lower trophic level might be
considered.
Measured BAFs (especially for those chemicals
with log P values above 6.5) reported in the
literature should be used when available. To use
experimentally measured BAFs in calculating the
criterion, the (FM x BCF) term is replaced by the
BAF in the equations in the following section.
Relatively few BAFs have been measured
accurately and reported, and their application to
sites other than the specific ecosystem where they
were developed is problematic and subject to
uncertainty. The option is also available to
develop BAFs experimentally, but this will be
extremely resource intensive if done on a site-
specific basis with all the necessary experimental
and quality controls.
Trophic Levels
Log P	2	3	4
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.6
IL0
1.0
1.0
3.7
LO
1.0
1.0
3.8
uo
1.0
1.0
3.9
ilo
1.0
1.0
4.0
1,1
1.0
1.0
4.1
1,1
1.1
1.1
4.2
m
1.1
1.1
4.3
LI
1.1
1.1
4.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
4.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
4:6
1.2
1.3
1.3
4.7
1.3
1.4
1.4
4.8
1.4
1.5
1.6
4,9
1.5
1.8
2.0
5.0
1.6
2.1
2.6
5,1
1.7
2.5
3.2
5.2
1.9
3.0
4.3
5.3
2.2
3.7
5.8
5.4
2.4
4.6
8.0
5.5
2.8
5.9
11
5.6
3.3
7.5
16
5.7
3.9
9.8
23
5.8
4.6
13
33
5.9
5.6
17
47
6.0
6.8
21
67
6.1
8.2
25
75
6.2
10
29
84
6.3
13
34
92
6.4
15
39
98
6.5
19
45
100

19.2*
45'
100"
* These recommended FMs are conservative estimates;
FMs;for log P values greater than 6.5 may range from
the. values given to as low as 0.1 for contaminants with
very low bioavailability.
Table 3-1. Estimated Food Chain
Multipliers (FMs)
Updating Human Health Criteria Using
IRIS
EPA recommends that States use the most current
risk information in the process of updating human
3-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
health criteria. The Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) (Barns and Dourson, 1988;
Appendix N) is an electronic data base of the
USEPA that provides chemical-specific risk
information on the relationship between chemical
exposure and estimated human health effects. Risk
assessment information contained in IRIS, except
as specifically noted, has been reviewed and
agreed upon by an interdisciplinary group of
scientists representing various Program Offices
within the Agency and represent an Agency-wide
consensus. Risk assessment information and
values are updated on a monthly basis and are
approved for Agency-wide use. IRIS is intended
to make risk assessment information readily
available to those individuals who must perform
risk assessments and also to increase consistency
among risk assessment/risk management
decisions.
IRIS contains two types of quantitative risks
values: the oral Reference Dose (RfD) and the
carcinogenic potency estimate or slope factor.
The RfD (formerly known as the acceptable daily
intake or ADI) is the human health hazard
assessment for noncarcinogenic (target organ)
effects. The carcinogenic potency estimate
(formerly known as q!*) represents the upper
bound cancer-causing potential resulting from
lifetime exposure to a substance. The RfD or the
oral carcinogenic potency estimate is used in the
derivation of EPA human health criteria.
EPA periodically updates risk assessment
information, including RfDs, cancer potency
estimates, and related information on contaminant
effects, and reports the current information on
IRIS. Since IRIS contains the Agency's most
recent quantitative risk assessment values, current
IRIS values should be used by States in updating
or developing new human health criteria. This
means that the 1980 human health criteria should
be updated with the latest IRIS values. The
procedure for deriving an updated human health
water quality criterion would require inserting the
current Rfd or carcinogenic potency estimate on
IRIS into the equations in Exhibit 3.1 or 3.2, as
appropriate.
Figure 3-1. Procedure for determining an
updated criterion using IRIS
data.
Figure 3-1 shows the procedure for determining
an updated criterion using IRIS data. If a
chemical has both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic effects, i.e., both a cancer potency
estimate and a RfD, both criteria should be
calculated. The most stringent criterion applies.
Calculating Criteria for Non-carcinogens
The RfD is an estimate of the daily exposure to
the human population that is likely to be without
appreciable risk of causing deleterious effects
during a lifetime. The RfD is expressed in units
of mg toxicant per kg human body weight per
day.
RfDs are derived from the "no-observed-adverse-
effect level" (NOAEL) or the "lowest-observed-
adverse-effect level" (LOAEL) identified from
chronic or subchronic human epidemiology studies
or animal exposure studies. (Note: "LOAEL"
(9/15/93)
3-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
and "NOAEL" refer to animal and human
toxicology and are therefore distinct from the
aquatic toxicity terms "no-observed-effect
concentration" (NOEC) and "lowest-observed-
effect concentration" (LOEC).) Uncertainty
factors are then applied to the NOAEL or LOAEL
to account for uncertainties in the data associated
with variability among individuals, extrapolation
from nonhuman test species to humans, data on
other than long-term exposures, and the use of a
LOAEL (USEPA, 1988a). An additional
uncertainty factor may be applied to account for
significant weakness or gaps in the database.
The RfD is a threshold below which systemic
toxic effects are unlikely to occur. While
exposures above the RfD increase the probability
of adverse effects, they do not produce a certainty
of adverse effects. Similarly, while exposure at
or below the RfD reduces the probability, it does
not guarantee the absence of effects in all persons.
The RfDs contained in IRIS are values that
represent EPA's consensus (and have uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude). This
means an RfD of 1.0 mg/kg/day could range from
0.3 to 3.0 mg/kg/day.
For noncarcinogenic effects, an updated criterion
can be derived using the equation in Exhibit 3-1.
If the receiving water body is not used as a
drinking water source, the factor WI can be
deleted. Where dietary and/or inhalation
exposure values are unknown, these factors may
be deleted from the above calculation.
Calculating Criteria for Carcinogens
Any human health criterion for a carcinogen is
based on at least three interrelated considerations:
cancer potency, exposure, and risk
characterization. When developing State criteria,
States may make their own judgments on each of
these factors within reasonable scientific bounds,
but documentation to support their judgments
must be clear and in the public record.
Maximum protection of human health from the
potential effects of exposure to carcinogens
through the consumption of contaminated fish
and/or other aquatic life would require a criterion
of zero. The zero level is based upon the
assumption of nonthreshold effects (i.e., no safe
level exists below which any increase in exposure
does not result in an increased risk of cancer) for
carcinogens. However, because a publicly
acceptable policy for safety does not require the
absence of all risk, a numerical estimate of
pollutant concentration (in /xg/1) which
corresponds to a given level of risk for a
population of a specified size is selected instead.
A cancer risk level is defined as the number of
new cancers that may result in a population of
specified size due to an increase in exposure
(e.g., 10"6 risk level = 1 additional cancer in a
population of 1 million). Cancer risk is calculated
by multiplying the experimentally derived cancer
potency estimate by the concentration of the
chemical in the fish and the average daily human
consumption of contaminated fish. The risk for a
specified population (e.g., 1 million people or 10"
6) is then calculated by dividing the risk level by
the specific cancer risk. EPA's ambient water
quality criteria documents provide risk levels
ranging from 10"5 to 10~7 as examples.
The cancer potency estimate, or slope factor
(formerly known as the c^*), is derived using
animal studies. High-dose exposures are
extrapolated to low-dose concentrations and
adjusted to a lifetime exposure period through the
use of a linearized multistage model. The model
calculates the upper 95 percent confidence limit of
the slope of a straight line which the model
postulates to occur at low doses. When based on
human (epidemiological) data, the slope factor is
based on the observed increase in cancer risk and
is not extrapolated. For deriving criteria for
carcinogens, the oral cancer potency estimates or
slope factors from IRIS are used.
It is important to note that cancer potency factors
may overestimate or underestimate the actual risk.
Such potency estimates are subject to great
uncertainty because of two primary factors:
3-8
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
C (mg/1) - (RfP X WT1 - (PT + IW x WT
WI + [FC x L x FM x BCFJ
where:
C = updated water quality criterion (rag/1)
RfD = oral reference dose (mg toxicant/kg human body weight/day)
WT = weight of an average human adult (70 kg)
DT ~ dietary exposure (other than fish) (mg toxicant/kg body human
weight/day)
IN = inhalation exposure (mg toxicant/kg body human weight/day)
WI = average human adult water intake (2 1/day)
FC = daily fish consumption (kg fish/day)
L = ratio of lipid fraction of fish tissue consumed to 3%
FM = food chain multiplier (from Table 3-1)
BCF = bioconcentration factor (mg toxicant/kg fish divided by mg toxicant/L
water) for fish with 3% lipid content
Exhibit 3-1. Equation for Deriving Human Health Criteria Based on Noncarcinogenic Effects
•	adequacy of the cancer data base (i.e.,
human vs. animal data); and
•	limited information regarding the mechanism
of cancer causation.
Risk levels of 10"5, 10"6, and 10"7 are often used
by States as minimal risk levels in interpreting
their standards. EPA considers risks to be
additive, i.e., the risk from individual chemicals
is not necessarily the overall risk from exposure
to water. For example, an individual risk level of
106 may yield a higher overall risk level if
multiple carcinogenic chemicals are present.
For carcinogenic effects, the criterion can be
determined by using the equation in Exhibit 3-2.
If the receiving water body is not designated as a
drinking water source, the factor WI can be
deleted.
Deriving Quantitative Risk Assessments in
the Absence of IRIS Values
The RfDs or cancer potency estimates comprise
the existing dose-response factors for developing
criteria. When IRIS data are unavailable,
quantitative risk level information may be
developed according to a State's own procedures.
Some States have established their own
procedures whereby dose-response factors can be
developed based upon extrapolation of acute
and/or chronic animal data to concentrations of
exposure protective of fish consumption by
(9/15/93)
3-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
C (mg/Q «,	
qf [WI + FC x L x (FM x BCF)]
where:
c
updated water quality criterion (tng/I)
RL =
risk level (10*) where x is usually in the range of 4 to 6
WT =
weight of an average human adult (70 kg)
q,* =
carcinogenic potency factor (kg day/mg)
WI =
average human adult water intake (2 1/day)
FC
daily fish consumption (kg fish/day)
L
ratio of lipid fraction of fish tissue consumed to 3% assumed by EPA
FM =
food chain multiplier (from Table 3-1)
BCF =
bioconcentration factor (mg toxicant/kg fish divided by mg toxicant/L

water) for fish with 3% lipid content
Exhibit 3-2. Equation for Deriving Human Health Criteria Based on Carcinogenic Effects
humans.
13.21 Relationship of Section 304(a) Criteria
to State Designated Uses
Where a water body is designated for more than
one use, criteria necessary to protect the most
sensitive use must be applied. The following four
sections discuss the major types of use categories.
The section 304(a)(1) criteria published by EPA
from time to time can be used to support the
designated uses found in State standards. The
following sections briefly discuss the relationship
between certain criteria and individual use
classifications. Additional information on this
subject also can be found in the "Green Book"
(FWPCA, 1968); the "Blue Book" (NAS/NAE,
1973); the "Red Book" USEPA, 1976); the EPA
Water Quality Criteria Documents (see Appendix
I); the"Gold Book" (USEPA, 1986a); and future
EPA section 304(a)(1) water quality criteria
publications.
3.2.1 Recreation
Recreational uses of water include activities such
as swimming, wading, boating, and fishing.
Often insufficient data exist on the human health
effects of physical and chemical pollutants,
including most toxics, to make a determination of
criteria for recreational uses. However, as a
general guideline, recreational waters that contain
chemicals in concentrations toxic or otherwise
harmful to man if ingested, or irritating to the
skin or mucous membranes of the human body
3-10
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
upon brief immersion, should be avoided. The
section 304(a)(1) human health effects criteria
based on direct human drinking water intake and
fish consumption might provide useful guidance in
these circumstances. Also, section 304(a)(1)
criteria based on human health effects may be
used to support this designated use where fishing
is included in the State definition of "recreation."
In this latter situation, only the portion of the
criterion based on fish consumption should be
used. Section 304(a)(1) criteria to protect
recreational uses are also available for certain
physical, microbiological, and narrative "free
from" aesthetic criteria.
Research regarding bacteriological indicators has
resulted in EPA recommending that States use
Escherichia coli or enterococci as indicators of
recreational water quality (USEPA, 1986b) rather
than fecal coliform because of the better
correlation with gastroenteritis in swimmers.
The "Green Book" and "Blue Book" provide
additional information on protecting recreational
uses such as pH criteria to prevent eye irritation
and microbiological criteria based on aesthetic
considerations.
3.2.2	Aquatic Life and Wildlife
The section 304(a)(1) criteria for aquatic life
should be used directly to support this designated
use. If subcategories of this use are adopted
(e.g., to differentiate between coldwater and
warmwater fisheries), then appropriate criteria
should be set to reflect the varying needs of such
subcategories.
3.2.3	Agricultural and Industrial Uses
The "Green Book" (FWPCA, 1968) and "Blue
Book" (NAS/NAE, 1973) provide some
information on protecting agricultural and
industrial uses. Section 304(a)(1) criteria for
protecting these uses have not been specifically
developed for numerous parameters pertaining to
these uses, including most toxics.
Where criteria have not been specifically
developed for these uses, the criteria developed
for human health and aquatic life are usually
sufficiently stringent to protect these uses. States
may also establish criteria specifically designed to
protect these uses.
3.2.4 Public Water Supply
The drinking water exposure component of the
section 304(a)(1) criteria based on human health
effects can apply directly to this use classification.
The criteria also may be appropriately modified
depending upon whether the specific water supply
system falls within the auspices of the Safe
Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) regulatory control
and the type and level of treatment imposed upon
the supply before delivery to the consumer. The
SDWA controls the presence of contaminants in
finished ("at-the-tap") drinking water.
A brief description of relevant sections of the
SDWA is necessary to explain how the Act will
work in conjunction with section 304(a)(1) criteria
in protecting human health from the effects of
toxics due to consumption of water. Pursuant to
section 1412 of the SDWA, EPA has promulgated
"National Primary Drinking Water Standards" for
certain radionuclide, microbiological, organic, and
inorganic substances. These standards establish
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which
specify the maximum permissible level of a
contaminant in water that may be delivered to a
user of a public water system now defined as
serving a minimum of 25 people. MCLs are
established based on consideration of a range of
factors including not only the health effects of the
contaminants but also treatment capability,
monitoring availability, and costs. Under section
1401 (l)(D)(i) of the SDWA, EPA is also allowed
to establish the minimum quality criteria for water
that may be taken into a public water supply
system.
Section 304(a)(1) criteria provide estimates of
pollutant concentrations protective of human
health, but do not consider treatment technology,
costs, and other feasibility factors. The section
(9/15/93)
3-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
304(a)(1) criteria also include fish
bioaccumulation and consumption factors in
addition to direct human drinking water intake.
These numbers were not developed to serve as
"at-the-tap" drinking water standards, and they
have no regulatory significance under the SDWA.
Drinking water standards are established based on
considerations, including technological and
economic feasibility, not relevant to section
304(a)(1) criteria. Section 304(a)(1) criteria are
more analogous to the maximum contaminant
level goals (MCLGs) (previously known as
RMCLs) under section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the
SDWA in which, based upon a report from the
National Academy of Sciences, the Administrator
should set target levels for contaminants in
drinking water at which "no known or anticipated
adverse effects occur and which allow an adequate
margin of safety." MCLGs do not take treatment,
cost, and other feasibility factors into
consideration. Section 304(a)(1) criteria are, in
concept, related to the health-based goals specified
in the MCLGs.
MCLs of the SDWA, where they exist, control
toxic chemicals in finished drinking water.
However, because of variations in treatment,
ambient water criteria may be used by the States
as a supplement to SDWA regulations. When
setting water quality criteria for public water
supplies, States have the option of applying
MCLs, section 304(a)(1) human health effects
criteria, modified section 304(a)(1) criteria, or
controls more stringent than these three to protect
against the effects of contaminants by ingestion
from drinking water.
For treated drinking water supplies serving 25
people or greater, States must control
contaminants down to levels at least as stringent
as MCLs (where they exist for the pollutants of
concern) in the finished drinking water.
However, States also have the options to control
toxics in the ambient water by choosing section
304(a)(1) criteria, adjusted section 304(a)(1)
criteria resulting from the reduction of the direct
drinking water exposure component in the criteria
calculation to the extent that the treatment process
reduces the level of pollutants, or a more stringent
contaminant level than the former three options.
3.3
State Criteria Requirements
Section 131.11(a)(1) of the Regulation requires
States to adopt water quality criteria to protect the
designated use(s). The State criteria must be
based on sound scientific rationale and must
contain sufficient parameters or constituents to
protect the designated use(s). For waters with
multiple use designations, the criteria must
support the most sensitive use.
In section 131.11, States are encouraged to adopt
both numeric and narrative criteria. Aquatic life
criteria should protect against both short-term
(acute) and long-term (chronic) effects. Numeric
criteria are particularly important where the cause
of toxicity is known or for protection against
pollutants with potential human health impacts or
bioaccumulation potential. Numeric water quality
criteria may also be the best way to address
nonpoint source pollution problems. Narrative
criteria can be the basis for limiting toxicity in
waste discharges where a specific pollutant can be
identified as causing or contributing to the toxicity
but where there are no numeric criteria in the
State standards. Narrative criteria also can be
used where toxicity cannot be traced to a
particular pollutant.
Section 131.11(a)(2) requires States to develop
implementation procedures which explain how the
State will ensure that narrative toxics criteria are
met.
To more fully protect aquatic habitats, it is EPA's
policy that States fully integrate chemical-specific,
whole-effluent, and biological assessment
approaches in State water quality programs (see
Appendix R). Specifically, each of these three
methods can provide a valid assessment of
designated aquatic life use impairment.
Therefore, EPA supports a policy of independent
application of these three water quality assessment
approaches. Independent application means that
3-12
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
the validity of the results of any one of the
approaches does not depend on confirmation by
one or both of the other methods. This policy is
based on the unique attributes, limitations, and
program applications of each of the three
approaches. Each method alone can provide valid
and independently sufficient evidence of
attainment or non-attainment of water quality
standards, irrespective of any evidence, or lack
thereof, derived from the other two approaches.
The failure of one method to confirm impacts
identified by another method does not negate the
results of the initial assessment (USEPA, 1991i).
It is also EPA's policy that States should
designate aquatic life uses that appropriately
address biological integrity and adopt biological
criteria necessary to protect those uses (see
section 3.5.3 and Appendices C, K, and R).
^4J Criteria for Toxicants
Applicable requirements for State adoption of
water quality criteria for toxicants vary depending
upon the toxicant. The reason for this is that the
1983 Water Quality Standards Regulation
(Appendix A) and the Water Quality Act of 1987
which amended the Clean Water Act (Public Law
100-4) include more specific requirements for the
particular toxicants listed pursuant to CWA
section 307(a). For regulatory purposes, EPA has
translated the 65 compounds and families of
compounds listed pursuant to section 307(a) into
126 more specific substances, which EPA refers
to as "priority toxic pollutants." The 126 priority
toxic pollutants are listed in the WQS regulation
and in Appendix P of this Handbook. Because of
the more specific requirements for priority toxic
pollutants, it is convenient to organize the
requirements applicable to State adoption of
criteria for toxicants into three categories:
• requirements applicable to priority toxic
pollutants that have been the subject of CWA
section 304(a)(1) criteria guidance (see
section 3.4.1);
•	requirements applicable to priority toxic
pollutants that have not been the subject of
CWA section 304(a)(1) criteria guidance (see
section 3.4.1); and
•	requirements applicable to all other toxicants
(e.g., non-conventional pollutants like
ammonia and chlorine) (see section 3.4.2).
3.4.1 Priority Toxic Pollutant Criteria
The criteria requirements applicable to priority
toxic pollutants (i.e., the first two categories
above) are specified in CWA section 303(c)(2)(B).
Section 303(c)(2)(B), as added by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, provides that:
Whenever a State reviews water quality
standards pursuant to paragraph (1) of
this subsection, or revises or adopts
new standards pursuant to this
paragraph, such State shall adopt
criteria for all toxic pollutants listed
pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of this Act
for which criteria have been published
under section 304(a), the discharge or
presence of which in the affected
waters could reasonably be expected to
interfere with those designated uses
adopted by the State, as necessary to
support such designated uses. Such
criteria shall be specific numerical
criteria for such toxic pollutants.
Where such numerical criteria are not
available, whenever a State reviews
water quality standards pursuant to
paragraph (1), or revises or adopts new
standards pursuant to this paragraph,
such State shall adopt criteria based on
biological monitoring or assessment
methods consistent with information
published pursuant to section 304(a)(8).
Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or delay the use of
effluent limitations or other permit
conditions based on or involving
biological monitoring or assessment
(9/15/93)
3-13
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
methods or previously adopted
numerical criteria.
EPA, in devising guidance for section
303(c)(2)(B), attempted to provide States with the
maximum flexibility that complied with the
express statutory language but also with the
overriding congressional objective: prompt
adoption and implementation of numeric toxics
criteria. EPA believed that flexibility was
important so that each State could comply with
section 303(c)(2)(B) and to the extent possible,
accommodate its existing water quality standards
regulatory approach.
General Requirements
To carry out the requirements of section
303(c)(2)(B), whenever a State revises its water
quality standards, it must review all available
information and data to first determine whether
the discharge or the presence of a toxic pollutant
is interfering with or is likely to interfere with the
attainment of the designated uses of any water
body segment.
If the data indicate that it is reasonable to expect
the toxic pollutant to interfere with the use, or it
actually is interfering with the use, then the State
must adopt a numeric limit for the specific
pollutant. If a State is unsure whether a toxic
pollutant is interfering with, or is likely to
interfere with, the designated use and therefore is
unsure that control of the pollutant is necessary to
support the designated use, the State should
undertake to develop sufficient information upon
which to make such a determination. Presence of
facilities that manufacture or use the section
307(a) toxic pollutants or other information
indicating that such pollutants are discharged or
will be discharged strongly suggests that such
pollutants could be interfering with attaining
designated uses. If a State expects the pollutant
not to interfere with the designated use, then
section 303(1)(2)(B) does not require a numeric
standard for that pollutant.
Section 303(c)(2)(B) addresses only pollutants
listed as "toxic" pursuant to section 307(a) of the
Act, which are codified at 40 CFR 131.36(b).
The section 307(a) list contains 65 compounds and
families of compounds, which potentially include
thousands of specific compounds. The Agency
has interpreted that list to include 126 "priority"
toxic pollutants for regulatory purposes.
Reference in this guidance to toxic pollutants or
section 307(a) toxic pollutants refers to the 126
priority toxic pollutants unless otherwise noted.
Both the list of priority toxic pollutants and
recommended criteria levels are subject to change.
The national criteria recommendations published
by EPA under section 304(a) (see section 3.1,
above) of the Act include values for both acute
and chronic aquatic life protection; only chronic
criteria recommendations have been established to
3-14
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
protect human health. To comply with the
statute, a State needs to adopt aquatic life and
human health criteria where necessary to support
the appropriate designated uses. Criteria for the
protection of human health are needed for water
bodies designated for public water supply. When
fish ingestion is considered an important activity,
then the human health-related water quality
criteria recommendation developed under section
304(a) of the CWA should be used; that is, the
portion of the criteria recommendation based on
fish consumption. For those pollutants designated
as carcinogens, the recommendation for a human
health criterion is generally more stringent than
the aquatic life criterion for the same pollutant.
In contrast, the aquatic life criteria
recommendations for noncarcinogens are
generally more stringent than the human health
recommendations. When a State adopts a human
health criterion for a carcinogen, the State needs
to select a risk level. EPA has estimated risk
levels of 10"5, 10"6, and 10"7 in its criteria
documents under one set of exposure assumptions.
However, the State is not limited to choosing
among the risk levels published in the section
304(a) criteria documents, nor is the State limited
to the base case exposure assumptions; it must
choose the risk level for its conditions and explain
its rationale.
EPA generally regulates pollutants treated as
carcinogens in the range of 10"6 to 10^ to protect
average exposed individuals and more highly
exposed populations. However, if a State selects
a criterion that represents an upper bound risk
level less protective than 1 in 100,000 (e.g., 10"5),
the State needs to have substantial support in the
record for this level. This support focuses on two
distinct issues. First, the record must include
documentation that the decision maker considered
the public interest of the State in selecting the risk
level, including documentation of public
participation in the decision making process as
required by the Water Quality Standards
Regulation at 40 CFR 131.20(b). Second, the
record must include an analysis showing that the
risk level selected, when combined with other risk
assessment variables, is a balanced and reasonable
estimate of actual risk posed, based on the best
and most representative information available.
The importance of the estimated actual risk
increases as the degree of conservatism in the
selected risk level diminishes. EPA carefully
evaluates all assumptions used by a State if the
State chose to alter any one of the standard EPA
assumption values (57F.R. 60864, December 22,
1993).
EPA does not intend to propose changes to the
current requirements regarding the bases on which
a State can adopt numeric criteria (40 CFR
131.11(b)(1)). Under EPA's regulation, in
addition to basing numeric criteria on EPA's
section 304(a) criteria documents, States may also
base numeric criteria on site-specific
determinations or other scientifically defensible
methods.
EPA expects each State to comply with the new
statutory requirements in any section 303(c) water
quality standards review initiated after enactment
of the Water Quality Act of 1987. The structure
of section 303(c) is to require States to review
their water quality standards at least once each 3
year period. Section 303(c)(2)(B) instructs States
to include reviews for toxics criteria whenever
they initiate a triennial review. Therefore, even
if a State has complied with section 303(c)(2)(B),
the State must review its standards each triennium
to ensure that section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements
continue to be met, considering that EPA may
have published additional section 304(a) criteria
documents and that the State will have new
information on existing water quality and on
pollution sources.
It should be noted that nothing in the Act or in the
Water Quality Standards Regulation restricts the
right of a State to adopt numeric criteria for any
pollutant not listed pursuant to section 307(a)(1),
and that such criteria may be expressed as
concentration limits for an individual pollutant or
for a toxicity parameter itself as measured by
whole-effluent toxicity testing. However, neither
numeric toxic criteria nor whole-effluent toxicity
(9/15/93)
3-15
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
should be used as a surrogate for, or to supersede
the other.
State Options
States may meet the requirements of CWA section
303(c)(2)(B) by choosing one of three
scientifically and technically sound options (or
some combination thereof):
(1)	Adopt statewide numeric criteria in State
water quality standards for all section 307(a)
toxic pollutants for which EPA has
developed criteria guidance, regardless of
whether the pollutants are known to be
present;
(2)	Adopt specific numeric criteria in State
water quality standards for section 307(a)
toxic pollutants as necessary to support
designated uses where such pollutants are
discharged or are present in the affected
waters and could reasonably be expected to
interfere with designated uses;
(3)	Adopt a "translator procedure" to be applied
to a narrative water quality standard
provision that prohibits toxicity in receiving
waters. Such a procedure is to be used by
the State in calculating derived numeric
criteria, which shall be used for all purposes
under section 303(c) of the CWA. At a
minimum, such criteria need to be developed
for section 307(a) toxic pollutants, as
necessary to support designated uses, where
these pollutants are discharged or present in
the affected waters and could reasonably be
expected to interfere with designated uses.
Option 1 is consistent with State authority to
establish water quality standards. Option 2 most
directly reflects the CWA requirements and is the
option recommended by EPA. Option 3, while
meeting the requirements of the CWA, is best
suited to supplement numeric criteria from option
1 or 2. The three options are discussed in more
detail below.
OPTION 1
Adopt statewide numeric criteria in State water
quality standards for all section 307(a) toxic
pollutants for which EPA has developed criteria
guidance, regardless of whether the pollutants
are known to be present.
Pro:
•	simple, straightforward implementation
•	ensures that States will satisfy statute
•	makes maximum uses of EPA
recommendations
•	gets specific numbers into State water quality
standards fast, at first
Con:
•	some priority toxic pollutants may not be
discharged in State
•	may cause unnecessary monitoring by States
® might result in "paper standards"
Option 1 is within a State's legal authority under
the CWA to adopt broad water quality standards.
This option is the most comprehensive approach
to satisfy the statutory requirements because it
would include all of the priority toxic pollutants
for which EPA has prepared section 304(a)
criteria guidance for either or both aquatic life
protection and human health protection. In
addition to a simple adoption of EPA's section
304(a) guidance as standards, a State must select
a risk level for those toxic pollutants which are
carcinogens (i.e., that cause or may cause cancer
in humans).
Many States find this option attractive because it
ensures comprehensive coverage of the priority
toxic pollutants with scientifically defensible
criteria without the need to conduct a resource-
intensive evaluation of the particular segments and
3-16
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
pollutants requiring criteria. This option also
would not be more costly to dischargers than
other options because permit limits would be
based only on the regulation of the particular
toxic pollutants in their discharges and not on the
total listing in the water quality standards. Thus,
actual permit limits should be the same under any
of the options.
The State may also exercise its authority to use
one or more of the techniques for adjusting water
quality standards:
•	establish or revise designated stream uses
based on use attainability analyses (see
section 2.9);
0 develop site-specific criteria; or
•	allow short-term variances (see section 5.3)
when appropriate.
All three of these techniques may apply to
standards developed under any of the three
options discussed in this guidance. It is likely
that States electing to use option 1 will rely more
on variances because the other two options are
implemented with more site-specific data being
available. It should be noted, however, that
permits issued pursuant to such water quality
variances still must comply with any applicable
antidegradation and antibacksliding requirements.
OPTION 2
Adopt specific numeric criteria in State water
quality standards for section 307(a) toxic
pollutants as necessary to support designated
uses where such pollutants are discharged or
are present in the affected waters and could
reasonably be expected to interfere with
designated uses.
Pro:
•	directly reflects statutory requirement
•	standards based on demonstrated need to
control problem pollutants
0 State can use EPA's section 304(a) national
criteria recommendations or other
scientifically acceptable alternative, including
site-specific criteria
•	State can consider current or potential toxic
pollutant problems
•	State can go beyond section 307(a) toxics
list, as desired
Con:
•	may be difficult and time consuming to
determine if, and which, pollutants are
interfering with the designated use
•	adoption of standards can require lengthy
debates on correct criteria limit to be
included in standards
•	successful State toxic control programs based
on narrative criteria may be halted or slowed
as the State applies its limited resources to
developing numeric standards
•	difficult to update criteria once adopted as
part of standards
•	to be absolutely technically defensible, may
need site-specific criteria in many situations,
leading to a large workload for regulatory
agency
EPA recommends that a State use this option to
meet the statutory requirement. It directly reflects
all the Act's requirements and is flexible,
resulting in adoption of numeric water quality
standards as needed. To assure that the State is
capable of dealing with new problems as they
arise, EPA also recommends that States adopt a
translator procedure the same as, or similar to,
that described in option 3, but applicable to all
chemicals causing toxicity and not just priority
pollutants as is the case for option 3.
(9/15/93)
3-17
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Beginning in 1988, EPA provided States with
candidate lists of priority toxic pollutants and
water bodies in support of CWA section 304(1)
implementation. These lists were developed
because States were required to evaluate existing
and readily available water-related data to comply
with section 304(1), 40 CFR 130.10(d). A similar
"strawman" analysis of priority pollutants
potentially requiring adoption of numeric criteria
under section 303(c)(2)(B) was furnished to most
States in September or October of 1990 for their
use in ongoing and subsequent triennial reviews.
The primary differences between the "strawman"
analysis and the section 304(1) candidate lists were
that the "strawman" analysis (1) organized the
results by chemical rather than by water body, (2)
included data for certain STORET monitoring
stations that were not used in constructing the
candidate lists, (3) included data from the Toxics
Release Inventory database, and (4) did not
include a number of data sources used in
preparing the candidate lists (e.g., those, such as
fish kill information, that did not provide
chemical-specific information).
EPA intends for States, at a minimum, to use the
information gathered in support of section 304(1)
requirements as a starting point for identifying (1)
water segments that will need new and/or revised
water quality standards for section 307(a) toxic
pollutants, and (2) which priority toxic pollutants
require adoption of numeric criteria. In the
longer term, EPA expects similar determinations
to occur during each triennial review of water
quality standards as required by section 303(c).
In identifying the need for numeric criteria, EPA
is encouraging States to use information and data
such as:
•	presence or potential construction of
facilities that manufacture or use priority
toxic pollutants;
•	ambient water monitoring data, including
those for sediment and aquatic life (e.g., fish
tissue data);
•	NPDES permit applications and permittee
self-monitoring reports;
•	effluent guideline development documents,
many of which contain section 307(a)(1)
priority pollutant scans;
•	pesticide and herbicide application
information and other records of pesticide or
herbicide inventories;
•	public water supply source monitoring data
noting pollutants with Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs); and
•	any other relevant information on toxic
pollutants collected by Federal, State,
interstate agencies, academic groups, or
scientific organizations.
States are also expected to take into account
newer information as it became available, such as
information in annual reports from the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory requirements of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
Know Act of 1986 (Title III, Public Law 99-499).
/
Where the State's review indicates a reasonable
expectation of a problem from the discharge or
presence of toxic pollutants, the State should
identify the pollutant(s) and the relevant
segment(s). In making these determinations,
States should use their own EPA-approved criteria
or existing EPA water quality criteria for
purposes of segment identification. After the
review, the State may use other means to establish
the final criterion as it revises its standards.
As with option 1, a State using option 2 must
follow all its legal and administrative
requirements for adoption of water quality
standards. Since the resulting numeric criteria are
part of a State's water quality standards, they are
required to be submitted by the State to EPA for
review and either approval or disapproval.
EPA believes this option offers the State optimum
flexibility. For section 307(a) toxic pollutants
3-18
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
adversely affecting designated uses, numeric
criteria are available for permitting purposes. For
other situations, the State has the option of
defining site-specific criteria.
OPTION 3
Adopt a procedure to be applied to the
narrative water quality standard provision that
prohibits toxicity in receiving waters. Such a
procedure would be used by a State in
calculating derived numeric criteria to be used
for all purposes of water quality criteria under
section 303(c) of the CWA. At a minimum
such criteria need to be derived for section
307(a) toxic pollutants where the discharge or
presence of such pollutants in the affected
waters could reasonably be expected to
interfere with designated uses, as necessary to
support such designated uses.
Pro:
•	allows a State flexibility to control priority
toxic pollutants
•	reduces time and cost required to adopt
specific numeric criteria as water quality
standards regulations
•	allows immediate use of latest scientific
information available at the time a State
needs to develop derived numeric criteria
•	revisions and additions to derived numeric
criteria can be made without need to revise
State law
•	State can deal more easily with a situation
where it did not establish water quality
standards for the section 307(a) toxic
pollutants during the most recent triennial
review
•	State can address problems from non-section
307(a) toxic pollutants
Con:
•	EPA is currently on notice that a derived
numeric criterion may invite legal challenge
•	once the necessary procedures are adopted to
enhance legal defensibility (e.g., appropriate
scientific methods and public participation
and review), actual savings in time and costs
may be less than expected
•	public participation in development of
derived numeric criteria may be limited
when such criteria are not addressed in a
hearing on water quality standards
EPA believes that adoption of a narrative standard
along with a translator mechanism as part of a
State's water quality standard satisfies the
substantive requirements of the statute. These
criteria are subject to all the State's legal and
administrative requirements for adoption of
standards plus review and either approval or
disapproval by EPA, and result in the
development of derived numeric criteria for
specific section 307(a) toxic pollutants. They are
also subject to an opportunity for public
participation. Nevertheless, EPA believes the
most appropriate use of option 3 is as a
supplement to either option 1 or 2. Thus, a State
would have formally adopted numeric criteria for
toxic pollutants that occur frequently; that have
general applicability statewide for inclusion in
NPDES permits, total maximum daily loads, and
waste load allocations; and that also would have
a sound and predictable method to develop
additional numeric criteria as needed. This
combination of options provides a complete
regulatory scheme.
Although the approach in option 3 is similar to
that currently allowed in the Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)(2)), this
guidance discusses several administrative and
scientific requirements that EPA believes are
necessary to comply with section 303(c)(2)(B).
(9/15/93)
3-19
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
(1) The Option 3 Procedure Must Be Used To
Calculate Derived Numeric Water Quality
Criteria
States must adopt a specific procedure to be
applied to a narrative water quality criterion. To
satisfy section 303(c)(2)(B), this procedure shall
be used by the State in calculating derived
numeric criteria, which shall be used for all
purposes under section 303(c) of the CWA. Such
criteria need to be developed for section 307(a)
toxic pollutants as necessary to support designated
uses, where these pollutants are discharged or are
present in the affected waters and could
reasonably be expected to interfere with the
designated uses.
To assure protection from short-term exposures,
the State procedure should ensure development of
derived numeric water quality criteria based on
valid acute aquatic toxicity tests that are lethal to
half the affected organisms (LC50) for the species
representative of or similar to those found in the
State. In addition, the State procedure should
ensure development of derived numeric water
quality criteria for protection from chronic
exposure by using an appropriate safety factor
applicable to this acute limit. If there are
saltwater components to the State's aquatic
resources, the State should establish appropriate
derived numeric criteria for saltwater in addition
to those for freshwater.
The State's documentation of the tests should
include a detailed discussion of its quality control
and quality assurance procedures. The State
should also include a description (or reference
existing technical agreements with EPA) of the
procedure it will use to calculate derived acute
and chronic numeric criteria from the test data,
and how these derived criteria will be used as the
basis for deriving appropriate TMDLs, WLAs,
and NPDES permit limits.
As discussed above, the procedure for calculating
derived numeric criteria needs to protect aquatic
life from both acute and chronic exposure to
specific chemicals. Chronic aquatic life criteria
are to be met at the edge of the mixing zone.
The acute criteria are to be met (1) at the end-of-
pipe if mixing is not rapid and complete and a
high rate diffuser is not present; or (2) after
mixing if mixing is rapid and complete or a high
rate diffuser is present. (See EPA's Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control, USEPA 1991a.)
EPA has not established a national policy
specifying the point of application in the receiving
water to be used with human health criteria.
However, EPA has approved State standards that
apply human health criteria for fish consumption
at the mixing zone boundary and/or apply the
criteria for drinking water consumption, at a
minimum, at the point of use. EPA has also
proposed more stringent requirements for the
application of human health criteria for highly
bioaccumulative pollutants in the Water Quality
guidance for the Great Lakes System (50 F.R.
20931, 21035, April 16, 1993) including
elimination of mixing zones.
In addition, the State should also include an
indication of potential bioconcentration or
bioaccu'mulation by providing for:
•	laboratory tests that measure the steady-state
bioconcentration rate achieved by a
susceptible organism; and/or
•	field data in which ambient concentrations
and tissue loads are measured to give an
appropriate factor.
In developing a procedure to be used in
calculating derived numeric criteria for the
protection of aquatic life, the State should
consider the potential impact that bioconcentration
has on aquatic and terrestrial food chains.
The State should also use the derived
bioconcentration factor to calculate chronically
protective numeric criteria for humans that
consume aquatic organisms. In calculating this
derived numeric criterion, the State should
indicate data requirements to be met when dealing
3-20
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
with either threshold (toxic) or nonthreshold
(carcinogenic) compounds. The State should
describe the species and the minimum number of
tests, which may generally be met by a single
mammalian chronic test if it is of good quality
and if the weight of evidence indicates that the
results are reasonable. The State should provide
the method to calculate a derived numeric
criterion from the appropriate test result.
Both the threshold and nonthreshold criteria for
protecting human health should contain exposure
assumptions, and the State procedure should be
used to calculate derived numeric criteria that
address the consumption of water, consumption of
fish, and combined consumption of both water
and fish. The State should provide the
assumptions regarding the amount of fish and the
quantity of water consumed per person per day,
as well as the rationale used to select the
assumptions. It needs to include the number of
tests, the species necessary to establish a dose-
response relationship, and the procedure to be
used to calculate the derived numeric criteria.
For nonthreshold contaminants, the State should
specify the model used to extrapolate to low dose
and the risk level. It should also address
incidental exposure from other water sources
(e.g., swimming). When calculating derived
numeric criteria for multiple exposure to
pollutants, the State should consider additive
effects, especially for carcinogenic substances,
and should factor in the contribution to the daily
intake of toxicants from other sources (e.g., food,
air) when data are available.
(2) The State Must Demonstrate That the
Procedure Results in Derived Numeric
Criteria Are Protective
The State needs to demonstrate that its
procedures for developing criteria, including
translator methods, yield fully protective
criteria for human health and for aquatic
life. EPA's review process will proceed
according to EPA's regulation of 40 CFR
131.11, which requires that criteria be based
on sound scientific rationale and be
protective of all designated uses. EPA will
use the expertise and experience it has
gained in developing section 304(a) criteria
for toxic pollutants by application of its own
translator method (USEPA, 1980b; USEPA,
1985b).
Once EPA has approved the State's procedure,
the Agency's review of derived numeric criteria,
for example, for pollutants other than section
307(a) toxic pollutants resulting from the State's
procedure, will focus on the adequacy of the data
base rather than the calculation method. EPA
also encourages States to apply such a procedure
to calculate derived numeric criteria to be used as
the basis for deriving permit limitations for
nonconventional pollutants that also cause
toxicity.
(3) The State Must Provide Full Opportunity
for Public Participation in Adoption of the
Procedure
The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires
States to hold public hearings to review and revise
water quality standards in accordance with
provisions of State law and EPA's Public
Participation Regulation (40 CFR 25). Where a
State plans to adopt a procedure to be applied to
the narrative criterion, it must provide full
opportunity for public participation in the
development and adoption of the procedure as part
of the State's water quality standards.
While it is not necessary for the State to adopt
each derived numeric criterion into its water
quality standards and submit it to EPA for review
and approval, EPA is very concerned that all
affected parties have adequate opportunity to
participate in the development of a derived
(9/15/93)
3-21
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
numeric criterion even though it is not being
adopted directly as a water quality standard.
A State can satisfy the need to provide an
opportunity for public participation in the
development of derived numeric criteria in several
ways, including:
•	a specific hearing on the derived numeric
criterion;
•	the opportunity for a public hearing on an
NPDES permits as long as public notice is
given that a criterion for a toxic pollutant as
part of the permit issuance is being
contemplated; or
8 a hearing coincidental with any other hearing
as long as it is made clear that development
of a specific criterion is also being
undertaken.
For example, as States develop their lists and
individual control strategies (ICSs) under section
304(1), they may seek full public participation.
NPDES regulations also specify public
participation requirements related to State permit
issuance. Finally, States have public participation
requirements associated with Water Quality
Management Plan updates. States may take
advantage of any of these public participation
requirements to fulfill the requirement for public
review of any resulting derived numeric criteria.
In such cases, the State must give prior notice that
development of such criteria is under
consideration.
, (4) The Procedure Must Be Formally Adopted
and Mandatory
Where a State elects to supplement its narrative
criterion with an accompanying implementing
procedure, it must formally adopt such a
procedure as a part of its water quality standards.
The procedure must be used by the State to
calculate derived numeric criteria that will be used
as the basis for all standards' purposes, including
the following: developing TMDLs, WLAs, and
limits in NPDES permits; determining whether
water use designations are being met; and
identifying potential nonpoint source pollution
problems.
(5) The Procedure Must Be Approved by EPA
as Part of the State's Water Quality
Standards Regulation
To be consistent with the requirements of the Act,
the State's procedure to be applied to the narrative
criterion must be submitted to EPA for review
and approval, and will become a part of the
State's water quality standards. (See 40 CFR
131.21 for further discussion.) This requirement
may be satisfied by a reference in the standards to
the procedure, which may be contained in another
document, which has legal effect and is binding
on the State, and all the requirements for public
review, State implementation, and EPA review
and approval are satisfied.
Criteria Based on Biological Monitoring
For priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has
not issued section 304(a)(1) criteria guidance,
CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt
criteria based on biological monitoring or
assessment methods. The phrase "biological
monitoring or assessment methods" includes:
•	whole-effluent toxicity control methods;
•	biological criteria methods; or
•	other methods based on biological
monitoring or assessment.
The phrase "biological monitoring or assessment
methods" in its broadest sense also includes
criteria developed through translator procedures.
This broad interpretation of that phrase is
consistent with EPA's policy of applying
chemical-specific, biological, and whole-effluent
toxicity methods independently in an integrated
toxics control program. It is also consistent with
the intent of Congress to expand State standards
programs beyond chemical-specific approaches.
3-22
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
States should also consider developing protocols
to derive and adopt numeric criteria for priority
toxic pollutants (or other pollutants) where EPA
has not issued section 304(a) criteria guidance.
The State should consider available laboratory
toxicity (bioassay) data that may be sufficient to
support derivation of chemical-specific criteria.
Existing data need not be as comprehensive as
that required to meet EPA's 1985 guidelines in
order for a State to use its own protocols to derive
criteria. EPA has described such protocols in the
proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great
Lakes System (58 F.R. 20892, at 21016, April 16,
1993.) This is particularly important where other
components of a State's narrative criterion
implementation procedure (e.g., WET controls or
biological criteria) may not ensure full protection
of designated uses. For some pollutants, a
combination of chemical-specific and other
approaches is necessary (e.g., pollutants where
bioaccumulation in fish tissue or water
consumption by humans is a primary concern).
Biologically based monitoring or assessment
methods serve as the basis for control where no
specific numeric criteria exist or where calculation
or application of pollutant-by-pollutant criteria
appears infeasible. Also, these methods may
serve as a supplemental measurement of
attainment of water quality standards in addition
to numeric and narrative criteria. The
requirement for both numeric criteria and
biologically based methods demonstrates that
section 303(c)(2)(B) contemplates that States
develop a comprehensive toxics control program
regardless of the status of EPA's section 304(a)
criteria.
a State's toxics control program under section
303(c)(2)(B) and a principal means for
implementing a State's narrative "free from
toxics" standard.
Guidance documents EPA considers to serve the
purpose of section 304(a)(8) include the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control (USEPA, 1991a; Guidelines for Deriving
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (Appendix
H); Guidelines and Methodology Used in the
Preparation of Health Effect Assessment Chapters
of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents
(Appendix J); Methods for Measuring Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms (USEPA, 199 Id); Short-Term Methods
for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents
and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms
(USEPA, 1991e); and Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine
Organisms (USEPA, 199If).
3.4.2 Criteria for Nonconventional Pollutants
Criteria requirements applicable to toxicants that
are not priority toxic pollutants (e.g., ammonia
and chlorine), are specified in the 1983 Water
Quality Standards Regulation (see 40 CFR
131.11). Under these requirements, States must
adopt criteria based on sound scientific rationale
that cover sufficient parameters to protect
designated uses. Both numeric and narrative
criteria (discussed in sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2,
below) may be applied to meet these
requirements.
The whole-effluent toxicity (WET) testing
procedure is the principal biological monitoring
guidance developed by EPA to date. The purpose
of the WET procedure is to control point source
dischargers of toxic pollutants. The procedure is
particularly useful for monitoring and controlling
the toxicity of complex effluents that may not be
well controlled through chemical-specific numeric
criteria. As such, biologically based effluent
testing procedures are a necessary component of
|^5j Forms of Criteria
States are required to adopt water quality criteria,
based on sound scientific rationale, that contain
sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the
designated use. EPA believes that an effective
State water quality standards program should
include both parameter-specific (e.g., ambient
numeric criteria) and narrative approaches.
(9/15/93)
3-23
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
3.5.1	Numeric Criteria
Numeric criteria are required where necessary to
protect designated uses. Numeric criteria to
protect aquatic life should be developed to address
both short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic)
effects. Saltwater species, as well as freshwater
species, must be adequately protected. Adoption
of numeric criteria is particularly important for
toxicants known to be impairing surface waters
and for toxicants with potential human health
impacts (e.g., those with high bioaccumulation
potential). Human health should be protected
from exposure resulting from consumption of
water and fish or other aquatic life (e.g., mussels,
crayfish). Numeric water quality criteria also are
useful in addressing nonpoint source pollution
problems.
In evaluating whether chemical-specific numeric
criteria for toxicants that are not priority toxic
pollutants are required, States should consider
whether other approaches (such as whole-effluent
toxicity criteria or biological controls) will ensure
full protection of designated uses. As mentioned
above, a combination of independent approaches
may be required in some cases to support the
designated uses and comply with the requirements
of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (e.g.,
pollutants where bioaccumulation in fish tissue or
water consumption by humans is a primary
concern).
3.5.2	Narrative Criteria
To supplement numeric criteria for toxicants, all
States have also adopted narrative criteria for
toxicants. Such narrative criteria are statements
that describe the desired water quality goal, such
as the following:
All waters, including those within
mixing zones, shall be free from
substances attributable to wastewater
discharges or other pollutant sources
that:
(1)	Settle to form objectional
deposits;
(2)	Float as debris, scum, oil, or
other matter forming nuisances;
(3)	Produce objectionable color, odor,
taste, or turbidity;
(4)	Cause injury to, or are toxic to,
or produce adverse physiological
responses in humans, animals, or
plants; or
(5)	Produce undesirable or nuisance
aquatic life (54 F.R. 28627, July
6, 1989).
EPA considers that the narrative criteria apply to
all designated uses at all flows and are necessary
to meet the statutory requirements of section
303(c)(2)(A) of the CWA.
Narrative toxic criteria (No. 4, above) can be the
basis for establishing chemical-specific limits for
waste discharges where a specific pollutant can be
identified as causing or contributing to the toxicity
and the State has not adopted chemical-specific
numeric criteria. Narrative toxic criteria are cited
as a basis for establishing whole-effluent toxicity
controls in EPA permitting regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(d)(l)(v).
To ensure that narrative criteria for toxicants are
attained, the Water Quality Standards Regulation
requires States to develop implementation
procedures (see 40 CFR 131.11(a)(2)). Such
implementation procedures (Exhibit 3-3) should
address all mechanisms to be used by the State to
ensure that narrative criteria are attained.
Because implementation of chemical-specific
numeric criteria is a key component of State
toxics control programs, narrative criteria
implementation procedures must describe or
reference the State's procedures to implement
such chemical-specific numeric criteria (e.g.,
procedures for establishing chemical-specific
permit limits under the NPDES permitting
3-24
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
program). Implementation procedures must also
State implementation procedures for narrative toxics criteria should describe the following:
•	Specific, scientifically defensible methods by which the State will implement its narrative
toxics standard for all toxicants, including:
-	methods for chemical-specific criteria, including methods for applying chemical-specific
criteria in permits, developing or modifying chemical-specific criteria via a "translator
procedure" (defined and discussed below), and calculating site-specific criteria based
on local water chemistry or biology);
-	methods for developing and implementing whole-effluent toxicity criteria and/or
controls; and
-	methods for developing and implementing biological criteria.
•	How these methods will be integrated in the State's toxics control program (i.e., how the
State will proceed when the specified methods produce conflicting or inconsistent results).
•	Application criteria and information needed to apply numerical criteria, for example:
-	methods the State will use to identify those pollutants to be regulated in a specific
discharge;
-	an incremental cancer risk level for carcinogens;
-	methods for identifying compliance thresholds in permits where calculated limits are
below detection;
-	methods for selecting appropriate hardness, pH, and temperature variables for criteria
expressed as functions;
-	methods or policies controlling the size and in-zone quality of mixing zones;
-	design flows to be used in translating chemical-specific numeric criteria for aquatic life
and human health into permit limits; and
-	other methods and information needed to apply standards on a case-by-case basis.
Exhibit 3-3. Components of a State Implementation Procedure for Narrative Toxics Criteria
(9/15/93)
3-25
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
program). Implementation procedures must also
address State programs to control whole-effluent
toxicity (WET) and may address programs to
implement biological criteria, where such
programs have been developed by the State.
Implementation procedures therefore serve as
umbrella documents that describe how the State's
various toxics control programs are integrated to
ensure adequate protection for aquatic life and
human health and attainment of the narrative
toxics criterion. In essence, the procedure should
apply the "independent application" principle,
which provides for independent evaluations of
attainment of a designated use based on chemical-
specific, whole-effluent toxicity, and biological
criteria methods (see section 3.5.3 and
Appendices C, K, and R).
EPA encourages, and may ultimately require,
State implementation procedures to provide for
implementation of biological criteria. However,
the regulatory basis for requiring whole-effluent
toxicity (WET) controls is clear. EPA regulations
at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(v) require NPDES
permits to contain WET limits where a permittee
has been shown to cause, have the reasonable
potential to cause, or contribute to an in-stream
excursion of a narrative criterion. Implementation
of chemical-specific controls is also required by
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1). State
implementation procedures should, at a minimum,
specify or reference methods to be used in
implementing chemical-specific and whole-effluent
toxicity-based controls, explain how these
methods are integrated, and specify needed
application criteria.
In addition to EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 131,
EPA has regulations at 40 CFR 122.44 that cover
the National Surface Water Toxics Control
Program. These regulations are intrinsically
linked to the requirements to achieve water
quality standards, and specifically address the
control of pollutants both with and without
numeric criteria. For example, section
122.44(d)(l)(vi) provides the permitting authority
with several options for establishing effluent limits
when a State does not have a chemical-specific
numeric criterion for a pollutant present in an
effluent at a concentration that causes or
contributes to a violation of the State's narrative
criteria.
3.5.3 Biological Criteria
The Clean Water Act of 1972 directs EPA to
develop programs that will evaluate, restore, and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. In response to
this directive, States and EPA have implemented
chemically based water quality programs that
address significant water pollution problems.
However, over the past 20 years, it has become
apparent that these programs alone cannot identity
and address all surface water pollution problems.
To help create a more comprehensive program,
EPA is setting a priority for the development of
biological criteria as part of State water quality
standards. This effort will help States and EPA
(1) achieve the biological integrity objective of the
CWA set forth in section 101, and (2) comply
with the statutory requirements under sections 303
and 304 of the Act (see Appendices C and K).
Regulatory Bases for Biocriteria
The primary statutory basis for EPA's policy that
States should develop biocriteria is found in
sections 101(a) and 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean
Water Act. Section 101(a) of the CWA gives the
general goal of biological criteria. It establishes
as the objective of the Act the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. To
meet this objective, water quality criteria should
address biological integrity. Section 101(a)
includes the interim water quality goal for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
Section 304(a) of the Act provides the legal basis
for the development of informational criteria,
including biological criteria. Specific directives
for the development of regulatory biocriteria can
be found in section 303(c), which requires EPA to
develop criteria based on biological assessment
3-26
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
methods when numerical criteria are not
established.
Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and publish
water quality criteria and information on methods
for measuring water quality and establishing water
quality criteria for toxic pollutants on bases other
than pollutant-by-pollutant, including biological
monitoring and assessment methods that assess:
•	the effects of pollutants on aquatic
community components (". . . plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life . . .") and
community attributes (". . . biological
community diversity, productivity, and
stability . . .") in any body of water; and
•	factors necessary "... to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of all navigable waters .
. for " . . . the protection of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife for classes and categories
of receiving waters . . .
Once biocriteria are formally adopted into State
standards, biocriteria and aquatic life use
designations serve as direct, legal endpoints for
determining aquatic life use attainment/non-
attainment. CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) provides
that when numeric criteria are not available,
States shall adopt criteria for toxics based on
biological monitoring or assessment methods;
biocriteria can be used to meet this requirement.
Development and Implementation of
Biocriteria
Biocriteria are numerical values or narrative
expressions that describe the expected reference
biological integrity of aquatic communities
inhabiting waters of a designated aquatic life use.
In the most desirable scenario, these would be
waters that are either in pristine condition or
minimally impaired. However, in some areas
these conditions no longer exist and may not be
attainable. In these situations, the reference
biological communities represent the best
attainable conditions. In either case, the reference
conditions then become the basis for developing
biocriteria for major surface water types (streams,
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, or marine
waters).
Biological criteria support designated aquatic life
use classifications for application in State
standards (see chapter 2). Each State develops its
own designated use classification system based on
the generic uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife).
Designated uses are intentionally general.
However, States may develop subcategories
within use designations to refine and clarify the
use class. Clarification of the use class is
particularly helpful when a variety of surface
waters with distinct characteristics fit within the
same use class, or do not fit well into any
category.
For example, subcategories of aquatic life uses
may be on the basis of attainable habitat (e.g.,
coldwater versus warmwater stream systems as
represented by distinctive trout or bass fish
communities, respectively). Special uses may
also be designated to protect particularly unique,
sensitive, or valuable aquatic species,
communities, or habitats.
Resident biota integrate multiple impacts over
time and can detect impairment from known and
unknown causes. Biological criteria can be used
to verify improvement in water quality in
response to regulatory and other improvement
efforts and to detect new or continuing
degradation of waters. Biological criteria also
provide a framework for developing improved
best management practices and management
measures for nonpoint source impacts. Numeric
biological criteria can provide effective
monitoring criteria for more definitive evaluation
of the health of an aquatic ecosystem.
The assessment of the biological integrity of a
water body should include measures of the
structure and function of the aquatic community
within a specified habitat. Expert knowledge of
the system is required for the selection of
(9/15/93)
3-27
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
appropriate biological components and
measurement indices. The development and
implementation of biological criteria requires:
•	selection of surface waters to use in
developing reference conditions for each
designated use;
•	measurement of the structure and function of
aquatic communities in reference surface
waters to establish biological criteria;
•	measurement of the physical habitat and
other environmental characteristics of the
water resource; and
•	establishment of a protocol to compare the
biological criteria to biota in comparable test
waters to determine whether impairment has
occurred.
These elements serve as an interactive network
that is particularly important during early
development of biological criteria where rapid
accumulation of information is effective for
refining both designated uses and developing
biological criteria values and the supporting
biological monitoring and assessment techniques.
3.5.4 Sediment Criteria
While ambient water quality criteria are playing
an important role in assuring a healthy aquatic
environment, they alone have not been sufficient
to ensure appropriate levels of environmental
protection. Sediment contamination, which can
involve deposition of toxicants over long periods
of time, is responsible for water quality impacts
in some areas.
EPA has authority to pursue the development of
sediment criteria in streams, lakes and other
waters of the United States under sections 104 and
304(a)(1) and (2) of the CWA as follows:
•	section 104(n)(l) authorizes the
Administrator to establish national programs
that study the effects of pollution, including
sedimentation, in estuaries on aquatic life;
•	section 304(a)(1) directs the Administrator to
develop and publish criteria for water
quality, including information on the factors
affecting rates of organic and inorganic
sedimentation for varying types of receiving
waters;
•	section 304(a)(2) directs the Administrator to
develop and publish information on, among
other issues, "the factors necessary for the
protection and propagation of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife for classes and categories of
receiving waters. ..."
To the extent that sediment criteria could be
developed that address the concerns of the section
404(b)(1) Guidelines for discharges of dredged or
fill material under the CWA or the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, they
could also be incorporated into those regulations.
EPA's current sediment criteria development
effort, as described below, focuses on criteria for
the protection of aquatic life. EPA anticipates
potential future expansion of this effort to include
sediment criteria for the protection of human
health.
Chemical Approach to Sediment Criteria
Development
Over the past several years, sediment criteria
development activities have centered on evaluating
and developing the Equilibrium Partitioning
Approach for generating sediment criteria. The
Equilibrium Partitioning Approach focuses on
predicting the chemical interaction between
sediments and contaminants. Developing an
understanding of the principal factors that
influence the sediment/contaminant interactions
will allow predictions to be made regarding the
level of contaminant concentration that benthic
and other organisms may be exposed to. Chronic
water quality criteria, or possibly other
toxicological endpoints, can then be used to
3-28
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
predict potential biological effects. In addition to
the development of sediment criteria, EPA is also
working to develop a standardized sediment
toxicity test that could be used with or
independently of sediment criteria to assess
chronic effects in fresh and marine waters.
Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) Sediment
Quality Criteria (SQC) are the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's best
recommendation of the concentration of a
substance in sediment that will not
unacceptably affect benthic organisms or
their uses.
Methodologies for deriving effects-based SQC
vary for different classes of compounds. For
non-ionic organic chemicals, the methodology
requires normalization to organic carbon. A
methodology for deriving effects-based sediment
criteria for metal contaminants is under
development and is expected to require
normalization to acid volatile sulfide. EqP SQC
values can be derived for varying degrees of
uncertainty and levels of protection, thus
permitting use for ecosystem protection and
remedial programs.
Application of Sediment Criteria
SQC would provide a basis for making more
informed decisions on the environmental impacts
of contaminated sediments. Existing sediment
assessment methodologies are limited in their
ability to identify chemicals of concern,
responsible parties, degree of contamination, and
zones of impact. To make the most informed
decisions, EPA believes that a comprehensive
approach using SQC and biological test methods
is preferred.
Sediment criteria will be particularly valuable in
site-monitoring applications where sediment
contaminant concentrations are gradually
approaching a criterion over time or as a
preventive tool to ensure that point and nonpoint
sources of contamination are controlled and that
uncontaminated sediments remain uncontaminated.
Also comparison of field measurements to
sediment criteria will be a reliable method for
providing early warning of a potential problem.
An early warning would provide an opportunity to
take corrective action before adverse impacts
occur. For the reasons mentioned above, it has
been identified that SQC are essential to resolving
key contaminated sediment and source control
issues in the Great Lakes.
Specific Applications
Specific applications of sediment criteria are
under development. The primary use of EqP-
based sediment criteria will be to assess risks
associated with contaminants in sediments. The
various offices and programs concerned with
contaminated sediment have different regulatory
mandates and, thus, have different needs and
areas for potential application of sediment criteria.
Because each regulatory need is different, EqP-
based sediment quality criteria designed
specifically to meet the needs of one office or
program may have to be implemented in different
ways to meet the needs of another office or
program.
One mode of application of EqP-based numerical
sediment quality criteria would be in a tiered
approach. In such an application, when
contaminants in sediments exceed the sediment
quality criteria the sediments would be considered
as causing unacceptable impacts. Further testing
may or may not be required depending on site-
specific conditions and the degree in which a
criterion has been violated. (In locations where
contamination significantly exceeds a criterion, no
additional testing would be required. Where
sediment contaminant levels are close to a
criterion, additional testing might be necessary.)
Contaminants in a sediment at concentrations less
than the sediment criterion would not be of
concern. However, in some cases the sediment
could not be considered safe because it might
contain other contaminants above safe levels for
which no sediment criteria exist. In addition, the
synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects of
(9/15/93)
3-29
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
several contaminants in the sediments may be of
concern.
Additional testing in other tiers of an evaluation
approach, such as bioassays, could be required to
determine if the sediment is safe. It is likely that
such testing would incorporate site-specific
considerations. Examples of specific applications
of sediment criteria after they are developed
include the following:
•	Establish permit limits for point sources to
ensure that uncontaminated sediments remain
uncontaminated or sediments already
contaminated have an opportunity to cleanse
themselves. Of course, this would occur
only after criteria and the means to tie point
sources to sediment contamination are
developed.
•	Establish target levels for nonpoint sources
of sediment contamination.
•	For remediation activities, SQC would be
valuable in identifying:
-	need for remediation,
-	spatial extent of remediation area,
-	benefits derived from remediation
activities,
-	responsible parties,
-	impacts of depositing contaminated
sediments in water environments, and
-	success of remediation activities.
In tiered testing sediment evaluation processes,
sediment criteria and biological testing procedures
work very well together.
Sediment Criteria Status
Science Advisory Board Review
The Science Advisory Board has completed a
second review of the EqP approach to deriving
sediment quality criteria for non-ionic
contaminants. The November 1992 report
(USEPA, 1992c) endorses the EqP approach to
deriving criteria as ". . . sufficiently valid to be
used in the regulatory process if the uncertainty
associated with the method is considered,
described, and incorporated," and that "EPA
should . . . establish criteria on the basis of
present knowledge within the bounds of
uncertainty. ..."
The Science Advisory Board also identified the
need for ". . .a better understanding of the
uncertainty around the assumptions inherent in the
approach, including assumptions of equilibrium,
bioavailability, and kinetics, all critical to the
application of the EqP."
Sediment Criteria Documents and
Application Guidance
EPA efforts at producing sediment criteria
documents are being directed first toward
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, dieldrin,
acenaphthene, and endrin. Efforts are also being
directed towards producing a guidance document
on the derivation and interpretation of sediment
quality criteria. A Federal Register Notice
requesting public comment on the proposed
methodology and criteria is expected in late fall
1993. The draft guidance is expected to be
available in early spring 1994 for comments.
3-30
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
Methodology for Developing Sediment
Criteria for Metal Contaminants
EPA is proceeding to develop a methodology for
calculating sediment criteria for benthic toxicity to
metal contaminants, with key work focused on
identifying and understanding the role of acid
volatile sulfides (AVS), and other binding factors,
in controlling the bioavailability of metal
contaminants. A variety of field and laboratory
verification studies are under way to add
additional support to the methodology. Standard
AVS sampling and analytical procedures are
under development. Presentation of the metals
methodology to the SAB for review is anticipated
for Fall 1993.
Biological Approach to Sediment Criteria
Development
Under the Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy, EPA programs have committed to using
consistent biological methods to determine if
sediments are contaminated. In the water
program, these biological methods will be used as
a complement to the sediment-chemical criteria
under development. The biological methods
consist of both toxicity and bioaccumulation tests.
Freshwater and saltwater benthic species, selected
to represent the sensitive range of species'
responses to toxicity, are used in bioassays to
measure sediment toxicity. Insensitive freshwater
and saltwater benthic species that form the base of
the food chain are used in bioassays to measure
the bioaccumulation potential of sediment. By
December 1993, acute toxicity bioassays and
bioaccumulation tests selected by all the Agency
programs should be standardized and available for
use. Training for States and EPA Regions on
these methods is expected to begin in FY 1994.
In the next few years, research will be conducted
to develop standardized chronic toxicity tests for
sediment as well as toxicity identification
evaluation (TIE) methods. The TIE approach will
be used to identify the specific chemicals in a
sediment causing acute or chronic toxicity in the
test organisms. Under the Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy, EPA's programs
have also agreed to incorporate these chronic
toxicity and TIE methods into their sediment
testing when they are available.
3.5.5 Wildlife Criteria
Terrestrial and avian species are useful as
sentinels for the health of the ecosystem as a
whole. In many cases, damage to wildlife
indicates that the ecosystem itself is damaged.
Many wildlife species that are heavily dependent
on the aquatic food web reflect the health of
aquatic systems. In the case of toxic chemicals,
terminal predators such as otter, mink, gulls,
terns, eagles, ospreys, and turtles are useful as
integrative indicators of the status or health of the
ecosystem.
Statutory and Regulatory Authority
Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA sets, as an interim
goal of,
. . . wherever attainable . . . water
quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife . . . (emphasis
added).
Section 304(a)(1) of the Act also requires EPA to:
. . . develop and publish . . . criteria for
water quality accurately reflecting ... the
kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
health and welfare including . . . wildlife.
The Water Quality Standards Regulation reflect
the statutory goals and requirements by requiring
States to adopt, where attainable, the CWA
section 101(a)(2) goal uses of protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife (40
CFR 131.10), and to adopt water quality criteria
sufficient to protect the designated use (40 CFR
131.11).
(9/15/93)
3-31
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Wildlife Protection in Current Aquatic
Criteria
Current water quality criteria methodology is
designed to protect fish, benthic invertebrates, and
zooplankton; however, there is a provision in the
current aquatic life criteria guidelines (Appendix
H) that is intended to protect wildlife that
consume aquatic organisms from the
bioaccumulative potential of a compound. The
final residue value can be based on either the
FDA Action Level or a wildlife feeding study.
However, if maximum permissible tissue
concentration is not available from a wildlife
feeding study, a final residue value cannot be
derived and the criteria quantification procedure
continues without further consideration of wildlife
impacts. Historically, wildlife have been
considered only after detrimental effects on
wildlife populations have been observed in the
environment (this occurred with relationship to
DDT, selenium, and PCBs).
Wildlife Criteria Development
EPA's national wildlife criteria effort began
following release of a 1987 Government
Accounting Office study entitled Wildlife
Management - National Refuge Contamination Is
Difficult To Confirm and Clean JJp (GAO, 1987).
After waterfowl deformities observed at Kesterson
Wildlife Refuge were linked to selenium
contamination in the water, Congress requested
this study and recommended that "the
Administrator of EPA, in close coordination with
the Secretary of the Interior, develop water
quality criteria for protecting wildlife and their
refuge habitat."
In November of 1988, EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory in Corvallis sponsored a
workshop entitled Water Quality Criteria To
Protect Wildlife Resources, (USEPA, 1989g)
which was co-chaired by EPA and the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). The workshop brought
together 26 professionals from a variety of
institutions, including EPA, FWS, State
governments, academia, and consultants who had
expertise in wildlife toxicity, aquatic toxicity,
ecology, environmental risk assessment, and
conservation. Efforts at he workshop focused on
evaluating the need for, and developing a strategy
for production of wildlife criteria. Two
recommendations came out of that workshop:
(1)	The process by which ambient
water quality criteria are
established should be modified to
consider effects on wildlife; and
(2)	chemicals should be prioritized
based on their potential to
adversely impact wildlife species.
Based on the workshop recommendations,
screening level wildlife criteria (SLWC) were
calculated for priority pollutants and chemicals of
concern submitted by the FWS to gauge the extent
of the problem by:
(1)	evaluating whether existing water
quality criteria for aquatic life are
protective of wildlife, and
(2)	prioritizing chemicals for their potential
to adversely impact wildlife species.
There were 82 chemicals for which EPA had the
necessary toxicity information as well as ambient
water quality criteria, advisories, or lowest-
observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) to
compare with the SLWC values. As would be
expected, the majority of chemicals had SLWC
larger than existing water quality criteria,
advisories, or LOAELs for aquatic life.
However, the screen identified classes of
compounds for which current ambient water
quality criteria may not be adequately protective
of wildlife: chlorinated alkanes, benzenes,
phenols, metals, DDT, and dioxins. Many of
these compounds are produced in very large
amounts and have a variety of uses (e.g.,
solvents, flame retardants, organic syntheses of
fungicides and herbicides, and manufacture of
plastics and textiles. The manufacture and use of
3-32
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
these materials produce waste byproduct). Also,
5 of the 21 are among the top 25 pollutants
identified at Superfund sites in 1985 (3 metals, 2
organics).
Following this initial effort, EPA held a national
meeting in April 19921 to constructively discuss
and evaluate proposed methodologies for deriving
wildlife criteria to build consensus among the
scientific community as to the most defensible
scientifically approach(es) to be pursued by EPA
in developing useful and effective wildlife criteria.
The conclusions of this national meeting were as
follows:
•	wildlife criteria should have a tissue-residue
component when appropriate;
•	peer-review of wildlife criteria and data sets
should be used in their derivation;
•	wildlife criteria should incorporate methods
to establish site-specific wildlife criteria;
•	additional amphibian and reptile toxicity data
are needed;
•	further development of inter-species
toxicological sensitivity factors are needed;
and
proposed wildlife criteria are based on the current
EPA noncancer human health criteria approach.
In this proposal, in addition to requesting
comments on the proposed Great Lakes criteria
and methods, EPA also requested comments on
possible modifications of the proposed Great
Lakes approach for consideration in the
development of national wildlife criteria.
3.5.6 Numeric Criteria for Wetlands
Extension of the EPA national 304(a) numeric
aquatic life criteria to wetlands is recommended
as part of a program to develop standards and
criteria for wetlands. Appendices D and E
provide an overview of the need for standards and
criteria for wetlands. The 304(a) numeric aquatic
life criteria are designed to be protective of
aquatic life for surface waters and are generally
applicable to most wetland types. Appendix E
provides a possible approach, based on the site-
specific guidelines, for detecting wetland types
that might not be protected by direct application
of national 304(a) criteria. The evaluation can be
simple and inexpensive for those wetland types
for which sufficient water chemistry and species
assemblage data are available, but will be less
useful for wetland types for which these data are
not readily available. In Appendix E, the site-
specific approach is described and recommended
for wetlands for which modification of the 304(a)
numeric criteria are considered necessary. The
results of this type of evaluation, combined with
information on local or regional environmental
threats, can be used to prioritize wetland types
(and individual criteria) for further site-specific
evaluations and/or additional data collection.
Close coordination among regulatory agencies,
wetland scientists, and criteria experts will be
required.
• criteria methods should measure biomarkers
in conjunction with other studies.
On April 16, 1993, EPA proposed wildlife
criteria in the Water Quality Guidance for the
Great Lakes System (58 F.R. 20802). The
(9/15/93)
3-33
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Endnotes
1. Proceedings in production.
Contact: Ecological Risk Assessment Branch (4304)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone (202) 260-1940
RESERVED
On October 1, 1993, the Acting
Assistant Administrator for Water issuesd
the Office of Water Policy and Technical
Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals
Criteria.
Since the policy document was signed
to late for inclusion in the Handbook, the
complete policy document is being sent to
the recipients of this Handbook under
separate cover. Later this fiscal year, you
will receive an update to the Handbook, to
be inserted in the following reserved
section, reflecting the policy document.
3-34
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
(9/15/93)
3-35
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
3-36
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
(9/15/93)
3-37
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
3-38
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
(9/15/93)
3-39
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
3-40
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
(9/15/93)
3-41
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
3-42
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
(9/15/93)
3-43
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
3-44
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
(9/15/93)
3-45
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
3-46
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
(9/15/93)
3-47
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
RESERVED
(see page 3-34)
3-48
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
CHAPTER 4
ANTIDEGRADATION
(40 CFR 131.12)
Table of Contents
4.1	History of Antidegradation 	4-1
4.2	Summary of the Antidegradation Policy 	4-1
4.3	State Antidegradation Requirements	4-2
4.4	Protection of Existing Uses - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(1) 	4-3
4.4.1	Recreational Uses 			4-4
4.4.2	Aquatic Life/Wildlife Uses	4-5
4.4.3	Existing Uses and Physical Modifications	4-5
4.4.4	Existing Uses and Mixing Zones 	4-6
4.5	Protection of Water Quality in High-Quality Waters - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)	4-6
4.6	Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW) - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3) 	4-8
4.7	Antidegradation Application and Implementation	4-10
4.7.1	Antidegradation, Load Allocation, Waste Load Allocation, Total Maximum
Daily Load, and Permits 	4-10
4.7.2	Antidegradation and the Public Participation Process	4-11
-------
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
CHAPTER 4
ANTIDEGRADATION
This chapter provides guidance on the
antidegradation component of water quality
standards, its application in conjunction with
the other parts of the water quality standards
regulation, and its implementation by the
States. Antidegradation implementation by the
States is based on a set of procedures to be
followed when evaluating activities that may
impact the quality of the waters of the United
States. Antidegradation implementation is an
integral component of a comprehensive
approach to protecting and enhancing water
quality.

History of Antidegradation
The first antidegradation policy statement was
released on February 8, 1968, by the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of the Interior. It was
included in EPA's first Water Quality Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 130.17,40 F.R. 55340-41,
November 28, 1975), and was slightly refined
and re-promulgated as part of the current
program regulation published on November 8,
1983 (48 F.R. 51400, 40 CFR 131.12).
Antidegradation requirements and methods for
implementing those requirements are minimum
conditions to be included in a State's water
quality standards. Antidegradation was
originally based on the spirit, intent, and goals
of the Act, especially the clause "... restore
and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
(101(a)) and the provision of 303(a) that made
water quality standards under prior law the
"starting point" for CWA water quality
requirements. Antidegradation was explicitly
incorporated in the CWA through:
• a 1987 amendment codified in section
303(d)(4)(B) requiring satisfaction of
antidegradation requirements before
making certain changes in NPDES
permits; and
the 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs
Act codified in CWA section 118(c)(2)
requiring EPA to publish Great Lakes
water quality guidance including
antidegradation policies and imple-
mentation procedures.
Summary
Policy
of the Antidegradation
Section 131.12(a)(1), or "Tier 1," protecting
"existing uses," provides the absolute floor of
water quality in all waters of the United States.
This paragraph applies a minimum level of
protection to all waters.
Section 131.12(a)(2), or "Tier 2," applies to
waters whose quality exceeds that necessary to
protect the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act.
In this case, water quality may not be lowered
to less than the level necessary to fully protect
the "fishable/swimmable" uses and other
existing uses and may be lowered even to those
levels only after following all the provisions
described in section 131.12(a)(2).
Section 131.12(a)(3), or "Tier 3," applies to
Outstanding National Resource Waters
(ONRW) where the ordinary use classifications
and supporting criteria may not be sufficient or
appropriate. As described in the preamble to
the Water Quality Standards Regulation, "States
may allow some limited activities which result
in temporary and short-term changes in water
quality," but such changes in water quality
should not impact existing uses or alter the
essential character or special use that makes
the water an ONRW.
(9/15/93)
4-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
The requirement for potential water quality
impairment associated with thermal discharges
contained in section 131.12 (a)(4) of the
regulation is intended to coordinate the
requirements and procedures of the
antidegradation policy with those established in
the Act for setting thermal discharge
limitations. Regulations implementing section
316 may be found at 40 CFR 124.66. The
statutory scheme and legislative history indicate
that limitations developed under section 316
take precedence over other requirements of the
Act.
As the States began to focus more attention on
implementing their antidegradation policies, an
additional concept was developed by the States,
which EPA has accepted even though not
directly mentioned in previous EPA guidance or
in the regulation. This concept, commonly
known as "Tier 21/2,"is an application of the
antidegradation policy that has implementation
requirements that are more stringent than for
"Tier2"(high-quality waters), but somewhat less
stringent than the prohibition against any
lowering of water quality in "Tier 3" (ONRWs).
EPA accepts this additional tier in State
antidegradation policies because it is clearly a
more stringent application of the Tier 2
provisions of the antidegradation policy and,
therefore, permissible under section 510 of the
CWA.
The supporting rationale that led to the
development of the Tier 2Vi concept was a
concern by the States that the Tier 3 ONRW
provision was so stringent that its application
would likely prevent States from taking actions
in the future that were consistent with
important social and economic development on,
or upstream of, ONRWs. This concern is a
major reason that relatively few water bodies
are designated as ONRWs. The Tier 2Vi
approach allows States to provide a very high
level of water quality protection without
precluding unforeseen future economic and
social development considerations.
4.3 I State Antidegradation Requirements
Each State must develop, adopt, and retain a
statewide antidegradation policy regarding
water quality standards and establish
procedures for its implementation through the
water quality management process. The State
antidegradation policy and implementation
procedures must be consistent with the
components detailed in 40 CFR 131.12. If not
included in the standards regulation of a State,
the policy must be specifically referenced in the
water quality standards so that the functional
relationship between the policy and the
standards is clear. Regardless of the location of
the policy, it must meet all applicable
requirements. States may adopt
antidegradation statements more protective
than the Federal requirement. The
antidegradation implementation procedures
specify how the State will determine on a case-
by-case basis whether, and to what extent, water
quality may be lowered.
State antidegradation polices and imple-
mentation procedures are subject to review by
the Regional Administrator. EPA has clear
authority to review and approve or disapprove
and promulgate an antidegradation policy for a
State. EPA's review of the implementation
procedures is limited to ensuring that
procedures are included that describe how the
State will implement the required elements of
the antidegradation review. EPA may
disapprove and federally promulgate all or part
of an implementation process for
antidegradation if, in the judgment of the
Administrator, the State's process (or certain
provisions thereof) can be implemented in such
a way as to circumvent the intent and purpose
of the antidegradation policy. EPA encourages
submittal of any amendments to the statement
and implementing procedures to the Regional
Administrator for pre-adoption review so that
the State may take EPA comments into account
prior to final action.
4-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
If a State's antidegradation policy does not
meet the Federal regulatory requirements,
either through State action to revise its policy
or through revised Federal requirements, the
State would be given the opportunity to make
its policy consistent with the regulation. If this
is not done, EPA has the authority to
promulgate the policy for the State pursuant to
section 303(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act (see
section 6.3, this Handbook).
4.4 | Protection of Existing Uses - 40 CFR
131.12(a)(1)
This section requires the protection of existing
uses and the level of water quality to protect
those uses. An "existing use" can be established
by demonstrating that:
•	fishing, swimming, or other uses have
actually occurred since November 28,
1975; or
•	that the water quality is suitable to allow
the use to be attained—unless there are
physical problems, such as substrate or
flow, that prevent the use from being
attained.
An example of the latter is an area where
shellfish are propagating and surviving in a
biologically suitable habitat and are available
and suitable for harvesting although, to date, no
one has attempted to harvest them. Such facts
clearly establish that shellfish harvesting is an
"existing" use, not one dependent on
improvements in water quality. To argue
otherwise would be to say that the only time an
aquatic protection use "exists" is if someone
succeeds in catching fish.
Full protection of the existing use requires
protection of the entire water body with a few
limited exceptions such as certain physical
modifications that may so alter a water body
that species composition cannot be maintained
(see section 4.4.3,this Handbook), and mixing
zones (see section 4.4.4,this Handbook). For
example, an activity that lowers water quality
such that a buffer zone must be established
within a previous shellfish harvesting area is
inconsistent with the antidegradation policy.
Section 131.12(a)(1) provides the absolute floor
of water quality in all waters of the United
States. This paragraph applies a minimum level
of protection to all waters. However, it is most
pertinent to waters having beneficial uses that
are less than the section 101(a)(2) goals of the
Act. If it can be proven, in that situation, that
water quality exceeds that necessary to fully
protect the existing use(s) and exceeds water
quality standards but is not of sufficient quality
to cause a better use to be achieved, then that
water quality may be lowered to the level
required to fully protect the existing use as long
as existing water quality standards and
downstream water quality standards are not
affected. If this does not involve a change in
standards, no public hearing would be required
under section 303(c). However, public
participation would still be provided in
connection with the issuance of a NPDES
permit or amendment of a section 208 plan or
section 319 program. If, however, analysis
indicates that the higher water quality does
result in a better use, even if not up to the
section 101(a)(2) goals, then the water quality
standards must be upgraded to reflect the uses
presently being attained (131.10(i)).
If a planned activity will foreseeably lower
water quality to the extent that it no longer is
sufficient to protect and maintain the existing
(9/15/93)
4-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
uses in that water body, such an activity is
inconsistent with EPA's antidegradation policy,
which requires that existing uses are to be
maintained. In such a circumstance, the
planned activity must be avoided or adequate
mitigation or preventive measures must be
taken to ensure that the existing uses and the
water quality to protect them will be
maintained.
Section 4.4.1, this Handbook, discusses the
determination and protection of recreational
"existing" uses, and section 4.4.2, this
Handbook, discusses aquatic life protection
"existing" uses (of course, many other types of
existing uses may occur in a water body).
4.4.1 Recreational Uses
Recreational uses traditionally are divided into
primary contact and secondary contact
recreation (e.g., swimming vs. boating; that is,
recreation "in" or "on" the water.) However,
these two broad uses can logically be
subdivided into a variety of subcategories (e.g.,
wading, sailing, power boating, rafting). The
water quality standards regulation does not
establish a level of specificity that each State
must apply in determining what recreational
"uses" exist. However, the following principles
apply.
• The State selects the level of specificity it
desires for identifying recreational existing
uses (that is, whether to treat secondary
contact recreation as a single use or to
define subcategories of secondary
recreation). The State has two limitations:
the State must be at least as specific
as the uses listed in sections 101(a)
and 303(c) of the Clean Water Act;
and
the State must be at least as specific
as the written description of the
designated use classifications adopted
by the State.
•	If the State designated use classification
system is very specific in describing
subcategories of a use, then such
specifically defined uses, if they exist, must
be protected fully under antidegradation.
A State with a broadly written use
classification system may, as a matter of
policy, interpret its classifications more
specifically for determining existing
uses—as long as it is done consistently. A
State may also redefine its use
classification system, subject to the
constraints in 40 CFR 131.10, to more
adequately reflect existing uses.
•	If the use classification system in a State is
defined in broad terms such as primary
contact recreation, secondary contact
recreation, or boating, then it is a State
determination whether to allow changes in
the type of primary or secondary contact
recreation or boating activity that would
occur on a specific water body as long as
the basic use classification is met. For
example, if a State defines a use simply as
"boating," it is the State's decision whether
to allow something to occur that would
change the type of boating from canoeing
to power boating as long as the resulting
water quality allows the "boating" use to be
met. (The public record used originally to
establish the use may provide a clearer
indication of the use intended to be
attained and protected by the State.)
The rationale is that the required water quality
will allow a boating use to continue and that
use meets the goal of the Act. Water quality is
the key. This interpretation may allow a State
to change activities within a specific use
category but it does not create a mechanism to
remove use classifications; this latter action is
governed solely by the provisions of the
standards regulation (CWA section 131.10(g)).
One situation where EPA might conceivably be
called upon to decide what constitutes an
existing use is where EPA is writing an NPDES
4-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
permit. EPA has the responsibility under CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C) to determine what is
needed to protect existing uses under the
State's antidegradation requirement, and
accordingly may define "existing uses" or
interpret the State's definition to write that
permit if the State has not done so. Of course,
EPA's determination would be subject to State
section 401 certification in such a case.
4.4.2 Aquatic Life/Wildlife Uses
No activity is allowable under the
antidegradation policy which would partially or
completely eliminate any existing use whether
or not that use is designated in a State's water
quality standards. The aquatic protection use is
a broad category requiring further explanation.
Non-aberrational resident species must be
protected, even if not prevalent in number or
importance. Water quality should be such that
it results in no mortality and no significant
growth or reproductive impairment of resident
species. Any lowering of water quality below
this full level of protection is not allowed.
A State may develop subcategories of aquatic
protection uses but cannot choose different
levels of protection for like uses. The fact that
sport or commercial fish are not present does
not mean that the water may not be supporting
an aquatic life protection function. An existing
aquatic community composed entirely of
invertebrates and plants, such as may be found
in a pristine alpine tributary stream, should still
be protected whether or not such a stream
supports a fishery.
Even though the shorthand expression
"fishable/swimmable" is often used, the actual
objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of our Nation's waters" (section 101(a)). The
term "aquatic life" would more accurately
reflect the protection of the aquatic community
that was intended in section 101(a)(2) of the
Act.
Section 131.12(a)(1) states, "Existing instream
water uses and level of water quality necessary
to protect the existing uses shall be maintained
and protected." For example, while sustaining a
small coldwater fish population, a stream does
not support an existing use of a "coldwater
fishery." The existing stream temperatures are
unsuitable for a thriving coldwater fishery. The
small marginal population is an artifact and
should not be employed to mandate a more
stringent use (true coldwater fishery) where
natural conditions are not suitable for that use.
A use attainability analysis or other scientific
assessment should be used to determine
whether the aquatic life population is in fact an
artifact or is a stable population requiring water
quality protection. Where species appear in
areas not normally expected, some adaptation
may have occurred and site-specific criteria may
be appropriately developed. Should the
coldwater fish population consist of a
threatened or endangered species, it may
require protection under the Endangered
Species Act. Otherwise, the stream need only
be protected as a warm water fishery.
4.4.3 Existing Uses and Physical
Modifications
A literal interpretation of 40 CFR 131.12(a)(1)
could prevent certain physical modifications to
a water body that are clearly allowed by the
Clean Water Act, such as wetland fill
operations permitted under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. EPA interprets section
131.12(a)(1) of the antidegradation policy to be
satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if the
discharge did not result in "significant
degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem as
defined under section 230.10(c) of the section
404(b)(1) Guidelines.
The section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the
following effects contribute to significant
degradation, either individually or collectively:
(9/15/93)
4-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
. . . significant adverse effects on (1)
human health or welfare, including
effects on municipal water supplies,
plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and
special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands);
(2) on the life stages of aquatic life
and other wildlife dependent on
aquatic ecosystems, including the
transfer, concentration, or spread of
pollutants or their byproducts beyond
the site through biological, physical,
or chemical process; (3) on ecosystem
diversity, productivity, and stability,
including loss of fish and wildlife
habitat or loss of the capacity of a
wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify
water, or reduce wave energy; or (4)
on recreational, aesthetic, and
economic values.
These Guidelines may be used by States to
determine "significant degradation" for wetland
fills. Of course, the States are free to adopt
stricter requirements for wetland fills in their
own antidegradation polices, just as they may
adopt any other requirement more stringent
than Federal law requires. For additional
information on the linkage between water
quality standards and the section 404 program,
see Appendix D.
If any wetlands were found to have better water
quality than "fishable/swimmable," the State
would be allowed to lower water quality to the
no significant degradation level as long as the
requirements of section 131.12(a)(2) were
followed. As for the ONRW provision of
antidegradation (131.12(a)(3)), there is no
difference in the way it applies to wetlands and
other water bodies.
4.4.4 Existing Uses and Mixing Zones
Mixing zones are another instance when the
entire extent of the water body is not required
to be given full existing use protection. The
area within a properly designated mixing zone
(see section 5.1) may have altered benthic
habitat and a subsequent alteration of the
portions of the aquatic community. Any effect
on the existing use must be limited to the area
of the regulatory mixing zone.
4.5 | Protection of Water Quality in High-
Quality Waters-40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)
This section provides general program guidance
in the development of procedures for the
maintenance and protection of water quality
where the quality of the water exceeds levels
necessary to support propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on
the water. Water quality in "high-quality
waters" must be maintained and protected as
prescribed in section 131.12(a)(2) of the WQS
regulation.
4-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
High-quality waters are those whose quality
exceeds that necessary to protect the section
101(a)(2) goals of the Act, regardless of use
designation. All parameters do not need to be
better quality than the State's ambient criteria
for the water to be deemed a "high-quality
water." EPA believes that it is best to apply
antidegradation on a parameter-by-parameter
basis. Otherwise, there is potential for a large
number of waters not to receive antidegradation
protection, which is important to attaining the
goals of the Clean Water Act to restore and
maintain the integrity of the Nation's waters.
However, if a State has an official
interpretation that differs from this
interpretation, EPA will evaluate the State
interpretation for conformance with the
statutory and regulatory intent of the
antidegradation policy. EPA has accepted
approaches that do not use a strict pollutant-by-
pollutant basis (USEPA, 1989c).
In "high-quality waters," under 131.12(a)(2),
before any lowering of water quality occurs,
there must be an antidegradation review
consisting of:
•	a finding that it is necessary to
accommodate important economical or
social development in the area in which
the waters are located (this phrase is
intended to convey a general concept
regarding what level of social and
economic development could be used to
justify a change in high-quality waters);
•	full satisfaction of all intergovernmental
coordination and public participation
provisions (the intent here is to ensure
that no activity that will cause water
quality to decline in existing high-quality
waters is undertaken without adequate
public review and intergovernmental
coordination); and
•	assurance that the highest statutory and
regulatory requirements for point sources,
including new source performance
standards, and best management practices
for nonpoint source pollutant controls are
achieved (this requirement ensures that
the limited provision for lowering water
quality of high-quality waters down to
"fishable/swimmable" levels will not be
used to undercut the Clean Water Act
requirements for point source and
nonpoint source pollution control;
furthermore, by ensuring compliance with
such statutory and regulatory controls,
there is less chance that a lowering of
water quality will be sought to
accommodate new economic and social
development).
In addition, water quality may not be lowered
to less than the level necessary to fully protect
the "fishable/swimmable" uses and other
existing uses. This provision is intended to
provide relief only in a few extraordinary
circumstances where the economic and social
need for the activity clearly outweighs the
benefit of maintaining water quality above that
required for "fishable/swimmable" water, and
both cannot be achieved. The burden of
demonstration on the individual proposing such
activity will be very high. In any case,
moreover, the existing use must be maintained
and the activity shall not preclude the
maintenance of a "fishable/swimmable" level of
water quality protection.
The antidegradation review requirements of this
provision of the antidegradation policy are
triggered by any action that would result in the
lowering of water quality in a high-quality
water. Such activities as new discharges or
expansion of existing facilities would
presumably lower water quality and would not
be permissible unless the State conducts a
review consistent with the previous paragraph.
In addition, no permit may be issued, without
an antidegradation review, to a discharger to
high-quality waters with effluent limits greater
than actual current loadings if such loadings will
cause a lowering of water quality (USEPA,
1989c).
(9/15/93)
4-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Antidegradation is not a "no growth" rule and
was never designed or intended to be such. It
is a policy that allows public decisions to be
made on important environmental actions.
Where the State intends to provide for
development, it may decide under this section,
after satisfying the requirements for
intergovernmental coordination and public
participation, that some lowering of water
quality in "high-quality waters" is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social
development. Any such lower water quality
must protect existing uses fully, and the State
must assure that the highest statutory and
regulatory requirement for all new and existing
point sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable BMPs for nonpoint source control
are being achieved on the water body.
4.61 Outstanding National Resource
Waters (ONRW) - 40 CFR
131.12(a)(3)
Outstanding National Resource Waters
(ONRWs) are provided the highest level of
protection under the antidegradation policy.
The policy provides for protection of water
quality in high-quality waters that constitute an
ONRW by prohibiting the lowering of water
quality. ONRWs are often regarded as highest
quality waters of the United States: That is
clearly the thrust of 131.12(a)(3). However,
ONRW designation also offers special
protection for waters of "exceptional ecological
significance." These are water bodies that are
important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
whose water quality, as measured by the
traditional parameters such as dissolved oxygen
or pH, may not be particularly high or whose
characteristics cannot be adequately described
by these parameters (such as wetlands).
The regulation requires water quality to be
maintained and protected in ONRWs. EPA
interprets this provision to mean no new or
increased discharges to ONRWs and no new or
increased discharge to tributaries to ONRWs
that would result in lower water quality in the
OUTSTANDING NATIONAL
RESOURCE WATERS
•	The highest level of protection
under the antidegradation policy's
Tier 3.
•	High-quality or ecologically
unique waters such as those
within the jurisdiction of National
and State Parks and Wildlife
refuges.
ONRWs. The only exception to this
prohibition, as discussed in the preamble to the
Water Quality Standards Regulation (48 F.R.
51402), permits States to allow some limited
activities that result in temporary and
short-term changes in the water quality of
ONRW. Such activities must not permanently
degrade water quality or result in water quality
lower than that necessary to protect the existing
uses in the ONRW. It is difficult to give an
exact definition of "temporary" and "short-term"
because of the variety of activities that might be
considered. However, in rather broad terms,
EPA's view of temporary is weeks and months,
not years. The intent of EPA's provision clearly
is to limit water quality degradation to the
shortest possible time. If a construction activity
is involved, for example, temporary is defined
as the length of time necessary to construct the
facility and make it operational. During any
period of time when, after opportunity for
public participation in the decision, the State
allows temporary degradation, all practical
means of minimizing such degradation shall be
implemented. Examples of situations in which
flexibility is appropriate are listed in Exhibit 4-
1.
4-8
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
Example 1 A national park wishes to replace a defective septic tank-drainfield
system in a campground. The campground is located immediately
adjacent to a small stream with the ONRW use designation.
Under the regulation, the construction could occur if best management practices were
scrupulously followed to minimize any disturbance of water quality or aquatic habitat.
Example 2 Same situation except the campground is served by a small sewage
treatment plant already discharging to the ONRW. It is desired to
enlarge the treatment system and provide higher levels of treatment.
Under the regulation, this water-quality-enhancing action would be permitted if there was
only temporary increase in sediment and, perhaps, in organic loading, which would occur
during the actual construction phase.
Example 3 A National forest with a mature, second growth of trees which are
suitable for harvesting, with associated road repair and
re-stabilization. Streams in the area are designated as ONRW and
support trout fishing.
The regulation intends that best management practices for timber harvesting be followed
and might include preventive measures more stringent than for similar logging in less
environmentally sensitive areas. Of course, if the lands were being considered for
designation as wilderness areas or other similar designations, EPA's regulation should not
be construed as encouraging cr condoning timbering operations. The regulation allows
only temporary and short-term water quality! degradation while maintaining existing uses
or new uses consistent with the purpose of the management of the ONRW area.
Other examples of these types of activities include maintenance and/or repair of existing boat ramps or boat
docks, restoration of existing sea walls, repair of existing stormwater pipes, and replacement or repair of
existing bridges.
Exhibit 4-1. Examples of Allowable Temporary Lowering of Water Quality in
Outstanding National Resource Waters
(9/15/93)
4-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
4.71 Antidegradation Application and
Implementation
Any one or a combination of several activities
may trigger the antidegradation policy analysis.
Such activities include a scheduled water quality
standards review, the establishment of new or
revised load allocations, waste load allocations,
total maximum daily loads, issuance of NPDES
permits, and the demonstration of need for
advanced treatment or request by private or
public agencies or individuals for a special study
of the water body.
Nonpoint source activities are not exempt from
the provisions of the antidegradation policy.
The language of section 131.12 (a)(2) of the
regulation: "Further, the State shall assure that
there shall be achieved the highest statutory
and regulatory requirements for all new and
existing point sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices for
nonpoint source control ..." reflects statutory
provisions of the Clean Water Act. While it is
true that the Act does not establish a federally
enforceable program for nonpoint sources, it
clearly intends that the BMPs developed and
approved under sections 205(j), 208,303(e), and
319 be aggressively implemented by the States.
4.7.1 Antidegradation, Load Allocation,
Waste Load Allocation, Total Maximum
Daily Load, and Permits
In developing or revising a load allocation
(LA), waste load allocation (WLA), or total
maximum daily load (TMDL) to reflect new
information or to provide for seasonal variation,
the antidegradation policy, as an integral part of
the State water quality standards, must be
applied as discussed in this section.
The TMDL/WLA/LA process distributes the
allowable pollutant loadings to a water body.
Such allocations also consider the contribution
to pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources.
This process must reflect applicable State water
quality standards including the antidegradation
policy. No waste load allocation can be
developed or NPDES permit issued that would
result in standards being violated. With respect
to antidegradation, that means existing uses
must be protected, water quality may not be
lowered in ONRWs, and in the case of waters
whose quality exceeds that necessary for the
section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act, an activity
cannot result in a lowering of water quality
unless the applicable public participation,
intergovernmental review, and baseline control
requirements of the antidegradation policy have
been met. Once the LA, WLA, or TMDL
revision is completed, the resulting permits
must incorporate discharge limitations based on
this revision.
When a pollutant discharge ceases for any
reason, the waste load allocations for the other
dischargers in the area may be adjusted to
reflect the additional loading available
consistent with the antidegradation policy under
two circumstances:
® In "high-quality waters" where after the full
satisfaction of all public participation and
intergovernmental review requirements,
such adjustments are considered necessary
to accommodate important economic or
social development, and the "threshold"
level requirements (required point and
nonpoint source controls) are met.
® In less than "high-quality waters," when the
expected improvement in water quality
(from the ceased discharge) would not
cause a better use to be achieved.
The adjusted loads still must meet water quality
standards, and the new waste load allocations
must be at least as stringent as technology-
based limitations. Of course, all applicable
requirements of the section 402 NPDES permit
regulations would have to be satisfied before a
permittee could increase its discharge.
If a permit is being renewed, reissued or
modified to include less stringent limitations
4-10
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
based on the revised LA/WLA/TMDL, the
same antidegradation analysis applied during
the LA/WLA/TMDL stage would apply during
the permitting stage. It would be reasonable to
allow the showing made during the
LA/WLA/TMDL stage to satisfy the
antidegradation showing at the permit stage.
Any restrictions to less stringent limits based on
antibacksliding would also apply.
If a State issues an NPDES permit that violates
the required antidegradation policy, it would be
subject to a discretionary EPA veto under
section 402(d) or to a citizen challenge. In
addition to actions on permits, any waste load
allocations and total maximum daily loads
violating the antidegradation policy are subject
to EPA disapproval and EPA promulgation of
a new waste load allocation/total maximum
daily load under section 303(d) of the Act. If a
significant pattern of violation was evident,
EPA could constrain the award of grants or
possibly revoke any Federal permitting
capability that had been delegated to the State.
Where EPA issues an NPDES permit, EPA
will,consistent with its NPDES regulations, add
any additional or more stringent effluent
limitations required to ensure compliance with
the State antidegradation policy incorporated
into the State water quality standards. If a
State fails to require compliance with its
antidegradation policy through section 401
certification related to permits issued by other
Federal agencies (e.g., a Corps of Engineers
section 404 permit), EPA could comment
unfavorably upon permit issuance. The public,
of course, could bring pressure upon the permit
issuing agency.
For example applications of antidegradation in
the WLA and permitting process, see Exhibit 4-
2.
4.7.2 Antidegradation and the Public
Participation Process
Antidegradation, as with other water quality
standards activities, requires public participation
and intergovernmental coordination to be an
effective tool in the water quality management
process. 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) contains explicit
requirements for public participation and
intergovernmental coordination when
determining whether to allow lower water
quality in high-quality waters. Nothing in either
the water quality standards or the waste load
allocation regulations requires the same degree
of public participation or intergovernmental
coordination for such non-high-quality waters as
is required for high-quality waters. However
public participation would still be provided in
connection with the issuance of a NPDES
permit or amendment of a 208 plan. Also, if
the action that causes reconsideration of the
existing waste loads (such as dischargers
withdrawing from the area) will result in an
improvement in water quality that makes a
better use attainable, even if not up to the
"fishable/swimmable" goal, then the water
quality standards must be upgraded and full
public review is required for any action
affecting changes in standards. Although not
specifically required by the standards regulation
between the triennial reviews, we recommend
that the State conduct a use attainability
analysis to determine if water quality
improvement will result in attaining higher uses
than currently designated in situations where
significant changes in waste loads are expected.
The antidegradation public participation
requirement may be satisfied in several ways.
The State may hold a public hearing or
hearings. The State may also satisfy the
requirement by providing public notice and the
opportunity for the public to request a hearing.
Activities that may affect several water bodies
in a river basin or sub-basin may be considered
in a single hearing. To ease the resource
burden on both the State and public, standards
issues may be combined with hearings on
environmental impact statements, water
management plans, or permits. However, if this
is done, the public must be clearly informed
that possible changes in water quality standards
are being considered along with other activities.
(9/15/93)
4-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Example 1
Several facilities on a stream segment discharge phosphorus-containing wastes.
Ambient phosphorus concentrations meet the designated class B (non-
fishable/swimmable) standards, but barely. Three dischargers achieve
elimination by developing land treatment systems. As a result, actual water
quality improves (i.e., phosphorus levels decline) but not quite to the level
needed to meet class A (fishable/swimmable) standards. Can the remaining
dischargers now be allowed to increase their phosphorus discharge without an
antidegradation analysis with the result that water quality declines (phosphorus
levels increase) to previous levels?
Nothing in the water quality standards regulation explicitly prohibits this. Of course, changes in their
NPDES permit limits may be subject to non-water quality constraints, such as BPT, BAT, or the
NPDES antibacksliding provisions, which may restrict the increased loads.
Example 2
Suppose, in the above situation, water quality improves to the point that actual
water quality now meets class A requirements. Is the answer different?
Yes. The standards must be upgraded (see section 2.8).
Example 3
As an alternative case, suppose phosphorus loadings go down and water quality
improves because of a change in farming practices (e.g., initiation of a
successful nonpoint source program.) Are the above answers the same?
Yes. Whether the improvement results from a change in point or nonpoint source activity is immaterial
to how any aspect of the standards regulation operates. Section 131.10(d) clearly indicates that uses
are deemed attainable if they can be achieved by "... cost-effective and reasonable best management
practices for nonpoint source control." Section 131.12(a)(2) of the antidegradation policy contains
essentially the same wording.
Exhibit 4-2. Examples of the Application of Antidegradation in the Waste Load/Load
Allocation and NPDES Permitting Process
4-12
(9/15/93)
-------
It is inconsistent with the water quality
standards regulation to "back-door" changes in
standards through actions on EIS's, waste load
allocations, plans, or permits.
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
(9/15/93)
4-13
-------
Chapter 5 - General Policies
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL POLICIES
(40 CFR 131.13)
Table of Contents
5.1	Mixing Zones	5-1
5.1.1	State Mixing Zone Methodologies 	5-2
5.1.2	Prevention of Lethality to Passing Organisms	5-6
5.1.3	Human Health Protection	5-7
5.1.4	Where Mixing Zones Are Not Appropriate	5-8
5.1.5	Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material	5-9
5.1.6	Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects 	5-9
5.2	Critical Low-Flows	5-9
5.3	Variances From Water Quality Standards 	5-11
-------
Chapter 5 - General Policies
CHAPTERS
GENERAL POLICIES
States may, at their discretion, adopt certain
policies in their standards affecting the
application and implementation of standards.
For example, policies concerning mixing zones,
water quality standards variances, and critical
flows for water quality-based permit limits may
be adopted. Although these are areas of State
discretion, EPA retains authority to review and
approve or disapprove such policies (see 40
CFR 131.13).
[5J)
Mixing Zones
It is not always necessary to meet all water
quality criteria within the discharge pipe to
protect the integrity of the water body as a
whole. Sometimes it is appropriate to allow for
ambient concentrations above the criteria in
small areas near outfalls. These areas are
called mixing zones. Whether to establish a
mixing zone policy is a matter of State
discretion, but any State policy allowing for
mixing zones must be consistent with the Clean
Water Act and is subject to approval of the
Regional Administrator.
A series of guidance documents issued by EPA
and its predecessor agencies have addressed the
concept of a mixing zone as a limited area or
volume of water where initial dilution of a
discharge takes place. Mixing zones have been
applied in the water quality standards program
since its inception. The present water quality
standards regulation allows States' to adopt
mixing zones as a matter of States discretion.
Guidance on defining mixing zones previously
has been provided in several EPA documents,
including FWPCA (1968); NAS/NAE (1972);
USEPA (1976); and USEPA (1983a).
EPA's current mixing zone guidance, contained
in this Handbook and the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control (USEPA, 1991a), evolved from and
supersedes these sources.
Allowable mixing zone characteristics should be
established to ensure that:
•	mixing zones do not impair the integrity of
the water body as a whole,
•	there is no lethality to organisms passing
through the mixing zone (see section 5.1.2,
this Handbook); and
•	there are no significant health risks,
considering likely pathways of exposure (see
section 5.1.3, this Handbook).
EPA recommends that mixing zone
characteristics be defined on a case-by-case
basis after it has been determined that the
assimilative capacity of the receiving system can
safely accommodate the discharge. This
assessment should take into consideration the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of the discharge and the receiving system; the
life history and behavior of organisms in the
receiving system; and the desired uses of the
waters. Mixing zones should not be permitted
where they may endanger critical areas (e.g.,
drinking water supplies, recreational areas,
breeding grounds, areas with sensitive biota).
EPA has developed a holistic approach to
determine whether a mixing zone is tolerable
(Brungs, 1986). The method considers all the
impacts to the water body and all the impacts
that the drop in water quality will have on the
surrounding ecosystem and water body uses. It
is a multistep data collection and analysis
(9/15/93)
5-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
procedure that is particularly sensitive to
overlapping mixing zones. This method
includes the identification of all upstream and
downstream water bodies and the ecological
and cultural data pertaining to them; the
collection of data on all present and future
discharges to the water body; the assessment of
relative environmental value and level of
protection needed for the water body; and,
finally, the allocation of environmental impact
for a discharge applicant. Because of the
difficulty in collecting the data necessary for
this procedure and the general lack of
agreement concerning relative values, this
method will be difficult to implement in full.
However, the method does serve as a guide on
how to proceed in allocating a mixing zone.
Mixing zone allowances will increase the mass
loadings of the pollutant to the water body and
decrease treatment requirements. They
adversely impact immobile species, such as
benthic communities, in the immediate vicinity
of the outfall. Because of these and other
factors, mixing zones must be applied carefully,
so as not to impede progress toward the Clean
Water Act goals of maintaining and improving
water quality. EPA recommendations for
allowances for mixing zones, and appropriate
cautions about their use, are contained in this
section.
MIXING ZONES
A limited area or volume of water where
initial dilution of a discharge takes place
and where numeric water quality criteria
can be exceeded but acutely toxic
conditions are prevented.
The Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a,
sections 2.2, 4.3, 4.4) discusses mixing zone
analyses for situations in which the discharge
does not mix completely with the receiving
water within a short distance. Included are
discussions of outfall designs that maximize
initial dilution in the mixing zone, critical
design periods for mixing zone analyses, and
methods to analyze and model nearfield and
farfield mixing.
5.1.1 State Mixing Zone Methodologies
EPA recommends that States have a definitive
statement in their standards on whether or not
mixing zones are allowed. Where mixing zones
provisions are part of the State standards, the
State should describe the procedures for
defining mixing zones. Since these areas of
impact, if disproportionally large, could
potentially adversely impact the productivity of
the water body and have unanticipated
ecological consequences, they should be
carefully evaluated and appropriately limited in
size. As our understanding of pollutant impacts
on ecological systems evolves, cases could be
identified where no mixing zone is appropriate.
State water quality standards should describe
the State's methodology for determining the
location, size, shape, outfall design, and in-zone
quality of mixing zones. The methodology
should be sufficiently precise to support
regulatory actions, issuance of permits, and
determination of BMPs for nonpoint sources.
EPA recommends the following:
• Location
Biologically important areas are to be identified
and protected. Where necessary to preserve a
zone of passage for migrating fish or other
organisms in a water course, the standards
should specifically identify the portions of the
waters to be kept free from mixing zones.
Where a mixing zone is allowed, water quality
standards are met at the edge of that regulatory
5-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 5 - General Policies
mixing zone during design flow conditions and
generally provide:
•	a continuous zone of passage that meets
water quality criteria for free-swimming and
drifting organisms; and
•	prevention of impairment of critical resource
areas.
Individual State mixing zone dimensions are
designed to limit the impact of a mixing zone
on the water body. Furthermore, EPA's review
of State waste load allocations (WLAs) should
evaluate whether assumptions of complete or
incomplete mixing are appropriate based on
available data.
In river systems, reservoirs, lakes, estuaries, and
coastal waters, zones of passage are defined as
continuous water routes of such volume, area,
and quality as to allow passage of
free-swimming and drifting organisms so that no
significant effects are produced on their
populations. Transport of a variety of
organisms in river water and by tidal
movements in estuaries is biologically important
for a number of reasons:
•	food is carried to the sessile filter feeders
and other nonmotile organisms;
•	spatial distribution of organisms and
reinforcement of weakened populations are
enhanced; and
•	embryos and larvae of some fish species
develop while drifting.
Anadromous and catadromous species must be
able to reach suitable spawning areas. Their
young (and in some cases the adults) must be
assured a return route to their growing and
living areas. Many species make migrations for
spawning and other purposes. Barriers or
blocks that prevent or interfere with these types
of essential transport and movement can be
created by water with inadequate chemical or
physical quality.
Size
Various methods and techniques for defining
the surface area and volume of mixing zones for
various types of waters have been formulated.
Methods that result in quantitative measures
sufficient for permit actions and that protect
designated uses of a water body as a whole are
acceptable. The area or volume of an
individual zone or group of zones must be
limited to an area or volume as small as
practicable that will not interfere with the
designated uses or with the established
community of aquatic life in the segment for
which the uses are designated.
To ensure that mixing zones do not impair the
integrity of the water body, it should be
determined that the mixing zone will not cause
lethality to passing organisms and that,
considering likely pathways of exposure, no
significant human health risks exist. One means
to achieve these objectives is to limit the size of
the area affected by the mixing zones.
In the general case, where a State has both
acute and chronic aquatic life criteria, as well as
human health criteria, independently
established mixing zone specifications may
apply to each of the three types of criteria. For
application of two-number aquatic life criteria,
there may be up to two types of mixing zones
(see Figure 5-1). In the zone immediately
surrounding the outfall, neither the acute nor
the chronic criteria are met. The acute criteria
are met at the edge of this zone. In the next
mixing zone, the acute, but not the chronic,
criteria are met. The chronic criteria are met
at the edge of the second mixing zone. The
acute mixing zone may be sized to prevent
lethality to passing organisms, the chronic
mixing zone sized to protect the ecology of the
water body as a whole, and the health criteria
mixing zone sized to prevent significant human
risks. For any particular pollutant from any
(9/15/93)
5-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Aquatic Life Mixing Zone
particular discharge, the magnitude, duration,
frequency, and mixing zone associated with
each of the three types of criteria (acute and
chronic aquatic life, and human health) will
determine which one most limits the allowable
discharge.
Concentrations above the chronic criteria are
likely to prevent sensitive taxa from taking up
long-term residence in the mixing zone. In this
regard, benthic organisms and territorial
organisms are likely to be of greatest concern.
The higher the concentrations occurring within
certain isopleths, the more taxa are likely to be
excluded, thereby affecting the structure and
function of the ecological community. It is thus
important to minimize the overall size of the
mixing zone and the size of elevated
concentration isopleths within the mixing zone.
To determine that, for aquatic life protection, a
mixing zone is appropriately sized, water quality
conditions within the mixing zone may be
compared to laboratory-measured or predicted
toxicity benchmarks as follows:
•	It is not necessary to meet chronic criteria
within the mixing zone, only at the edge of
the mixing zone. Conditions within the
mixing zone would thus not be adequate to
assure survival, growth, and reproduction of
all organisms that might otherwise attempt
to reside continuously within the mixing
zone.
•	If acute criteria (criterion maximum
concentration, or CMC, derived from 48- to
96-hour exposure tests) are met throughout
the mixing zone, no lethality should result
from temporary passage through the mixing
zone. If acute criteria are exceeded no more
than a few minutes in a parcel of water
leaving an outfall (as assumed in deriving
the section 5.1.2 options for an outfall
velocity of 3 m/sec, and a size of 50 times
the discharge length scale), this likewise
assures no lethality to passing organisms.
•	If a full analysis of concentrations and
hydraulic residence times within the mixing
zone indicates that organisms drifting
through the centerline of the plume along
the path of maximum exposure would not be
exposed to concentrations exceeding the
acute criteria when averaged over the 1-hour
(or appropriate site-specific) averaging
period for acute criteria, then lethality to
swimming or drifting organisms should
ordinarily not be expected, even for rather
fast-acting toxicants. In many situations,
travel time through the acute mixing zone
must be less than roughly 15 minutes if a 1-
hour average exposure is not to exceed the
acute criterion.
Where mixing zone toxicity is evaluated
using the probit approach described in the
water quality criteria "Blue Book"
(NAS/NAE, 1973), or using models of
toxicant accumulation and action in
organisms (such as described by Mancini,
1983, or Erickson et al., 1989), the
phenomenon of delayed mortality should be
5-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 5 - General Policies
taken into account before judging the mixing
zone concentrations to be safe.
The above recommendations assume that the
effluent is repulsive, such that free-swimming
organisms would avoid the mixing zones. While
most toxic effluents are repulsive, caution is
necessary in evaluating attractive mixing zones
of known effluent toxicity, and denial of such
mixing zones may well be appropriate. It is
also important to assure that concentration
isopleths within any plume will not extend to
restrict passage of swimming organisms into
tributary streams.
In all cases, the size of the mixing zone and the
area within certain concentration isopleths
should be evaluated for their effect on the
overall biological integrity of the water body. If
the total area affected by elevated
concentrations within all mixing zones
combined is small compared with the total area
of a water body (such as a river segment), then
mixing zones are likely to have little effect on
the integrity of the water body as a whole,
provided that they do not impinge on unique or
critical habitats. EPA has developed a
multistep procedure for evaluating the overall
acceptability of mixing zones (Brungs, 1986).
Shape
The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple
configuration that is easy to locate in a body of
water and that avoids impingement on
biologically important areas. In lakes, a circle
with a specified radius is generally preferable,
but other shapes may be specified in the case of
unusual site requirements. Most States allow
mixing zones as a policy issue but provide
spatial dimensions to limit the areal extent of
the mixing zones. The mixing zones are then
allowed (or not allowed) after case-by-case
determinations. State regulations dealing with
streams and rivers generally limit mixing zone
widths, cross-sectional areas, and flow volumes,
and allow lengths to be determined on a
case-by-case basis. For lakes, estuaries, and
coastal waters, dimensions are usually specified
by surface area, width, cross-sectional area, and
volume. "Shore-hugging" plumes should be
avoided in all water bodies.
Outfall Design
Before designating any mixing zone, the State
should ensure that the best practicable
engineering design is used and that the location
of the existing or proposed outfall will avoid
significant adverse aquatic resource and water
quality impacts of the wastewater discharge.
In-Zone Quality
Mixing zones are areas where an effluent
discharge undergoes initial dilution and are
extended to cover the secondary mixing in the
ambient water body. A mixing zone is an
allocated impact zone where acute and chronic
water quality criteria can be exceeded as long
as a number of protections are maintained,
including freedom from the following:
(1)	materials in concentrations that will
cause acutely toxic conditions to aquatic
life;
(2)	materials in concentrations that settle to
form objectionable deposits;
(3)	floating debris, oil, scum, and other
material in concentrations that form
nuisances;
(9/15/93)
5-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
(4)	substances in concentrations that produce
objectionable color, odor, taste, or
turbidity; and
(5)	substances in concentrations that produce
undesirable aquatic life or result in a
dominance of nuisance species.
Acutely toxic conditions are defined as those
lethal to aquatic organisms that may pass
through the mixing zone. As discussed in
section 5.1.2below, the underlying assumption
for allowing a mixing zone is that a small area
of concentrations in excess of acute and chronic
criteria but below acutely toxic releases can
exist without causing adverse effects to the
overall water body. The State regulatory
agency can decide to allow or deny a mixing
zone on a site-specific basis. For a mixing zone
to be permitted, the discharger should prove to
the State regulatory agency that all State
requirements for a mixing zone are met.
5.1.2 Prevention of Lethality to Passing
Organisms
Lethality is a function of the magnitude of
pollutant concentrations and the duration an
organism is exposed to those concentrations.
Requirements for wastewater plumes that tend
to attract aquatic life should incoiporate
measures to reduce the toxicity (e.g., via
pretreatment, dilution) to minimize lethality or
any irreversible toxic effects on aquatic life.
EPA's water quality criteria provide guidance
on the magnitude and duration of pollutant
concentrations causing lethality. The CMC is
used as a means to prevent lethality or other
acute effects. As explained in Appendix D to
the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a),
the CMC is a toxicity level and should not be
confused with an LCj0 level. The CMC is
defined as one-half of the final acute value
(FAV) for specific toxicants and 0.3 acute
toxicity unit (TUJ for effluent toxicity (USEPA,
1991a, chap. 2). The CMC describes the
condition under which lethality will not occur if
the duration of the exposure to the CMC level
is less than 1 hour. The CMC for
whole-effluent toxicity is intended to prevent
lethality or acute effects in the aquatic biota.
The CMC for individual toxicants prevents
acute effects in all but a small percentage of
the tested species. Thus, the areal extent and
concentration isopleths of the mixing zone must
be such that the 1-hour average exposure of
organisms passing through the mixing zone is
less than the CMC. The organism must be able
to pass through quickly or flee the high-
concentration area. The objective of mixing
zone water quality recommendations is to
provide time-exposure histories that produce
negligible or no measurable effects on
populations of critical species in the receiving
system.
Lethality to passing organisms can be prevented
in the mixing zone in one of four ways. The
first method is to prohibit concentrations in
excess of the CMC in the pipe itself, as
measured directly at the end of the pipe. As an
example, the CMC should be met in the pipe
whenever a continuous discharge is made to an
intermittent stream. The second approach is to
require that the CMC be met within a very
short distance from the outfall during chronic
design flow conditions for receiving waters (see
section 5.2, this Handbook).
If the second alternative is selected, hydraulic
investigations and calculations indicate that the
use of a high-velocity discharge with an initial
velocity of 3 m/sec, or greater, together with a
mixing zone spatial limitation of 50 times the
discharge length scale in any direction, should
ensure that the CMC is met within a few
minutes under practically all conditions.
The discharge length scale is defined as the
square root of the cross-sectional area of any
discharge pipe.
A third alternative (applicable to any water
body) is not to use a high-velocity discharge.
5-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 5 - General Policies
Rather the discharger should provide data to
the State regulatory agency showing that the
most restrictive of the following conditions are
met for each outfall:
•	The CMC should be met within 10 percent
of the distance from the edge of the outfall
structure to the edge of the regulatory
mixing zone in any spatial direction.
•	The CMC should be met within a distance
of 50 times the discharge length scale in any
spatial direction. In the case of a multiport
diffuser, this requirement must be met for
each port using the appropriate discharge
length scale of that port. This restriction
will ensure a dilution factor of at least 10
within this distance under all possible
circumstances, including situations of severe
bottom interaction, surface interaction, or
lateral merging.
•	The CMC should be met within a distance
of 5 times the local water depth in any
horizontal direction from any discharge
outlet. The local water depth is defined as
the natural water depth (existing prior to the
installation of the discharge outlet)
prevailing under mixing-zone design
conditions (e.g., low-flow for rivers). This
restriction will prevent locating the discharge
in very shallow environments or very close to
shore, which would result in significant
surface and bottom concentrations.
A fourth alternative (applicable to any water
body) is for the discharger to provide data to
the State regulatory agency showing that a
drifting organism would not be exposed to 1-
hour average concentrations exceeding the
CMC, or would not receive harmful exposure
when evaluated by other valid toxicological
analysis (USEPA, 1991a, chap. 2). Such data
should be collected during environmental
conditions that replicate critical conditions.
For the third and fourth alternatives, examples
of such data include monitoring studies, except
for those situations where collecting chemical
samples to develop monitoring data would be
impractical, such as at deep outfalls in oceans,
lakes, or embayments. Other types of data
could include field tracer studies using dye,
current meters, other tracer materials, or
detailed analytical calculations, such as
modeling estimations of concentration or
dilution isopleths.
The following outlines a method, applicable to
the fourth alternative, to determine whether a
mixing zone is tolerable for a free-swimming or
drifting organism. The method incorporates
mortality rates (based on toxicity studies for the
pollutant of concern and a representative
organism) along with the concentration
isopleths of the mixing zone and the length of
time the organism may spend in each isopleth.
The intent of the method is to prevent the
actual time of exposure from exceeding the
exposure time required to elicit an effect:
m
E1\X) at C.
(«),
* 1
where T(n) is the exposure time an organism is
in isopleth n, and ET(X) is the "effect time."
That is, ET(X) is the exposure time required to
produce an effect (including a delayed effect) in
X percent of organisms exposed to a
concentration equal to C(n), the concentration in
isopleth n. ET(X) is experimentally
determined; the effect is usually mortality. If
the summation of ratios of exposure time to
effect time is less than 1, then the percent
effect will not occur.
5.1.3 Human Health Protection
For protection of human health, the presence of
mixing zones should not result in significant
health risks when evaluated using reasonable
assumptions about exposure pathways. Thus,
where drinking water contaminants are a
concern, mixing zones should not encroach on
(9/15/93)
5-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
drinking water intakes. Where fish tissue
residues are a concern (either because of
measured or predicted residues), mixing zones
should not be projected to result in significant
health risks to average consumers of fish and
shellfish, after considering exposure duration of
the affected aquatic organisms in the mixing
zone and the patterns of fisheries use in the
area.
While fish tissue contamination tends to be a
far-field problem affecting entire water bodies
rather than a narrow-scale problem confined to
mixing zones, restricting or eliminating mixing
zones for bioaccumulative pollutants may be
appropriate under conditions such as the
following:
•	Mixing zones should be restricted such that
they do not encroach on areas often used for
fish harvesting particularly of stationary
species such as shellfish.
•	Mixing zones might be denied (see section
5.1.4) where such denial is used as a device
to compensate for uncertainties in the
protectiveness of the water quality criteria or
uncertainties in the assimilative capacity of
the water body.
5.1.4 Where Mixing Zones Are Not
Appropriate
States are not required to allow mixing zones
and, if mixing zones are allowed, a State
regulatory agency may decide to deny a mixing
zone in a site-specific case. Careful
consideration must be given to the
appropriateness of a mixing zone where a
substance discharged is bioaccumulative,
persistent, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or
teratogenic.
Denial should be considered when
bioaccumulative pollutants are in the discharge.
The potential for a pollutant to bioaccumulate
in living organisms is measured by:
•	the bioconcentration factor (BCF), which is
chemical-specific and describes the degree to
which an organism or tissue can acquire a
higher contaminant concentration than its
environment (e.g.,surface water);
•	the duration of exposure; and
•	the concentration of the chemical of interest.
While any BCF value greater than 1 indicates
that bioaccumulation potential exists,
bioaccumulation potential is generally not
considered to be significant unless the BCF
exceeds 100 or more. Thus, a chemical that is
discharged to a receiving stream resulting in
-------
Cliapter 5 - General Policies
low concentrations and has a low BCF value
will not result in a bioaccumulation hazard.
Conversely, a chemical that is discharged to a
receiving stream resulting in a low
concentration but having a high BCF value may
result in a bioaccumulation hazard. Also, some
chemicals of relatively low toxicity, such as zinc,
will bioconcentrate in fish without harmful
effects resulting from human consumption.
Factors such as size of zone, concentration
gradient within the zone, physical habitat, and
attraction of aquatic life are important in this
evaluation. Where unsafe fish tissue levels or
other evidence indicates a lack of assimilative
capacity in a particular water body for a
bioaccumulative pollutant, care should be taken
in calculating discharge limits for this pollutant
or the additivity of multiple pollutants. In such
instances, the ecological or human health
effects may be so adverse that a mixing zone is
not appropriate.
Another example of when a regulator should
consider prohibiting a mixing zone is in
situations where an effluent is known to attract
biota. In such cases, provision of a continuous
zone of passage around the mixing area will not
serve the purpose of protecting aquatic life. A
review of the technical literature on
avoidance/attraction behavior revealed that the
majority of toxicants elicited an avoidance or
neutral response at low concentrations (Versar,
1984). However, some chemicals did elicit an
attractive response, but the data were not
sufficient to support any predictive methods.
Temperature can be an attractive force and
may counter an avoidance response to a
pollutant, resulting in attraction to the toxicant
discharge. Innate behavior such as migration
may also supersede an avoidance response and
cause a fish to incur a significant exposure.
5.1.5 Mixing Zones for the Discharge of
Dredged or Fill Material
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of
the Army, has developed guidelines to be
applied in evaluating the discharge of dredged
or fill material in navigable waters (see 40 CFR
230). The guidelines include provisions for
determining the acceptability of mixing
discharge zones (section 230.11(f)). The
particular pollutant involved should be
evaluated carefully in establishing dredging
mixing zones. Dredged spoil discharges
generally result in temporary short-term
disruption and do not represent continuous
discharge that will affect beneficial uses over a
long term. Disruption of beneficial uses should
be the primary consideration in establishing
mixing zones for dredge and fill activities. State
water quality standards should reflect these
principles if mixing zones for dredging activities
are referenced.
5.1.6 Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects
The Administrator is authorized, after public
hearings, to permit certain discharges associated
with approved aquaculture projects (section 318
of the Act). The regulations relating to
aquaculture (40 CFR 122.56 and 125.11)
provide that the aquaculture project area and
project approval must not result in the
enlargement of any previously approved mixing
zone. In addition, aquaculture regulations
provide that designated project areas must not
include so large a portion of the body of water
that a substantial portion of the indigenous
biota will be exposed to conditions within the
designated projects area (section 125.11(d)).
Areas designated for approved aquaculture
projects should be treated in the same manner
as other mixing zones. Special allowances
should not be made for these areas.
Critical Low-Flows
Water quality standards should protect water
quality for designated uses in critical low-flow
situations. In establishing water quality
standards, States may designate a critical low-
flow below which numerical water quality
criteria do not apply. At all times, waters shall
(9/15/93)
5-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
be free from substances that settle to form
objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum, oil,
or other matter; produce objectionable color,
odor, taste, or turbidity; cause acutely toxic
conditions; or produce undesirable or nuisance
aquatic life.
To do steady-state waste load allocation
analyses, these low-flow values become design
flows for sizing treatment plants, developing
waste load allocations, and developing water
quality-based effluent limits. Historically, these
so-called "design" flows were selected for the
purposes of waste load allocation analyses that
focused on instream dissolved oxygen
concentrations and protection of aquatic life.
EPA introduced hydrologically and biologically
based analyses for the protection of aquatic life
and human health with the publication of the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control. These concepts have
been expanded subsequently in guidance
entitled Technical Guidance Manual for
Performing Wasteload Allocations, Book 6,
Design Conditions, (USEPA, 1986c). These new
developments are included in Appendix D of
the 1991 Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a).
The discussion here is greatly simplified; it is
provided to support EPA's recommendation for
baseline application values for instream flows
and thereby maintain the intended stringency of
the criteria for priority toxic pollutants. EPA
recommended either of two methods for
calculating acceptable low-flows, the traditional
hydrologic method developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey and a biologically based
method developed by EPA.
Most States have adopted specific low-flow
requirements for streams and rivers to protect
designated uses against the effects of toxics.
Generally, these have followed the guidance in
the TSD. EPA believes it is essential that
States adopt design flows for steady-state
analyses so that criteria are implemented
appropriately. The TSD also recommends the
use of three dynamic models to perform waste
load allocations. Because dynamic waste load
models do not generally use specific steady-
state design flows but accomplish the same
effect by factoring in the probability of
occurrence of stream flows based on the
historical flow record, only steady-state
conditions will be discussed here. Clearly, if
the criteria are implemented using inadequate
design flows, the resulting toxics controls would
not be fully effective because the resulting
ambient concentrations would exceed EPA's
criteria.
In the case of aquatic life, more frequent
violations than the assumed exceedences once
in 3 years would result in diminished vitality of
stream ecosystems characteristics by the loss of
desired species such as sport fish. Numeric
water quality criteria should apply at all flows
that are equal to or greater than flows specified
in Exhibit 5-1.
EPA is recommending the harmonic mean flow
to be applied with human health criteria for
carcinogens. The concept of a harmonic mean
is a standard statistical data analysis technique.
EPA's model for human health effects assumes
that such effects occur because of a long-term
exposure to low concentration of a toxic
pollutant (for example, 2 liters of water per
day for 70 years). To estimate the
concentrations of the toxic pollutant in those 2
liters per day by withdrawal from streams with
a high daily variation in flow, EPA believes the
harmonic mean flow is the correct statistic to
use in computing such design flows rather than
other averaging techniques. For a description
of harmonic means, refer to Rossman (1990).
5-10
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 5 - General Policies
AQUATIC LIFE
Acute criteria (CHC)	1Q10 or 1B3
Chronic criteria (CCC)	7010 or 4B3
HUMAN HEALTH
Non-carcinogens	3005
Carcinogens	Harmonic mean flow
Where:
1010 is the lowest one day flow with an average
recurrence frequency of once in 10 years determined
hydrologically;
1B3 is biologically based and indicates an allowable
exceedence of once every 3 years. It is determined
by EPA's computerized method (DFLOU model);
7010 is the lowest average 7 consecutive day low flow
with an average recurrence frequency of once in 10
years determined hydrologically;
4B3 is biologically based and indicates an allowable
exceedence for 4 consecutive days once every 3
years. It is determined by EPA's computerized
method (DFL0W model);
3005 is the lowest average 30 consecutive day low flow
with an average recurrence frequency of once in 5
years determined hydrologically; and
harmonic mean flow is a long term mean flow	value
calculated by dividing the number of daily	flows
analyzed by the slot of the reciprocals of	those
daily flows.
Exhibit 5-1. EPA recommendations for design
flows
EPA has produced guidance on flow
considerations (USEPA, 1986d) which
calculates design flows based on steady-state
modeling. Two design flows are calculated, one
for the criterion continuous concentration
(CCC) and one for the criterion maximum
concentration (CMC). The CCC is the 4-day
average concentration of a pollutant in ambient
water that should not be exceeded more than
once every 3 years on average. The CCC is
therefore, a chronic concentration. The CMC
is a 1-hour average concentration in ambient
waters that should not be exceeded more than
once every 3 years on average. The CMC is an
acute concentration. Note that when a criterion
specifies a 4-day average concentration that
should not be exceeded more than once every
3 years, this should not be interpreted as
implying that a 4Q3 low-flow is appropriate for
use as the design flow.
EPA had recommended interim use of the 1Q5
and 1Q10 low-flow as the CMC design flow
and the 7Q5 and 7Q10 low-flows as the CCC
design flow for unstressed and stressed systems,
respectively. Further consideration of stress
placed on aquatic ecosystems resulting from
exceedences of water quality criteria indicates
that there is little justification for different
design flows for unstressed and stressed
systems. All ecosystems have been changed
and, therefore, stressed as a result of human
activities. Therefore, the recommended design
flow for CMC is 1Q10 and for CCC is 7Q10.
States may designate other design or low-flows
but such flows, must be scientifically justified.
That many streams within a State have no flow
at 7Q10 is not adequate justification for
designating alternative flows.
15.31 Variances From Water Quality
Standards
EPA first formally indicated allowability of
State WQS variance provisions in Decision of
the General Counsel No. 44, dated June 22,
1976, which specifically considered an Illinois
variance provision, and expanded upon the
acceptability of State WQS variance procedures
in Decision of the General Counsel No. 58
(OGC No. 58) dated March 29, 1977
(published, in part, at 44 F.R. 39508 (July 6,
1979)). Subsequent guidance has elaborated on
or clarified the policy over the years. For
example, the Director of EPA's Criteria and
Standards Division transmitted EPA's definition
of a WQS variance to the Regional WQS
Coordinators on July 3,1979, and on March 15,
1985, the Director of the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, responding to
questions raised on WQS variances, issued a
reinterpretation of the factors that could be
considered when granting variances.
(9/15/93)
5-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Variance procedures involve the same
substantive and procedural requirements as
removing a designated use (see section 2.7,this
Handbook), but unlike use removal, variances
are both discharger and pollutant specific, are
time-limited, and do not forego the currently
designated use.
A variance should be used instead of removal
of a use where the State believes the standard
can ultimately be attained. By maintaining the
standard rather than changing it, the State will
assure that further progress is made in
improving water quality and attaining the
standard. With a variance, NPDES permits
may be written such that reasonable progress is
made toward attaining the standards without
violating section 402(a)(1) of the Act, which
requires that NPDES permits must meet the
applicable water quality standards.
State variance procedures, as part of State
water quality standards, must be consistent with
the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 131.
EPA has approved State-adopted variances in
the past and will continue to do so if:
•	each individual variance is included as part
of the water quality standard;
•	the State demonstrates that meeting the
standard is unattainable based on one or
more of the grounds outlined in 40 CFR
131.10(g) for removing a designated use;
•	the justification submitted by the State
includes documentation that treatment
more advanced than that required by
sections 303(c)(2)(A) and (B) has been
carefully considered, and that alternative
effluent control strategies have been
evaluated;
« the more stringent State criterion is
maintained and is binding upon all other
dischargers on the stream or stream
segment;
® the discharger who is given a variance for
one particular constituent is required to
meet the applicable criteria for other
constituents;
•	the variance is granted for a specific period
of time and must be rejustified upon
expiration but at least every 3 years (Note:
the 3-year limit is derived from the triennial
review requirements of section 303(c) of the
Act.);
•	the discharger either must meet the standard
upon the expiration of this time period or
must make a new demonstration of
"unattainability";
•	reasonable progress is being made toward
meeting the standards; and
•	the variance was subjected to public notice,
opportunity for comment, and public
hearing. (See section 303(c)(1) and 40 CFR
131.20.) The public notice should contain a
clear description of the impact of the
variance upon achieving water quality
standards in the affected stream segment.
5-12
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
CHAPTER 6
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW
AND REVISION OF
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(40 CFR 131 - Subpart C)
Table of Contents
6.1	State Review and Revision 	6-1
6.1.1	Consultation with EPA 	6-1
6.1.2	Public Notice Soliciting Suggestions for Additions or Revisions to
Standards 	6-1
6.1.3	Review of General Provisions 	6-3
6.1.4	Selection of Specific Water Bodies for Review	6-3
6.1.5	Evaluation of Designated Uses	6-4
6.1.6	Evaluation of Criteria	6-6
6.1.7	Draft Water Quality Standards Submitted to EPA for Review	6-7
6.1.8	Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Standards 	6-7
6.1.9	State Adopts Revisions; Submits Standards Package to EPA for Review . . 6-7
6.2	EPA Review and Approval	6-8
6.2.1	Policies and Procedures Related to Approvals 	6-11
6.2.2	Policies and Procedures Related to Disapprovals	 6-11
6.2.3	Policies and Procedures Related to Conditional Approvals 	 6-12
6.3	EPA Promulgation	6-13
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
CHAPTER 6
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND REVISION OF WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
State review and revision of water quality
standards are discussed in section 6.1. of this
chapter. Guidance is provided on the
administrative and regulatory requirements and
procedures that should be followed in the State
review and submittal process as well as the
implication of a State's failure to submit
standards. EPA review and approval
procedures are discussed in section 6.2,and the
procedures for promulgation of Federal
standards are described in section 6.3.
State Review and Revision
Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act
requires that a State shall, from time to time,
but at least once every 3 years, hold public
hearings to review applicable water quality
standards and, as appropriate, to modify and
adopt standards. The 3-year period is
measured from the date of the letter in which
the State informs EPA that revised or new
standards have been adopted for the affected
waters and are being submitted for EPA review
or, if no changes were made in the standards
for those waters, from the date of the letter in
which the State informs EPA that the standards
were reviewed and no changes were made.
States identify additions or revisions necessary
to existing standards based on their 305(b)
reports, other available water quality
monitoring data, previous water quality
standards reviews, or requests from industry,
environmental groups, or the public. Water
quality standards reviews and revisions may
take many forms, including additions to and
modifications in uses, in criteria, in the
antidegradation policy, in the antidegradation
implementation procedures, or in other general
policies.
6.1.1	Consultation with EPA
State consultation with EPA regional offices
should occur when States begin activities to
revise or adopt new water quality standards and
long before the State standards are formally
submitted for EPA review. Reasons for early
consultation with EPA include the following:
•	States will benefit from early identification
of potential areas of disagreement between
EPA and the States, and EPA can
determine where assistance may be
provided;
•	EPA must be in a position to respond to
litigation and to congressional and other
inquiries relating to actions on the revised
State water quality standards;
•	Headquarters must be ready to support
promulgation actions when State standards
have been disapproved;
•	early consultation with EPA allows issues
to be discussed well before a formal
review request is received from the State;
and
•	EPA actions related to State standards
should receive as comprehensive a review
as possible.
6.1.2	Public Notice Soliciting Suggestions for
Additions or Revisions to Standards
An important component of the water quality
standards setting and review process is a
(9/15/93)
6-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Consultation with EPA i

7
Public Notk
Suggestions
or Revisions
» Soliciting 1
for Additions j
to Standards |
Review of General Provisions
Appropriate Use Designations
(Chapter 2)
Criteria review and Development
(Chapter 3)
Antidegradation Policy
Implementation (Chapter 4)
Downgrade/Variance Provisions
(Section 5.3)
Inclusion of All Waters of the U.S.
(Section 1.3)
Low Flow Provisions (Section 5.2)
Mixing Zone Provisions (Section 5.1)
Definitions
Other
Selection of Specific
Waterbodies for Review
CWA §305(b) Report
CWA §304(1) List
CWA §303(d) Waters
CWA §319 Waters
Construction Grants Priority List
Expired Major Permits
Waters Not Meeting CWA
§101 (a)(8) Goals
Unclassified Waterbodies
Public Input
Evaluation of Designated Uses
(Chapter 2)
Evaluation of Criteria
(Chapter 3)
Draft Water Quality
Standards Submitted to
EPA for Review
J
Public Hearing on
Proposed Changes to
Water Quality Standards
State Adopts Revisions
J
State Attorney General
Certifies Water Quality
Standards
State Submits Revisions,
Methods, Justifications
and Attorney General
Certification to EPA for
Review
EPA
Approves
Standards
Yes
No
State Proposes Revisions



No

Yes




EPA Promulgates Federal I
Water Quality Standards 1
(Section 6.3) 1


1
r


Standards to Permits 1
Process 1


Figure 6-1. Simplified Flow Chart of a Typical State Water Quality Standards Review Process
6-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
meaningful involvement of those affected by the
standards decisions. At a minimum, section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States
to hold a public hearing in reviewing and
revising water quality standards. (State law may
require more than one hearing.) However,
States are urged to involve the public more
actively in the review process. Involvement of
the public includes the involvement of citizens
affected by standards decisions, the regulated
community (municipalities and industry), and
inter-governmental coordination with local,
State, and Federal agencies, and Indian Tribes
with an interest in water quality issues. This
partnership will ensure the sharing of ideas,
data, and information, which will increase the
effectiveness of the total water quality
management process.
Public involvement is beneficial at several
points in the water quality standards decision
making process. Enlisting the support of
municipalities, industries, environmentalists,
universities, other agencies, and the affected
public in collecting and evaluating information
for the decision making process should assist
the State in improving the scientific basis for,
and in building support for, standards decisions.
The more that people and groups are involved
early in the process of setting appropriate
standards, the more support the State will have
in implementing the standards.
6.1.3 Review of General Provisions
In each 3-year water quality standards review
cycle, States review the general provisions of
the standards for adequacy taking into
consideration:
•	new Federal or State statutes, regulations,
or guidance;
° legal decisions involving application of
standards; or
•	other necessary clarifications or revisions.
Inclusion of All Waters of the United
States
Water quality standards are needed for all
"waters of the United States," defined in the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 to include
all interstate waters, including wetlands, and all
intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), wetlands, natural ponds,
etc., the use, degradation or destruction of
which would affect or could affect interstate or
foreign commerce. The term "waters of the
United States" should be read broadly during
the standards review process. States should
ensure that all waters under this definition are
included in the States' water quality standards,
are assigned designated uses, and have
protective criteria.
Definitions
Terms used in the Water Quality Standards
Regulation are defined in 40 CFR 131.3. The
glossary of this document contains these and
other water quality standards-related terms
defined by the Clean Water Act, EPA
regulation, or guidance. States, when reviewing
their water quality standards, should at a
minimum define those terms included in the
Definitions section of the regulation to be
synonymous with the EPA definitions.
6.1.4 Selection of Specific Water Bodies for
Review
The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
States to establish procedures for identifying
and reviewing the standards on specific water
bodies in detail. Any procedures States
establish to revise standards should be
articulated in the continuing planning process
consistent with the water quality management
regulation. Water bodies receiving a detailed
standards review are most likely to be those
where:
(9/15/93)
6-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
•	combined sewer overflow (CSO) funding
decisions are pending;
•	water quality-based permits are scheduled to
be issued or reissued;
•	CWA goal uses are not being met;
•	toxics have been identified and are
suspected of precluding a use or may be
posing an unreasonable risk to human
health; or
0 there may be potential impacts on
threatened or endangered species.
States may have other reasons for wishing to
examine a water body in detail, such as human
health problems, court orders, or costs or
economic and social impacts of implementing
the existing water quality standards. States
must reexamine any water body with standards
not consistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals
of the Act every 3 years, and if new information
indicates that section 101(a)(2) goal uses are
attainable, revise its standards to reflect those
uses.
States are encouraged to review standards for a
large enough area to consider the interaction
between both point and nonpoint source
discharges. In carrying out standards reviews,
the States and EPA should ensure proper
coordination of all water quality programs.
6.1.5 Evaluation of Designated Uses
Once priority water bodies have been selected
for review, the designated uses must be
evaluated. This may involve some level of data
collection up to and including a full water body
survey and assessment; however, an intensive
survey of the water body is not necessary if
adequate data are available. The purpose of
the evaluation is to pinpoint problems and to
characterize present uses, attainable uses (uses
that could exist in the absence of anthropogenic
effects), uses impaired or precluded, and the
reasons why uses are impaired or precluded.
Information generated in the survey also can be
used to establish the basis for seasonal uses and
subcategories of uses.
Included in section 2.9 of this Handbook are
examples of a range of physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the water body that
may be surveyed when evaluating aquatic
protection uses. This information is then used
in determining the existing species in the water
body and the health of those species, as well as
what species could be in the water body given
the physical characteristics of the water body, or
what species might be in the water if the quality
of the water were improved.
Review of the Cause of Uses Not Being Met
If the survey indicates that designated uses are
impaired, the next step is to determine the
cause. In many situations, physical conditions
and/or the presence of pollutants prevent the
water body from meeting its designated use.
Physical limitations refer to such factors as
depth, flow, habitat, turbulence, or structures
such as dams that might make a use unsuitable
or impossible to achieve regardless of water
quality.
If uses are precluded because of physical
limitations of the water body, the State may
wish to examine modifications that might allow
a habitat suitable for a species to thrive where
it could not before. Some of the techniques
6-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
which have been used include bank
stabilization, current deflectors, construction of
oxbows, or installation of spawning beds. A
State also might wish to consider improving the
access to the water body, improving facilities
nearby so that it can be used for recreational
purposes, or establishing seasonal uses or
subcategories of a use.
If uses are not being met because of water
pollution problems, the first step in the process
is to determine the cause. If the standards
review process is well coordinated with the total
maximum daily load (TMDL) determination
and the permit process, permitees may be
required to conduct some of the analyses
necessary to determine why uses are not
attained (For more information on the TMDL
process, see chapter 7, this Handbook.) When
background levels of pollutants are irreversible
and criteria cannot be met, States should
evaluate other more appropriate uses and revise
the water quality standards appropriately.
Determination of Attainable Uses
Consideration of the suitability of the water
body to attain a use is an integral part of the
water quality standards review and revision
process. The data and information collected
from the water body survey provide a firm basis
for evaluating whether the water body is
suitable for the particular use. Suitability
depends on the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the water body, its
geographic setting and scenic qualities, and the
socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of
the surrounding area. Suitability must be
assessed through the professional judgment of
the evaluators. It is their task to provide
sufficient information to the public and the
State decision makers.
In some instances, physical factors may preclude
the attainment of uses regardless of
improvements in the chemistry of the receiving
water. This is particularly true for fish and
wildlife protection uses where the lack of a
proper substrate may preclude certain forms of
aquatic life from using the stream for
propagation, or the lack of cover, depth, flow,
pools, riffles, or impacts from channelization,
dams, or diversions may preclude particular
forms of aquatic life from the stream
altogether. While physical factors may
influence a State's decision regarding
designation of uses for a water body, States
need to give consideration to the incidental uses
that may be made of the water body
notwithstanding the use designation. For
example, even though it may not make sense to
encourage use of a stream for swimming
because of the flow, depth, or velocity of the
water, the States and EPA must recognize that
swimming and/or wading may, in fact, occur.
To protect public health, States must set criteria
to reflect swimming if it appears that primary
contact recreation will, in fact, occur in the
stream.
While physical factors are important in
evaluating whether a use is attainable, physical
limitations of the stream may not be an
overriding factor. Common sense and good
judgment play an important role in setting
appropriate uses and criteria. In setting criteria
and uses, States must assure the attainment of
downstream standards. The downstream uses
may not be affected by the same physical
limitations as the upstream uses.
If a change in the designated use is warranted
based on a use attainability analysis, States may
modify the uses currently assigned. In doing so,
the State should designate uses that can be
supported given the physical, chemical, or
biological limitations of the water body. Or, a
State may designate uses on a seasonal basis.
Seasonal use designations may be appropriate
for streams that lack adequate water volume to
support aquatic life year round, but can be used
for fish spawning, etc., during higher flow
periods. In setting seasonal uses, care must be
taken not to allow the creation of conditions
instream that preclude uses in another season.
EPA encourages the designation of seasonal
(9/15/93)
6-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
uses as an alternative to completely
downgrading the use of a water body.
Economic Impact Assessment
The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
States to establish uses that are inconsistent
with the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act if
the more stringent technology required to meet
the goals will cause substantial and widespread
economic and social impact. These are impacts
resulting specifically from imposition of the
pollution controls and reflect such factors as
unemployment, plant closures, and changes in
the governmental fiscal base. The analysis
should address the incremental effects of water
quality standards beyond technology-based or
other State requirements. If the requirements
are not demonstrated to have an incremental,
substantial, and widespread impact on the
affected community, the standard must be
maintained or made compatible with the goals
of the Act.
6.1.6 Evaluation of Criteria
Changes in use designations also must be
accompanied by consideration of the need for
a change in criteria. If a use is removed, the
criteria to protect that use may be deleted or
revised to assure protection of the remaining
uses. If a use is added, there must be adequate
water quality criteria to protect the use.
Regardless of whether changes or modifications
in uses are made, criteria protective of the use
must be adopted. Certain criteria are deemed
essential for inclusion in all State standards,
and criteria for section 307(a) toxic pollutants
must be addressed consistent with section
303(c)(2)(B) (see chapter 3, this Handbook).
All State standards should contain the "free
froms" narrative statements (see section 3.5.2)
in addition to numerical limits that can be used
as a basis for regulating discharges into surface
waters. Also, water quality parameters such as
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
bacteriological requirements are basic to all
State standards.
EPA's laboratory-derived criteria may not
always accurately reflect the bioavailability
and/or toxicity of a pollutant because of the
effect of local physical and chemical
characteristics or varying sensitivities of local
aquatic communities. Similarly, certain
compounds may be more or less toxic in some
waters because of differences in temperature,
hardness, or other conditions. Setting site-
specific criteria is appropriate where:
•	background water quality parameters, such
as pH, hardness, temperature, color, appear
to differ significantly from the laboratory
water used in developing the section 304(a)
criteria; or
•	the types of local aquatic organisms differ
significantly from those actually tested in
developing the section 304(a) criteria.
Developing site-specific criteria is a method of
taking local conditions into account so that
criteria are adequate to protect the designated
use without being more or less stringent than
needed. A three-phase testing program that
includes water quality sampling and analysis, a
biological survey, and acute bioassays provides
an approach for developing site-specific criteria.
Much of the data and information for the water
quality sampling and analysis and the biological
survey can be obtained while conducting the
assessment of the water body. Included in
section 3.10 of this Handbook are scientifically
acceptable procedures for setting site-specific
pollutant concentrations that will protect
6-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
designated uses. EPA believes that setting site-
specific criteria will occur on only a limited
number of stream segments because of the
resources required to conduct the analyses and
the basic soundness of the section 304(a)
recommendations.
6.1.7	Draft Water Quality Standards
Submitted to EPA for Review
While not a regulatory requirement, prudence
dictates that draft State water quality standards
be submitted to EPA for review. The EPA
regional office and Headquarters will conduct
concurrent reviews of draft standards and make
comments on proposed revisions to assist the
State in producing standards that are
approvable by the Regional Administrator.
Continuing cooperation between the State and
EPA is essential to timely approval of State
standards.
6.1.8	Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to
Standards
Before removing or modifying any use or
changing criteria, the Clean Water Act requires
the State to hold a public hearing. More than
one hearing may be required depending on
State regulations. It may be appropriate to
have EPA review the adequacy of justifications
including the data and the suitability and
appropriateness of the analyses and how the
analyses were applied prior to the public
hearing. In cases where the analyses are judged
to be inadequate, EPA will identify how the
analyses could be improved and suggest the
additional types of evaluations or data needed.
By consulting with EPA frequently throughout
the review process, States can be better assured
that EPA will be able to expeditiously review
State submissions and make the determination
that the standards meet the requirements of the
Act.
The analyses and supporting documentation
prepared in conjunction with the proposed
water quality standards revision should be made
available to the interested public prior to the
hearing. Open discussion of the scientific
evidence and analysis supporting proposed
revisions in the water quality standards will
assist the State in making its decision.
6.1.9 State Adopts Revisions; Submits
Standards Package to EPA for Review
Within 30 days of their final administrative
action, States submit to EPA water quality
standards revisions, supporting analyses, and
State Attorney General certification that the
standards were duly adopted pursuant to State
law. Final administrative action is meant to be
the last action a State must take before its
revision becomes a rule under State law and it
can officially transmit State-adopted standards
to EPA for review. This last action might be a
signature, a review by a legislative committee or
(9/15/93)
6-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
State Board, or a delay mandated by a State
administrative procedures act.
In reviewing changes in uses that are
inconsistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals of
the Act or changes in criteria, EPA will
carefully consider the adequacy of the analyses
and the public comments received during the
hearing process. Standards are to meet the
goals of the Act unless the State can clearly
demonstrate that the uses reflected in the goals
are unattainable.
EPA Review and Approval
When States adopt new or revised water quality
standards, the State is required under CWA
Section 303(c) to submit such standards to EPA
for review and approval/disapproval. Section
131.20(c) of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation requires the submittal to EPA to
occur within 30 days of the final State action.
Figure 6.2outlines EPA's review process. EPA
reviews and approves/disapproves the standards
based on whether the standards meet the
requirements of the CWA and the Water
Quality Standards Regulation. States are
encouraged to provide early drafts to the EPA
Regional Office so that issues can be resolved
during the water quality standards review
process, prior to formal State proposal or
adoption of revised or new standards.
When reviewing State water quality standards,
EPA ensures that the standards meet the
minimum requirements of the Act and Water
Quality Standards Regulation. Pursuant to
section 510 of the Act, State water quality
standards may be more stringent than EPA's
minimum requirements.
The general elements of an EPA review
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• EPA determines whether Tishable/
swimmable" designated uses have been
assigned to all State waters or a use
attainability analysis (UAA) is available to
support the designation of other uses.
Other uses may satisfy the CWA section
101(a)(2) goal if properly supported by a
UAA. EPA reviews the adequacy of the
analyses.
•	EPA determines whether the State's water
quality criteria are sufficient to protect the
designated uses by ensuring that all numeric
criteria are based on CWA Section 304(a)
guidance, 304(a) guidance modified to
reflect site-specific conditions, or other
scientifically defensible methods. EPA's
decision to accept criteria based on site-
specific calculations or alternative scientific
procedures is based on a determination of
the validity and adequacy of the supporting
scientific procedures and assumptions and
not on whether the resulting criterion is
more or less stringent than the EPA
guideline.
•	EPA ensures that uses and/or criteria are
consistent throughout the water body and
that downstream standards are protected. A
review to determine compliance with
downstream standards is most likely to
involve bodies of water on, or crossing,
interstate and international boundaries.
•	Where the analyses supporting any changes
in the standards are inadequate, EPA
identifies how the analyses need to be
improved and suggests the type of
information or analyses needed.
•	For waters where uses have not been
designated in support of the fishable/
swimmable goal of the CWA, EPA
determines whether the alternative uses are
based on an acceptable UAA and whether
such UAAs have been reviewed every 3
years as required by 40 CFR 131.20(a).
•	EPA ensures that general "free from"
narrative criteria are included that protect
all waters at all flows from substances that
6-8
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
State Submits Draft
WQS to Region for
Informal Review

f
Region Reviews Draft
WQS
1
f
Comments Given to
State
1
r
HQ Reviews Draft WQS
State Adopts or
Revises WQS
Figure 6-2. Overview of EPA Water Quality Standards Review Process
(9/15/93)
6-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
settle to form objectionable deposits; float
as debris, scum, oil, or other matter;
produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or
turbidity; are acutely toxic; or produce
undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.
•	EPA determines whether the State has
included criteria for CWA section 307(a)
"priority" pollutants sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of CWA section 303(c)(2)(B).
•	For toxic pollutants where EPA has not
issued guidance or it is not known which
toxicant or toxicants are causing the
problem, EPA ensures that the State
standards include or reference a method for
implementing the narrative toxics "free
from" criterion.
•	EPA ensures that the State's antidegradation
policy meets the requirements of section
131.12 of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation.
•	EPA reviews whether the State has provided
or referenced a procedure for implementing
the antidegradation policy.
•	Where (optional) general policies are
included in the State water quality standards
(e.g., mixing zone provisions, variance
policies, low-flow exemption policies), EPA
reviews whether the policies are consistent
with the latest EPA guidance.
•	EPA reviews comments and suggestions on
previous State water quality standards to
ensure that any areas for improvement or
conditions attached to previous approvals
have been acted upon satisfactorily.
•	EPA reviews whether the policies are
consistent with the latest EPA guidance and
regulatory requirements.
•	EPA ensures that the State has met the
minimum requirements for a standards
submission as outlined in section 131.6 of
the Water Quality Standards Regulation.
•	EPA reviews whether the State has
complied with the procedural requirements
(e.g., public participation) for conducting
water quality standards reviews.
Since 1972, EPA review and approval/
disapproval includes concurrent reviews by the
Regions and Headquarters. However, because
the EPA regional Administrator has the
responsibility for approving/disapproving water
quality standards and because of the
decentralized structure of EPA, the regional
offices are the primary point of contact with the
States. The EPA regional offices, not the
States, are responsible for providing copies of
State water quality standards to EPA
Headquarters for review and for acting as
liaison between States and EPA Headquarters
on most matters affecting the water quality
standards program. The basic internal EPA
review procedures have been described in
various guidance documents over the years; the
most was a memorandum dated December 17,
1984. This memorandum also made one minor
change to the process. It required that
Headquarters be consulted immediately for
possible advice and assistance when the
Regional Office learns that a State:
•	is proposing to lower designated water uses
below the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act;
•	is not raising water uses to meet the section
101(a)(2) goals of the Act; or
•	is considering adopting a water quality
criterion less stringent than currently
included in a State's standard.
To expedite Headquarters review, copies of
State water quality standards revisions (draft
and final) must be provided to the Director,
Standards and Applied Science Division, at the
time they are received by the Region. The
Standards and Applied Science Division will
6-10
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
involve other EPA offices in the review as
appropriate, and provide comments and
suggestions, if any, to regional offices for
consideration in State-EPA negotiations and
final standards decisions. Their review will be
expeditiously accomplished so as not to slow
regional approval/disapproval. Neither the
regional nor Headquarters review need be
limited only to revisions to existing standards or
to new standards.
In general, three outcomes are possible:
•	EPA approval, in whole or in part, of the
submitted State water quality standards;
•	EPA disapproval, in whole or in part, of the
submitted State water quality standards; and
•	EPA conditional approval, in whole or in
part, of the submitted State water quality
standards.
Unconditional approval or disapproval of
State-adopted water quality standards within the
statutory time limits is the preferred approach.
Conditional approvals should be used only as a
limited exception to this general policy for
correcting minor deficiencies in State standards
and only if a State provides assurance that it
will submit corrections on a specified, written
schedule. Failure of a State to respond in a
timely manner to the conditions expressed in
the letter means that the standards are
disapproved and the Region must promptly
request Headquarters to initiate a promulgation
action. Where this occurs, the Region should
formally notify the State in writing that their
failure to meet the conditions previously
specified results in the standards now being
disapproved as of the original date of the
conditional approval letter.
6.2.1 Policies and Procedures Related to
Approvals
Authority to approve or disapprove State water
quality standards is delegated by the
Administrator to each Regional Administrator.
The Administrator retains the authority to
promulgate standards. Revisions to State water
quality standards that meet the requirements of
the Act and the Water Quality Standards
Regulation are approved by the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator. The Regional
Administrator must, within 60 days, notify the
Governor or his designee by letter of the
approval and forward a copy of the letter to the
appropriate State agency. The letter should
contain any information that might be helpful in
understanding the scope of the approval action.
If particular events (e.g.,State implementation
decisions, pending Federal legislation pertaining
to water quality standards requirements) could
result in a failure of the approved standards to
continue to meet the requirements of the Act,
these events should be identified in the
approval letter. Such events should be
identified for the record to guide future review
and revision activities.
When only a portion of the revisions submitted
meet the requirements of the Act and the
Water Quality Standards Regulation, the
Regional Administrator may approve only that
portion. If only a partial approval is made, the
Region must, in notifying the State, be as
specific as possible in identifying what is
disapproved and why. The Regional
Administrator must also clearly indicate what
action the State could take to make the
disapproved item acceptable.
6.2.2 Policies and Procedures Related to
Disapprovals
If the Regional Administrator determines that
the revisions submitted are not consistent with
or do not meet the requirements of the Act or
the Water Quality Standards Regulation, the
Regional Administrator must disapprove such
standards within 90 days. Such disapproval
must be via written notification to the Governor
of the State or his designee. The letter must
state why the revisions are not consistent with
the Act or the Water Quality Standards
(9/15/93)
6-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Regulation and specify the revisions that must
be adopted to obtain full approval. The letter
must also notify the Governor that the
Administrator will initiate promulgation
proceedings if the State fails to adopt and
submit the necessary revisions within 90 days
after notification.
A State water quality standard remains in
effect, even though disapproved by EPA, until
the State revises it or EPA promulgates a rule
that supersedes the State water quality
standard. This is because water quality
standards are State laws, not Federal laws, and
once the law is amended by the State, the
previously adopted and EPA-approved
standards no longer legally exist.
6.2.3 Policies and Procedures Related to
Conditional Approvals
Conditional approvals are EPA approvals
contingent on the performance of specified
actions on the part of a State in a timely
manner. There is an implicit or explicit
statement in the letter to the State that failure
to satisfy the identified conditions will nullify
the conditional approval and lead to Federal
promulgation action. Problems have arisen with
inconsistent use of conditional approvals among
the regions and with followup actions to ensure
that a State is responding to the conditions in a
timely manner.
Because promulgation of Federal standards is
inherently a lengthy process, the use of
conditional approvals evolved over the years as
another mechanism to maintain the
State-Federal relationship in establishing
standards. When used properly, conditional
approvals can result in standards that fully meet
the requirements of the Act without undue
Federal intervention and promote smooth
operation of the national program.
If used improperly, conditional approvals can be
an unacceptable delaying tactic to establishing
standards and can be construed as EPA failing
to properly exercise its duty to review and
either approve or disapprove and promptly
initiate promulgation action after the allotted
90-day period for State action. This improper
use of conditional approvals must be avoided.
It is incumbent on a Region that uses a
conditional approval to ensure that State action
is timely. When a State fails to meet the
agreed-upon schedule, EPA should initiate
promulgation action. Conditional approvals are
to be used only to correct minor deficiencies
and should be the exception, not the rule,
governing regional responses to State standards.
Note that requests for clarification or additional
information are not approval actions of any
type.
This policy is modeled after that applied to
EPA approval of State implementation plans
6-12
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
(SIPs) in the air program. (See 44 F.R. 38583,
July 2, 1979. See also Mississippi Commission
on Natural Resources v. Costle, 625 F. 2d 1269
(5th Cir.) 1980.)
Necessary Elements of Conditional
Approvals
First, conditional approvals are appropriate only
for "minor deficiencies." Blatant disregard of
Federal statutory or regulatory requirements or
changes that will affect major permit issuance
or reissuance are not minor deficiencies. In
addition, the State's standards submission as a
whole must be in substantial compliance with
EPA's regulation. Major deficiencies must be
disapproved to allow prompt Federal
promulgation action.
Second, the State must commit, in writing, to a
mutually satisfactory, negotiated schedule to
correct the identified regulatory deficiencies in
as short a time period as possible. The time
allowed should bear a reasonable relationship
to the required action. However, in
consideration of the first element above, it is
expected that the time period for compliance
will be limited to a few months. It is definitely
not expected that a year or more will be
required. If that is the case, disapproval would
be more appropriate. Headquarters
concurrence in the schedule is required if it
extends for more than 3 months.
6j| EPA Promulgation
As a matter of policy, EPA prefers that States
adopt their own standards. However, under
section 303(c)(4) of the Act, EPA may
promulgate Federal standards:
• if a revised or new water quality standard
submitted by a State is determined by the
Administrator not to be consistent with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act, or
• in any case where the Administrator
determines that a new or revised standard is
necessary to meet the requirements of the
Act.
Under the latter provision of the statute, EPA
would be able to promulgate standards for a
State, or States, that failed to conduct a
triennial review and submit new or revised
standards to EPA for review so long as the
Administrator determined new standards were
necessary. Where one of these conditions is
met, the Administrator has the authority to
publish proposed revisions to the State(s)
standards in the Federal Register. Generally, a
public hearing will be held on the proposed
standards. Final standards are promulgated
after giving due consideration to written
comments received and statements made at any
public hearings on the proposed revisions.
Although only the Administrator may
promulgate State standards, the Regional Office
has a major role in the promulgation process.
The Regional Office provides the necessary
background information and conducts the
public hearings. The Regional Office prepares
drafts of the rationale supporting EPA's action
included in the proposed and final rulemakings.
The rationale should clearly state the reason for
the disapproval of the State standard.
If conditions warrant (e.g.,a State remedies the
deficiencies in its water quality standards prior
to promulgation), the Administrator may
terminate the rulemaking proceeding at any
time. However, if a proposed rulemaking has
been published in the Federal Register, then the
Regional Administrator must not approve the
State's changes without obtaining concurrence
from Headquarters.
Whenever promulgation proceedings are
terminated, a notice of withdrawal of the
proposed rulemaking will be published in the
Federal Register. The Regional Offices are
responsible for initiating such action and
(9/15/93)
6-13
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
furnishing a rationale for use in preparing the
notice for the Administrator's signature.
An EPA-promulgated standard will be
withdrawn when revisions to State water quality
standards are made that meet the requirements
of the Act. In such a situation, the Regional
Office should initiate the withdrawal action by
notifying the Standards and Applied Science
Division (WH-585) that it is requesting the
withdrawal, specifying the rationale for the
withdrawal, and obtaining Headquarters
concurrence on the acceptability of the State's
water quality standards. EPA's action to
withdraw a federally promulgated standard
requires both a proposed and final rulemaking
if the State-adopted standards are less stringent
than federally promulgated standards but, in the
Agency's judgment, fully meet the requirements
of the Act. EPA will withdraw the Federal rule
without a notice and comment rulemaking when
the State standards are no less stringent than
the Federal rule (i.e.,standards that provide, at
least, equivalent environmental and human
health protection).
Withdrawal of a Federal promulgation is based
on a determination that State-adopted water
quality standards meet the requirements of the
Clean Water Act. Such State-adopted
standards may be the same as, more stringent
than, or less stringent than the Federal rule.
6-14
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
CHAPTER 7
THE WATER QUALITY-BASED
APPROACH TO
POLLUTION CONTROL
Table of Contents
7.1	Determine Protection Level	7-2
7.2	Conduct Water Quality Assessment	7-3
7.2.1	Monitor Water Quality 	7-3
7.2.2	Identify Impaired (Water Quality-Limited) Waters	7-3
7.3	Establish Priorities	7-5
7.4	Evaluate Water Quality Standards for Targeted Waters	7-6
7.5	Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities 	7-7
7.6	Establish Source Controls	7-8
7.6.1	Point Source Control - the NPDES Process	7-9
7.6.2	Nonpoint Source Controls 			7-9
7.6.3	CWA Section 401 Certification	7-10
7.7	Monitor and Enforce Compliance	7-12
7.8	Measure Progress	7-13
-------
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
CHAPTER 7
THE WATER QUALITY-BASED APPROACH
TO POLLUTION CONTROL
This chapter briefly describes the overall water
quality-based approach and its relationship to
the water quality standards program. The water
quality-based approach emphasizes the overall
quality of water within a water body and
provides a mechanism through which the
amount of pollution entering a water body is
controlled based on the intrinsic conditions of
that body of water and the standards set to
protect it.
As shown in Figure 7.1, the water quality-based
approach contains eight stages. These stages
each represent a major Clean Water Act
program with specific regulatory requirements
and guidance. The presentations in this chapter
summarize how the different programs fit into
the overall water quality control scheme and
are not intended as implementation guidance.
Implementation of these programs should be
consistent with the specific programmatic
regulations and guidance documents provided
by the appropriate program office, many of
which are cited herein.
The first stage, "Determining Protection Level,"
involves State development of water quality
standards, the subject of the preceding chapters
of this Handbook.
In the second stage, "Monitoring and Assessing
Water Quality," States identify impaired waters,
determine if water quality standards are being
met, and detect pollution trends. Sections of
the Clean Water Act require States to compile
data, assess, and report on the status of their
water bodies. States generally use existing
information and new data collected from
ongoing monitoring programs to assess their
waters. This stage is discussed in section 7.2.
of this Handbook.
In the third stage, "Establishing Priorities,"
States rank water bodies according to the
severity of the pollution, the uses to be made of
the waters, and other social-economic
considerations, and determine how best to
utilize available resources to solve problems.
Section 7.3 of this Handbook discusses the
ranking and targeting of water bodies.
In the fourth stage, "Evaluating WQS for
Targeted Waters," the appropriateness of the
water quality standards for specific waters is
evaluated. States may revise or reaffirm then-
water quality standards. A State may choose,
for example, to develop site-specific criteria for
a particular stream because a particular species
needs to be protected. This stage is discussed
in section 7.4 of this Handbook.
In the fifth stage "Defining and Allocating
Control Responsibilities," the level of control
needed to meet water quality standards is
established, and control responsibilities are
defined and allocated. States use mathematical
models and/or monitoring to determine total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for water
bodies; the TMDLs include waste load
allocations (WLAs) for point sources, load
allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, and a
margin of safety. The TMDL is the amount of
a pollutant that may be discharged into a water
body and still maintain water quality standards.
Pollutant loadings above this amount generally
will result in waters exceeding the standards.
Allocations for pollution limits for point and
nonpoint sources are calculated to ensure that
water quality standards are not exceeded.
Section 7.5 discusses the TMDL process in
greater detail.
(9/15/93)
7-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
1
Determine Protection Level
Review /Revise State IVOS
8
Measure Progress
Modify TMDL if needed
t
Monitor and Enforce
Compliance
Self-Monitoring
Agency Monitoring
Enforcement
Conduct WQ Assessment
(a)	Monitor Water Quality
(b)	Identify Impaired Waters
Establish Priorities
Rank/ Target Waterbodies
6
Establish Source Controls
Point Source Permits
NPS Programs
§401 Certification
Evaluate WQS for
Targeted Waters
Reaffirm / Revise WQS


Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities
TMDL/WLA/LA
Figure 7-1. Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
In the sixth stage, "Establishing Source Control,"
States and EPA implement point source
controls through NPDES permits, State and
local governments implement nonpoint source
management programs through State laws and
local ordinances, and States assure attainment
of water quality standards through the CWA
section 401 certification process. Control
actions are discussed in Section 7.6.
In the seventh stage, "Monitoring and Enforcing
Compliance," States (or EPA) evaluate self-
monitoring data reported by dischargers to see
that the conditions of the NPDES permit are
being met and take actions against any
violators. Dischargers are monitored to
determine whether or not they meet permit
conditions and to ensure that expected water
quality improvements are achieved. State
nonpoint source programs are monitored and
enforced under State law and to the extent
provided by State law.
In the final stage, "Measuring Progress," the
States (and EPA) assess the effectiveness of the
controls and determine whether water quality
standards have been attained, water quality
standards need to be revised, or more stringent
controls should be applied.

Determine Protection Level
The water quality-based approach to pollution
control begins with the identification of
problem water bodies. State water quality
standards form the basis and "yardstick" by
which States can assess the water body status
7-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
and implement needed pollution controls. A
water quality standard defines the water quality
goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by
designating the use or uses to be made of the
water, by setting criteria necessary to protect
the uses, and by preventing degradation of
water quality through antidegradation
provisions. States adopt water quality standards
to protect public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water, and serve the purposes of the
Clean Water Act. "Serve the purposes of the
Act" (as defined in sections 101(a), 101(a)(2),
and 303(d) of the Act) means that water quality
standards should (1) include provisions for
restoring and maintaining chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of State waters; (2)
provide, wherever attainable, water quality for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water
("fishable/swimmable"); and (3) consider the
use and value of State waters for public water
supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife,
recreation, agricultural and industrial purposes,
and navigation. The preceding chapters of this
Handbook provide EPA's guidance on the
water quality standards program.
17-2j Conduct Water Quality Assessment
Once State water quality standards have
determined the appropriate levels of protection
to be afforded to State water bodies, States
conduct water quality monitoring and identify
those waters that are "water quality limited," or
not meeting the standards.
7.2.1 Monitor Water Quality
Monitoring is an important element throughout
the water quality-based decision making
process. In this step, monitoring provides data
for identifying impaired waters. The Clean
Water Act specifies that States and Interstate
Agencies, in cooperation with EPA, establish
water quality monitoring systems necessary to
review and revise water quality standards, assess
designated use attainment, calculate TMDLs,
(9/15/93)
assess compliance with permits, and report on
conditions and trends in ambient waters. EPA
issued guidance in 1985 for State Water
Monitoring and Waste load Allocation (USEPA,
1985d). Guidance for preparing CWA section
305(b) reports is contained in the Guidelines for
the Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports) (USEPA, 1993a).
Both of these documents discuss monitoring as
an information collection tool for many
program needs. The Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring Water Quality report
(ITFM, 1992) proposes actions to improve
ambient water quality monitoring in the United
States to allow better management of water
resources.
Sections 208(b)(2)(F) through (K) of the CWA
require the development of a State process to
identify, if appropriate, agricultural, silvicultural,
and other nonpoint sources of pollution. NPS
monitoring concerns are discussed in several
NPS guidance documents along with methods to
monitor and evaluate nonpoint sources
(Watershed Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects (USEPA, 1991g)
and Guidance Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters (USEPA, 1993b).
7.2.2 Identify Impaired (Water Quality-
Limited) Waters
EPA's Water Quality Planning and
Management Regulation (40 CFR Part 130)
establishes the process for identifying water
quality-limited water still requiring total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Waters
require TMDLs when certain pollution control
requirements (see Exhibit 7.1) are not stringent
enough to maintain water quality standards for
such waters.
The most widely applied water pollution
controls are the technology-based effluent
limitations required by sections 301(b) and 306
of the Clean Water Act. In some cases, a State
7-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
(b)(1) Each State shall identify those water quality
segments still requiring WLAs/LAs and TMDLs
within its boundaries for which:
(i)	Technology-based effluent limitations
required by sections 301(b), 306, 307, or
other section of the Act;
(ii)	More stringent effluent limitations
(including prohibitions) required by either
State or local authority preserved by section
510 of the Act, of Federal authority (e.g.,
law, regulation, or treaty); and
(iii)	Other pollution control requirements
(e.g., best management practices) required by
local, State, or Federal authority
are not stringent enough to implement any water
quality standard applicable to such waters.
Exhibit 7-1. Identifying Waters Still Requiring
TMDLs: 40 CFR 130.7(b)
or local authority may establish enforceable
requirements beyond technology-based controls.
Examples of such requirements may be those
that (1) provide more stringent NPDES permit
limitations to protect a valuable water resource,
or (2) provide for the management of certain
types of nonpoint source pollution.
Identification of good quality waters that are
threatened is an important part of this
approach. Adequate control of new discharges
from either point or nonpoint sources should be
a high priority for States to maintain the
existing use or uses of these water bodies. In
the identification of threatened waters, it is
important that the 303(d) process consider all
parts of the State water quality standards
program to ensure that a State's
antidegradation policy and narrative provisions,
as well as parameter-specific criteria, are
maintained.
Section 303(d) requires States to identify those
water quality-limited waters needing TMDLs.
States must regularly update their lists of waters
as assessments are made and report these lists
to EPA once every 2 years. In their biennial
submission, States should identify the water
quality-limited waters targeted for TMDL
development in the next 2 years, and the
pollutants or stressors for which the water is
water quality-limited.
Each State may have different methods for
identifying and compiling information on the
status of its water bodies, depending on its
specific programmatic or cross-programmatic
needs and organizational arrangements.
Typically, States utilize both existing
information and new data collected from
ongoing monitoring programs to assess whether
water quality standards are being met, and to
detect trends.
States assess their waters for a variety of
purposes, including targeting cleanup activities,
assessing the extent of contamination at
potential Superfund sites, and meeting federally
mandated reporting requirements. While the
identification of water quality-limited waters
may appear to be a major task for the States, a
significant amount of this work has already
begun or has been completed under sections
305(b), 304(1), 314(a), and 319(a) of the Clean
Water Act as amended in 1987.
Section 305(b) requires States to prepare a
water quality inventory every 2 years to
document the status of water bodies that have
been assessed. Under section 304(1), States
identified all surface waters adversely affected
by toxic (65 classes of compounds),
conventional (such as BOD, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, and oil and grease), and
nonconventional (such as ammonia, chlorine,
and iron) pollutants from both point and
nonpoint sources. Under section 314(a), States
identify publicly owned lakes for which uses are
known to be impaired by point and nonpoint
sources, and report those identified in their
7-4
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
305(b) reports. Section 319 of the CWA
requires each State to develop an NPS
assessment report. Guidance on the submission
and approval process for Section 319 reports is
contained in Nonpoint Source Guidance
(USEPA, 1987c).
Lists prepared to satisfy requirements under
section 305(b), 304(1), 314(a) and 319 should be
very useful in preparing 303(d) lists. Appendix
B of Guidance for Water Quality-based
Decisions: The TMDL Process (USEPA, 1991c)
provides a summary of these supporting CWA
programs.
7.3 B Establish Priorities
ii.—.JB
Once waters needing additional controls have
been identified, a State prioritizes its list of
waters using established ranking processes that
should consider all water pollution control
activities within the State. Priority ranking has
traditionally been a process defined by the State
and may vary in complexity and design. A
priority ranking should enable the State to
make efficient use of its available resources and
meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act states that the priority
ranking for such waters must take into account
the severity of the pollution and the uses to be
made of such waters. Several documents
(USEPA, 1987e, 1988c,d, 1989d, 1990c, 1993c)
are available from EPA to assist States in
priority setting.
According to EPA's State Clean Water Strategy
document: "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."
Targeting 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, aquatic life, and
wildlife;
•	degree of public interest and support;
•	recreational, economic, and aesthetic
~ importance of a particular water body;
•	vulnerability or fragility of a particular
water body as an aquatic habitat;
•	immediate programmatic needs such as
waste load allocations needed for permits
that are coming up for revisions or for new
or expanding discharges, or load
allocations for needed BMPs;
•	waters and pollution problems identified
during the development of the section
304(1) "long list";
•	court orders and decisions relating to
water quality; and
•	national policies and priorities such as
those identified in EPA's Annual
Operating Guidance.
States are required to submit their priority
rankings to EPA for review. EPA expects all
waters needing TMDLs to be ranked, with
"high" priority waters — targeted for initiation
(9/15/93)
7-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
of TMDL development within 2 years following
the listing process — identified. (See USEPA
(1991c) for further details on submission of
priorities to EPA.)
To effectively develop and implement TMDLs
for all waters identified, States should establish
multi-year schedules that take into
consideration the immediate TMDL
development for targeted water bodies and the
long-range planning for addressing all water
quality-limited waters still requiring TMDLs.
While the CWA section 319 NPS assessment
report identifies the overall dimensions of the
State's NPS water quality problems and States
are to develop statewide program approaches
for specific categories of pollution to address
NPS problems, States are also encouraged to
target subsets of waters for concerted action on
a watershed-by-watershed basis. EPA has
issued guidance on NPS targeting (USEPA,
1987e).
7.4 I Evaluate Water Quality Standards
for Targeted Waters
At this point in the water quality management
process, States have identified and targeted
priority water quality-limited water bodies. It is
often appropriate, to re-evaluate the
appropriateness of the water quality standards
for the targeted waters for several reasons
including, but not limited to, the following.
First, many States have not conducted in-depth
analyses of appropriate uses and criteria for all
water bodies but have designated general
fishable/swimmable use classifications and
statewide criteria on a "best professional
judgment" basis to many waters. In addition,
many States make general assumptions about
the antidegradation status of State waters (e.g.,
all waters not specifically assigned to an
antidegradation category will be considered tier
2 or high-quality waters). It is possible that
these generally applied standards, although
meeting the minimum requirements of the
CWA and WQS regulation, may be
inappropriate (either over- or under-protective)
for a specific water body that has not had an in-
depth standards analysis. For example, if a
water body was classified as a coldwater fishery
based solely on its proximity to other coldwater
fisheries, a water body-specific analysis may
show that only a warmwater fishery use is
existing or attainable. If the listing of the water
body was based on exceedences of criteria that
are more stringent for coldwater fish (such as
ammonia or dissolved oxygen), changing the
designated use through a use attainability
analysis and applying appropriate criteria may
allow standards to be met without further water
quality controls.
Second, even if an in-depth analysis has been
done in the past, changes in the uses of the
water body since that time may have made
different standards more appropriate or
generated an additional "existing use" which
must be protected. For example, a water body
designated for fish, aquatic life, and recreation
in the past may now be used as a public water
supply, without that use and protective criteria
ever being formally adopted in the standards.
Another example might be a designated
warmwater fishery that, due to the removal of
a thermal discharge, now supports a coldwater
fishery as the existing use.
Third, monitoring data used to identify the
water body as impaired may be historical, and
subsequent water quality improvements have
allowed standards to be met. And fourth, site-
specific criteria may be appropriate because of
specific local environmental conditions. For
example, the species capable of living at the site
are more or less sensitive than those included
in the national criteria data set, or physical
and/or chemical characteristics of the site alter
the biological availability and/or toxicity of the
chemical.
7-6
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
Define and Allocate Control
Responsibilities
For a water quality-limited water that still
requires a TMDL, a State must establish a
TMDL that quantifies pollutant sources, and a
margin of safety, and allocates allowable loads
to the contributing point and nonpoint source
discharges so that the water quality standards
are attained. The development of TMDLs
should be accomplished by setting priorities,
considering the geographic area impacted by
the pollution problem, and in some cases where
there are uncertainties from lack of adequate
data, using a phased approach to establishing
control measures based on the TMDL.
Many water pollution concerns are areawide
phenomena caused by multiple dischargers,
multiple pollutants (with potential synergistic
and additive effects), or nonpoint sources.
Atmospheric deposition and ground water
discharge may also result in significant pollutant
loadings to surface waters. As a result, EPA
recommends that States develop TMDLs on a
watershed basis to efficiently and effectively
manage the quality of surface waters.
The TMDL process is a rational method for
weighing the competing pollution concerns and
developing an integrated pollution reduction
strategy for point and nonpoint sources. The
TMDL process allows States to take a holistic
view of their water quality problems from the
perspective of instream conditions. Although
States may define a water body to correspond
with their current programs, it is expected that
States will consider the extent of pollution
problems and sources when defining the
geographic area for developing TMDLs. In
general, the geographical approach for TMDL
development supports sound environmental
management and efficient use of limited water
quality program resources. In cases where
TMDLs are developed on watershed levels,
States should consider organizing permitting
cycles so that all permits in a given watershed
expire at the same time.
For traditional water pollution problems, such
as dissolved oxygen depletion and nutrient
enrichment, there are well-validated models
that can predict effects with known levels of
uncertainty. This is not true for such
nontraditional pollution problems as urban
storm water runoff and pollutants that involve
sediment and bioaccumulative pathways.
Predictive modeling for these problems
therefore uses conservative assumptions, but in
many cases the degree of uncertainty cannot be
well quantified until more data become
available to develop sensitivity analyses and
model comparisons. For TMDLs involving
these nontraditional problems, the margins of
safety may be increased and additional
monitoring required to verify attainment of
water quality standards and provide data
needed to recalculate the TMDL, if necessary
(the phased approach).

(9/15/93)
7-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
EPA regulations provide that load allocations
for nonpoint sources and natural background
"are best estimates of the loading which may
range from reasonably accurate estimates to
gross allotments ..." (40 CFR 130.2(g)). A
phased approach to developing TMDLs may be
appropriate where nonpoint sources are
involved and where estimates are based on
limited information. Under the phased
approach, TMDL includes monitoring
requirements and a schedule for reassessing
TMDL allocations to ensure attainment of
water quality standards. Uncertainties that
cannot be quantified may also exist for certain
pollutants discharged primarily by point sources.
In such situations a large margin of safety and
followup monitoring are appropriate.
By pursuing the phased approach where
applicable, a State can move forward to
implement water quality-based control measures
and adopt an explicit schedule for
implementation and assessment. States can
also use the phased approach to address a
greater number of water bodies including
threatened waters or watersheds that would
otherwise not be managed. Specific
requirements relating to the phased approach
are discussed in Guidance for Water Quality-
based Decisions: The TMDL Process (USEPA
1991c).
7.6
Establish Source Controls
Once a TMDL has been established for a water
body (or watershed) and the appropriate source
loads developed, implementation of control
actions should proceed. The State or EPA is
responsible for implementation, the first step
being to update the water quality management
plan. Next, point and nonpoint source controls
should be implemented to meet waste load
allocations and load allocations, respectively.
Various pollution allocation schemes (i.e.,
determination of allowable loading from
different pollution sources in the same water
body) can be employed by States to optimize
alternative point and nonpoint source
management strategies.
The NPDES permitting process is used to limit
effluent from point sources. Section 7.6.1
provides a more complete description of the
NPDES process and how it fits into the water
quality-based approach to permitting.
Construction decisions regarding publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), including advanced
treatment facilities, must also be based on the
more stringent of technology-based or water
quality-based limitations. These decisions
should be coordinated so that the facility plan
for the discharge is consistent with the
limitations in the permit.
In the case of nonpoint sources, both State and
local laws may authorize the implementation of
nonpoint source controls such as the installation
of best management practices (BMPs) or other
management measures. CWA section 319 and
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) section 6217
State management programs may also be
utilized to implement nonpoint source control
measures and practices to ensure improved
water quality. Many BMPs may be
implemented through section 319 programs
even where State regulatory programs do not
exist. In such cases, a State needs to document
the coordination that may be necessary among
State and local agencies, landowners, operators,
and managers and then evaluate BMP
implementation, maintenance, and overall
effectiveness to ensure that load allocations are
achieved. Section 7.6.2 discusses some of the
programs associated with implementation of
nonpoint source control measures.
States may also grant, condition, or deny
"certification" for a federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge
to the waters of the United States, if it is the
State where the discharge will originate. The
State decision is based on a State's
determination of whether the proposed activity
will comply with the requirements of certain
7-8
(9/15/93)
-------
Cluipter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
sections of the Clean Water Act, including
water quality standards under section 303.
Section 7.6.3 of this Handbook contains further
discussion of section 401 certification.
7.6.1 Point Source Control - the NPDES
Process
Both technology-based and water quality-based
controls are implemented through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting process. Permit limits
based on TMDLs are called water quality-based
limits.
Waste load allocations establish the level of
effluent quality necessary to protect water
quality in the receiving water and to ensure
attainment of water quality standards. Once
allowable loadings have been developed
through WLAs for specific pollution sources,
limits are incorporated into NPDES permits. It
is important to ensure that the WLA accounts
for the fact that effluent quality is often highly
variable. The WLA and permit limit should be
calculated to prevent water quality standards
impairment at all times. The reader is referred
to the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a)
for additional information on deriving permit
limits.
When establishing WLAs for point sources in a
watershed, the TMDL record should show that,
in the case of any credit for future nonpoint
source reductions (1) there is reasonable
assurance that nonpoint source controls will be
implemented and maintained, or (2) that
nonpoint source reductions are demonstrated
through an effective monitoring program.
Assurances may include the application or
utilization of local ordinances, grant conditions,
or other enforcement authorities. For example,
it may be appropriate to provide that a permit
may be reopened when a WLA requiring more
stringent limits is necessary because attainment
of a nonpoint source load allocation was not
demonstrated.
7.6.2 Nonpoint Source Controls
In addition to permits for point sources,
nonpoint sources controls such as management
measures or best management practices (BMPs)
are also to be implemented so that surface
water quality objectives are met. To fully
address water bodies impaired or threatened by
nonpoint source pollution, States should
implement their nonpoint source management
programs and ensure adoption of control
measures or practices by all contributors of
nonpoint source pollution to the targeted
watersheds.
As a result of the 1987 Amendments to the Act,
Individual Control Strategies (ICSs) were
established under section 304(1)(1) for certain
point source discharges of priority toxic
pollutants. ICSs consist of NPDES permit
limits and schedules for achieving such limits,
along with documentation showing that the
control measures selected are appropriate and
adequate (e.g.,fact sheets including information
on how water quality-based limits were
developed, such as total maximum daily loads
and waste load allocations). Point sources with
approved ICSs are to be in compliance with
those ICSs as soon as possible or in no case
later than 3 years from the establishment of the
ICS (typically by 1992 or 1993).
Best management practices are the primary
mechanism in section 319 of the CWA to
enable achievement of water quality standards.
Section 319 requires each State, in addition to
developing the assessment reports discussed in
section 7.2.1 of this Handbook, to adopt NPS
(9/15/93)
7-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
management programs to control NPS
pollution.
Sections 208(b)(2)(F) through (K) of the CWA
also require States to set forth procedures and
methods including land use requirements, to
control to the extent feasible nonpoint sources
of pollution reports.
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZAJRA) requires that States with federally
approved coastal zone management programs
develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs to be approved by EPA and NOAA.
EPA and NOAA have issued Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program;ProgramDevelopment
and Approval Guidance (NOAA/EPA, 1993),
which describes the program development and
approval process and requirements. State
programs are to employ an initial technology-
based approach generally throughout the
coastal management area, to be followed by a
more stringent water quality-based approach to
address known water quality problems. The
Management Measures generally implemented
throughout the coastal management area are
described in Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters (USEPA, 1993b).
7.6.3 CWA Section 401 Certification
States may grant, condition, or deny
"certification" for a federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge
to the waters of the United States, if it is the
State where the discharge will originate. The
language of section 401(a)(1) is very broad with
respect to the activities it covers:
[A]ny activity, including, but	not
limited to, the construction	or
operation of facilities, which	may
result in any discharge . . .
requires water quality certification.
EPA has identified five Federal permits and/or
licenses that authorize activities that may result
in a discharge to the waters: permits for point
source discharge under section 402 and
discharge of dredged and fill material under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for
activities in navigable waters that may affect
navigation under sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA); and licenses
required for hydroelectric projects issued under
the Federal Power Act. There are likely other
Federal permits and licenses, such as permits
for activities on public lands, and Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licenses, which may
result in a discharge and thus require 401
certification. Each State should work with EPA
and the Federal agencies active in its State to
determine whether 401 certification is in fact
applicable.
Congress intended for the States to use the
water quality certification process to ensure that
no Federal license or permits would be issued
that would violate State standards or become a
source of pollution in the future. Also,
because the States' certification of a
construction permit or license also operates as
certification for an operating permit (except in
certain instances specified in section 401(a)(3)),
it is imperative for a State review to consider
all potential water quality impacts of the
project, both direct and indirect, over the life of
the project.
In addition, when an activity requiring 401
certification in one State (i.e. the State in which
the discharge originates) will have an impact on
the water quality of another State, the statute
provides that after receiving notice of
application from a Federal permitting or
licensing agency, EPA will notify any States
whose water quality may be affected. Such
States have the right to submit their objections
and request a hearing. EPA may also submit
its evaluation and recommendations. If the use
of conditions cannot ensure compliance with
the affected State's water quality requirements,
7-10
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
the Federal permitting or licensing agency shall
not issue such permit or license.
The decision to grant, condition, or deny
certification is based on a State's determination
from data submitted by an applicant (and any
other information available to the State)
whether the proposed activity will comply with
the requirements of certain sections of the
Clean Water Act enumerated in section
401(a)(1). These requirements address
effluent limitations for conventional and
nonconventional pollutants, water quality
standards, new source performance standards,
and toxic pollutants (sections 301,302,303,306,
and 307). Also included are requirements of
State law or regulation more stringent than
those sections or their Federal implementing
regulations.
States adopt surface water quality standards
pursuant to section 303 of the Clean Water Act
and have broad authority to base those
standards on the waters' use and value for ".. .
public water supplies, propagation of fish and
wildlife, recreational purposes, and . . . other
purposes" (33 U.S.C. section 1313 (c)(2)(A)).
All permits must include effluent limitations at
least as stringent as needed to maintain
established beneficial uses and to attain the
quality of water designated by States for their
waters. Thus, the States' water quality
standards are a critical concern of the 401
certification process.
If a State grants water quality certification to an
applicant for a Federal license or permit, it is in
effect saying that the proposed activity Mil
comply with State water quality standards (and
the other CWA and State law provisions
enumerated above). The State may thus deny
certification because the applicant has not
demonstrated that the project will comply with
those requirements. Or it may place whatever
limitations or conditions on the certification it
determines are necessary to ensure compliance
with those provisions, and with any other
"appropriate" requirements of State law.
If a State denies certification, the Federal
permitting or licensing agency is prohibited
from issuing a permit or license. While the
procedure varies from State to State, a State's
decision to grant or deny certification is
ordinarily subject to an administrative appeal,
with review in the State courts designated for
appeals of agency decisions. Court review is
typically limited to the question of whether the
State agency's decision is supported by the
record and is not arbitrary or capricious. The
courts generally presume regularity in agency
procedures and defer to agency expertise in
their review. (If the applicant is a Federal
agency, however, at least one Federal court has
ruled that the State's certification decision may
be reviewed by the Federal courts.)
States may also waive water quality
certification, either affirmatively or
involuntarily. Under section 401(a)(1), if the
State fails to act on a certification request
"within a reasonable time (which shall not
exceed one year)" after the receipt of an
application, it forfeits its authority to grant
conditionally or to deny certification.
The most important regulatory tools for the
implementation of 401 certification are the
States' water quality standards regulations and
their 401 certification implementing regulations
and guidelines. Most Tribes do not yet have
water quality standards, and developing them
would be a first step prior to having the
authority to conduct water quality certification.
Also, many States have not adopted regulations
implementing their authority to grant, deny, and
condition water quality certification. Wetland
and 401 Certification: Opportunities and
Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes
(USEPA, 1989a) discusses specific approaches,
and elements of water quality standards and
401 certification regulations that EPA views as
effective to implement the States' water quality
certification authority.
(9/15/93)
7-11
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
[™] Monitor and Enforce Compliance
As noted throughout the previous sections,
monitoring is a crucial element of water
quality-based decision making. Monitoring
provides data for assessing compliance with
water quality-based controls and for evaluating
whether the TMDL and control actions that are
based on the TMDL protect water quality
standards.
With point sources, dischargers are required to
provide reports on compliance with NPDES
permit limits. Their discharge monitoring
reports (DMR) provide a key source of effluent
quality data. In some instances, dischargers
may also be required in the permit to assess the
impact of their discharge on the receiving
water. A monitoring requirement can be put
into the permit as a special condition as long as
the information is collected for purposes of
writing a permit limit.
States should also ensure that effective
monitoring programs are in place for evaluating
nonpoint source control measures. EPA
recognizes monitoring as a high-priority activity
in a State's nonpoint source management
program (55 F.R. 35262, August 28,1990). To
facilitate the implementation and evaluation of
NPS controls, States should consult current
guidance (USEPA, 1991g); (USEPA, 1993b).
States are also encouraged to use innovative
monitoring programs (e.g.,rapid bioassessments
(USEPA, 1989e), and volunteer monitoring
(USEPA, 1990b) to provide for adequate point
and nonpoint source monitoring coverage.
Dischargers are monitored to determine
whether or not they are meeting their permit
conditions and to ensure that expected water
quality improvements are achieved. If a State
has not been delegated authority for the
NPDES permit program, compliance reviews of
all permittees in that State are the
responsibility of EPA. EPA retains oversight
responsibility for State compliance programs in
NPDES-delegated States. NPDES permits also
contain self-monitoring requirements that are
the responsibility of the individual discharger.
Data obtained through self-monitoring are
reported to the appropriate regulatory agency.
Based on a review of data, EPA or a State
regulatory agency determines whether or not a
NPDES permittee has complied with the
requirements of the NPDES permit. If a
facility has been identified as having apparent
violations, EPA or the State will review the
facility's compliance history. This review
focuses on the magnitude, frequency, and
duration of violations. A determination of the
appropriate enforcement response is then made.
EPA and States are authorized to bring civil or
criminal action against facilities that violate
their NPDES permits. State nonpoint source
programs are enforced under State law and to
the extent provided by State law.
Once control measures have been implemented,
the impaired waters should be assessed to
determine if water quality standards have been
attained or are no longer threatened. The
monitoring program used to gather the data for
this assessment should be designed based on
the specific pollution problems or sources. For
example, it is difficult to ensure, a priori, that
implementing nonpoint source controls will
achieve expected load reductions due to
inadequate selection of practices or measures,
inadequate design or implementation, or lack of
full participation by all contributing nonpoint
sources (USEPA, 1987e). As a result, long-
7-12
(9/15/93)
-------
Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
term monitoring efforts must be consistent over
time to develop a data base adequate for
analysis of control actions.
Measure Progress
If the water body achieves the applicable State
water quality standards, the water body may be
removed from the 303(d) list of waters still
needing TMDLs. If the water quality standards
are not met, the TMDL and allocations of load
and waste loads must be modified. This
modification should be based on the additional
data and information gathered as required by
the phased approach for developing a TMDL,
where appropriate; as part of routine
monitoring activities; and when assessing the
water body for water quality standards
attainment.
(9/15/93)
7-13
-------
REFERENCES
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
References
REFERENCES
Barnes, D.G., and M. Dourson. 1988. Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk
Assessments. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 8, 471-486.
Brungs, W.A. 1986. Allocated Impact Zones for Areas of Non-Compliance. USEPA, Region 1.
Water Management Division, Boston, MA. (Source #3.)
Cole, G. A. 1979. Textbook of Limnology. The C.V. Mosby Co. St. Louis MO
Erickson, R., C. Kleiner, J. Fiandt, and T. Hignland. 1989. Report on the Feasibility of
Predicting the Effects of Fluctuating Concentrations on Aquatic Organisms. USEPA, ERL,
Duluth, MN. (Source #16.)
FWPCA (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration). 1968. Water Quality Criteria (the
"Green Book"), Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the
Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. (Out of Print.)
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office) 1987. Wildlife Management; National Refuge
Contamination is Difficult to Confirm and Clean Up. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives. Washington, DC. GAO/RCED-87-128. (Source #6.)
ITFM. 1992. Ambient Water-quality Monitoring in the United States: First Year Review,
Evaluation, and Recommendations. Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality. Washington, DC. (Source #15.)
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment ofBiotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries, Vol. 6, No.6,
pp. 21-27.
Mancini, J.L. 1983. A Method for Calculating Effects on Aquatic Organisms of Time-Varying
Concentrations. Water Res. 17:1355-61.
McLusky, D.S. 1971. Ecology of Estuaries. Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd. London.
NAS/NAE. 1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972 (the "Blue Book"), a Report of the Committee on
Water Quality Criteria. National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineering,
Washington, DC. NTIS-PB 236199. USGPO #5501-00520. (Source #2 or #7.)
NOAA/EPA. 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; Program Development and
Approval Guidance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. (Source #8.)
Rossman, Lewis J. 1990. Design Stream Flows Based on Harmonic Means. J. of Hydraulics
Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 7.
(9/15/93)
REF-1
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Thomann, R.V. 1987. A Statistical Model of Environmental Contaminants Using Variance
Spectrum Analysis. Report to National Science Foundation. NTIS #PB 88-235130/A09.
(Source #2.)
Thomann, R.V. 1989. Bioaccumulation Model of Organic Chemical Distribution in Aquatic Food
Chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 699-707.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Agricultural Statistics. USDA, Washington, DC. p. 506.
USEPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1972. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods
for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA 670/4-73-001. (Source #9.)
	. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water 1976 (the "Red Book"). Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, Washington, DC. GPO #055-001-01049-4. (Source #7.)
	. 1980a. Notice of Water Quality Criteria Documents. Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC. 45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980.
	. 1980b. Guidelines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of Health Effects Assessment
Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Documents. Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC. 45 F.R. 79347, November 28, 1980.
	. 1980c. Seafood Consumption Data Analysis. Stanford Research Institute International,
Menlo Park, CA. Final Report, Task 11, Contract No. 68-01-3887. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #10.)
	. 1981. Notice of Water Quality Criteria Documents. Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC. 46 F.R. 40919, August 13, 1981.
	. 1983a. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. (Out of Print.)
	. 1983b. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and
4.1.4). Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA 600/4-79-
020. (Source #9.)
	. 1983c. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainabilty Analyses, Volume I. Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
(Source #10.)
	. 1983d. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II
Streams and Rivers - Chapter 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen. Monitoring
and Data Support Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-020. (Source #10.)
	. 1983e. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book 11
Streams and Rivers - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts. Monitoring and Data Support
Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-021. (Source #10.)
REF-2
(9/15/93)
-------
References
	. 1983f. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV
Lakes and Impoundments - Chapter 2 Nutrient IEutrophication Impacts. Monitoring and Data
Support Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-019. (Source #10.)
	. 1984a. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainability Analyses, Volume II, Estuarine Systems. Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC. (Source #10.)
	. 1984b. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainability Analyses, Volume III, Lake Systems. Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC. (Source #10.)
	. 1984d. State Water Quality Standards Approvals: Use Attainability Analysis Submittals.
(Memorandum from Director, Criteria and Standards Division to Director, Water Management
Division, Region I; November 28.) Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1984e. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations. Book II
Streams and Rivers. Chapter 3 Toxic Substances. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-022. (Source #10.)
	. 1985a. Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. EPA 600-4-85-013.
(Source #9.)
	. 1985b. Guidelines for Deriving National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
DC. 45 F.R. 79341, November 28, 1980, as amended at 50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985.
NTIS #PB 85-227049. (Source #2.)
	. 1985c. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH. EPA 600-4-85-0145.
	. 1985d. Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Waste Load Allocation Programs.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-85-031. (Out of
Print.)
	. 1985e. Interpretation of the Term "Existing Use". (Memorandum from Director, Criteria
and Standards Division to Water Quality Standards Coordinator, Region IV; February 21.)
Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1985f. Selection of Water Quality Criteria in State Water Quality Standards.
(Memorandum from Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Water Division
Directors, Region I - X; February 28.) Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1985g. Variances in Water Quality Standards. (Memorandum from Director, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards to Water Division Directors; March 15.) Washington, DC.
(Source #11.)
(9/15/93)
REF-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
	. 1985h. Antidegradation, Waste Loads, and Permits. (Memorandum from Director,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Water Management Division Directors, Region I
- X.) Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1985i. Antidegradation Policy. (Memorandum from Director, Criteria and Standards
Division to Water Management Division Directors, Region I - X; November 22.)
Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1986a. Quality Criteria for Water (the "Gold Book") Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. USGPO #955-002-00000-8. (Source #7.)
	. 1986b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington DC. EPA 440/5-84-002. PB 86-158045. (Source #2.)
	. 1986c. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book 6,
Design Conditions. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-
87-002. (Source #10.)
	. 1986d. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book VI,
Design Conditions: Chapter 1 - Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-87-004. (Source #10.)
	. 1986e. Answers to Questions on Nonpoint Sources and WQS. (Memorandum from
Assistant Administrator for Water to Water Division Director, Region X; March 7.)
Washington, DC.. (Source #11.)
	. 1986f. Determination of "Existing Uses" for Purposes of Water Quality Standards
Implementation. (Memorandum from Director, Criteria and Standards Division to Water
Management Division Directors, Region I - X, WQS Coordinators, Region I - X; April 7.)
Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1987d. Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards. (Memorandum from
Chief, Nonpoint Source Branch to Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs; August 19.)
Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1987e. Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards. Washington, DC. (Source #8.)
	. 1988a. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH. EPA 600/4-87-028.
	. 1988d. State Clean Water Strategies; Meeting the Challenges for the Future. Office of
Water. Washington, DC. (Source #5.)
	. 1988e. Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B). Office of Water. Washington, DC. (Source #10.)
REF-4
(9/15/93)
-------
References
	. 1989a. Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities for States and Eligible Indian
Tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC. (Source #12.)
	. 1989b. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. EPA 600/8-89-043. (Source #9.)
	. 1989c. Application of Antidegradation Policy to the Niagara River. (Memorandum from
Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Director, Water Management Division,
Region II; August 4.) Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1989d. Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source Projects: You Better Shop Around. Office of
Water; and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC. EPA 506/2-89-003.
(Source #13.)
	. 1989e. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division. Washington, DC. EPA 444/4-89-001. (Source #14.)
	. 1989f. EPA Designation of Outstanding National Resource Waters. (Memorandum from
Acting Director, Criteria and Standards Division to Regional Water Management Division
Directors; May 25.) Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1989g. Guidance for the Use of Conditional Approvals for State WQS. (Memorandum
from Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Water Division Directors,
Regions I - X; June 20.) Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1989h. Designation of Recreation Uses. (Memorandum from Director, Criteria and
Standards Division to Director, Water Management Division, Region IV; September 7.)
Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1989i. Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wildlife Resources. Environmental Research
Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-89-067. NTIS #PB 89-220016. (Source #2.)
	. 1989j. Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish:
a Guidance Manual. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, DC. EPA
503/8-89-002. (Source #10.)
	. 1990a. Biological Criteria, National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #10)
	. 1990b. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. Office of Water.
Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-90-010. (Source #14.)
	. 1990c. The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual, Second Edition. Office of
Water. Nonpoint Source Branch. Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-90-006. (Source #14.)
	. 1991a. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of
Water, Washington, DC. EPA 505/2-90-001. NTIS #PB 91-127415. (Source #2.)
(9/15/93)
REF-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
	. 1991b. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268. EPA 600/4-91-010.
(Source #9.)
	. 1991c. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. Office of
Water, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-91-001 (Source #14.)
	. 199 Id. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms. 4th.
ed. Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. EPA 600/4-90-027. (Source #9.)
	. 1991e. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms. 3d. ed. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH. EPA 600/4-91-002. (Source #9.)
	. 199 If. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. 2d. ed. Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA 600/4-91-003. (Source #9.)
	. 1991g. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. Washington
DC. (Source #8.)
	. 1991h. Section 401 Certification and FERC Licenses. (Memorandum from Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; January
18.) Washington, DC. (Source #11.)
	. 1991i. Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality
Program. (Memorandum from Director. Office of Science and Technology to Water
Management Division Directors, Regions I - X; June 19.) (Source #4.)
	. 1993a. Guidelines for Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality Assessments 305(b)
Reports. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, DC. (Source #14.)
	. 1993b. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters. Office of Water. Washington, DC. 840-B-92-002. (Source #8.)
	.1993c. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples. Office of Water. Washington,
DC. EPA 841-B-93-001. (Source #14.)
	. 1993d. Final Guidance on the Award and Management of Nonpoint Source Program
Implementation Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act for Fiscal Year 1994 and
Future Years. Office of Water. Washington, DC. (Source #8.)
	. 1993e. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories;
Volume 1 - Fish Sampling and Analysis (in preparation). Office of Water. Washington, DC.
EPA 823-R-93-002. (Source #9.)
REF-6
(9/15/93)
-------
References
Vernberg, W.B. 1983. Responses to Estuarine Stress. In: Ecosystems of the World: Estuaries and
Enclosed Seas. B.H. Ketchum, ed. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, pp.
43-63.
Versar. 1984. Draft Assessment of International Mixing Zone Policies. Avoidance/Attraction
Characteristics, and Available Prediction Techniques. USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards and USEPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
(9/15/93)
REF-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
SOURCES OF DOCUMENTS
(1)	Seth Ausubel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Ph: (212) 264-6779
(2)	National Technical Information Center
(NTIS)
5285 Front Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Ph: (703) 487-4650
(3)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Water Division
JFK Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
Ph: (617) 565-3533
(4)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code 4304
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-5389
(See Appendix V)
(5)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code 4101
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-5700
(6)	U.S. General Accounting Office
Post Office Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
Telephone: 202-512-6000
(First copy free)
(7)	U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents
North Capitol Street H Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20401
Ph: (202) 783-3238
(8)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code 4503
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-7100
(9)	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Office of Research and Development
Room G72
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Ph: (513) 569-7562
(10)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Resource Center
Mail Code RC-4100
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-7786 (voice mail
publication request line)
(See Appendix V)
REF-8
(9/15/93)
-------
References
(11)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Standards and Applied Science Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code 4305
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 260-9830
Ph: (202) 260-7301
(See Appendix V)
(12)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code 4502F
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-7719
(13)	EPIC
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
11029 Kenwood Road
Building 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Fax: (513) 569-7186
Ph: (513) 569-7980
(14)	U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code 4503
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-7166
(9/15/93)
REF-9
-------
APPENDIX A
Water Quality Standards Regulation
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Appendix A - Water Quality Standards Regulation
Water Quality Standards Regulation
(40 CFR 131; 48 FR 51405, Nov. 8,1983; Revised through July 1,1991; amended at
56 FR 64893, Dec. 12, 1991; 57 FR 60910, Dec. 22, 1992)
TITLE 40—PROTECTION
OF ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D—WATER
PROGRAMS
PART 131—WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 ei seq
[Amended at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
1991; 57 FR 60910, Dec. 22, 1992]
Subpart A—General Provisions
See
131 1 Scope
1312 Purpose
131.3 Definitions.
1314 Slate authority.
) 31 5 EPA authority
131.6 Minimum requirements for water
quality standards submission.
1317	Dispute resolution mechanism.
1318	Requirements for Indian Tribes to be
treated as States for purposes of
water quality standards
Subpart B—Establishment of Water Quality
Standards
131 10 Designation of uses
13111 Criteria
131 12 Antidegradation policy.
131.13 General policies.
Subpart C—Procedures for Review and Revision
of Water Quality Standards
131 20 State review and revision of water
quality standards.
131 21 CPA review and approval of water
quality standards.
131 22 EPA promulgation of water quality
standards.
Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quali-
ty Standards
13131 Arizona
131 33- 131 34 [Reserved!
131 35 Colville Confederated Tribes Indian
-3
nc4	Currk. ClU/l $
Subpart \—General Provisions
§131.1 Scope.
This part describes the requirements
and procedures for developing, reviewing,
revising and approving water quality stan-
dards by the States as authorized by sec-
tion 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. The
reporting or recordkeeping (information)
provisions in this rule were approved by
the Office of Management and Budget un-
der 3504(b) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, U.S.C. 3501 el seq. (Approv-
al number 2040-0049).
§131.2 Purpose.
A water quality standard defines the
water quality goals of a water body, or
portion thereof, by designating the use or
uses to be made of the water and by set-
ting criteria necessary to protect the uses.
States adopt water quality standards to
protect public health or welfare, enhance
the quality of water and serve the pur-
poses of the Clean Water Act (the Act)
"Serve the purposes of the Act" (as de-
fined in sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c) of
the Act) means that water quality stan-
dards should, wherever attainable, pro-
vide water quality for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife
and for recreation in and on the water and
lake into consideration their use and value
of public water supplies, propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreation in
and on the water, and agricultural, indus-
trial, and other purposes including naviga-
tion.
Such standards serve the dual purposes of
establishing the water quality goals for a
specific water body and serve as the regu-
latory basis for the establishment of wa-
ter-quality-based treatment controls and
strategies beyond the technology-based
levels of treatment required by sections
301(b) and 306 of the Act.
§131.3 Definitions.
(a)	The Act means the Clean Water
Act (Pub. L. 92-500 , as amended, (33
U.S C. 1251 el seq.)).
(b)	Criteria are elements of State water
quality standards, expressed as constitu-
ent concentrations, levels, or narrative
statements, representing a quality of wa-
ter that supports a particular use. When
criteria are met, water quality will gener-
ally protect the designated use.
(c)	Section 304(a) criteria are devel-
oped by EPA under authority of section
304(a) of the Act based on the latest sci-
entific information on the relationship
that the effect of a constituent concentra-
tion has on particular aquatic species
and/or human health This information is
issued periodically to the States as guid-
ance for use in developing criteria.
(d)	Toxic pollutants are those pollu-
tants listed by the Administrator under
section 307(a) of the Act.
(e)	Existing uses are those uses actual-
ly attained in the water body on or after
November 28, 1975, whether or not they
are included in the water quality stan-
dards.
(f)	Designated uses arc those uses spec-
ified in water quality standards for each
(9/14/93)
-------
water body or segment whether or not
they are being attained.
(g)	Use attainability analysis is a struc-
tured scientific assessment of the factors
alTecting the attainment of the use which
may include physical, chemical, biologi-
cal, and economic factors as described in
§131.10(g)
(h)	Water quality limited segment
means any segment where it is known that
water quality docs not meet applicable
water quality standards, and/or is not ex-
pected to meet applicable water quality
standards, even after the application of
the technology-bases effluent limitations
required by sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Act.
(i)	Water quality standards are provi-
sions of State or Federal law which con-
sist of a designated use or uses for the
waters of the United States and water
quality criteria for such waters based up-
on such uses. Water quality standards are
to protect the public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water and serve
the purposes of the Act
[§131 3(j)—(1) added at 56 FR 64893,
Dec. 12, 1991]
(j) Stales include. The 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Guam, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indi-
an Tribes that EPA determines qualify
for treatment as States for purposes of
water quality standards.
(k) Federal Indian Reservation, Indian
Reservation, or Reservation means all
land within the limits of any Indian reser-
vation under the jurisdiction of the United
States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including
rights-of-way running through the reser-
vation."
(I) Indian Tribe or Tribe means any In-
dian Tribe, band, group, or community
recognized by the Secretary of the Interi-
or and exercising governmental authority
over a Federal Indian reservation.
§131.4 State authority.
(a) States (as defined in §131.3) are re-
sponsible for reviewing, establishing, and
revising water quality standards. As rec-
ognized by section 510 of the Clean Wa-
ter Act, States may develop water quality
standards more stringent than required by
this regulation. Consistent with section
101(g) and 518(a) of the Clean Water
Act, water quality standards shall not be
construed to superseder or abrogate rights
to quantities of water.
(b)	States (as defined in §131.3) may
issue certifications pursuant to the re-
quirements of Clean Water Act section
401. Revisions adopted by States shall be
applicable for use in issuing State certifi-
cations consistent with the provisions of
§131.21(c).
(c)	Where EPA determines that a
Tribe qualifies for treatment as a State
for purposes of water quality standards,
the Tribe likewise qualifies for treatment
as a Stale for purposes of certifications
conducted under Clean Water Act section
401.
[§131.4 revised at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
1991]
§131.5 EPA authority.
[§131.5 former paragraphs (a)—(e) re-
designated as new (a) and (a)(1)—(a)(5)
at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12, 1991]
(a) Under section 303(c) of the Act,
EPA is to review and to approve or disap-
prove State-adopted water quality stan-
dards. The review involves a determina-
tion of:
(1)	Whether the State has adopted wa-
ter uses which are consistent with the re-
quirements of the Clean Water Act;
(2)	Whether the state has adopted cri-
teria that protect the designated water
uses;
(3)	Whether the State has followed its
legal procedures for revising or adopting
standards;
(4)	Whether the State standards which
do not include the uses specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act are based upon ap-
propriate technical and scientific data and
analyses, and
(5)	Whether the State submission
meets the requirements included in
§131.6 of this part. If EPA determines
that State water quality standards are
consistent with the factors listed in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section,
EPA approves the standards. EPA must
disapprove the State water quality stan-
dards under section 303(c)(4) of the Act,
if State adopted standards are not consis-
tent with the factors listed in paragraphs
(a) through (e) of this section. EPA may
also promulgate a new or revised standard
where necessary to meet the requirements
of the Act.
(b) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
authorizes EPA to issue certifications pur-
suant to the requirements of section 401
in any case where a State or interstate
agency has no authority for issuing such
certifications.
[§131.5(b) added at 56 FR 64893, Dec.
12, 1991]
§131.6 Minimum requirements for water
quality standards submission.
The following elements must be includ-
ed in each State's water quality standards
submitted to EPA for review:
(a)	Use designations consistent with the
provisions of sections 101(a)(2) and
303(c)(2) of the Act.
(b)	Methods used and analyses con-
ducted to support water quality standards
revisions.
(c)	Water quality criteria sufficient to
protect the designated uses.
(d)	An antidegradation policy consis-
tent with §131.12.
(e)	Certification by the State Attorney
General or other appropriate legal author-
ity within the State that the water quality
standards were duly adopted pursuant to
State law.
(0 General information which will aid
the Agency in determining the adequacy
of the scientific basis of the standards
which do not include the uses specified in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act as well as
information on general policies applicable
to State standards which may affect their
application and implementation.
§131.7 Dispute resolution mechanism.
(a)	Where disputes between States and
Indian Tribes arise as a result of differing
water quality standards on common bod-
ies of water, the lead EPA Regional Ad-
ministrator, as determined based upon
OMB circular A-105, shall be responsible
for acting in accordance with the provi-
sions of this section.
(b)	The Regional Administrator shall
attempt to resolve such disputes where:
(1)The	difference in water quality
standards results in unreasonable conse-
quences;
(2)	The dispute is between a State (as
defined in §131.3(j) but exclusive of all
Indian Tribes) and a Tribe which EPA
has determined qualifies to be treated as a
State for purposes of water quality stan-
dards;
-------
(3)	A reasonable effort to resolve the
dispute without EPA involvement has
been made;
(4)	The requested relief is consistent
with the provisions of the Clean Water
Act and other relevant law;
(5)	The dilTering Stale and Tribal wa-
ter quality standards have been adopted
pursuant to State and Tribal law and ap-
proved by EPA: and
(6)	A valid written request has been
submitted by either the Tribe or the
State.
(c)	Either a State or a Tribe may re-
quest EPA to resolve any dispute which
satisfies the criteria of paragraph (b) of
this section. Written requests for EPA in-
volvement should be submitted to the lead
Regional Administrator and must in-
clude.
(1)A	concise statement of the unrea-
sonable consequences that are alleged to
have arisen because of differing water
quality standards;
(2)	A concise description of the actions
which have been taken to resolve the dis-
pute without EPA involvement;
(3)	A concise indication of the water
quality standards provision which has re-
sulted in the alleged unreasonable conse-
quences;
(4)	Factual data to support the alleged
unreasonable consequences; and
(5)	A statement of the relief sought
from the alleged unreasonable conse-
quences.
(d)	Where, in the Regional Administra-
tor's judgment, EPA involvement is ap-
propriate based on the factors of para-
graph (b) of this section, the Regional
Administrator shall, within 30 days, noti-
fy the parties in writing that he/she is
initiating an EPA dispute resolution ac-
tion and solicit their written response. The
Regional Administrator shall also make
reasonable efforts to ensure that other in-
terested individuals or groups have notice
of this action. Such efforts shall include
but not be limited to the following:
(1)	Written notice to responsible Tribal
and State Agencies, and other affected
Federal Agepcies,
(2)	Notice to the specific individual or
entity that is alleging that an unreason-
able consequence is resulting from differ-
ing standards having been adopted on a
common body of water,
(3)	Public notice in local newspapers,
radio, and television, as appropriate.
(4)	Publication in trade journal news-
letters, and
(5)	Other means as appropriate.
(e) If in accordance with applicable
State and Tribal law an Indian Tribe and
State have entered into an agreement that
resolves the dispute or establishes a mech-
anism for resolving a dispute, EPA shall
defer to this agreement where it is consis-
tent with ihe Clean Water Act and where
it has been approved by EPA.
(0 EPA dispute resolution actions shall
be consistent with one or a combination of
the following options:
(1) Mediation The Regional Adminis-
trator may appoint a mediator to mediate
the dispute. Mediators shall be EPA em-
ployees, employees from other Federal
agencies, or other individuals with appro-
priate qualifications
(1)	Where the State and Tribe agree to
participate in the dispute resolution pro-
cess, mediation with the intent to estab-
lish Tribal-State agreements, consistent
with Clean Water Act section 518(d)
shall normally be pursued as a first effort.
(ii) Mediators shall act as neutral
facilitators whose function is to encourage
communication and negotiation between
all parties to the dispute.
(lii) Mediators may establish advisory
panels, to consist in part of representa-
tives from the affected parties, to study
the problem and recommend an appropri-
ate solution.
(iv)	The procedure and schedule for
mediation of individual disputes shall be
determined by the mediator in consulta-
tion with the parties.
(v)	If formal public hearings are held in
connection with the actions taken under
this paragraph, Agency requirements at
40 CFR 25.5 shall be followed.
(2)	Arbitration. Where the parties to
the dispute agree to participate in the dis-
pute resolution process, the Regional Ad-
ministrator may appoint an arbitrator or
arbitration panel to arbitrate the dispute.
Arbitrators and panel members shall be
EPA employees, employees from other
Federal agencies, or other individuals
with appropriate qualifications. The Re-
gional administrator shall select as arbi-
trators and arbitration panel members in-
dividuals who are agreeable to all parties,
are knowledgeable concerning the re-
quirements of the water quality standards
program, have a basic understanding of
the political and economic interests of
Tribes and States involved, and are ex-
pected to fulfill the duties fairly and im-
partially
(i)The	arbitrator or arbitration panel
shall conduct one or more private or pub-
lic meetings with the parties and actively
solicit information pertaining to the ef-
fects of differing water quality permit re-
quirements on upstream and downstream
dischargers, comparative risks to public
health and the environment, economic im-
pacts, present and historical water uses,
the quality of the waters subject to such
standards, and other factors relevant to
the dispute such as whether proposed wa-
ter quality criteria are more stringent
than necessary to support designated uses,
more stringent than natural background
water quality or whether designated uses
are reasonable given natural background
water quality.
(ii)	Following consideration of relevant
factors as defined in paragraph (0(2)(i)
of this section, the arbitrator or arbitra-
tion panel shall have the authority and
responsibility to provide all parties and
the Regional Administrator with a writ-
ten recommendation for resolution of the
dispute. Arbitration panel recommenda-
tions shall, in general, be reached by ma-
jority vote. However, where the parties
agree to binding arbitration, or where re-
quired by the Regional Administrator,
recommendations of such arbitration
panels may be unanimous decisions.
Where binding or non-binding arbitration
panels cannot reach a unanimous recom-
mendation after a reasonable period of
time, the Regional Administrator may di-
rect the panel to issue a non-binding deci-
sion by majority vote.
(iii)	The arbitrator or arbitration panel
members may consult with EPA's Office
of General Counsel on legal issues, but
otherwise shall have no ex parte commu-
nications pertaining to the dispute. Feder-
al employees who are arbitrators or arbi-
tration panel members shall be neutral
and shall not be predisposed for or against
the position of any disputing party based
on any Federal Trust responsibilities
which their employers may have with re-
spect to the Tribe. In addition, arbitrators
or arbitration panel members who are
Federal employees shall act independent-
ly from the normal hierarchy within their
agency.
(iv)	The parties arc not obligated to
abide by the arbitrator's or arbitration
-------
panel's recommendation unless they vol-
untarily entered into a binding agreement
to do so
(v)	If a party to the dispute believes
that the arbitrator or arbitration panel
has recommended an action contrary to or
inconsistent with the Clean Water Act,
the party may appeal the arbitrator's rec-
ommendation to the Regional Adminis-
trator. The request for appeal must be in
writing and must include a description of
the statutory basis for altering the arbi-
trator's recommendation.
(vi)	The procedure and schedule for ar-
bitration of individual disputes shall be
determined by the arbitrator or arbitra-
tion panel in consultation with parties.
(vn) If formal public hearings are held
in connection with the actions taken un-
der this paragraph. Agency requirements
at 40 CFR 25.5 shall be followed.
(3) Dispute Resolution Default Proce-
dure. Where one or more parlies (as de-
fined in paragraph (g) of this section) re-
fuse to participate in either the mediation
or arbitration dispute resolution process-
es, the Regional Administrator may ap-
point a single official or panel to review
available information pertaining to the
dispute and to issue a written recommen-
dation for resolving the dispute. Review
officials shall be EPA employees, employ-
ees from other Federal agencies, or other
individuals with appropriate qualifica-
tions. Review panels shall include appro-
priate members to be selected by the Re-
gional Administrator in consultation with
the participating parties. Recommenda-
tions of such review officials or panels
shall, to the extent possible given the lack
of participation by one or more parties, be
reached in a manner identical to that for
arbitration of disputes specified in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vii) of
this section.
(g) Definitions. For the purposes of this
section:
(1)	Dispute Resolution Mechanism
means the EPA mechanism established
pursuant to the requirements of Clean
Water Act section 518(e) for resolving
unreasonable consequences that arise as a
result of differing water quality standards
that may be set by States and Indian
Tribes located on common bodies of wa-
ter.
(2)	Parties to a State-Tribal dispute in-
clude the State and the Tribe and may, at
the discretion of the Regional Administra-
tor, include an NPDES permittee, citizen,
citizen group, or other affected entity.
[§131.7 added at 56 FR 64893, Dec 12,
1991]
§131.8 Requirements for Indian Tribes to
be treated as States for purposes of
water quality standards.
(a)	The Regional Administrator, as de-
termined based on OMB Circular A105,
may treat an Indian Tribe as a State for
purposes of the water quality standards
program if the Tribe meets the following
criteria:
(1)	The Indian Tribe is recognized by
the Secretary of the Interior and meets
the definitions in §131 3(k) and (1),
(2)	The Indian Tribe has a governing
body carrying out substantial governmen-
tal duties and powers,
(3)	The water quality standards pro-
gram to be administered by the Indian
Tribe pertains to the management and
protection of water resources which are
within the borders of the Indian reserva-
tion and held by the Indian Tribe, within
the borders of the Indian reservation and
held by the United States in trust for In-
dians, within the borders of the Indian
reservation and held by a member of the
Indian Tribe if such property interest is
subject to a trust restriction on alienation,
or otherwise within the borders of the In-
dian reservation, and
(4)	The Indian Tribe is reasonably ex-
pected to be capable, in the Regional Ad-
ministrator's judgment, of carrying out
the functions of an effective water quality
standards program in a manner consistent
with the terms and purposes of the Act
and applicable regulations.
(b)	Requests by Indian Tribes for treat-
ment as States for purposes of water qual-
ity standards should be submitted to the
lead EPA Regional Administrator. The
application shall include the following in-
formation.
(1)	A statement that the Tribe is recog-
nized by the Secretary of the Interior.
(2)	A descriptive statement demon-
strating that the Tribal governing body is
currently carrying out substantial govern-
mental duties and powers over a defined
area. The statement shall:
(i)	Describe the form of the Tribal gov-
ernment;
(ii)	Describe the types of governmental
functions currently performed by the
Tribal governing body such as, but not
limited to, the exercise of police powers
affecting (or relating to) the health, safe-
ty, and welfare of the affected population,
taxation, and the exercise of the power of
eminent domain; and
(iii) Identify the source of the Tribal
government's authority to carry out the
governmental functions currently being
performed.
(3)	A descriptive statement of the Indi-
an Tribe's authority to regulate water
quality. The statement shall include:
(i)	A map or legal description of the
area over which the Indian Tribe asserts
authority to regulate surface water quali-
ty;
(ii)	A statement by the Tribe's legal
counsel (or equivalent official) which de-
scribes the basis for the Tribes assertion
of authority,
(iii)	A copy of all documents such as
Tribal constitutions, by-laws, charters, ex-
ecutive orders, codes, ordinances, and/or
resolutions which support the Tribe's as-
sertion of authority; and
(iv)	an identification of the surface wa-
ter for which the Tribe proposes to estab-
lish water quality standards.
(4)	A narrative statement describing
the capability of the Indian Tribe to
administer an effective water quality stan-
dards program The narrative statement
shall include:
(i)	A description of the Indian Tribe's
previous management experience includ-
ing, but not limited to, the administration
of programs and services authorized by
the Indian Sclf-Determinalion and Edu-
cation Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq ), the Indian Mineral Development
Act (25 U.S.C. 2101 el seq.), or the Indi-
an Sanitation Facility Construction Activ-
ity Act (42 U.S.C. 2004a);
(ii)	A list of existing environmental or
public health programs administered by
the Tribal governing body and copies of
related Tribal laws, policies, and regula-
tions,
(iii)	A description of the entity (or enti-
ties) which exercise the executive, legisla-
tive, and judicial functions of the Tribal
government;
(iv)	A description of the existing or pro-
posed, agency of the Indian Tribe which
will assume primary responsibility for es-
tablishing, reviewing, implementing and
revising water quality standards;
(v)	A description of the technical and
administrative capabilities of the staff to
-------
administer and manage an effective water
quality standards program or a plan
which proposes how the Tribe will acquire
additional administrative and technical
expertise. The plan must address how the
Tribe will obtain the funds to acquire the
administrative and technical expertise.
(5)	Additional documentation required
by the Regional Administrator which, in
the judgment of the Regional Administra-
tor, is necessary to support a Tribal re-
quest for treatment as a State.
(6)	Where the Tribe has previously
qualified for treatment as a State under a
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water
Act program, the Tribe need only provide
the required information which has not
been submitted in a previous treatment as
a State application.
(c) Procedure for processing an Indian
Tribe's application for treatment as a
State.
(1)	The Regional Administrator shall
process an application of an Indian Tribe
for treatment as a Stale submitted pursu-
ant to 131.8(b) in a timely manner. He
shall promptly notify the Indian Tribe of
receipt of the application
(2)	Within 30 days after receipt of the
Indian Tribe's application for treatment
as a State, the Regional Administrator
shall provide appropriate notice. Notice
shall:
(i)	Include information on the sub-
stance and basis of the Tribe's assertion of
authority to regulate the quality of reser-
vation waters; and
(ii)	Be provided to all appropriate gov-
ernmental entities
(3)	The Regional Administrator shall
provide 30 days for comments to be sub-
mitted on the Tribal application. Com-
ments shall be limited to the Tribe's asser-
tion of authority.
(4)	If a Tribe's asserted authority is
subject to a competing or conflicting
claim, the Regional Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of the In-
terior, or his designee, and in consider-
ation of other comments received, shall
determine whether the Tribe has ade-
quately demonstrated that it meets the
requirements of 131 8(a)(3).
(5)	Where the Regional Administrator
determines that a Tribe meets the re-
quirements of this section, he shall
promptly provide written notification to
the Indian Tribe that the Tribe has quali-
fied to be treated as a State for purposes
of water quality standards and that the
Tribe may initiate the formulation and
adoption of water quality standards ap-
provable under this part.
[§131.8 added at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
1991]
Subpart B—Establishment of Water
Quality Standards
§131.10 Designation of uses.
(a)	Each State must specify appropri-
ate water uses to be achieved and protect-
ed. The classification of the waters of the
State must take into consideration the use
and value of water for public water sup-
plies, protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on
the water, agricultural, industrial, and
other purposes including navigation. In no
case shall a State adopt waste transport or
waste assimilation as a designated use for
any waters of the United States.
(b)	In designating uses of a water body
and the appropriate criteria for those
uses, the State shall take into consider-
ation the water quality standards of down-
stream waters and shall ensure that its
water quality standards provide for the
attainment and maintenance of the water
quality standards of downstream waters
(c)	States may adopt sub-categories of
a use and set the appropriate criteria to
reflect varying needs of such sub-catego-
ries of uses, for instance, to differentiate
between cold water and warm water fish-
eries.
(d)	At a minimum, uses arc deemed at-
tainable if they can be achieved by the
imposition of effluent limits required un-
der sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act
and cost-effective and reasonable best
management practices for nonpoint
source control.
(e)	Prior to adding or removing any
use, or establishing sub-categories of a
use, the State shall provide notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing under
§131.20(b) of this regulation.
(0 States may adopt seasonal uses as
an alternative to reclassifying a water
body or segment thereof to uses requiring
less stringent water quality criteria. If
seasonal uses are adopted, water quality
criteria should be adjusted to reflect the
seasonal uses, however, such criteria shall
not preclude the attainment and mainte-
nance of a more protective use in another
season.
(g) States may remove a designated use
which is not an existing use, as defined in
§131.3, or establish sub-categories of a
use if the State can demonstrate that at-
taining the designated use is not feasible
because:
(1)	Naturally occurring pollutant con-
centrations prevent the attainment of the
use; or
(2)	Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or
low flow conditions or water levels prevent
the attainment of the use, unless these
conditions may be compensated for by the
discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges without violating State water
conservation requirements to enable uses
to be met; or
(3)	Human caused conditions or
sources of pollution prevent the attain-
ment of the use and cannot be remedied
or would cause more environmental dam-
age to correct than to leave in place; or
(4)	Dams, diversions or other types of
hydrologic modifications preclude the at-
tainment of the use, and it is not feasible
to restore the water body to its original
condition or to operate such modification
in a way that would result in the attain-
ment of the use; or
(5)	Physical conditions related to the
natural features of the water body, such
as the lack of a proper substrate, cover,
flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, un-
related to water quality, preclude attain-
ment of aquatic life protection uses; or
(6)	Controls more stringent than those
required by sections 301(b) and 306 of
the Act would result in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
(h)	States may not remove designated
uses if:
(1)	They are existing uses, as defined in
§131.3, unless a use requiring more strin-
gent criteria is added; or
(2)	Such uses will be attained by imple-
menting effluent limits required under
sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act and by
implementing cost-effective and reason-
able best management practices for
nonpoint source control.
(i)	Where existing water quality stan-
dards specify designated uses less than
those which are presently being attained,
the State shall revise its standards to re-
flect the uses actually being attained.
(j) A State must conduct a use attaina-
bility analysis as described in §131.3(g)
whenever
-------
(1)	The State designates or has desig-
nated uses that do not include the uses
specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act,
or
(2)	The State wishes to remove a desig-
nated use that is specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act or to adopt subcate-
gories of uses specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act which require less
stringent criteria.
(k) A State is not required to conduct a
use attainability analysis under this regu-
lation whenever designating uses which
include those specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act
§131.11 Criteria.
(a)	Inclusion of pollutants
(1)	Stales must adopt those water qual-
ity criteria that protect the designated
use. Such criteria must be based on sound
scientific rationale and must contain suffi-
cient parameters or constituents to pro-
tect the designated use. For waters with
multiple use designations, the criteria
shall support the most sensitive use
(2)	Toxic pollutants. Stales must re-
view water quality data and information
on discharges to identify specific water
bodies where toxic pollutants may be ad-
versely affecting water quality or the at-
tainment of the designated water use or
where the levels of toxic pollutants are at
a level to warrant concern and must adopt
criteria for such toxic pollutants applica-
ble to the water body sufficient to protect
the designated use. Where a State adopts
narrative criteria for toxic pollutants to
protect designated uses, the State must
provide information identifying the meth-
od by which the State intends to regulate
point source discharges of toxic pollutants
on water quality limited segments based
on such narrative criteria. Such informa-
tion may be included as part of the stan-
dards or may be included in documents
generated by the State in response to the
Water Quality Planning and Manage-
ment Regulations (40 CFR part 35).
(b)	Form of criteria: In establishing cri-
teria, States should:
(I) Establish numerical values based
on
(1)	304(a) Guidance; or
(li) 304(a) Guidance modified to reflect
site-specific conditions; or
(iii) Other scientifically defensible
methods;
(2)	Establish narrative criteria or crite-
ria based upon biomonitoring methods
where numerical criteria cannot be estab-
lished or to supplement numerical crite-
ria.
§131.12 Antidegradation policy.
(a) The State shall develop and adopt a
statewide antidegradation policy and
identify the methods for implementing
such policy pursuant to this subpart. The
antidegradation policy and implementa-
tion methods shall, at a minimum, be con-
sistent with the following'
(1)	Existing instrcam water uses and
ihe level of water quality necessary to pro-
tect the existing uses shall be maintained
and protected.
(2)	Where the quality of the waters ex-
ceed levels necessary to support propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and rec-
reation in and on the water, that quality
shall be maintained and protected unless
the State finds, after full satisfaction of
the intergovernmental coordination and
public participation provisions of the
State's continuing planning process, that
allowing lower water quality is necessary
to accommodate important economic or
social development in the area in which
the waters arc located In allowing such
degradation or lower water quality, the
State shall assure water quality adequate
to protect existing uses fully. Further, the
State shall assure that there shall be
achieved the highest statutory and regula-
tory requirements for all new and existing
point sources and all cost-c!rcctivc and
reasonable best management practices for
nonpoint source control
(3)	Where high quality waters consti-
tute an outstanding National resource,
such as waters of National and State
parks and wildlife refuges and waters of
exceptional recreational or ecological sig-
nificance, that water quality shall be
maintained and protected
(4)	In those cases where potential wa-
ter quality impairment associated with a
thermal discharge is involved, the an-
tidegradation policy and implementing
method shall be consistent with section
316 of the Act.
§131.13 General policies.
States may, at their discretion, include
in their State standards, policies generally
afTecting their application and implemen-
tation, such as mixing zones, low flows
and variances. Such policies are subject to
EPA review and approval.
Subpart C—Procedures for Review
and Revision of Water Quality
Standards
§131.20 State review and revision of water
quality standards.
(a)	Stale review. The State shall from
time to time, but at least once every three
years, hold public hearings for the pur-
pose of reviewing applicable water quality
standards and, as appropriate, modifying
and adopting standards Any water body
segment with water quality standards that
do not include the uses specified in section
101 (a)(2) of the Act shall be re-examined
every three years to determine if any new
information has become available. If such
new information indicates that the uses
specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act
are attainable, the State shall revise its
standards accordingly. Procedures States
establish for identifying and reviewing
water bodies for review should be incorpo-
rated into their Continuing Planning Pro-
cess
(b)	Public participation The State
shall hold a public hearing for the purpose
of reviewing water quality standards, in
accordance with provisions of State law,
EPA's water quality management regula-
tion (40 CFR 130.3(b)(6)) and public
participation regulation (40 CFR part
25) The proposed water quality stan-
dards revision and supporting analyses
shall be made available to the public prior
to the hearing.
(c)	Submittal to EPA The State shall
submit the results of the review, any sup-
porting analysis for the use attainability
analysis, the methodologies used for site-
specific criteria development, any general
policies applicable to water quality stan-
dards and any revisions of the standards
to the Regional Administrator for review
and approval, within 30 days of the final
State action to adopt and certify the re-
vised standard, or if no revisions are made
as a result of the review, within 30 days of
the completion of the review.
§131.21 EPA review and approval of water
quality standards.
(a) After the State submits its officially
adopted revisions, the Regional Adminis-
trator shall either:
(1)	Notify the State within 60 days
that the revisions are approved, or
(2)	Notify the State within 90 days
that the revisions are disapproved. Such
-------
notification of disapproval shall specify
the changes needed lo assure compliance
with the requirements of the Act and this
regulation, and shall explain why the
State standard is not in compliance with
such requirements. Any new or revised
State standard must be accompanied by
some type of supporting analysis.
(b)	The Regional Administrator's ap-
proval or disapproval of a State water
quality standard shall be based on the re-
quirements of the Act as described in
§§131 5, and 131 6
(c)	A State water quality standard re-
mains in effect, even though disapproved
by EPA, until the State revises it or EPA
promulgates a rule that supersedes the
State water quality standard.
(d)	EPA shall, at least annually, pub-
lish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of
approvals under this section.
§131.22 EPA promulgation of water
quality standards.
(a)	If the State does not adopt the
changes specified by the Regional Admin-
istrator within 90 days after notification
of the Regional Administrator's disap-
proval, the Administrator shall promptly
propose and promulgate such standard
(b)	The Administrator may also pro-
pose and promulgate a regulation, appli-
cable to one or more Stales, setting forth
a new or revised standard upon determin-
ing such a standard is necessary to meet
the requirements of the Act
(c)	In promulgating water quality stan-
dards, the Administrator is subject to the
same policies, procedures, analyses, and
public participation requirements estab-
lished for States in these regulations.
Subpart D—Federally Promulgated
Water Quality Standards
§131.31 Arizona.
. (a) Article 6, Part 2 is amended as fol-
lows
(1) Reg 6-2-6.11 shall read-
Reg 6-2-6 11 Nutrient Standards A. The
mean annual toial phosphate and mean annual
total nitrate concentration1; of Ihc following waters
shall not exceed the values given below nor shall
the total phosphate or total nitrate concentrations
of more than 10 percent of ihe samples in any year
exceed the 90 percent values given below Unless
otherwise specified, indicated values also apply lo
tributaries lo the named waters

Mean 90 pet annual value

Total
Total ni-

phosphates
trates as

as PO*mg/J
NOyng/l
1 Colorado River from Utah


border to Willow Beach


(mam stem)
0 04-0 06
4-7
2 Colorado River from Wil-


low Beach to Parker Dam


(main stem)
0 06-0 10
5
3 Colorado River from Par-


ker Dam to Imperial Oam


(main stem)
0 08-0 12
5-7
4 Colorado River from Im-


perial Dam to Morelos


Dam (mam stem)
0 10-0 10
5-7
5 Gila River from New Mex-


ico border to San Carlos


Reservoir (excluding San


Carlos Reservoir)
0 50-0 80

6 Gila River from San Car-


los Reservoir to Ashurst


Hayden Dam (including


San Carlos Reservoir)
0 30-0 50

7 San Pedro River
0 30-0 50

8 Verde River (except Gran-


ite Creek)
0 20-0 30

9 Salt River above Roose-


velt Lake
0 20-0 30

10 Santa Cru2 River Irom


international boundary


near Nogaies to Sahuarita
0 50-0 80

11 Little Colorado River


above Lyman Reservoir
0 30-0 50

B The above standards are intended to protect
the beneficial uses of the named waters. Because
regulation of nitrates and phosphates alone may
not be adequate to protect waters from eutrophica-
tion, no substance shall be added to any surface
water which produces aquatic growih lo the extent
that such growths create a public nuisance or in-
terference with beneficial uses of the water defined
and designated in Reg 6-2-6 5
(2) Reg. 6-2-6.10 Subparts A and B arc
amended to include Reg. 6-2-6 11 in se-
ries with Regs. 6-2-6.6, 6-2-6.7 and 6-2-
6.8
§131.33 [Reservedl
§131.34 [Reserved]
§131.35 Colville Confederated Tribes
Indian Reservation.
The water quality standards applicable
to the waters within the Colville Indian
Reservation, located in the State of
Washington
(a) Background.
(1) It is the purpose of these Federal
water quality standards to prescribe mini-
mum water quality requirements for the
surface waters located within the exterior
boundaries of the Colville Indian Reserva-
tion to ensure compliance with section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act
(2) The Colville Confederated Tribes
have a primary interest in the protection,
control, conservation, and utilization ol
the water resources of the Colville Indian
Reservation. Water quality standards
have been enacted into tribal law by the
Colville Business Council of the Confed-
erated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
as the Colville Water Quality Standards
Act, CTC Title 33 (Resolution No 1984-
526 (August 6, 1984) as amended by Res-
olution No. 1985-20 (January 18, 1985)).
(b)	Territory Covered. The provisions
of these water quality standards shall ap-
ply to all surface waters within the exteri-
or boundaries of the Colville Indian Res-
ervation.
(c)	Applicability, Administration and
Amendment.
(1)	The water quality standards in this
section shall be used by the Regional Ad-
ministrator for establishing any water
quality based National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System Permit
(NPDES) for point sources on the Col-
ville Confederated Tribes Reservation.
(2)	In conjunction with the issuance of
section 402 or section 404 permits, the
Regional Administrator may designate
mixing zones in the waters of the United
Stales on the reservation on a case-by-
casc basis. The size of such mixing zones
and the in-zonc water quality in such mix-
ing zones shall be consistent with the ap-
plicable procedures and guidelines in
EPA's Water Quality Standards Hand-
book and the Technical Support Docu-
ment for Water Quality Based Toxics
Control
(3)	Amendments to the section at the
request of the Tribe shall proceed in the
following manner.
(i) The requested amendment shall first
be duly approved by the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation (and so
certified by the Tribes Legal Counsel)
and submitted to the Regional Adminis-
trator.
(li) The requested amendment shall be
reviewed by EPA (and by the State of
Washington, if the action would alTect a
boundary water).
(iii) If deemed in compliance with the
Clean Water Act, EPA will propose and
promulgate an appropriate change to this
section.
-------
(4)	Amendment of this section at
EPA's initiative will follow consultation
with the Tribe and other appropriate enti-
ties. Such amendments will then follow
normal EPA rulemaking procedures.
(5)	All other applicable provisions of
this part 131 shall apply on the Colville
Confederated Tribes Reservation. Special
attention should be paid to §§131.6,
131.10, 131.11 and 131.20 for any amend-
ment to these standards to be initiated by
the Tribe
(6)	All numeric criteria contained in
this section apply at all in-stream flow
rates greater than or- equal to the flow
rate calculated as the minimum 7-consec-
utive day average flow with a recurrence
frequency of once in ten years (7Q10);
narrative criteria ( §131.35(e)(3)) apply
regardless of flow. The 7Q10 low flow
shall be calculated using methods recom-
mended by the U.S. Geological Survey.
(d) Definitions.
(1)	"Acute toxicity" means a deleteri-
ous response (e.g., mortality, disorienta-
tion, immobilization) to a stimulus ob-
served in 96 hours or less.
(2)	"Background conditions" means
the biological, chemical, and physical con-
ditions of a water body, upstream from
the point or non-point source discharge
under consideration. Background sam-
pling location in an enforcement action
will be upstream from the point of dis-
charge, but not upstream from other in-
flows. If several discharges to any water
body exist, and an enforcement action is
being taken for possible violations to the
standards, background sampling will be
undertaken immediately upstream from
each discharge.
(3)	"Ceremonial and Religious water
use" means activities involving traditional
Native American spiritual practices
which involve, among other things, prima-
ry (direct) contact with water.
(4)	"Chronic Toxicity" means the low-
est concentration of a constituent causing
observable effects (i.e., considering lethal-
ity, growth, reduced reproduction, etc.)
over a relatively long period of time, usu-
ally a 28-day test period for small fish test
species
(5)	"Council" or "Tribal Council"
means the Colville Business Council of
the Colville Confederated Tribes.
(6)	"Geometric mean" means the
"nth" root of a product of "n" factors.
(7)	"Mean retention time" means the
time obtained by dividing a reservoir's
mean annual minimum total storage by
the non-zero 30-day, ten-year low-flow
from the reservoir.
(8)	"Mixing Zone" or "dilution zone"
means a limited area or volume of water
where initial dilution of a discharge takes
place; and where numeric water quality
criteria can be exceeded but acutely toxic
conditions arc prevented from occurring.
(9)	"pH" means the negative logarithm
of the hydrogen ion concentration.
(10)	"Primary contact recreation"
means activities where a person would
have direct contact with water to the
point of complete submergence, including
but not limited to skin diving, swimming,
and water skiing.
(11)	"Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of EPA's Region X.
(1 2) "Reservation" means all land
within the limits of the Colville Indian
Reservation, established on July 2, 1872
by Executive Order, presently containing
1,389,000 acres more or less, and under
the jurisdiction of the United Stales gov-
ernment, notwithstanding the issuance of
any patent, and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation.
(13)	"Secondary contact recreation"
means activities where a person's water
contact would be limited to the extent
that bacterial infections of eyes, ears, res-
piratory, or digestive systems or urogeni-
tal areas would normally be avoided (such
as wading or fishing).
(14)	"Surface water" means all water
above the surface of the ground within the
exterior boundaries of the Colville Indian
Reservation including but not limited to
lakes, ponds, reservoirs, artificial im-
poundments, streams, rivers, springs,
seeps and wetlands.
(15)	"Temperature" means water tem-
perature expressed in Centigrade degrees
(C).
(16)	"Total dissolved solids" (TDS)
means the total filterable residue that
passes through a standard glass fiber filter
disk and remains after evaporation and
drying to a constant weight at 180 degrees
C. it is considered to be a measure of the
dissolved salt content of the water.
(17)	"Toxicity" means acute and/or
chronic toxicity.
(18)	"Tribe" or "Tribes" means the
Colville Confederated Tribes.
(19)	"Turbidity" means the clarity of
water expressed as nephelometric turbidi-
ty units (NTU) and measured with a cali-
brated turbidimeter.
(20)	"Wildlife habitat" means the wa-
ters and surrounding land areas of the
Reservation used by fish, other aquatic
life and wildlife at any stage of their life
history or activity.
(e) General considerations. The follow-
ing general guidelines shall apply to the
water quality standards and classifications
set forth in the use designation Sections.
(1)	Classification Boundaries. At the
boundary between waters of different
classifications, the water quality stan-
dards for the higher classification shall
prevail.
(2)	Antidegradation Policy. This an-
tidegradation policy shall be applicable to
all surface waters of the Reservation.
(i)	Existing in-stream water uses and
the level of water quality necessary to pro-
tect the existing uses shall be maintained
and protected.
(ii)	Where the quality of the waters ex-
ceeds levels necessary to support propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and rec-
reation in and on the water, that quality
shall be maintained and protected unless
the Regional Administrator finds, after
full satisfaction of the inter-governmental
coordination and public participation pro-
visions of the Tribes' continuing planning
process, that allowing lower water quality
is necessary to accommodate important
economic or social development in the
area in which the waters are located. In
allowing such degradation or lower water
quality, the Regional Administrator shall
assure water quality adequate to protect
existing uses fully. Further, the Regional
Administrator shall assure that there
shall be achieved the highest statutory
and regulatory requirements for all new
and existing point sources and all cost-
effective and reasonable best manage-
ment practices for nonpoint source con-
trol.
(lii) Where high quality waters are
identified as constituting an outstanding
national or reservation resource, such as
waters within areas designated as unique
water quality management areas and wa-
ters otherwise of exceptional recreational
or ecological significance, and are desig-
nated as special resource waters, that wa-
ter quality shall be maintained and pro-
tected
-------
(iv) In those cases where potential wa-
ter quality impairment associated with a
thermal discharge is involved, this an-
tidegradation policy's implementing
method shall be consistent with section
316 of the Clean Water Act.
(3)	Aesthetic Qualities. All waters
within the Reservation, including those
within mixing zones, shall be free from
substances, attributable to wastewater
discharges or other pollutant sources,
that:
(1) Settle to form objectionable depos-
its;
(ii)	Float as debris, scum, oil, or other
matter forming nuisances;
(iii)	Produce objectionable color, odor,
taste, or turbidity;
(iv)	Cause injury to, are toxic to, or
produce adverse physiological responses
in humans, animals, or plants; or
(v)	Produce undesirable or nuisance
aquatic life.
(4)	Analytical Methods.
(i)The analytical testing methods used
to measure or otherwise evaluate compli-
ance with water quality standards shall to
the extent practicable, be in accordance
with the "Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants"
(40 CFR part 136). When a testing meth-
od is not available for a particular sub-
stance, the most recent edition of "Stan-
dard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater" (published by
the American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association, and
the Water Pollution Control Federation)
and other or superseding melhods pub-
lished and/or approved by EPA shall be
used
(f) General Water Use and Criteria
Classes. The following criteria shall apply
to the various classes of surface waters on
the Colvilie Indian Reservation-
(l)C/ass I (Extraordinaryj—
(i) Designated uses. The designated
uses include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(A)	Water supply (domestic, industrial,
agricultural).
(B)	Slock watering.
(C)	Fish and shellfish' Salmonid migra-
tion, rearing, spawning, and harvesting,
other fish migration, rearing, spawning,
and harvesting
(D)	Wildlife habitat
(E)	Ceremonial and religious water
use.
(F)	Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment)
(G)	Commerce and navigation.
(ii) Water quality criteria.
(A)	Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
metric mean of the cnterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 8 per 100 millili-
ters, nor shall any single sample exceed an
enterococci density of 35 per 100 millili-
ters. These limits are calculated as the
geometric mean of the collected samples
approximately equally spaced over a thir-
ty day period.
(B)	Dissolved oxygen—The dissolved
oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg/l.
(C)	Total	dissolved
gas—concentrations shall not exceed 110
percent of the saturation value for gases
at the existing atmospheric and hydrostat-
ic pressures at any point of sample collec-
tion.
(D)	Temperature—shall not exceed
16.0 degrees C due to human activities.
Temperature increases shall not, at any
time, exceed t=23/(T+5)
(/) When natural conditions exceed
16.0 degrees C, no temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing water by greater than 0 3 degrees C.
(2) For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive temperature change across
the dilution zone; and "T" represents the
highest existing temperature in this water
classification outside of any dilution zone
(J) Provided that temperature increase
resulting from nonpoint source activities
shall not exceed 2.8 degrees C, and the
maximum water temperature shall not ex-
ceed 10.3 degrees C.
(E)	pH shall be within the range of 6.5
to 8.5 with a human-caused variation of
less than 0 2 units.
(F)	Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or
have more than a 10 percent increase in
turbidity when the background turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
(G)	Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
al, or deleterious material concentrations
bhall be less than those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or which may adversely affect desig-
nated water uses.
(2) Class II (Excellent) —
(i)	Designated uses. The designated
uses include but are not limited to, the
following.
(A)	Water supply (domestic, industrial,
agricultural).
(B)	Stock watering
(C)	Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
tion, rearing, spawning, and harvesting;
other fish migration, rearing, spawning,
and harvesting; crayfish rearing, spawn-
ing, and harvesting.
(D)	Wildlife habitat
(E)	Ceremonial and religious water
use.
(F)	Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment).
(G)	Commerce and navigation
(ii)	Water quality criteria.
(A)	Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
metric mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 16/100 ml, nor
shall any single sample exceed an entero-
cocci density of 75 per 100 milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric mean of the collected samples approxi-
mately equally spaced over a thirty day
period.
(B)	Dissolved oxygen—The dissolved
oxygen shall exceed 8 0 mg/l.
(C)	Total dissolved gas—concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of the
saturation value for gases at the existing
atmospheric and hydrostatic pressures at
any point of sample collection.
(D)	Temperature—shall not exceed
18.0 degrees C due to human activities.
Temperature increases shall not, at any
time, exceed t=28/(T+7).
(1)	When natural conditions exceed 18
degrees C no temperature increase will be
allowed which will raise the receiving wa-
ter temperature by greater than 0.3 de-
grees C.
(2)	For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive temperature change across
the dilution zone; and "T" represents the
highest existing temperature in this water
classification outside of any dilution zone.
(J) Provided that temperature increase
resulting from non-point source activities
shall not exceed 2.8 degrees C, and the
maximum water temperature shall not ex-
ceed 18.3 degrees C.
(E)	pH shall be within the range of 6.5
to 8.5 with a human-caused variation of
less than 0.5 units.
-------
(F)	Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or
have more than a 10 percent increase in
turbidity when the background turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
(G)	Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
al, or deleterious material concentrations
shall be less than those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or which may adversely affect desig-
nated water uses.
(3) Class III (Good).—
(i)	Designated uses. The designated
uses include but are not limited to, the
following
(A)	Water supply (industrial, agricul-
tural).
(B)	Stock watering.
(C)	Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
tion, rearing, spawning, and harvesting;
other fish migration, rearing, spawning,
and harvesting; crayfish rearing, spawn-
ing, and harvesting
(D)	Wildlife habitat.
(E)	Recreation (secondary contact rec-
reation, sport fishing, boating and aesthet-
ic enjoyment).
(F)	Commerce and navigation
(ii)	Water quality criteria.
(A)	Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
metric mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 33/100 ml, nor
shall any single sample exceed an entero-
cocci density of 150 per 100 milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric mean of the collected samples approxi-
mately equally spaced over a thirty day
period.
(B)	Dissolved oxygen.

Early life
Other life

stages',1
stages
7 day mean ....
9 5 (6.5)
•NA
1 day minimum4
8 0 (5.0)
65
1 These are water column concentrations recommended
to achieve the required intergravel dissolved oxygen con-
centrations shown in parentheses. The 3 mg/L differential
is discussed m the dissolved oxygen criteria document
(EPA 440/5-86-003. April 1986). For species that have ear-
ly life stages exposed directly to the water column, the
figures m parentheses apply
* Includes all embryonic and larval stages and all juve-
nile forms to 30-days following hatching
1 NA (not applicable)
4 All minima should t>e considered as instantaneous
concentrations to be achieved at all times
(C) Total dissolved gas concentrations
shall not exceed 110 percent of the satura-
tion value for gases at the existing atmo-
spheric and hydrostatic pressures at any
point of sample collection.
(D)	Temperature shall not exceed 21.0
degrees C due to human activities. Tem-
perature increases shall not, at any time,
exceed t=34/(T+9).
(1)	When natural conditions exceed
21.0 degrees C no temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing water temperature by greater than 0.3
degrees C.
(2)	For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive temperature change across
the dilution zone; and "T" represents the
highest existing temperature in this water
classification outside of any dilution zone.
(3)	Provided that temperature increase
resulting from nonpoint source activities
shall not exceed 2.8 degrees C, and the
maximum water temperature shall not ex-
ceed 21.3 degrees C.
(E)	pH shall be within the range of 6.5
to 8.5 with a human-caused variation of
less than 0.5 units.
(F)	Turbidity shall not exceed 10 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or
have more than a 20 percent increase in
turbidity when the background turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
(G)	Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
al, or deleterious material concentrations
shall be less than those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or which may adversely affect desig-
nated water uses.
(4)	Class IV (Fair)—
(i)	Designated uses. The designated
uses include but are not limited to, the
following;
(A)	Water supply (industrial).
(B)	Stock watering.
(C)	Fish (salmonid and other fish mi-
gration).
(D)	Recreation (secondary contact rec-
reation, sport fishing, boating and aesthet-
ic enjoyment).
(E)	Commerce and navigation.
(ii)	Water quality criteria.
(A) Dissolved oxygen.

During


periods of
During all

salmonid and
other time

other fish
periods

migration

30 day mean
65
5 5
7 day mean
'NA
'NA
7 day mean minimum
50
40

During


periods of
During all

salmonid and
other time

other fish
periods

migration

1 day minimum*
40
3.0
' NA (not applicable)
1 All minima should be considered as Instantaneous
concentrations to be achieved at all times.
(B)	Total dissolved gas—concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of the
saturation value for gases at the existing
atmospheric and hydrostatic pressures at
any point of sample collection.
(C)	Temperature shall not exceed 22.0
degrees C due to human activities. Tem-
perature increases shall not, at any time,
exceed t=20/(T+2).
(/) When natural conditions exceed
22.0 degrees C, no temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing water temperature by greater than 0.3
degrees C.
(2) For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive temperature change across
the dilution zone; and "T" represents the
highest existing temperature in this water
classification outside of any dilution zone.
(D)	pH shall be within the range of 6.5
to 9.0 with a human-caused variation of
less than 0.5 units.
(E)	Turbidity shall not exceed 10 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or
have more than a 20 percent increase in
turbidity when the background turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
(F)	Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
al, or deleterious material concentrations
shall be less than those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or which may adversely affect desig-
nated water uses.
(5) Lake Class—
(i) Designated uses. The designated
uses include but are not limited to, the
following;
(A)	Water supply (domestic, industrial,
agricultural).
(B)	Stock watering.
(C)	Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
tion, rearing, spawning, and harvesting;
other fish migration, rearing, spawning,
and harvesting; crayfish rearing, spawn-
ing, and harvesting.
(D)	Wildlife habitat.
(E)	Ceremonial and religious water
use.
-------
(F)	Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment).
(G)	Commerce and navigation.
(ii) Water quality criteria.
(A)	Bacteriological Criteria. The geo-
metric mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 33/100 ml, nor
shall any single sample exceed an entero-
cocci density of 150 per 100 milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric mean of the collected samples approxi-
mately equally spaced over a thirty day
period.
(B)	Dissolved oxygen—no measurable
decrease from natural conditions.
(C)	Total dissolved gas concentrations
shall not exceed 110 percent of the satura-
tion value for gases at the existing atmo-
spheric and hydrostatic pressures at any
point of sample collection.
(D)	Temperature — no measurable
change from natural conditions.
(E)	pH—no measurable change from
natural conditions.
(F)	Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over natural conditions.
(G)	Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
al, or deleterious material concentrations
shall be less than those which may affect
public health, the natural aquatic environ-
ment, or the desirability of the water for
any use.
(6) Special Resource Water Class
!SRW}~
(i)	General characteristics. These are
fresh or saline waters which comprise a
special and unique resource to the Reser-
vation. Water quality of this class will be
varied and unique as determined by the
Regional Administrator in cooperation
with the Tribes.
(ii)	Designated uses. The designated
uses include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(A)	Wildlife habitat.
(B)	Natural foodchain maintenance.
(iii)	Water quality criteria.
(A)	Enterococci bacteria densities shall
not exceed natural conditions.
(B)	Dissolved oxygen—shall not show
any measurable decrease from natural
conditions.
(C)	Total dissolved gas shall not vary
from natural conditions.
(D)	Temperature—shall not show any
measurable change from natural condi-
tions.
(E)	pH shall not show any measurable
change from natural conditions.
(F)	Settleable solids shall not show any
change from natural conditions.
(G)	Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over natural conditions.
(H)	Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious
material concentrations shall not exceed
those found under natural conditions.
(g)	General Classifications. General
classifications applying to various surface
waterbodies not specifically classified un-
der §131.35(h) are as follows:
(I)	All surface waters that are tribu-
taries to Class I waters are classified
Class I, unless otherwise classified.
(2)	Except for those specifically classi-
fied otherwise, all lakes with existing aver-
age concentrations less than 2000 mg/L
TDS and their feeder streams on the Col-
ville Indian Reservation are classified as
Lake Class and Class I, respectively.
(3)	All lakes on the Colville Indian
Reservation with existing average concen-
trations of TDS equal to or exceeding
2000 mg/L and their feeder streams are
classified as Lake Class and Class I re-
spectively unless specifically classified
otherwise.
(4)	All reservoirs with a mean deten-
tion time of greater than 15 days are clas-
sified Lake Class.
(5)	All reservoirs with a mean deten-
tion time of 15 days or less are classified
the same as the river section in which
they are located.
(6)	All reservoirs established on pre-ex-
isting lakes are classified as Lake Class.
(7)	All wetlands are assigned to the
Special Resource Water Class.
(8)	All other waters not specifically as-
signed to a classification of the reservation
are classified as Class II.
(h)	Specific Classifications. Specific
classifications for surface waters of the
Colville Indian Reservation are as follows:
(1) Streams
Alice Creek
Class III
Anderson Creek
Clas9 III
Armstrong Creek
Class III
Barnaby Creek
Class ll
Bear Creek
Class 1)1
Beaver Dam Creek..
Class II
Bridge Creek
Class II
Brush Creek
Class IH
Buckhorn Creek
Class III
Cache Creek .
Class ill
Canteen Creek
Class 1
Capoose Creek
Class in
Cobbs Creek
Class III
Columbia River from Chief Joseph

Dam to Wells Dam
Columbia River from northern Res-
ervation boundary to Grand Cou-
lee Dam (Roosevelt Lake)
Columbia River Irom Grand Coulee
Dam to Chief Joseph Dam
Cook Creek	Class I
Cooper Creek	Class III
Cornstalk Creek	Class III
Cougar Creek	Class I
Coyote Creek	Class II
Deerhorn Creek	Class IN
Dick Creek	Class III
Dry Creek	Class I
Empire Creek	Class III
Faye Creek	Class I
Forty Mile Creek	Class III
Gibson Creek	Class I
Gold Creek.	Class II
Granite Creek	Class II
Grizzly Creek	Class III
Haley Creek	Class III
Hall Creek	Class ll
Hall Creek, West Fork	Class I
Iron Creek	Class III
Jack Creek	Class III
Jerred Creek .	Class I
Joe Moses Creek	Class III
John Tom Creek	Class III
Jones Creek	Class I
Kartar Creek	Class III
Kincaid Creek	Class III
King Creek	Class III
Klondyke Creek	Class I
Lime Creek	Class III
Little Jim Creek	Class III
Little Nespelem	Class ll
Louie Creek	Class III
Lynx Creek	Class II
Manila Creek	Class ill
McAllister Creek	Class III
Meadow Creek	Class III
Mill Creek	Class II
Mission Creek	Class III
Nespelem River	Class II
Nez Perce Creek.	Class 111
Nine Mile Creek	Class II
Nineteen Mile Creek	Class III
No Name Creek	Class ll
North Nanamkin Creek	Class III
North Star Creek	Class III
Okanogan River from Reservation Class Ii
north boundary to Columbia River
Olds Creek	Class I
Omak Creek	Class II
Onion Creek	Class II
Parmenter Creek	Class III
Peel Creek	Class III
Peter Dan Creek	Class III
Rock Creek	Class I
San Pod River	Class I
Sanpoil. River West Fork	Class H
Seventeen Mile Creek	Class III
Silver Creek	Class III
Sitdown Creek	Class 111
Six Mile Creek	Class III
South Nanamkin Creek	Class III
Spring Creek	Class III
Stapaloop Creek	Class III
Stepstone Creek	Class 111
Stranger Creek	Class II
Strawberry Creek Class ill
Swimptkin Creek Class III
Three Forks Creek...	Class I
Three Mile Creek	Class ill
Thirteen Mile Creek Class II
Thirty Mile Creek	Class ll
Trail Creek	Class III
Twentyfive Mile Creek Class III
Twentyone Mile Creek Class III
Tweniythree Mile Creek Class III
Wannacot Creek Class III
-------
Wells Creek
Class I
LaFleur Lake
LC
Whitelaw Creek
Class III
Little Goose Lake..
LC
Wiimont Creek
Class II
Little Owhi Lake
LC
)Lakes

McGinms Lake.
LC
Apex Lake
LC
Nicholas Lake.
LC
Big Goose Lake
LC
Omak Lake
SRW
Bourgeau Lake
LC
Owhi Lake.
SRW
Buffalo Lake
LC
Penley Lake
SRW
Cody Lake
LC
Rebecca Lake
LC
Crawfish Lakes
LC
Round Lake
LC
Camiile Lake
LC
Simpson Lake
LC
Elbow Lake.
LC
Soap Lake
LC
Fish Lake
LC
Sugar Lake
LC
Gold Lake
LC
Summit Lake
LC
Great western Lake.
LC
Twin Lakes
SRW
Johnson Lake
LC


§131.36 Toxics criteria for those states
not complying with Clean Water Act
section 303(cX2XB).
(a)	Scope. This section is not a general
promulgation of the section 304(a) crite-
ria for priority toxic pollutants but is re-
stricted to specific pollutants in specific
Slates.
(b)	(1) EPA's Section 304(a) Criteria
for Priority Toxic Pollutants
-------
D
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Uater & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
Dl	D2
1 Antimony
7440360








j 14 a
4300 a
2 Arsenic
7440382
360
m
190
m !
69
m
36
m
[ 0.018 a,b,c
0.14 a,b,c
3 Beryllium
7440417








] n
n
4 Cadmium
7440439
3.9
e,m
1.1
e,m j
43
m
9.3
m
i n
n
5a Chromium (II!)
16065831
1700
e,m
210
e,m J




i n
n
b Chromium (VI)
18540299
16
m
11
m !
1100
m
50
m
! n
n
6 Copper
7440508
18
e,m
12
e,m ]
2.9
m
2.9
m


7 Lead
7439921
82
e,m
3.2
e,m |
220
m
8.5
m
! n
n
8 Mercury
7439976
2.4
m
0.012
i |
2.1
m
0.025
i
| 0.14
0.15
9 Nickel
7440020
1400
e,m
160
e,m j
75
m
8.3
m
\ 610 a
4600 a
10 Selenium
7782492
20

5

300
m
71
m
! n
n
11 Silver
7440224
4.1
e,m


2.3
m




12 Thallium
7440280








| 1.7 a
6.3 a
13 Z i nc
7440666
120
e,m
110
e,m |
95
m
86
m


14 Cyanide
57125
22

5.2

1

1

| 700 a
220000 a,j
15 Asbestos
1332214








! 7.000.000 fibers/L
k
16 2,3,7,8-TCDO (Dioxin)
1746016








|0.000000013 c 0.000000014 c
17 Acrolein
107028








| 320
780
18 Acrylonitrile
107131








| 0.059 a,c
0.66 a,c
19 Benzene
71432








| 1.2 a,c
71 a,c
20 Bromoform
75252








! 4.3 a.c
360 a.c
21 Carbon Tetrachloride
56235








! 0.25 a,c
4.4 a,c
22 Chlorobenzene
108907








| 680 a
21000 a,j
23 Chlorodibromomethane
124481








| 0.41 a.c
34 a,c
24 Chloroethane
75003










25 2-Chloroethylvinvl Ether
110758










26 Chloroform
67663








| 5.7 a,c
470 a,c
27 Dichlorobromomethane
75 274








| 0.27 a,c
22 a,c
(#) COMPOUND
CAS
Number
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maxi nun Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
81	B2
SALTUATER
(ug/L)
C1
(ug/L)
C2
I
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
-------
(#)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42_
43
44
45
46
47.
48
49
50
51
52.
53
54
55
56
COMPOUND
CAS
Number
1.1-Dichloroethane	75343
1.2-Dichloroethane	107062
1.1-Dichloroethylene	75354
1.2-Dichloropropane	78875
1.3-DichLoropropylen	e	542756
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
81	B2	
SALTWATER
Criterion Criterion
Max i mini Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
CI	C2
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water &	Organisms
Organisms	Only
(ug/L)	(ug/L)
D1	02
0.38 a,c
0.057 a,c
10 a
99 a,c
3.2 a,c
1700 a
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
100414
74839
74873
75092
79345
3100 a
48 a
n
4.7 a,e
0.17 a.c
29000 a
4000 a
n
1600 a,c
	U a,c
Tetrachloroethylene	127184
Toluene	108883
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 156605
1.1.1-Triehloroethane	71556
1.1.2-Trichloroethan	e	79005
0.8 e
6800 a
n
0.60 a.c
8.85 c
200000 a
n
	42 a,c
T r i chIoroethyIene
Vinyl Chloride
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2.4-Dimethylphenol
79016
75014
95578
120832
105679
2.7 c
2 c
93 a
81 c
525 c
790 a,j
2-Methyl-4,6-Dini trophenol 534521
2,4-Dinitrophenol	51285
2-Nitrophenol	88755
4-Nitrophenol 100027
3-Methyl-4-Chloropheno	l	59507
13.4
70 a
765
14000 a
Pentachlorophenol	87865
Phenol	108952
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol	88062
Acenaphthene	83329
20 f
13 f
13
7.9
0.28 a.c	8.2 a,c,j
21000 a	4600000 a,j
2.1 a,c	6.5 a,c
-------
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1	D2
57
Acenaphthylene
208968 j |
i
i

58
Anthracene
120127 | |
| 9600 a
110000 a
59
Benzidine
92875 | |
| 0.00012 a,c
0.00054 a
60
BenzoCa)Anth r acene
56553 | |
j 0.0028 c
0.031
61
Benzo(a)Pvrene
50328 ! !
! 0.0028 c
0.031
62
Benzo(b)FIuoranthene
205992 | |
| 0.0028 c
0.031
63
Benzo(ghi)Perylene
191242 j |
i
i

64
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
207089 | |
| 0.0028 c
0.031
65
Bis(2-Chtoroethoxy)Methane
111911 | |
i
i

66
Bis(2-Chloroethvl)Ether
111444 ! !
! 0.031 a.c
1.4
67
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether
108601 | |
| 1400 a
170000
68
Bis(2-EthyIhexyl)Phthalate
117817 | |
| 1.8 a,c
5.9
69
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
101553 j |
i
i

70
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
85687 | |
i
i

71
2-ChloronaDhthalene
91587 ! I
i
1

72
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether 7005723 ] |
1
1

73
Chrysene
218019 | |
| 0.0028 c
0.031
74
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
53703 | ]
| 0.0028 c
0.031
75
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95501 | |
| 2700 a
17000
76
1.3-0ichlorobenzene
541 731 ! !
! 400
2600
77
1,4-Oichlorobenzene
106467 | |
| 400
2600
78
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
91941 | j
] 0.04 a,c
0.077
79
Diethyl Phthalate
84662 J |
| 23000 a
120000
80
Dimethyl Phthalate
131113 | |
| 313000
2900000
81
Di-n-Butvl Phthalate
84742 ! !
! 2700 a
12000
82
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121142 | |
] 0.11 c
9.1
83
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606202 | |
i
i

84
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
117840 | |
i
i

85
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
122667 | |
| 0.040 a,c
0.54
FRESHWATER
SALTWATER
(#) COMPOUND
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
CAS Cone, d Cone, d
Number (ug/L) (ug/L)
	! B1	B2	
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L)
C1
(ug/L)
C2
-------
FRESHWATER
SALTWATER
HUH AN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
(#) COMPOUND
CAS .
Number
Criterion Criterion
Maximem Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
B1	B2
Criterion	Criterion
Maximum	Continuous
Cone, d	Cone, d
(ug/L)	(ug/L)
C1
C2
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1		D2
86
Fluoranthene
206440




i
i



300 a
370 a
87
Fluorene
86737 |







i
i
1300 a
14000 a
88
Hexachlorobenzene
118741 |







i
i
0.00075 a,c
0.00077 a,c
89
Hexachlorobutadiene
87683 |







i
i
0.44 a,c
50 a,c
90
HexachIoroeveIODentadi ene
77474 !







i
i
240 a
17000 a.i
91
Hexachloroethane
67721 |







i
i
1.9 a,c
8.9 a,c
92
IndenoO ,2,3-cd)Pyrene
193395 |







i
i
0.0028 c
0.031 c
93
Isophorone
78591 |







i
i
8.4 a,c
600 a,c
94
Naphthalene
91203 |







i
i


95
Ni trobenzene
98953 !







i
i
17 a
1900 a.i
96
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
62759 j







i
i
0.00069 a,c
8.1 a.c
97
N-Ni trosodi-n-Propylamine
621647 |







i
i


98
N-NitrosodiphenyIamine
86306 |







i
i
5.0 a.c
16 a,c
99
Phenanthrene
85018 |







i
i


100
Pvrene
129000 !







i
i
960 a
11000 a
101
1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
120821 |







i
i


102
Aldrin
309002 |
3
9


1.3
9

i
i
0.00013 a,c
0.00014 a.c
103
alpha-BHC
319846 |







i
i
0.0039 a,c
0.013 a,c
104
beta-BHC
319857 |







i
i
0.014 a,c
0.046 a,c
105
qamma-BHC
58899 !
2
a
0.08
q
0.16
9

i
i
0.019 c
0.063 c
106
delta-BHC
319868 |







i
i


107
Chlordane
57749 |
2.4
g
0.0043
g
0.09
g
0.004
g !
0.00057 a,c
0.00059 a.c
108
4-4'-DDT
50293 |
1.1
g
0.001
g
0.13
g
0.001
g !
0.00059 a,c
0.00059 a.c
109
4,4'-DDE
72559 |







i
i
0.00059 a,c
0.00059 a.c
110
4.4'-DDD
72548 !







i
i
0.00083 a.c
0.00084 a.c
111
Dieldrin
60571 |
2.5
g
0.0019
g
0.71
g
0.0019
g !
0.00014 a,c
0.00014 a.c
112
alpha-Endosulfan
959988 |
0.22
g
0.056
g
0.034
g
0.0087
g !
0.93 a
2.0 a
113
beta-Endosulfan
33213659 |
0.22
g
0.056
g
0.034
g
0.0087
g !
0.93 a
2.0 a
-------
D
HUNAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1	D2
114 Endosulfan Sulfate
1031078 |








0.93
a
2.0
a
115 Endrin
72208 |
0.18
9
0.0023
9
0.037
9
0.0023
9 !
0.76
a
0.81
a, j
116 Endrin Aldehyde
7421934 |








0.76
a
0.81
a.j
117 Heptachlor
76448 |
0.52
9
0.0038
9
0.053
9
0.0036
9 i
0.00021
a,c
0.00021
a.c
118 HeDtachlor Epoxide
1024573 !
0.52
q
0.0038
q
0.053
q
0.0036
i !
0.00010
a.c
0.00011
a.c
119 PCB-1242
53469219 [


0.014
g


0.03
9 !
0.000044
a,c
0.000045
a.c
120 PCB-1254
11097691 |


0.014
g


0.03
9 !
0.000044
a.c
0.000045
a.c
121 PCB-1221
11104282 |


0.014
9


0.03
9 i
0.000044
a,c
0.000045
a.c
122 PCB-1232
11141165 |


0.014
9


0.03
9 !
0.000044
a,c
0.000045
a.c
123 PCB-1248
12672296 !


0.014
q


0.03
9 !
0.000044
a.c
0.000045
a.c
124 PCB-1260
11096825 |


0.014
g


0.03
9 I
0.000044
a,c
0.000045
a.c
125 PC8-1016
12674112 |


0.014
9


0.03
9 !
0.000044
a.c
0.000045
a.c
126 Toxaphene
8001352 |
0.73

0.0002

0.21

0.0002

0.00073
a.c
0.00075
a.c
Total No. of Criteria (h) =

24

29

23

27

91

90

FRESHWATER
SALTWATER
(#) COMPOUND
Criterion Criterion
Max i nun Continuous
CAS	Cone, d Cone, d
Number (ug/L) (ug/L)
	B1	B2	
Cri terion Criterion
Maximun Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
CI	C2
-------
Footnotes:
a.	Criteria revised to reflect current
agency qi* or RfD, as contained in the
Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). The fish tissue bioconcentration
factor (BCF) from the 1980 criteria docu-
ments was retained in all cases.
b.	The criteria refers to the inorganic
form only.
c.	Criteria in the matrix based on carci-
nogenicity (106 risk). For a risk level of
10"s, move the decimal point in the matrix
value one place to the right.
d.	Criteria Maximum Concentration
(CMC) = the highest concentration of a
pollutant to which aquatic life can be ex-
posed for a short period of time (1-hour
average) without deleterious effects. Cri-
teria Continuous Concentration (CCC) =
the highest concentration of a pollutant to
which aquatic life can be exposed for an
extended period of time (4 days) without
deleterious effects, ug/L = micrograms
per liter
e.	Freshwater aquatic life criteria for
these metals are expressed as a function
of total hardness (mg/L), and as a func-
tion of the pollutant's water effect ratio,
WER, as defined in §131.36(c). The
equations are provided in matrix at
§ 131.36(b)(2). Values displayed above in
the matrix correspond to a total hardness
of 100 mg/L and a water effect ratio of
1.0.
f.	Freshwater aquatic life criteria for
pentachlorophenol are expressed as a
function of pH, and are calculated as fol-
lows. Values displayed above in the ma-
trix correspond to a pH of 7.8.
CMC = exp(1.005(pH) - 4.830) CCC =
exp(1.005(pH) - 5.290)
g.	Aquatic life criteria for these com-
pounds were issued in 1980 utilizing the
1980 Guidelines for criteria development.
The acute values shown are final acute
values (FAV) which by the 1980 Guide-
lines are instantaneous values as con-
trasted with a CMC which is a one-hour
average.
h.	These totals simply sum the criteria
in each column. For aquatic life, there are
30 priority toxic pollutants with some
type of freshwater or saltwater, acute or
chronic criteria. For human health, there
are 91 priority toxic pollutants with either
"water + fish" or "fish only" criteria.
Note that these totals count chromium as
one pollutant even though EPA has devel-
oped criteria based on two valence states.
In the matrix, EPA has assigned numbers
5a and 5b to the criteria for chromium to
reflect the fact that the list of 126 priority
toxic pollutants includes only a single list-
ing for chromium.
i.	If the CCC for total mercury exceeds
0.012 ug/L more than once in a 3-year
period in the ambient water, the edible
portion of aquatic species of concern must
be analyzed to determine whether the
concentration of methyl mercury exceeds
the FDA action level (1.0 mg/kg). If the
FDA action level is exceeded, the State
must notify the appropriate EPA Region-
al Administrator, initiate a revision of its
mercury criterion in its water quality
standards so as to protect designated uses,
and take other appropriate action such as
issuance of a fish consumption advisory
for the affected area.
j. No criteria for protection of human
health from consumption of aquatic orga-
nisms (excluding water) was presented in
the 1980 criteria document or in the 1986
Quality Criteria for Water. Nevertheless,
sufficient information was presented in
the 1980 document to allow a calculation
of a criterion, even though the results of
such a calculation were not shown in the
document.
k. The criterion for asbestos is the
MCL (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
1. This letter not used as a footnote.
m. Criteria for these metals are ex-
pressed as a function of the water effect
ratio, WER, as defined in 40 CFR
131.36(c).
CMC = column B1 or CI value X WER
CCC = column B2 or C2 value X WER
n. EPA is not promulgating human
health criteria for this contaminant. How-
ever, permit authorities should address
this contaminant in NPDES permit ac-
tions using the State's existing narrative
criteria for toxics.
General Notes:
1.	This chart lists all of EPA's priority
toxic pollutants whether or not criteria
recommendations are available. Blank
spaces indicate the absence of criteria rec-
ommendations. Because of variations in
chemical nomenclature systems, this list-
ing of toxic pollutants does not duplicate
the listing in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part
423. EPA has added the Chemical Ab-
stracts Service (CAS) registry numbers,
which provide a unique identification for
each chemical.
2.	The following chemicals have organ-
oleptic based criteria recommendations
that are not included on this chart (for
reasons which are discussed in the pream-
ble): copper, zinc, chlorobenzene, 2-chlo-
rophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, acenaph-
thene, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 3-methyl-4-
chlorophenol, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
pentachlorophenol, phenol
3.	For purposes of this rulemaking,
freshwater criteria and saltwater criteria
apply as specified in 40 CFR 131.36(c).
(2) Factors for Calculating Metals
Criteria
CMC=WER exp(mA[ln(hardness)]+bA|
CCC= W ER
expjmc[ln(hardness)]+bc)
-------
CMC=WER exp|mA[ln(hardness)]+bA) CCC=WER exp|mc[ln(hardness)]+bc|

m*
b*
mc
be
Cadmium	 .... 	
1.128
-3 828
0 7852
-3 490
Copper .... 	 	 	
0.9422
-1 464
0 8545
-1.465
Chromium (III) 	 	 	 	
0 8190
3 688
0 8190
1 561
Lead	 	
1 273
-1 460
1 273
-4.705
Nickel .... 	
0.8460
3 3612
0 8460
1.1645
Silver .... ....
1 72
-6.52


Zinc ..... . 	 	
0.8473
0.8604
0.8473
0.7614
Note. The term "exp1 represents the base e exponential function
(c) Applicability.
(1)	The criteria in paragraph (b) of this
section apply to the States' designated
uses cited in paragraph (d) of this section
and supersede any criteria adopted by the
Slate, except when State regulations con-
tain criteria which are more stringent for
a particular use in which case the State's
criteria will continue to apply.
(2)	The criteria established in this sec-
tion are subject to the Slate's general
rules of applicability in the same way and
to the same extent as arc the other numer-
ic toxics criteria when applied to the same
use classifications including mixing zones,
and low flow values below which numeric
standards can be exceeded in flowing
fresh waters.
(i)	For all waters with mixing zone reg-
ulations or implementation procedures,
the criteria apply at the appropriate loca-
tions within or at the boundary of the
mixing zones; otherwise the criteria apply
throughout the waterbody including at
the end of any discharge pipe, canal or
other discharge point.
(ii)	A State shall not use a low flow
value below which numeric standards can
be exceeded that is less stringent than the
following for waters suitable for the estab-
lishment of low flow return frequencies
(i.e., streams and rivers):
Aquatic Life
Acute criteria (CMC) 1 Q 10 or 1 B 3
Chronic criteria (CCC) 7Q10or4B3
Human Health
Non-carcinogens	30 Q 5
Carcinogens	Harmonic mean flow
Where:
CMC—criteria maximum concentra-
tion—the water quality criteria to protect
against acute efTects in aquatic life and is
the highest instream concentration of a
priority toxic pollutant consisting of a
one-hour average not to be exceeded more
than once every three years on the aver-
age;
CCC—criteria continuous concentra-
tion—the water quality criteria to protect
against chronic efTects in aquatic life is
the highest instream concentration of a
priority toxic pollutant consisting of a 4-
day average not to be exceeded more than
once every three years on the average;
1 Q 10 is the lowest one day flow with
an average recurrence frequency of once
in 10 years determined hydrologically;
I B 3 is biologically based and indicates
an allowable exceedence of once every 3
years. It is determined by EPA's comput-
erized method (DFLOW model);
7 Q 10 is the lowest average 7 consecu-
tive day low flow with an average recur-
rence frequency of once in 10 years deter-
mined hydrologically;
4 B 3 is biologically based and indicates
an allowable exceedence for 4 consecutive
days once every 3 years. It is determined
by EPA's computerized method
(DFLOW model);
30 Q 5 is the lowest average 30 consec-
utive day low flow with an average recur-
rence frequency of once in 5 years deter-
mined hydrologically; and the harmonic
mean Row is a long term mean flow value
calculated by dividing the number of dai-
ly flows analyzed by the sum of the
reciprocals of those daily flows.
(iii) If a State does not have such a low
flow value for numeric standards compli-
ance, then none shall apply and the crite-
ria included in paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion herein apply at all flows.
(3) The aquatic life criteria in the ma-
trix in paragraph (b) of this section apply
as follows:
(i)	For waters in which the salinity is
equal to or less than 1 part per thousand
95% or more of the time, the applicable
criteria are the freshwater criteria in Col-
umn B;
(ii)	For waters in which the salinity is
equal to or greater than 10 parts per thou-
sand 95% or more of the time, the appli-
cable criteria are the saltwater criteria in
Column C; and
(iii) For waters in which the salinity is
between 1 and 10 parts per thousand as
defined in paragraphs (c)(3) (i) and (ii) of
this section, the applicable criteria are the
more stringent of the freshwater or
saltwater criteria. However, the Regional
Administrator may approve the use of the
alternative freshwater or saltwater crite-
ria if scientifically defensible information
and data demonstrate that on a site-spe-
cific basis the biology of the waterbody is
dominated by freshwater aquatic life and
that freshwater criteria are more appro-
priate; or conversely, the biology of the
waterbody is dominated by saltwater
aquatic life and that saltwater criteria are
more appropriate.
(4) Application of metals criteria.
(i)	For purposes of calculating freshwa-
ter aquatic life criteria for metals from
the equations in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, the minimum hardness allowed
for use in those equations shall not be less
than 25 mg/1, as calcium carbonate, even
if the actual ambient hardness is less than
25 mg/l as calcium carbonate. The maxi-
mum hardness value for use in those
equations shall not exceed 400 mg/1 as
calcium carbonate, even if the actual am-
bient hardness is greater than 400 mg/1
as calcium carbonate. The same provi-
sions apply for calculating the metals cri-
teria for the comparisons provided for in
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section.
(ii)	The hardness values used shall be
consistent with the design discharge con-
ditions established in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section for flows and mixing zones.
(iii)	The criteria for metals (compounds
#1-#13 in paragraph (b) of this section)
are expressed as total recoverable. For
purposes of calculating aquatic life crite-
ria for metals from the equations in foot-
note M. in the criteria matrix in para-
graph (b)(1) of this section and the equa-
tions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
the water-effect ratio is computed as a
-------
specific pollutant's acute or chronic toxici-
ty values measured in water from the site
covered by the standard, divided by the
respective acute or chronic toxicity value
in laboratory dilution water. The watgr-
efTect ratio shall be assigned a value of
1 0, except where the permitting authori-
ty assigns a different value that protects
the designated uses of the water body
from the toxic effects of the pollutant, and
is derived from suitable tests on sampled
water representative of conditions in the
affected water body, consistent with the
design discharge conditions established in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For pur-
poses of this paragraph, the term acute
toxicity value is the toxicity test results,
such as the COfK^ntrafiM LhvStt one-
half of the test organisms (i.e., LC50) af-
ter 96 hours of exposure (e.g., fish toxicity
tests) or the effect concentration to one-
half of the test organisms, (i.e., EC50)
after 48 hours of exposure (e.g., daphnia
toxicity tests). For purposes of this para-
graph, the term chronic value is the result
from appropriate hypothesis testing or re-
gression analysis of measurements of
growth, reproduction, or survival from life
cycle, partial life cycle, or early life stage
tests. The determination of acute and
chronic values shall be according to cur-
rent standard protocols (e.g., those pub-
lished by the American Society for Test-
ing Materials (ASTM)) or other compa-
rable methods. For calculation of criteria
using site-specific values for both the
hardness and the water effect ratio, the
hardness used in the equations in para-
graph (b)(2) of this section shall be as
required in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this
section. Water hardness shall be calculat-
ed from the measured calcium and mag-
nesium ions present, and the ratio of calci-
um to magnesium shall be approximately
the same in standard laboratory toxicity
testing water as in the site water.
(d) Criteria for Specific Jurisdic-
tions—
(1) Rhode Island, EPA Region I.
(i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Water Quality
Regulations for Water Pollution Control
adopted under Chapters 46-12, 42-17.1,
and 42-35 of the General Laws of Rhode
Island are subject to the criteria in para-
graph (d)(l)(ii) of this section, without
exception:
6 21 Freshwater	6.22 Saltwater.
Class A	Class SA
Class B	Class SB
Class C	Class SC
(li) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(l)(i) of this section:
Use classification
Class A
Class B waters where
water supply use is
designated
Class B waters where
water supply use is
not designated:
Class C.
Class SA.
Class SB,
Class SC
Applicable criteria
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in-
Column 01—all
Each of these classifi-
cations is assigned
the criteria in.
Column D2—all
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the 10'5 risk level, consistent
with the State policy. To determine ap-
propriate value for carcinogens, see foot-
note c in the criteria matrix in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(2) Vermont, EPA Region I.
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Vermont Water
Quality Standards adopted under the au-
thority of the Vermont Water Pollution
Control Act (10 V.S.A., Chapter 47) are
subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(2)(n) of this section, without excep-
tion:
Class A
Class B
Class C
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section:
Use classification
Class A
Class B waters where
water supply use is
designated
Class B waters where
water supply use is
not designated
Class C
Applicable criteria
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in
Column B1—all
Column B2—all
Column D1—all
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in:
Column B1—all
Column B2—all
Column D2—all
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed 106 risk lev-
el.
(3) New Jersey, EPA Region 2.
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the New Jersey Ad-
ministrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:9-4.1 et
seq., Surface Water Quality Standards,
are subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(3)(ii) of this section, without excep-
tion.
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.12(b): Class PL
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.12(c): Class FW2
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.12(d): Class SE1
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.12(e): Class SE2
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.12(0: Class SE3
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.12(g): Class SC
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.13(a): Delaware River
Zones 1C, ID, and IE
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.13(b): Delaware River
Zone 2
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.13(c): Delaware River
Zone 3
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.13(d): Delaware River
Zone 4
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.13(e): Delaware River
Zone 5
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.13(f): Delaware River
Zone 6
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section:
Use classification	Applicable criteria
PL (Freshwater Pine- These classifications
lands), FW2	are assigned the cri-
teria in: Column
B1 -all except #102,
105, 107, 108, 111,
112, 113. 115. 117,
118.
Column B2—all excep
#105, 107, 108, 111,
112. 113. 115, 117,
118, 119. 120, 121,
122, 123, 124, and
125
Column D1 -all at a
10-® risk level except
#23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
42, 66, 89, 91, 93,
104,	105, at a 10-'
risk level.
Column D2—all at a
10-' risk level except
#23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
105,	23, 30, 37, 38,
42, 68, 89, 91, 93,
104, 105, at a 10-»
risk level
PL (Saline Water Pine- These classifications
lands), SE1. SE2, are assigned the cri-
SE3, SC	teria in-
-------
Applicable criteria
Column C1—all except
#102, 105. 107, 108,
111,	112, 113, 115,
117,	and 118
Column C2—all except
#105, 107, 108, 111,
112,	113, 115, 117,
118,	119, 120, 121,
122, 123, 124, and
125
Column D2—all at a
10-' risk level except
#23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
105, #23, 30, 37, 38,
42, 68, 89. 91. 93,
104, 105, at a 10-5
risk level
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in
Column B1—all
Column B2—all
Column D1—all at a
10-' risk level except
#23. 30. 37, 38, 42.
68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
42, 68, 89, 91, 93,
104,	105, at a 10-5
risk level
Column D2—all at a
10-' risk level except
#23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
68, 89, 91. 93. 104,
105,	#23, 30, 37. 38,
42, 68, 89, 91, 93,
104,	105, at a 10-'
risk level
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in
Column C1—all
Column C2—all
Column D2—all at a
10-'risk level except
#23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
105.	#23, 30, 37, 38,
42, 68, 89, 91, 93,
104. 105. at a 10-5
risk level
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed 10 6 risk lev-
el for EPA rated Class A, Bi, and B2
carcinogens; EPA rated Class C carcino-
gens shall be applied at 10 s risk level. To
determine appropriate value for carcino-
gens, see footnote c. in the matrix in para-
graph (b)(1) of this section.
(4) Puerto Rico. EPA Region 2.
(i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Puerto Rico Wa-
ter Quality Standards (promulgated by
Resolution Number R-83-5-2) are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(4)(ii)
of this section, without exception.
Article 2.2 2—Class SB
Article 2.2.3—Class SC
Article 2.2.4—Class SD
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section:
Use classification	Applicable criteria
Class SD	This Classification is
assigned the criteria
in.
Column B1—all, ex-
cept' 10, 102, 105,
107,	108. 111, 112,
113. 115. 117. and
126
Column B2—all, ex-
cept 105, 107, 108,
112,	113, 115, and
117
Column D1—all, ex-
cept. 6, 14, 105, 112,
113,	and 115
Column D2—all, ex-
cept 14, 105, 112,
113, and 115.
Class SB, Class SC This Classification is
assigned the criteria
in
Column C1—all, ex-
cept 4, 5b, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13, 102. 105,107,
108,	111. 112, 113,
115, 117, and 126.
Column C2—all, ex-
cept 4, 5b, 10, 13,
108, 112, 113, 115,
and 117
Column D2—all, ex-
cept: 14, 105, 112,
113, and 115.
(iii)	The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed I0'5 risk lev-
el. To determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c, in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5) District of Columbia, EPA Region
3.
(1) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in chapter 11 Title 21
DCMR, Water Quality Standards of the
District of Columbia are subject to the
criteria in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this sec-
tion, without exception:
1101.2 Class C waters
(ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classification identified in
paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section:
Use classification	Applicable criteria
Class C	This classification is
assigned the addi-
tional criteria in.
Colum B2—#10, 118,
126
Colum D1— #15, 16,
44,67,68,79,80,81,
88, 114, 116, 118.
Colum D2—all
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10"* risk lev-
el.
(6)	Florida, EPA Region 4.
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in Chapter 17-301 of
the Florida Administrative Code (1 e ,
identified in Section 17-302.600) are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(6)(n)
of this section, without exception:
Class 1
Class II
Class HI
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply
to the use classifications identified in
paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section:
Applicable criteria
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in.
Column D1—#16
This classification is
assigned the criteria
m:	^*1/
Coioi*a Di"* >(9
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column D2—#16
(iii)	The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10"6 risk lev-
el
(7)	Michigan, EPA Region 5
(1) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources Commis-
sion General Rules, R 323.1100 designat-
ed uses, as defined at R 323.1043 Defini-
tions; A to N, (i.e., identified in Section
(g) "Designated use") are subject to the
criteria in paragraph (d)(7)(ii) of this sec-
tion, without exception:
Agriculture
Navigation
Industrial Water Supply
Public Water Supply at the Point of
Water Intake
Warmwater Fish
Use classification
Delaware River zones
1C. 1D, 1E, 2, 3, 4, 5
and Delaware Bay
zone 6
Delaware River zones
3, 4, and 5. and Dela-
ware Bay zone 6
Use classification
Class I
Class II
and
Class III (marine)
Class III (fresh water)
-------
Other Indigenous Aquatic Life and
Wildlife
Partial Body Contact Recreation
(li) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section
Use classification
Public Water supply
Applicable criteria
This classification is
assigned the criteria
Column B1—all,
Column B2—all,
Column D1—all
All other designations These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in
Column B1—all,
Column B2—all,
and
Column 02—all
(ni) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10 s risk lev-
el. To determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(8) Arkansas, EPA Region 6.
(i) All waters assigned to the following
use classification in section 4C
(Watcrbody uses) identified in Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology's Regulation No. 2 as amended
and entitled, "Regulation Establishing
Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas" are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)
of this section, without exception.
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Ecologically Sensitive Watcrbody
Natural and Scenic Waterways
Fisheries:
(1)	Trout
(2)	Lakes and Reservoirs
(3)	Streams
(a)	Ozark Highlands Ecoregion
(b)	Boston Mountains Ecoregion
(c)	Arkansas River Valley Ecoregion
(d)	Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion
(e)	Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion
(f)	Spring Water-influenced Gulf
Coastal Ecoregion
(g)	Least-altered Delta Ecoregion
(h)	Channel-altered Delta Ecoregion
Domestic Water Supply
(li) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classification identified in
paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section:
Use classification
Extraordinary Re-
source Waters
Ecologically Sensitive
Waterbody
Natural and Scenic
Waterways
Fisheries.
(1)	Trout
(2)	Lakes and Res-
ervoirs
(3)	Streams
(a)	Ozark High-
lands Ecore-
gion
(b)	Boston Moun-
tains Ecoregion
(c)	Arkansas Riv-
er Valley
Ecoregion
(d)	Ouachita
Mountains
Ecoregion
(e)	Typical Gulf
Coastal Ecore-
gion
(f)	Spring Water-
influenced Gulf
Coastal Ecore-
gion
(g)	Least-altered
Delta Ecore-
gion
(h)	Channel-al-
tered Delta
Ecoregion
Applicable criteria
Use classification
Sections (2)(A),
(2)(B), (2)(C),
(6)(C)
Section (3)
These uses are each
assigned the criteria
in—
¦ Column B1 — #4.
5a, 5b, 6, 7. 8, 9,
10, 11. 13, 14
Column B2— #4,
5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 13, 14
(9) Kansas. EPA Region 7
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classification in the Kansas Depart-
ment of Health and Environment regula-
tions, K.A.R. 28-16-28b through K.A.R.
28-16—28f, are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section, with-
out exception
Section 28— 16—28d
Section (2)(A)—Special Aquatic Life
Use Waters
Section (2)(B)—Expected Aquatic
Life Use Waters
Section (2)(C)—Restricted Aquatic
Life Use Waters
Section (3)—Domestic Water Supply
Section (6)(c)—Consumptive Recre-
ation Use
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section:
Applicable criteria
These classifactions
are each assigned all
criteria in-
Column B1, all
except #9, 11.
13, 102, 105,
107, 108,
111-113, 115,
117, and 126,
Column B2, all
except #9, 13,
105, 107, 108,
111-113, 115,
117, 119-125,
and 126, and
Column D2, all
except #9,
112, 113, and
115
This classification is
assigned all criteria
in,
Column D1, all
except #9, 12,
112, 113, and
115
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed 10~6 risk lev-
el.
(10) California, EPA Region 9.
(i) All waters assigned any aquatic life
or human health use classifications in the
Water Quality Control Plans for the vari-
ous Basins of the State ("Basin Plans"),
as amended, adopted by the California
State Water Resources Control Board
("SWRCB"), except for ocean waters
covered by the Water Quality Control
Plan for Ocean Waters of California
("Ocean Plan") adopted by the SWRCB
with resolution Number 90-27 on March
22, 1990, arc subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section,
without exception. These criteria amend
the portions of the existing State stan-
dards contained in the Basin Plans. More
particularly these criteria amend water
quality criteria contained in the Basin
Plan Chapters specifying water quality
objectives (the State equivalent of federal
water quality criteria) for the toxic pollu-
tants identified in paragraph (d)(10)(ii)
of this section. Although the State has
adopted several use designations for each
of these waters, for purposes of this ac-
tion, the specific standards to be applied
in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section
are based on the presence in all waters of
some aquatic life designation and the
presence or absence of the MUN use des-
ignation (Municipal and domestic sup-
ply). (See Basin Plans for more detailed
use definitions.)
-------
All other designations
Other Indigenous Aquatic Life and
Wildlife
Partial Body Contact Recreation
(li) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section
Use classification	Applicable criteria
Public Water supply This classification is
assigned the criteria
in.
Column B1—all,
Column B2—all,
Column D1—all
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in
Column B1—all,
Column B2—all,
and
Column D2—all
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10'5 risk lev-
el. To determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(8) Arkansas, EPA Region 6.
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classification in section 4C
(Watcrbody uses) identified in Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology's Regulation No. 2 as amended
and entitled, "Regulation Establishing
Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas" are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)
of this section, without exception:
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody
Natural and Scenic Waterways
Fisheries:
(1)	Trout
(2)	Lakes and Reservoirs
(3)	Streams
(a)	Ozark Highlands Ecorcgion
(b)	Boston Mountains Ecoregion
(c)	Arkansas River Valley Ecoregion
(d)	Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion
(e)	Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion
(f)	Spring Water-influenced Gulf
Coastal Ecoregion
(g)	Least-altered Delta Ecoregion
(h)	Channel-altered Delta Ecoregion
Domestic Water Supply
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classification identified in
paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section-
Use classification
Applicable criteria
Extraordinary Re-
source Waters
Ecologically Sensitive
Waterbody
Natural and Scenic
Waterways
Fisheries
(1)	Trout
(2)	Lakes and Res-
ervoirs
(3)	Streams
(a)	Ozark High-
lands Ecore-
gion
(b)	Boston Moun-
tains Ecoregion
(c)	Arkansas Riv-
er Valley
Ecoregion
(d)	Ouachita
Mountains
Ecoregion
(e)	Typical Gulf
Coastal Ecore-
gion
(f)	Spring Water-
influenced Gulf
Coastal Ecore-
gion
(g)	Least-altered
Delta Ecore-
gion
(h)	Channel-al- These uses are each
tered Delta assigned the criteria
Ecoregion	in—
Column B1— #4,
5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9.
10, 11. 13, 14
Column B2— #4,
5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 13, 14
(9) Kansas, EPA Region 7.
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classification in the Kansas Depart-
ment of Health and Environment regula-
tions, K.A.R. 28— 16-28b through K.A.R.
28— 16-28f, are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section, with-
out exception.
Section 28— 16—28d
Section (2)(A)—Special Aquatic Life
Use Waters
Section (2)(B)—Expected Aquatic
Life Use Waters
Section (2)(C)—Restricted Aquatic
Life Use Waters
Section (3)—Domestic Water Supply
Section (6)(c)—Consumptive Recre-
ation Use
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section
Use classification	Applicable criteria
Sections (2)(A), These classifactions
(2)(B), (2)(C), are each assigned all
(6)(C)	criteria in.
Column 81, all
except #9, 11.
13, 102, 105,
1 07, 108,
111-113, 115,
117, and 126,
Column B2, all
except #9, 13,
105, 107, 108,
111-113, 115,
117, 119-125,
and 126, and
Column D2, all
except #9,
112, 113, and
115
Section (3)	This classification is
assigned all criteria
in,
Column D1, all
except #9. 12,
112, 113. and
115
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed I0"6 risk lev-
el
(10) California, EPA Region 9
(i) All waters assigned any aquatic life
or human health use classifications in the
Water Quality Control Plans lor the vari-
ous Basins of the State ("Basin Plans"),
as amended, adopted by the California
State Water Resources Control Board
("SWRCB"), except for ocean waters
covered by the Water Quality Control
Plan for Ocean Waters of California
("Ocean Plan") adopted by the SWRCB
with resolution Number 90-27 on March
22, 1990, are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section,
without exception. These criteria amend
the portions of the existing State stan-
dards contained in the Basin Plans. More
particularly these criteria amend water
quality criteria contained in the Basin
Plan Chapters specifying water quality
objectives (the State equivalent of federal
water quality criteria) for the toxic pollu-
tants identified in paragraph (d)(10)(ii)
of this section. Although the State has
adopted several use designations for each
of these waters, for purposes of this ac-
tion, the specific standards to be applied
in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section
are based on the presence in all waters of
some aquatic life designation and the
presence or absence of the MUN use des-
ignation (Municipal and domestic sup-
ply). (See Basin Plans for more detailed
use definitions.)
-------
(ii) The following criteria from the ma- defined in paragraph (d)(IO)(i) of this
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section section and identified below,
apply to the water and use classifications
Water and use classification
Waters ol the State defined as bays or estuaries except the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San
Francisco Bay
Waters of the Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta and waters of the State defined as inland (i.e., all surface
waters of the State not bays or estuaries or ocean) that include a MUN use designation
Waters of the State defined as inland without an MUN use designation
Waters of the San Joaquin River from the mouth of the Merced River to Vernahs
Waters of Salt Slough, Mud Slough (north) and the San Joaquin River, Sack Dam to the mouth of the
Merced River
Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta
All inland waters of the United States or enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the United States
that include an MUN use designation and that the State has either excluded or partially excluded from
coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or
its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has
deferred applicability of those tables. (Category (a), (b), and (c) waters described on page 6 of Water
Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of its Water Quality Control Plan for
Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California )
All inland waters of the United States that do not include an MUN use designation and that the State has
either excluded or partially excluded from coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland
Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicability of these tables. (Category (a),
(b). and (c) waters described on page 6 of Water Quality Control Plan Inland Surface Waters of California )
Applicable criteria
These waters are assigned the criteria in.
Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
Column C1—pollutant 14
Column C2—pollutant 14
Column D2—pollutants 1, 12. 17, 18, 21,
22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38. 42-44,46, 48,
49, 54, 59. 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85, 89. 90,
91. 93. 95, 96, 98
These waters are assigned the criteria in-
Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
Column D1—pollutants, 1, 12, 15.17, 18,
21,	22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-48, 49,
59, 66, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90. 91, 93. 95,
96, 98
These waters are assigned the criteria in-
Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
Column D2—pollutants 1, 12, 17, 18, 21.
22,	29, 30. 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48.
49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85. 89, 90.
91, 93, 95, 96, 98
In addition to the criteria assigned to these wa-
ters elsewhere in this rule, these waters are
assigned the criteria in
Column B2—pollutant 10
In addition to the criteria assigned to these wa-
ters elsewhere in this rule, these waters are
assigned the criteria in
Column B1—pollutant 10
Column B2—pollutant 10
These waters are assigned the criteria in:
Column B1—pollutants 5a, 10" and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a, 10" and 14
Column C1—pollutant 14
Column C2—pollutant 14
Column D2—pollutants 1, 12, 17, 18, 21,
22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48,
49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90,
91, 93, 95, 96, 98
These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
lutants for which the State does not apply
Table 1 or 2 standards These criteria are.
Column B1—-all pollutants
Column B2—all pollutants
Column D1—all pollutants except #2
-------
Water and use classification
Applicable criteria
+fcc.W<> not

/
All enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the United States^nd that the State has either excluded
or partially excluded from coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of
California, Tables 1 and 2, or its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California,
Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicability of those tables. (Category (a), (b). and (c) waters described
on page 6 of Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of its Water
Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California)
These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
lutants lor which the State does not apply
Table 1 or 2 standards These criteria are
Column B1—all pollutants
Column B2—all pollutants
Column D2—all pollutants except #2
These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
lutants for which the State does not apply
Table 1 or 2 standards These criteria are.
Column B1— all pollutants
Column B2—all pollutants
Column C1—all pollutants
Column C2—all pollutants
Column D2—all pollutants except #2
" The fresh water selenium criteria are included for the San Francisco Bay estuary because high levels of bioaccumulation of selenium in the estuary indicate
that the salt water criteria are underprotective for San Francisco Bay
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 106 risk lev-
el.
(II) Nevada, EPA Region 9.
(i) All waters assigned the use classifi-
cations in Chapter 445 of the Nevada Ad-
ministrative Code (NAC), Nevada Water
Pollution Control Regulations, which are
referred to in paragraph (d)(ll)(ii) of
this section, are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)( 11 )(ii) of this section,
without exception These criteria amend
the existing State standards contained in
the Nevada Water Pollution Control Reg-
ulations More particularly, these criteria
amend or supplement the table of numer-
Water and use classification
Waters that the State has included in NAC 445 1339 where Municipal or domestic supply is a designated
use
ic standards in NAC 445.1339 for the
toxic pollutants identified in paragraph
(d)( 11 )(ii) of this section.
(ii) The following criteria from matrix
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply
to the waters defined in paragraph
(d)(ll)(i) of this section and identified
below-
Applicable criteria
Waters that the State has included in NAC 445.1339 where Municipal or domestic supply is not a designat-
ed use
These waters are assigned the criteria in:
Column B1—pollutant #118
Column B2—pollutant #118
Column Dt—pollutants #15, 16, 18, 19,
20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 42.
43. 55, 58-62, 64, 66, 73, 74, 78, 82, 85,
87-89, 91, 92, 96, 98, 100, 103, 104,
105, 114, 116, 117, 118
These waters are assigned the criteria in
Column B1—pollutant #118
Column B2—pollutant #118
Column D2—all pollutants except #2
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the 10"5 risk level, consistent
with State policy. To determine appropri-
ate value Tor carcinogens, see footnote c in
the criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(12) Alaska. EPA Region 10.
(i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Alaska Adminis-
trative Code (AAC), Chapter 18 (i.e.,
identified in 18 AAC 70.020) are subject
to the criteria in paragraph (d)(12)(ii) of
this section, without exception:
70.020.(1) (A) Fresh Water
70.020.(1) (A) Water Supply
(i) Drinking, culinary, and food pro-
cessing,
(iii) Aquaculture;
70.020.(1) (B) Water Recreation
(i)	Contact recreation,
(ii)	Secondary recreation;
70.020.(1) (C) Growth and propagation
of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life,
and wildlife
70.020 (2) (A) Marine Water
70.020.(2) (A) Water Supply
(i) Aquaculture,
70.020 (2) (B) Water Recreation
(i)	contact recreation,
(ii)	secondary recreation,
70.020.(2) (C) Growth and propagation
of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life,
and wildlife;
70.020.(2) (D) Harvesting for consump-
tion of raw mollusks or other raw
aquatic life.
(ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(l2)(i) of this section:
Use classification	Applicable criteria
(1 )(A) i	Column B1—all
Column
B2—#10
Column D1
-------
Use classification
(1)(A) in
(1KB) I. (1)(B) II, (1KC)
(2)(A)i. (2HB)i. and
(2)(B)u. (2XC). (2KD)
Applicable criteria
#'s 2, 16, 18-21,
23. 26, 27, 29,
30, 32. 37, 38,
42-44, 53, 55,
59-62, 64, 66,
68. 73, 74, 78,
82, 85, 88, 89,
91-93, 96, 98.
102-105.
107-111,
117-126
Column B1—all
Column
B2—#10
Column DJL
#'s 2, 14, 16,
18-21, 22. 23,
26, 27, 29, 30,
32, 37, 38,
42-44, 46, 53,
54, 55, 59-62,
64, 66, 68. 73,
74, 78, 82, 85,
88-93, 95, 96,
98, 102-105,
107-111,
115-126
Column B1—all
Column
B2—#10
Column D2
#'s 2, 14, 16.
18-21, 22, 23,
26, 27, 29, 30,
32, 37, 38,
42-44, 46, 53,
54, 55. 59-62.
64, 66. 68, 73,
74, 78, 82, 85,
88-93, 95. 96.
98, 102-105,
107-111,
115-126
Column C1—all
Column
C2—#10
Column D2
#'S 2, 14. 16.
18-21, 22. 23,
26, 27, 29, 30,
32, 37, 38,
42-44, 46, 53,
54, 55, 59-62,
64, 66, 68, 73,
74, 78, 82. 85,
88-93, 95, 96,
98, 102-105,
107-111,
115-126
(m) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed risk level of
10"5. To determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(13) Idaho, EPA Region 10
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Idaho Adminis-
trative Procedures Act (IDAPA), Chap-
ter 16 (i.e., identified in IDAPA
16.01.2100,02— 16.01.2100.07) are subject
to the criteria in paragraph (d)(13)(ii) of
this section, without exception:
16.01.2100.01 b Domestic Water Sup-
plies
16.01.2100.02.a. Cold Water Biota
16.01.2100.02.b.	Warm Water Biota
16.01.2100.02cc. Salmonid Spawning
16.01.2100.03.a.	Primary Contact Recre-
ation
16.01.2100.03.b Secondary Contact Rec-
reation
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(l3)(i) of this section:
Use classification
01 ,b
02 a 02 b 02.ee
03 a
03 b
(14) Washington, EPA Region 10
(i)	All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Washington Ad-
ministrative Code (WAC), Chapter
173-201 (i.e., identified in WAC
173-201-045) are subject to the criteria
in paragraph (d)(14)(ii) of this section,
without exception:
173-201-045
Fish and Shellfish
Fish
Water Supply (domestic)
Recreation
(ii)	The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(14)(i) of this section:
Use classification
Applicable criteria
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in.
Column D1—all
except #14
and 115
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
tria in.
Column B1—all
Column B2—all
Column D2—all
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in
Column D2—all
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column D2—all
Fish and Shellfish; Fish
CfA	i
Applicable criteria
These classifications
are assigned the cn-
teria in:
TuIS 6. '^3 -
5"8FR 3fe/4/)
Water Supply (domes-
tic)
Column B1
B(2)—£2^10
ColymlfCI—#2,
15	^
Column C2—£27
Recreation
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the 10"6 risk level, consistent
with State policy.
6, yf, 14
Column D2—all
These classifictions
are assigned the cri-
teria in.
Column D1—all
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in.
Column D2 —
Marine waters
and
freshwaters
not protected
for domestic
water supply
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State proposed risk level of
106.
[§131.36 added at 57 FR 60910, Dec. 22,
1992]
-------
APPENDIX B
Chronological Summary of
Federal Water Quality Standards
Promulgation Actions
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Appendix B - Summary of Federal Promulgation Actions
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
JANUARY 1993
CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
PROMULGATION ACTIONS
STATE	DATE STATUS REFERENCE ACTION
1. Kentucky	12/2/74 Final 39 FR 41709 Established statement in WQS
giving EPA Administrator authority
to grant a temporary exception to
stream classification and/or criteria
after case-by-case studies. Also,
established statement that streams
not listed in the WQS are
understood to be classified as
Aquatic Life and criteria for this
use to be met.
2*. Arizona	6/22/76 Final 41 FR 25000 Established nutrient standards for
11 streams.
3.	Nebraska 6/6/78 Final 43 FR 24529 Redesignated eight stream segments
for full body contact recreation and
three for partial body contact
recreation and the protection of fish
and wildlife.
4.	Mississippi 4/30/79 Final 44 FR 25223 Established dissolved oxygen
criterion for all water uses
recognized by the State.
Established criterion for a daily
average of not less than 5.0 mg/1
with a daily instantaneous minimum
of not less than 4.0 mg/1.
(9/15/93)
B-l
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
5.	Alabama	11/26/79 Proposed 44 FR 67442 Proposal to reestablish previously
approved use classifications for
segments of four navigable
waterways, Five Mile Creek,
Opossum Creek, Valley Creek,
Village Creek, and upgrade the use
designation of a segment of Village
Creek from river mile 30 to its
source.
6.	Alabama	2/14/80 Final 45 FR 9910 Established beneficial stream use
classification for 16 streams: 8
were designated for fish and
wildlife, 7 were upgraded to a fish
and wildlife classification, 1 was
designated as agricultural and
industrial water supply. Proposed
streams classification rulemaking
for 7 streams withdrawn.
7.	North Carolina 4/1/80 Final 45 FR 21246 Nullified a zero dissolved oxygen
standard variance in a segment of
Welch Creek and reestablished the
State's previous standard of 5 mg/1
average, 4 mg/1 minimum, except
for lower concentrations caused by
natural swamp conditions.
8.	Ohio	11/28/80 Final 45 FR 79053 (1) Established water use
designation, (2) establish a DO
criterion of 5 mg/1 for warmwater
use, (3) designated 17 streams as
warmwater habitat, (4) placed 111
streams downgraded by Ohio into
modified warmwater habitat, (5)
revised certain provisions relating
to mixing zones (principally on
Lake Erie), (6) revised low flow
and other exceptions to standards,
(7) amended sampling and
analytical protocols, and (8)
withdrew EPA proposal to establish
a new cyanide criterion.
9.	Kentucky	12/9/80 Final 45 FR 81042 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
(withdrawal)	action of 12/2/74 after adoption of
ppropriate water quality standards
by the State.
B-2
(9/15/93)
-------
Appendix B - Summary of Federal Promulgation Actions
10.	North Carolina 11/10/81 Final 46 FR 55520 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
(withdrawal)	action of 4/1/80 following State
adoption of a dissolved oxygen
criterion consistent with the
Federally promulgated standard.
11.	Ohio	2/16/82 Final 47 FR 29541 Withdrew Federal promulgation of
(withdrawal)	11/28/80 because it was based on a
portion of the water quality
standards regulation that has been
determined to be invalid.
12.	Nebraska 7/26/82 Final 47 FR 32128 Withdrew Federal promulgation
(withdrawal)	action of 6/6/78 after adoption of
appropriate water quality standards
by the State.
13.	Alabama	11/26/82 Final 47 FR 53372 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
(withdrawal)	action of 2/14/80 following State
adoption of requirements consistent
with the Federally promulgated
standard.
14.	Idaho	8/20/85 Proposed 50 FR 33672 Proposal to replace DO criterion
downstream from dams, partially
replace Statewide ammonia
criterion, replace ammonia criterion
for Indian Creek, and delete
categorical exemption of dams from
Antidegradation Policy.
15.	Mississippi 4/4/86 Final 51 FR 11581 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
(withdrawal)	of 4/30/79 following State adoption
of requirements consistent with the
Federally promulgated standard.
16.	Idaho	7/14/86 Final 51 FR 25372 Withdrew portions of proposed rule
(withdrawal)	to replace DO criterion
downstream from dams and delete
categorical exemptions of dams
from antidegradation rule since
State adopted acceptable standards
in both instances.
17.	Kentucky 3/20/87 Final 50 FR 9102 Established a chloride criterion of
600 mg/1 as a 30-day average, not
to exceed a maximum of 1,200
mg/1 at any time.
(9/15/93)
B-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
18. Idaho
7/25/88 Final
(withdrawal)
53 FR 27882 Withdrew portion of proposed rule
which would have established a
Statewide ammonia criterion and a
site-specific ammonia criterion
applicable to lower Indian Creek
since State adopted acceptable
standards.
19\Coleville
Indian
Reservation
7/6/89 Final
54 FR 28622 Established designated uses and
criteria for all surface waters
on the Reservation.
20. Kentucky
21". 12 States
2 Territories
4/3/91 Final
(withdrawal)
56 FR 13592 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
of 3/20/87 after adoption of
appropriate WQS by the State.
12/22/92 Final 57 FR 60848
Established numeric water quality
for toxic pollutants (aquatic life and
human health).
22. Washington
7/6/93 Final
(withdrawal)
58 FR 36141 Withdrew, in part, the Federal
Promulgation of 12/22/92 after
adoption of appropriate criteria by
the State.
* Final federal rule remains in force
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL PROMULGATION ACTIONS
Total Number of Proposed or Final Rules	22
Final Standards Promulgated	10
Withdrawal of Final Standards	8
Federal Rules Remaining In Force	3
No Action Taken on Proposals or Proposal Withdrawn	3
B-4
(9/15/93)
-------
APPENDIX C
Biological Criteria:
National Program Guidance
for Surface Waters
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Biological Criteria
National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
-------
United States	Office of Water	EPA-440/5-90-004
Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards (WH-585) April 1990
Agency	Washington, DC 20460
Biological Criteria
National Program Guidance
For Surface Waters
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Contents
Acknowledgments 	iv
Dedication	iv
Definitions	v
Executive Summary	vii
Parti: Program Elements
1.	Introduction	3
Value of Biological Criteria 	4
Process for Implementation 	6
Independent Application of Biological Criteria	7
How to Use This Document 		7
2.	Legal Authority 	9
Section 303 			9
Section 304 		10
Potential Applications Under the Act	10
Potential Applications Under Other Legislation 	10
3.	The Conceptual Framework	13
Premise for Biological Criteria	13
Biological Integrity	14
Biological Criteria 	14
Narrative Criteria	15
Numeric Criteria 	16
Refining Aquatic Life Use Classifications 	17
Developing and Implementing Biological Criteria 	18
ii
-------
4.	Integrating Biological Criteria in Surface Water Management 	21
Implementing Biological Criteria	21
Biological Criteria in State Programs 	22
Future Directions	24
Part II: The Implementation Process
5.	The Reference Condition	27
Site-specific Reference Condition	28
The Upstream-Downstream Reference Condition	28
The Near Field-Far Field Reference Condition 	28
The Regional Reference Condition 	29
Paired Watershed Reference Condition 	29
Ecoregional Reference Condition 	29
6.	The Biological Survey 	33
Selecting Aquatic Community Components	34
Biological Survey Design 	35
Selecting the Metric	35
Sampling Design 	36
7.	Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method 	37
Hypothesis Testing	37
Diagnosis 	38
References 	43
Appendix A: Common Questions and Their Answers			45
Appendix B: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Technical Reference Guide	49
Appendix C: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Development By States	51
Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers 	53
iii
-------
A cknowledgmen ts
Development of this document required the combined effort of ecologists, biologists, and policy makers from States, EPA
Regions, and EPA Headquarters. Initial efforts relied on the 1988 document Report of the National Workshop on Instream
Biological Monitoring and Criteria that summarizes a 1987 workshop sponsored by the EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, EPA Region V, and EPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis. In December 1988, contributing and
reviewing committees were established (see Appendix D). Members provided reference materials and commented on drafts.
Their assistance was most valuable.
Special recognition goes to the Steering Committee who helped develop document goals and made a significant contribu-
tion toward the final guidance. Members of the Steering Committee include:
Robert Hughes, Ph.D.	Chris Yoder
Susan Davies	Wayne Davis
John Maxted	Jimmie Overton
James Plafkin, Ph.D.	Dave Courtemanch
Phil Larsen, Ph.D.
Finally, our thanks go to States that recognized the importance of a biological approach in standards and pushed forward
independently to incorporate biological criteria into their programs. Their guidance made this effort possible. Development of
the program guidance document was sponsored by the U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards and developed, in
part, through U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3533 to Dynamac Corporation. Thanks to Dr. Mark Southerland for his technical
assistance.
Suzanne K. Macy Marcy, Ph.D.
Editor
In Memory of
James L. Plafkin, Ph.D.
iv
-------
Definitions
To effectively use biological criteria, a clear understanding of how these criteria are developed and ap-
plied in a water quality standards framework is necessary. This requires, in part, that users of biological
criteria start from the same frame of reference. To help form this frame of reference, the following defini-
tions are provided. Please consider them carefully to ensure a consistent interpretation of this document.
Definitions 	
~	An AQUATIC COMMUNITY is an association of in-
teracting populations of aquatic organisms in a given
waterbody or habitat.
~	A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of
the biological condition of a waterbody using biologi-
cal surveys and other direct measurements of resi-
dent biota in surface waters.
~	BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA, or biocriteria, are numeri-
cal values or narrative expressions that describe the
reference biological integrity of aquatic communities
inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life
use.
~	BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY is functionally defined as
the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting
unimpaired waterbodies of a specified habitat as
measured by community structure and function.
~	BIOLOGICAL MONITORING is the use of a biologi-
cal entity as a detector and its response as a
measure to determine environmental conditions.
Toxicity tests , and biological surveys are common
biomonitoring methods.
~	A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, or biosurvey, consists of
collecting, processing and analyzing representative
portions of a resident aquatic community to deter-
mine the community structure and function.
~	A COMMUNITY COMPONENT is any portion of a
biological community. The community component
may pertain to the taxomonic group (fish, inver-
tebrates, algae), the taxonomic category (phylum,
order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy
(herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) or organizational
level (individual, population, community association)
of a biological entity within the aquatic community.
~	REGIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIMILARITY describe
a relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity
of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegeta-
tion, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant vari-
able. Regions of ecological similarity help define the
potential for designated use classifications of
specific waterbodies.
~	DESIGNATED USES are those uses specified in
water quality standards for each waterbody or seg-
ment whether or not they are being attained.
~	An IMPACT is a change in the chemical, physical or
biological quality or condition of a waterbody caused
by external sources.
~	An IMPAIRMENT is a detrimental effect on the
biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an im-
pact that prevents attainment of the designated use.
~	A POPULATION is an aggregate of interbreeding in-
dividuals of a biological species within a specified
location.
a A WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
of the condition of a waterbody using biological sur-
veys, chemical-specific analyses of pollutants in
waterbodies, and toxicity tests.
~	An ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
of the condition of a waterbody using water quality
and physical habitat assessment methods.
v
-------
Executive Summary
The Clean Water Act (Act) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
programs that will evaluate, restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in-
tegrity of the Nation's waters. In response to this directive, States and EPA implemented
chemically based water quality programs that successfully addressed significant water pollution"
problems. However, these programs alone cannot identify or address all surface water pollution
problems. To create a more comprehensive program, EPA is setting a new priority for the develop-
ment of biological water quality criteria. The initial phase of this program directs State adoption of
narrative biological criteria as part of State water quality standards. This effort will help States and
EPA achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act set forth in Section 101 and comply with statutory
requirements under Sections 303 and 304. The Water Quality Standards Regulation provides additional
authority for biological criteria development.
In accordance with priorities established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance, States are to
adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 trien-
nium. To support this priority, EPA is developing a Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program and is providing this program guidance document on biological
criteria.
This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological
criteria. Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to facilitate
development and implementation of narrative and numeric criteria for each of the surface water
types.
When implemented, biological criteria will expand and improve water quality standards
programs, help identify impairment of beneficial uses, and help set program priorities. Biological
criteria are valuable because they directly measure the condition of the resource at risk, detect
problems that other methods may miss or underestimate, and provide a systematic process for
measuring progress resulting from the implementation of water quality programs.
vii
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Biological criteria require direct measurements of the structure and function of resident aquatic
communities to determine biological integrity and ecological function. They supplement, rather than
replace chemical and toxicological methods. It is EPA's policy that biological survey methods be fully
integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment methods and that chemical-specific criteria,
whole-effluent toxicity evaluations and biological criteria be used as independent evaluations of non-
attainment of designated uses.
Biological criteria are narrative expressions or numerical values that describe the biological in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given aquatic life use. They are developed
under the assumptions that surface waters impacted by anthropogenic activities may contain im-
paired aquatic communities (the greater the impact the greater the expected impairment) and that
surface waters not impacted by anthropogenic activities are generally not impaired. Measures of
aquatic community structure and function in unimpaired surface waters functionally define biologi-
cal integrity and form the basis for establishing the biological criteria.
Narrative biological criteria are definable statements of condition or attainable goals for. a given
use designation. They establish a positive statement about aquatic community characteristics ex-
pected to occur within a waterbody (e.g., "Aquatic life shall be as it naturally occurs" or "A natural
variety of aquatic life shall be present and all functional groups well represented"). These criteria can
be developed using existing information. Numeric criteria describe the expected attainable com-
munity attributes and establish values based on measures such as species richness, presence or ab-
sence of indicator taxa, and distribution of classes of organisms. To implement narrative criteria and
develop numeric criteria, biota in reference waters must be carefully assessed. These are used as the
reference values to determine if, and to what extent, an impacted surface waterbody is impaired.
Biological criteria support designated aquatic life use classifications for application in standards.
The designated use determines the benefit or purpose to be derived from the waterbody; the criteria
provide a measure to determine if the use is impaired. Refinement of State water quality standards to
include more detailed language about aquatic life is essential to fully implement a biological criteria
program. Data collected from biosurveys can identify consistently distinct characteristics among
aquatic communities inhabiting different waters with the same designated use. These biological and
ecological characteristics may be used to define separate categories within a designated use, or
separate one designated use into two or more use classifications.
To develop values for biological criteria. States should (1) identify unimpaired reference water-
bodies to establish the reference condition and (2) characterize the aquatic communities inhabiting
reference surface waters. Currently, two principal approaches are used to establish reference sites: (1)
the site-specific approach, which may require upstream-downstream or near field-far field evalua-
tions, and (2) the regional approach, which identifies similarities in the physico-chemical charac-
teristics of watersheds that influence aquatic ecology. The basis for choosing reference sites depends
on classifying the habitat type and locating unimpaired (minimally impacted) waters.
viii
-------
Executive Summary
Once reference sites are selected, their biological integrity must be evaluated using quantifiable
biological surveys. The success of the survey will depend in part on the careful selection of aquatic
community components (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, algae). These components should serve as ef-
fective indicators of high biological integrity, represent a range of pollution tolerances, provide pre-
dictable, repeatable results, and be readily identified by trained State personnel. Well-planned quality
assurance protocols are required to reduce variability in data collection and to assess the natural
variability inherent in aquatic communities. A quality survey will include multiple community com-
ponents and may be measured using a variety of metrics. Since multiple approaches are available,
factors to consider when choosing possible approaches for assessing biological integrity are
presented in this document and will be further developed in future technical guidance documents.
To apply biological criteria in a water quality standards program, standardized sampling
methods and statistical protocols must be used. These procedures must be sensitive enough to iden-
tify significant differences between established criteria and tested communities. There are three pos-
sible outcomes from hypothesis testing using these analyses: (1) the use is impaired, (2) the biological
criteria are met, or (3) the outcome is indeterminate. If the use is impaired, efforts to diagnose the
cause(s) will help determine appropriate action. If the use is not impaired, no action is required based
on these analyses. The outcome will be indeterminate if the study design or evaluation was incom-
plete. In this case, States would need to re-evaluate their protocols.
If the designated use is impaired, diagnosis is the next step. During diagnostic evaluations three
main impact categories must be considered: chemical, physical, and biological stress. Two questions
are posed during initial diagnosis: (1) what are obvious potential causes of impairment, and (2) what
possible causes do the biological data suggest? Obvious potential causes of impairment are often
identified during normal field biological assessments. When an impaired use cannot be easily related
to an obvious cause, the diagnostic process becomes investigative and iterative. Normally the diag-
noses of biological impairments are relatively straightforward; States can use biological criteria to
confirm impairment from a known source of impact.
There is considerable State interest in integrating biological assessments and criteria in water
quality management programs. A minimum of 20 States now use some form of standardized biologi-
cal assessments to determine the status of biota in State waters. Of these, 15 States are developing
biological assessments for future criteria development. Five States use biological criteria to define
aquatic life use classifications and to enforce water quality standards. Several States have established
narrative biological criteria in their standards. One State has instituted numeric biological criteria.
Whether a State is just beginning to establish narrative biological criteria or is developing a fully
integrated biological approach, the programmatic expansion from source control to resource
management represents a natural progression in water quality programs. Implementation of biologi-
cal criteria will provide new options for expanding the scope and application of ecological perspec-
tives.
-------
Part I
Program Elements
-------
Introduction
The principal objectives of the Clean Water
Act are "to restore and maintain the chemi-
cal, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters" (Section 101). To achieve these ob-
jectives, EPA, States, the regulated community, and
the public need comprehensive information about
the ecological integrity of aquatic environments.
Such information will help us identify waters requir-
ing special protection and those that will benefit most
from regulatory efforts.
To meet the objectives of the Act and to comply
with statutory requirements under Sections 303 and
304, States are to adopt biological criteria in State
standards. The Water Quality Standards Regulation
provides additional authority for this effort. In ac-
cordance with the FY 1991 Agency Operating
Guidance, States and qualified Indian tribes are to
adopt narrative biological criteria into State water
quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 trien-
nium. To support this effort, EPA is developing a
Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program and providing
this program guidance document on biological
criteria.
Like other water quality criteria, biological cri-
teria identify water quality impairments, support
regulatory controls that address water quality
problems, and assess improvements in water
quality from regulatory efforts. Biological criteria are
numerical values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
communities inhabiting waters of a given desig-
nated aquatic life use. They are developed through
Anthropogenic impacts, including point source
discharges, nonpoint runoff, and habitat degradation
continue to impair the nation's surface waters.
the direct measurement of aquatic community com-
ponents inhabiting unimpaired surface waters.
Biological criteria complement current pro-
grams. Of the three objectives identified in the Act
(chemical, physical, and biological integrity), current
water quality programs focus on direct measures of
3
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guldanca
chemical integrity (chemical-specific and whole-ef-
fluent toxicity) and, to some degree, physical in-
tegrity through several conventional criteria (e.g.,
pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen). Implementation of
these programs has significantly improved water
quality. However, as we learn more about aquatic
ecosystems it is apparent that other sources of
waterbody impairment exist. Biological impairments
from diffuse sources and habitat degradation can be
greater than those caused by point source dischar-
ges (Judy et al. 1987; Miller et al. 1989). In Ohio,
evaluation of instream biota indicated that 36 per-
cent of impaired stream segments could not be
detected using chemical criteria alone (see Fig. 1).
Although effective for their purpose, chemical-
specific criteria and whole-effluent toxicity provide
only indirect evaluations and protection of biological
integrity (see Table 1).
To effectively address our remaining water
quality problems we need to develop more in-
tegrated and comprehensive evaluations. Chemical
and physical integrity are necessary, but not suffi-
cient conditions to attain biological integrity, and
only when chemical, physical, and biological in-
tegrity are achieved, is ecological integrity possible
(see Fig. 2). Biological criteria provide an essential
third element for water quality management and
serve as a natural progression in regulatory
programs. Incorporating biological criteria into a
fully integrated program directly protects the biologi-
cal integrity of surface waters and provides indirect
protection for chemical and physical integrity (see
Table 2). Chemical-specific criteria, whole-effluent
toxicity evaluations, and biological criteria, when
used together, complement the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each approach.
Figure 1.—Ohio Biosurvey Results Agree with
Instream Chemistry or Reveal Unknown Problems
Impairment Identification
Chemical Evaluation Indicate
No Impairment: Biosurvey Biosurvey Show No
Show Impairment	Impairment; Chemical
Fig. 1: In an intensive survey, 431 sites in Ohio were assessed
using instream chemistry and biological surveys. In 36% of
the cases, chemical evaluations implied no impairment but
biological survey evaluations showed impairment. In 58% of
the cases the chemical and biological assessments agreed.
Of these, 17% identified waters with no impairment, 41%
identified waters which were considered impaired. (Modified
from Ohio EPA Water Quality Inventory, 1988.)
Biological assessments have been used in
biomonitoring programs by States for many years.
In this respect, biological criteria support earlier
work. However, implementing biological criteria in
water quality standards provides a systematic,
structured, and objective process for making
decisions about compliance with water quality
standards. This distinguishes biological criteria from
earlier use of biological information and increases
the value of biological data in regulatory programs.
Table 1.—Current Water Quality Program Protection of the Three Elements of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF ECOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY
PROGRAM THAT DIRECTLY
PROTECTS
PROGRAM THAT INDIRECTLY
PROTECTS
Chemical integnty
Chemical Specific Critena (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (toxics)
i
Physical Integnty
Critena for Conventionals
(pH, DO. turbidity)
!
Biological Integnty

Chemical/Whole Effluent Toxicity
(biotic response in lab)
Table 1. Current programs focus on chemical specific and whole-effluent toxicity evaluations. Both are valuable approaches
for the direct evaluation and protection of chemical integrity. Physical integrity is also directly protected to a limited degree
through criteria for conventional pollutants. Biological integrity is only indirectly protected under the assumption that by
evaluating toxicity to organisms in laboratory studies, estimates can be made about the toxicity to other organisms inhabiting
ambient waters.
4
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Table 2.—Water Quality Programs that Incorporate Biological Criteria to Protect Elements of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
DIRECTLY PROTECTS
INDIRECTLY PROTECTS
Chemical Integnty
Chemical Specific Criteria (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (toxics)
Biocnteria (identification of
impairment)
Physical Integnty
Criteria for conventional (pH, temp.,
DO)
Biocnteria (habitat evaluation)
Biological Integrity
Biocritena (biotic response in surface
water)
Chemical/Whole Effluent Testing
(biotic response in lab)
Table 2. When biological criteria are incorporated into water quality programs the biological integrity of surface waters may
be directly evaluated and protected. Biological critena also provide additional benefits by requiring an evaluation of physical
integrity and providing a monitoring tool to assess the effectiveness of current chemically based cntena.
Figure 2.—The Elements of Ecological Integrity
Fig. 2: Ecological Integrity is attainable when chemical,
physical, and biological integrity occur simultaneously.
Value of Biological
Criteria
Biological criteria provide an effective tool for
addressing remaining water quality problems by
directing regulatory efforts toward assessing the
biological resources at risk from chemical, physical
or biological impacts. A primary strength of biologi-
cal criteria is the detection of water quality problems
that other methods may miss or underestimate.
Biological criteria can be used to determine to what
extent current regulations are protecting the use.
Biological assessments provide integrated
evaluations of water quality. They can identify im-
pairments from contamination of the water column
and sediments from unknown or unregulated chemi-
cals, non-chemical impacts, and altered physical
habitat. Resident biota function as continual
monitors of environmental quality, increasing the
likelihood of detecting the effects of episodic events
(e.g., spills, dumping, treatment plant malfunctions,
nutrient enrichment), toxic nonpoint source pollution
(e.g., agricultural pesticides), cumulative pollution
(i.e., multiple impacts over time or continuous low-
level stress), or other impacts that periodic chemical
sampling is unlikely to detect. Impacts on the physi-
cal habitat such as sedimentation from stormwater
runoff and the effects of physical or structural
habitat alterations (e.g., dredging, filling, chan-
nelization) can also be detected.
Biological criteria require the direct measure of
resident aquatic community structure and function
to determine biological integrity and ecological func-
tion. Using these measures, impairment can be
detected and evaluated without knowing the im-
pacts) that may cause the impairment.
Biological criteria provide a regulatory frame-
work for addressing water quality problems and
offer additional benefits, including providing:
*	the basis for characterizing high quality
waters and identifying habitats and
community components requiring special
protection under State anti-degradation
policies;
*	a framework for deciding 319 actions for best
control of nonpoint source pollution;
*	an evaluation of surface water impairments
predicted by chemical analyses, toxicity
5
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
testing, and fate and transport modeling (e.g.,
wasteioad allocation);.
•	improvements in water quality standards
(including refinement of use classifications);
•	a process for demonstrating improvements in
water quality after implementation of pollution
controls;
•	additional diagnostic tools.
The role of biological criteria as a regulatory tool
is being realized in some States (e.g., Arkansas,
Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, Vermont). Biological
assessments and criteria have been useful for
regulatory, resource protection, and monitoring and
reporting programs. By incorporating biological
criteria in programs, States can improve standards
setting and enforcement, measure impairments
from permit violations, and refine wasteioad alloca-
tion models. In addition, the location, extent, and
type of biological impairments measured in a water-
body provide valuable information needed for iden-
tifying the cause of impairment and determining
actions required to improve water quality. Biological
assessment and criteria programs provide a cost-
effective method for evaluating water quality when a
standardized, systematic approach to study design,
field methods, and data analysis is established
(Ohio EPA 1988a).
specific and whole-effluent toxicity applications: na-
tional guidance produced by U.S. EPA will support
States working to establish State standards for the
implementation of regulatory programs (see Table
3). Biological criteria differ, however, in the degree
of State involvement required. Because surface
waters vary significantly from region to region, EPA
will provide guidance on acceptable approaches for
biological criteria development rather than specific
criteria with numerical limitations. States are to es-
tablish assessment procedures, conduct field
evaluations, and determine criteria values to imple-
ment biological criteria in State standards and apply
them in regulatory programs.
The degree of State involvement required in-
fluences how biological criteria will be implemented.
It is expected that States wiH implement these
criteria in phases.
a Phase I includes the development and adop-
tion of narrative biological criteria into State
standards for all surface waters (streams,
rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries). Definitions
of terms and expressions in the narratives
must be included in these standards (see the
Narrative Criteria Section, Chapter 3). Adop-
tion of narrative biological criteria in State
standards provides the legal and program-
matic basis for using ambient biological sur-
veys and assessments in regulatory actions.
a Phase II includes the development of an im-
plementation plan. The plan should include
program objectives, study design, research
protocols, criteria for selecting reference con-
ditions and community components, quality
assurance and quality control procedures,
Table 3.—Process for Implementation of Water Quality Standards.
CRITERIA
EPA GUIDANCE
STATE IMPLEMENTATION
STATE APPLICATION
Chemical Specific
Pollutant specific numenc cnteria
Slate Standards
-	use designation
• numenc cntena
-	antidegradation
Permit limits Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteioad allocation
Narrative Free Forms
Whole effluent toxicity guidance
Water Quality Narrative
- no toxic amounts translator
Permit limits Monitonng
Wasteioad allocation
Best Management Practices
Biological
Biosurvey minimum requirement
guidance
State Standards
•	refined use
•	narrative/numenc criteria
- antidegradation
Permit conditions Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteioad allocation
Process for
Implementation
The implementation of biological criteria will fol-
low the same process used for current chemical-
Table 3: Similar to chemical specific criteria and whole effluent toxicity evaluations. EPA is providing guidance to States for
the adoption of biological cnteria into State standards to regulate sources of water quality impairment
6
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
and training for State personnel. In Phase II,
States are to develop plans necessary to im-
plement biological criteria for each surface
water type.
¦ Phase III requires full implementation and in-
tegration of biological criteria in water quality
standards. This requires using biological sur-
veys to derive biological criteria for classes of
surface waters and designated uses. These
criteria are then used to identify nonattain-
ment of designated uses and make regulatory
decisions.
Narrative biological criteria can be developed
for all five surface water classifications with little or
no data collection. Application of narrative criteria in
seriously degraded waters is possible in the short
term. However, because of the diversity of surface
waters and the biota that inhabit these waters, sig-
nificant planning, data collection, and evaluation will
be needed to fully implement the program. Criteria
for each type of surface water are likely to be
developed at different rates. The order and rate of
development will depend, in part, on the develop-
ment of EPA guidance for specific types of surface
water. Biological criteria technical guidance for
streams will be produced during FY 1991. The ten-
tative order for future technical guidance documents
includes guidance for rivers (FY 1992), lakes (FY
1993), wetlands (FY 1994) and estuaries (FY 1995).
This order and timeline for guidance does not reflect
the relative importance of these surface waters, but
rather indicates the relative availability of research
and the anticipated difficulty of developing
guidance.
Independent Application
of Biological Criteria
Biological criteria supplement, but do not
replace, chemical and toxicological methods. Water
chemistry methods are necessary to predict risks
(particularly to human health and wildlife), and to
diagnose, model, and regulate important water
quality problems. Because biological criteria are
able to detect different types of water quality impair-
ments and, in particular, have different levels of sen-
sitivity for detecting certain types of impairment
compared to toxicological methods, they are not
used in lieu of, or in conflict with, current regulatory
efforts.
As with all criteria, certain limitations to biologi-
cal criteria make independent application essential.
Study design and use influences how sensitive
biological criteria are for detecting community im-
pairment. Several factors influence sensitivity: (1)
State decisions about what is significantly different
between reference and test communities, (2) study
design, which may include community components
that are not sensitive to the impact causing impair-
ment, (3) high natural variability that makes it dif-
ficult to detect real differences, and (4) types of
impacts that may be detectable sooner by other
methods (e.g., chemical criteria may provide earlier
indications of impairment from a bioaccumulative
chemical because aquatic communities require ex-
posure over time to incur the full effect).
Since each type of criteria (biological criteria,
chemical-specific criteria, or whole-effluent toxicity
evaluations) has different sensitivities and pur-
poses, a criterion may fail to detect real impairments
when used alone. As a result, these methods should
be used together in an integrated water quality as-
sessment, each providing an independent evalua-
tion of nonattainment of a designated use. If any
one type of criteria indicates impairment of the sur-
face water, regulatory action can be taken to im-
prove water quality. However, no one type of criteria
can be used to confirm attainment of a use if
another form of criteria indicates nonattainment
(see Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the
Scientific Method, Chapter 7). When these three
methods are used together, they provide a powerful,
integrated, and effective foundation for waterbody
management and regulations.
How to Use this
Document
The purpose of this document is to provide EPA
Regions, States and others with the conceptual
framework and assistance necessary to develop
and implement narrative and numeric biological
criteria and to promote national consistency in ap-
plication. There are two main parts of the document.
Part One (Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4) includes the es-
sential concepts about what biological criteria are
7
-------
Biological Cfttafix National Program GuHenco
and how they are used in regulatory programs. Part
Two (Chapters 5, 6, and 7) provides an overview of
the process that is essential for implementing a
State biological criteria program. Specific chapters
include the following:
Parti: PROGRAM ELEMENTS
a Chapter 2, Legal Authority, reviews the legal
basis for biological criteria under the Clean
Water Act and includes possible applications
under the Act and other legislation.
~	Chapter 3, Conceptual Framework,
discusses the essential program elements for
biological criteria, including what they are and
how they are developed and used within a
regulatory program. The development of
narrative biological criteria is discussed in this
chapter.
~	Chapter 4, Integration, discusses the use of
biological criteria in regulatory programs.
Part II: THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
a Chapter 5, The Reference Condition,
provides a discussion on alternative forms of
reference conditions that may be developed by
a State based on circumstances and needs.
Two additional documents are planned in the
near term to supplement this program guidance
document.
1.	'Biological Criteria Technical Reference
GuideT will contain a cross reference of tech-
nical papers on available approaches and
methods lor developing biological criteria
(see tentative table of contents in Appendix
B).
2.	'Biological Criteria Development by States?
will provide a summary of different mecha-
nisms several States have used to implement
and apply biological criteria in water quality
programs (see tentative outline in Appendix
C).
Both documents are planned for FY 1991. As
previously discussed, over the next triennium tech-
nical guidance for specific systems (e.g., streams,
wetlands) will be developed to provide guidance on
acceptable biological assessment procedures to fur-
ther support State implementation of comprehen-
sive programs.
This biological criteria program guidance docu-
ment supports development and implementation of
biological criteria by providing guidance to States
working to comply with requirements under the
Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Standards
Regulation. This guidance is not regulatory.
~	Chapter 6, The Biological Survey, provides
some detail on the elements of a quality
biological survey.
~	Chapter 7, Hypothesis Testing: Biological
Criteria and the Scientific Method, discusses
how biological surveys are used to make
regulatory and diagnostic decisions.
~	Appendix A includes commonly asked
questions and their answers about biological
criteria.
8
-------
nHRKanMi
Legal Authority
The Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of
1977, and the Water Quality Act of 1987)
mandates State development of criteria based on
biological assessments of natural ecosystems.
The general authority for biological criteria
comes from Section 101(a) of the Act which estab-
lishes as the objective of the Act the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the Nation's waters. To meet this ob-
jective, water quality criteria must include criteria to
protect biological integrity. Section 101(a)(2) in-
cludes the interim water quality goal for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Propagation includes the full range of biological
conditions necessary to support reproducing
populations of all forms of aquatic life and other life
that depend on aquatic systems. Sections 303 and
304 provide specific directives for the development
of biological criteria.
Section 303
Under Section 303(c) of the Act, States are re-
quired to adopt protective water quality standards
that consist of uses, criteria, and antidegradation.
States are to review these standards every three
years and to revise them as needed.
Section 303(c)(2)(A) requires the adoption of
water quality standards that'... serve the purposes
of the Act," as given in Section 101. Section
303(c)(2)(B), enacted in 1987, requires States to
Balancing the legal authority for biological criteria.
adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants for which
EPA has published 304(a)(1) criteria. The section
further requires that, where numeric 304(a) criteria
are not available, States should adopt criteria based
on biological assessment and monitoring methods,
consistent with information published by EPA under
304(a)(8).
These specific directives do not serve to restrict
the use of biological criteria in other settings where
they may be helpful. Accordingly, this guidance
document provides assistance in implementing
various sections of the Act, not just 303(c)(2)(B).
9
-------
BMoqicmI Criteria: National Program Guidance
Section 304
Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and
publish water quality criteria and information on
methods for measuring water quality and estab-
lishing water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on
bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant, including
biological monitoring and assessment methods
which assess:
•	the effects of pollutants on aquatic community
components ("... plankton, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, plant life ...") and community
attributes ('... biological community diversity,
productivity, and stability ..in any body of
water and;
•	factors necessary"... to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of all navigable waters ..
for.. the protection of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife for classes and categories of receiving
waters
Potential Applications
Under the Act
Development and use of biological criteria will
help States to meet other requirements of the Act,
including:
~	setting planning and management priorities for
waterbodies most in need of controls
(Sec. 303(d)];
~	determining impacts from nonpoint sources
[i.e., Section 304(f) "(1) guidelines for
identifying and evaluating the nature and
extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and
(2) processes, procedures, and methods to
control pollution .. .*].
a biennial reports on the extent to which waters
support balanced biological communities
[Sec. 305(b)];
~	assessment of lake trophic status and trends
[Sec. 314];
a lists of waters that cannot attain designated
uses without nonpoint source controls
[Sec. 319];
~	development of management plans and
conducting monitoring in estuaries of national
significance [Sec. 320];
~	issuing permits for ocean discharges and
monitoring ecological effects [Sec. 403(c) and
301(h)(3)];
~	determination of acceptable sites for disposal
of dredge and fill material [Sec. 404];
Potential Applications
Under Other Legislation
Several legislative acts require an assessment
of risk to the environment (including resident aquatic
communities) to determine the need for regulatory
action. Biological criteria can be used in this context
to support EPA assessments under:
~	Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976
~	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA),
~	Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA),
~	Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA),
~	Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);
~	National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
~	Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA).
~	The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
~	Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act
~	Coastal Zone Management Act
10
-------
Chapter 2: Legal Authority
~	Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
~	Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
Amended in 1965
A summary of the applicability of these Acts for
assessing ecological impairments may be found in
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund-Environ-
mental Evaluation Manual (Interim Final) 1989.
Other federal and State agencies can also
benefit from using biological criteria to evaluate the
biological integrity of surface waters within their
jurisdiction and to the effects of specific practices on
surface water quality. Agencies that could benefit in-
clude:
~	Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U. S. Geological Survey,
Bureau of Mines, and Bureau of Reclamation,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, and National Park Service),
~	Department of Commerce (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service),
~	Department of Transportation (Federal
Highway Administration)
3 Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest
Service, Soil Conservation Service)
~	Department of Defense,
~	Department of Energy,
~	Army Corps of Engineers,
~	Tennessee Valley Authority.
11
-------
The Conceptual Framework
Biological integrity and the determination of
use impairment through assessment of am-
bient biological communities form the foun-
dation for biological criteria development. The
effectiveness of a biological criteria program will
depend on the development of quality criteria, the
refinement of use classes to support narrative
criteria, and careful application of scientific prin-
ciples.
Premise for Biological
Criteria
Biological criteria are based on the premise that
the structure and function of an aquatic biological
community within a specific habitat provide critical
information about the quality of surface waters. Ex-
isting aquatic communities in pristine environments
not subject to anthropogenic impact exemplify
biological integrity and serve as the best possible
goal for water quality. Although pristine environ-
ments are virtually non-existent (even remote
waters are impacted by air pollution), minimally im-
pacted waters exist. Measures of the structure and
function of aquatic communities inhabiting unim-
paired (minimally impacted) waters provide the
basis for establishing a reference condition that may
be compared to the condition of impacted surface
waters to determine impairment.
Based on this premise, biological criteria are
developed under the assumptions that: (1) surface
waters subject to anthropogenic disturbance may
contain impaired populations or communities of
aquatic organisms—the greater the anthropogenic
Aquatic communities assessed in unimpaired
waterbodies (top) provide a reference for evaluating
impairments in the same or similar waterbodies suffering
from increasing anthropogenic impacts (bottom).
13
-------
fltotogfca/ CritmtK National Program Outdance
disturbance, the greater the likelihood and mag-
nitude of impairment; and (2) surface waters not
subject to anthropogenic disturbance generally con-
tain unimpaired (natural) populations and com-
munities of aquatic organisms exhibiting biological
integrity.
Biological Integrity
The expression "biological integrity" is used in
the Clean Water Act to define the Nation's objec-
tives for water quality. According to Webster's New
World Dictionary (1966), integrity is, "the quality or
state of being complete; unimpaired." Biological in-
tegrity has been defined as "the ability of an aquatic
ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, in-
tegrated, adaptive community of organisms having
a species composition, diversity, and functional or-
ganization comparable to that of the natural habitats
within a region" (Karr and Dudley 1981). For the pur-
poses of biological criteria, these concepts are com-
bined to develop a functional definition for
evaluating biological integrity in water quality
programs. Thus, biological integrity is functionally
defined as:
the condition of the aquatic community
inhabiting the unimpaired waterbodies
of a specified habitat as measured by
community structure and function.
It will often be difficult to find unimpaired waters
to define biological integrity and establish the refer-
ence condition. However, the structure and function
of aquatic communities of high quality waters can be
approximated in several ways. One is to charac-
terize aquatic communities in the most protected
waters representative of the regions where such
sites exist. In arm* where few or no unimpaired
sites are available, characterization of least im-
paired systems approximates unimpaired systems.
Concurrent analysis of historical records should
supplement descriptions of the condition of least im-
paired systems. For some systems, such as lakes,
evaluating paleoecological information (the record
stored in sediment profiles) can provide a measure
of less disturbed conditions.
Surface waters, when inhabited by aquatic com-
munities, are exhibiting a degree of biological in-
tegrity. However, the best representation of
biological integrity for a surface water should form
the basis for establishing water quality goals for
those waters. When tied to the development of
biological criteria, the realities of limitations on
biological integrity can be considered and incor-
porated into a progressive program to improve
water quality.
Biological Criteria
Biological criteria are narrative expressions or
numerical values that describe the biological in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a
given designated aquatic life use. While biological
integrity describes the ultimate goal for water
quality, biological criteria are based on aquatic com-
munity structure and function for waters within a
variety of designated uses. Designated aquatic life
uses serve as general statements of attained or at-
tainable uses of State waters. Once established for
a designated use, biological criteria are quantifiable
values used to determine whether a use is impaired,
and if so, the level of impairment. This is done by
specifying what aquatic community structure and
function should exist in waters of a given designated
use, and then comparing this condition with the con-
dition of a site under evaluation. If the existing
aquatic community measures fail to meet the
criteria, the use is considered impaired.
Since biological surveys used for biological
criteria are capable of detecting water quality
problems (use impairments) that may not be
detected by chemical or toxicity testing, violation of
biological criteria is sufficient cause for States to in-
itiate regulatory action. Corroborating chemical and
toxicity testing data are not required (though they
may be desirable) as supporting evidence to sustain
a determination of use impairment. However, a find-
ing that biological criteria fail to indicate use impair-
ment does not mean the use is automatically
attained. Other evidence, such as violation of physi-
cal or chemical criteria, or results from toxicity tests,
can also be used to identify impairment. Alternative
forms of criteria provide independent assessments
of nonattainment.
As stated above, biological criteria may be nar-
rative statements or numerical values. States can
establish general narrative biological criteria early in
program development without conducting biological
assessments. Once established in State standards,
narrative biological criteria form the legal and
14
-------
Chapter 3: The Conceptual Framework
programmatic basis for expanding biological as-
sessment and biosurvey programs needed to imple-
ment narrative criteria and develop numeric
biological criteria Narrative biological cnteria
should become part of State regulations and stand-
ards.
Narrative Criteria
Narrative biological criteria are general state-
ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water quality for a given use
designation. Although similar to the "free from"
chemical water quality criteria, narrative biological
criteria establish a positive statement about what
should occur within a water body. Narrative criteria
can take a number of forms but they must contain
several attributes to support the goals of the Clean
Water Act to provide for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Thus, narrative
criteria should include specific language about
aquatic community characteristics that (1) must
exist in a waterbody to meet a particular designated
aquatic life use, and (2) are quantifiable. They must
be written to protect the use. Supporting statements
for the criteria should promote water quality to
protect the most natural community possible for the
designated use. Mechanisms should be established
in the standard to address potentially conflicting
multiple uses. Narratives should be written to
protect the most sensitive use and support an-
tidegradation.
Several States currently use narrative criteria.
In Maine, for example, narrative criteria were estab-
lished for four classes of water quality for streams
and rivers (see Table 4). The classifications were
based on the range of goals in the Act from "no dis-
charge" to "protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife' (Courtemanch and Davies
1987). Maine separated its "high quality water" into
two categories, one that reflects the highest goal of
the Act (no discharge, Class AA) and one that
reflects high integrity but is minimally impacted by
human activity (Class A). The statement "The
aquatic life .. . shall be as naturally occurs" is a nar-
rative biological criterion for both Class AA and A
waters. Waters in Class B meet the use when the
life stages of all indigenous aquatic species are sup-
ported and no detrimental changes occur in com-
munity composition (Maine DEP 1986). These
criteria directly support refined designated aquatic
life uses (see Section D, Refining Aquatic Life Use
Classifications).
These narrative criteria are effective only if, as
Maine has done, simple phrases such as "as
naturally occurs" and "nondetrimental" are clearly
operationally defined. Rules for sampling proce-
dures and data analysis and interpretation should
become part of the regulation or supporting
documentation. Maine was able to develop these
criteria and their supporting statements using avail-
Table 4.—Aquatic Life Classification Scheme for Maine's Rivers and Streams.
RIVERS AND
STREAMS MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE	LEVEL OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Class AA
High quality water for preservation of
recreational and ecological interests. No
discharges of any kind permitted. No
impoundment permitted.
Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
Class A
High quality water with limited human
interference. Discharges restncted to noncontact
process water or highly treated wastewater of
quality equal to or better than the receiving
water. Impoundment permitted.
Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
Class B
Good quality water Discharges of well treated
eftluents with ample dilution permitted.
Ambient water quality sufficient to support life
stages of all indigenous aquatic species Only
nondetrimental changes in community
composition may occur.
Class C
Lowest quality water Requirements consistent
with interim goals of the federal Water Quality
Law (fishable and swtmmable)
Ambient water quality sufficient to support the
life stages of all indigenous fish species
Changes in species composition may occur but
structure and function of the aquatic community
must be maintained.
15
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
able data from water quality programs. To imple-
ment the criteria, aquatic life inhabiting unimpaired
waters must be measured to quantify the criteria
statement.
Narrative criteria can take more specific forms
than illustrated in the Maine example. Narrative
criteria may include specific classes and species of
organisms that will occur in waters for a given desig-
nated use. To develop these narratives, field evalua-
tions of reference conditions are necessary to
identify biological community attributes that differ
significantly between designated uses. For example
in the Arkansas use class Typical Gulf Coastal
Ecoregion (i.e., South Central Plains) the narrative
criterion reads:
"Streams supporting diverse
communities of indigenous or adapted
species of fish and other forms of
aquatic life. Fish communities are
characterized by a limited proportion of
sensitive species; sunfishes are
distinctly dominant, followed by darters
and minnows. The community may be
generally characterized by the following
fishes: Key Species—Redfin shiner,
Spotted sucker, Yellow bullhead, Flier,
Slough darter, Grass pickerel; Indicator
Species—Pirate perch, Warmouth,
Spotted sunfish, Dusky darter, Creek
chubsucker, Banded pygmy sunfish
(Arkansas DPCE 1988).
In Connecticut, current designated uses are
supported by narratives in the standard. For ex-
ample, under Surface Water Classifications, Inland
Surface Waters Class AA, the Designated Use is:
"Existing or proposed drinking water supply; fish
and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, in-
dustrial supply, and other purposes (recreation uses
may be restricted).'
The supporting narratives include:
Benthic invertebrates which inhabit lotic
waters: A wide variety of
macroinvertebrate taxa should normally
be present and all functional groups
should normally be well represented...
Water quality shall be sufficient to
sustain a diverse macroinvertebrate
community of indigenous species. Taxa
within the Orders Plecoptera
(stoneflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
Coleoptera (beetles), Tricoptera
(caddisflies) should be well represented
(Connecticut DEP 1987).
For these narratives to be effective in a biologi-
cal criteria program expressions such as "a wide
variety" and "functional groups should normally be
well represented" require quantifiable definitions
that became part of the standard or supporting
docum ,;;on. Many States may find such narra-
tives in . m standards already. If so, States should
evaluate current language to determine if it meets
the requirements of quantifiable narrative criteria
that support refined aquatic life uses.
Narrative biological criteria are similar to the
traditional narrative "free froms" by providing the
legal basis for standards applications. A sixth "free
from" could be incorporated into standards to help
support narrative biological criteria such as "free
from activities that would impair the aquatic com-
munity as it naturally occurs." Narrative biological
criteria can be used immediately to address obvious
existing problems.
Numeric Criteria
Numerical indices that serve as biological
criteria should describe expected attainable com-
munity attributes for different designated uses. It is
important to note that full implementation of narra-
tive criteria will require similar data as that needed
for developing numeric criteria. At this time, States
may or may not choose to establish numeric criteria
but may find it an effective tool for regulatory use.
To derive a numeric criterion, an aquatic com-
munity's structure and function is measured at refer-
ence sites and set as a reference condition..
Examples of relative measures include similarity in-
dices, coefficients of community loss, and com-
parisons of lists of dominant taxa. Measures of
existing community structure such as species rich-
ness, presence or absence of indicator taxa, and
distribution of trophic feeding groups are useful for
establishing the normal range of community com-
ponents to be expected in unimpaired systems. For
example, Ohio uses criteria for the warmwater
habitat use class based on multiple measures in dif-
ferent reference sites within the same ecoregion.
Criteria are set as the 25th percentile of all biologi-
cal index scores recorded at established reference
16
-------
Chapter 3: The Conceptual Framework
sites within the ecoregion. Exceptional warmwater
habitat index criteria are set at the 75th percentile
(Ohio EPA 1988a). Applications such as this require
an extensive data base and multiple reference sites
for each criteria value.
To develop numeric biological criteria, careful
assessments of biota in reference sites must be
conducted (Hughes et al. 1986). There are
numerous ways to assess community structure and
function in surface waters. No single index or
measure is universally recognized as free from bias.
It is important to evaluate the strengths and weak-
nesses of different assessment approaches. A multi-
metric approach that incorporates information on
species richness, trophic composition, abundance
or biomass, and organism condition is recom-
mended. Evaluations that measure multiple com-
ponents of communities are also recommended
because they tend to be more reliable (e.g.,
measures of fish and macroinvertebrates combined
will provide more information than measures of fish
communities alone). The weaknesses of one
measure or index can often be compensated by
combining it with the strengths of other community
measurements.
The particular indices used to develop numeric
criteria depend on the type of surface waters
(streams, rivers, lakes, Great Lakes, estuaries, wet-
lands, and nearshore marine) to which they must be
applied. In general, community-level indices such
as the Index of Biotic Integrity developed for mid-
western streams (Karr et al. 1986) are more easily
interpreted and less variable than fluctuating num-
bers such as population size. Future EPA technical
guidance documents will include evaluations of the
effectiveness of different biological survey and as-
sessment approaches for measuring the biological
integrity of surface water types and provide
guidance on acceptable approaches for biological
criteria development.
Refining Aquatic Life Use
Classifications
State standards consist of (1) designated
aquatic life uses, (2) criteria sufficient to protect the
designated and existing use, and (3) an an-
tidegradation clause. Biological criteria support
designated aquatic life use classifications for ap-
plication in State standards. Each State develops its
own designated use classification system based on
the generic uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife).
Designated uses are intentionally general. How-
ever, States may develop subcategories within use
designations to refine and clarify the use class.
Clarification of the use class is particularly helpful
when a variety of surface waters with distinct char-
acteristics fit within the same use class, or do not fit
well into any category. Determination of nonattain-
ment in these waters may be difficult and open to al-
ternative interpretations. If a determination is in
dispute, regulatory actions will be difficult to ac-
complish. Emphasizing aquatic community structure
within the designated use focuses the evaluation of
attainment/nonattainment on the resource of con-
cern under the Act.
Flexibility inherent in the State process for
designating uses allows the development of sub-
categories of uses within the Act's general
categories. For example, subcategories of aquatic
life uses may be on the basis of attainable habitat
(e.g., cold versus warmwater habitat); innate dif-
ferences in community structure and function, (e.g.,
high versus low species richness or productivity); or
fundamental differences in important community
components (e.g., warmwater fish communities
dominated by bass versus catfish). Special uses
may also be designated to protect particularly uni-
que, sensitive, or valuable aquatic species, com-
munities, or habitats.
Refinement of use classes can be ac-
complished within current State use classification
structures. Data collected from biosurveys as part of
a developing biocriteria program may reveal unique
and consistent differences among aquatic com-
munities inhabiting different waters with the same
designated use. Measurable biological attributes
could then be used to separate one class into two or
more classes. The result is a refined aquatic life
use. For example, in Arkansas the beneficial use
Fisheries "provides for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and other forms of aquatic life"
(Arkansas DPCE 1988). This use is subdivided into
Trout, Lakes and Reservoirs, and Streams. Recog-
nizing that stream characteristics across regions of
the State differed ecologically, the State further sub-
divided the stream designated uses into eight addi-
tional uses based on regional characteristics (e.g
Springwater-influenced Gulf Coastal Ecoregion,
Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion). Within this clas-
sification system, it was relatively straightforward for
17
-------
Biotogkxl Criteria: National Program Quidanea
Arkansas to establish detailed narrative biological
criteria that list aquatic community components ex-
pected in each ecoregion (see Narrative Criteria
section). These narrative criteria can then be used
to establish whether the use is impaired.
States can refine very general designated uses
such as high, medium, and low quality to specific
categories that include measurable ecological char-
acteristics. In Maine, for example, Class AA waters
are defined as "the highest classification and shall
be applied to waters which are outstanding natural
resources and which should be preserved because
of their ecological, social, scenic, or recreational im-
portance." The designated use includes 'Class AA
waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable
... as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The
habitat shall be characterized as free flowing and
natural.' This use supports development of narra-
tive criteria based on biological characteristics of
aquatic communities (Maine OEP 1986; see the
Narrative Criteria section).
Biological criteria that include lists of dominant
or typical species expected to live in the surface
water are particularly effective. Descriptions of im-
paired conditions are more difficult to interpret.
However, biological criteria may contain statements
concerning which species dominate disturbed sites,
as well as those species expected at minimally im-
pacted sites.
Most States collect biological data in current
programs. Refining aquatic life use classifications
and incorporating biological criteria into standards
will enable States to evaluate these data more ef-
fectively.
Developing and
Implementing Biological
Criteria
Biological criteria development and implemen-
tation in standards require an understanding of the
selection and evaluation of reference sites, meas-
urement of aquatic community structure and func-
tion, and hypothesis testing under the scientific
method. The developmental process is important for
State water quality managers and their staff to un-
derstand to promote effective planning for resource
and staff needs. This major program element deser-
ves careful consideration and has been separated
out in Part II by chapter for each developmental step
as noted below. Additional guidance will be provided
in future technical guidance documents.
The developmental process is illustrated in Fig-
ure 3. The first step is establishing narrative criteria
in standards. However, to support these narratives,
standardized protocols need to be developed to
quanitify the narratives for criteria implementation.
They should include data collection procedures,
selection of reference sites, quality assurance and
quality control procedures, hypothesis testing, and
statistical protocols. Pilot studies should be con-
ducted using these standard protocols to ensure
they meet the needs of the program, test the
hypotheses, and provide effective measures of the
biological integrity of surface waters in the State.
Figure 3.—Process (or the Development and
Implementation of Biological Criteria
Develop Standard Protocols
(Test protocol sensitivity)
~
Identify and Conduct Biosurveys at
Unimpaired Reference Sites
i
Establish Biological Criteria
~
Conduct Biosurveys at Impacted Sites
(Determine impairment)
Impaired Condition	Not Impaired
+ i
Diagnose Cause of	No Action Required
Impairment	Continued Monitoring
^	Recommended
Implement Control
Fig. 3: Implementation of biological criteria requires the in-
itial selection of reference sites and characterization of resi-
dent aquatic communities inhabiting those sites to establish
the reference condition and biological criteria. After criteria
development, impacted sites are evaluated using the same
biosurvey procedures to assess resident biota. If impairment
is found, diagnosis of cause will lead to the implementation
of a control. Continued monitoring should accompany con-
trol implementation to determine the effectiveness of in-
tervention. Monitoring is also recommended where no im
pairment is found to ensure that the surface water maintains
or improves in quality
18
-------
Chapter 3: The Conceptual Framework
The next step is establishing the reference con-
dition for the surface water being tested. This refer-
ence may be site specific or regional but must
establish the unimpaired baseline for comparison
(see Chapter 5, The Reference Condition). Once
reference sites are selected, the biological integrity
of the site must be evaluated using carefully chosen
biological surveys. A quality biological survey will in-
clude multiple community components and may be
measured using a variety of metrics (see Chapter 6,
The Biological Survey). Establishing the reference
condition and conducting biological surveys at the
reference locations provide the necessary informa-
tion for establishing the biological criteria.
To apply biological criteria, impacted surface
waters with comparable habitat characteristics are
evaluated using the same procedures as those used
to establish the criteria. The biological survey must
support standardized sampling methods and statis-
tical protocols that are sensitive enough to identify
biologically relevant differences between estab-
lished criteria and the community under evaluation.
Resulting data are compared through hypothesis
testing to determine impairment (see Chapter 7,
Hypothesis Testing).
When water quality impairments are detected
using biological criteria, they can only be applied in
a regulatory setting if the cause for impairment can
be identified. Diagnosis is iterative and investigative
(see Chapter 7, Diagnosis). States must then deter-
mine appropriate actions to implement controls.
Monitoring should remain a part of the biological
criteria program whether impairments are found or
not. If an impairment exists, monitoring provides a
mechanism to determine if the control effort (inter-
vention) is resulting in improved water quality. If
there is no impairment, monitoring ensures the
water quality is maintained and documents any im-
provements. When improvements in water quality
are detected through monitoring programs two ac-
tions are recommended. When reference condition
waters improve, biological criteria values should be
recalculated to reflect this higher level of integrity.
When impaired surface waters improve, states
should reclassify those waters to reflect a refined
designated use with a higher level of biological in-
tegrity. This provides a mechanism for progressive
water quality improvement.
19
-------

Integrating Biological
Criteria Into Surface Water
Management
Integrating biological criteria into existing water
quality programs will help to assess use attain-
ment/nonattainment, improve problem dis-
covery in specific waterbodies, and characterize
overall water resource condition within a region.
Ideally, biological criteria function in an iterative man-
ner. New biosurvey information can be used to refine
use classes. Refined use classes will help support
criteria development and improve the value of data
collected in biosurveys.
Implementing Biological
Criteria
As biological survey data are collected, these
data will increasingly support current use of
biomonitoring data to identify water quality
problems, assess their severity, and set planning
and management priorities for remediation. Monitor-
ing data and biological criteria should be used at the
outset to help make regulatory decisions, develop
appropriate controls, and evaluate the effectiveness
of controls once they are implemented.
The value of incorporating biological survey in-
formation in regulatory programs is illustrated by
evaluations conducted by North Carolina. In
To integrate biological criteria into water quality
programs, states must carefully determine where and
how data are collected to assess the biological integrity
of surface waters.
response to amendments of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act requiring secondary effluent limits
for all wastewater treatment plants, North Carolina
became embroiled in a debate over whether meet-
ing secondary effluent limits (at considerable cost)
would result in better water quality. North Carolina
chose to test the effectiveness of additional treat-
ment by conducting seven chemical and biological
surveys before and after facility upgrades (North
21
-------
Biological Criteria: National Ptogmm Guidenct
Carolina ONRCD 1984). Study results indicated that
moderate to substantial in-stream improvements
were observed at six of seven facilities. Biological
surveys were used as an efficient, cost-effective
monitoring tool for assessing in-stream improve-
ments after facility modification. North Carolina has
also conducted comparative studies of benthic mac-
roinvertebrate surveys and chemical-specific and
whole-effluent evaluations to assess sensitivities of
these measures for detecting impairments
(Eagleson et al. 1990).
Narrative biological criteria provide a scientific
framework for evaluating biosurvey, bioassessment,
and biomonitoring data collected in most States. Ini-
tial application of narrative biological criteria may re-
quire only an evaluation of current work. States can
use available data to define variables for choosing
reference sites, selecting appropriate biological sur-
veys, and assessing the response of local biota to a
variety of impacts. States should also consider the
decision criteria that will be used for determining ap-
propriate State action when impairment is found.
Recent efforts by several States to develop
biological criteria for freshwater streams provide ex-
cellent examples for how biological criteria can be
integrated into water quality programs. Some of this
work is described in the National Workshop on In-
stream Biological Monitoring and Criteria proceed-
ings which recommended that "the concept of
biological sampling should be integrated into the full
spectrum of State and Federal surface water
programs" (U.S. EPA 1987b). States are actively
developing biological assessment and criteria
programs; several have programs in place.
Biological Criteria in State
Programs
Biological criteria are used within water
programs to refine use designations, establish
criteria for determining use attainment/nonattain-
ment, evaluate effectiveness of current water
programs, and detect and characterize previously
unknown impairments. Twenty States are currently
using some form of standardized ambient biological
assessments to determine the status of biota within
State waters: Levels of effort vary from bioassess-
ment studies to fully developed biological criteria
programs.
Fifteen States are developing aspects of
biological assessments that will support future
development Of biological criteria. Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and
Virginia conduct biological monitoring to evaluate
biological conditions, but are not developing biologi-
cal criteria. Kansas is considering using a com-
munity metric for water resource assessment.
Arizona is planning to refine ecoregions for the
State. Delaware, Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin
are developing sampling and evaluation methods to
apply to future biological criteria programs. New
York is proposing to use biological criteria for site-
specific evaluations of water quality impairment.
Nebraska and Vermont use informal biological
criteria to support existing aquatic life narratives in
their water quality standards and other regulations.
Vermont recently passed a law requiring that
biological criteria be used to regulate through per-
mitting the indirect discharge of sanitary effluents.
Florida incorporated a specific biological
criterion into State standards for invertebrate
species diversity. Species diversity within a water-
body, as measured by a Shannon diversity index,
may not fall below 75 percent of reference values.
This criterion has been used in enforcement cases
to obtain injunctions and monetary settlements.
Florida's approach is very specific and limits alter-
native applications.
Four States—Arkansas, North Carolina, Maine,
and Ohio—are currently using biological criteria to
define aquatic life use classifications and enforce
water quality standards. These states have made
biological criteria an integral part of comprehensive
water quality programs.
¦	Arkansas rewrote its aquatic life use classifica-
tions for each of the State's ecoregions. This has al-
lowed many cities to design wastewater treatment
plants to meet realistic attainable dissolved oxygen
conditions as determined by the new criteria.
¦	North Carolina developed biological criteria to
assess impairment to aquatic life uses written as nar-
ratives in the State water quality standards. Biologi-
cal data and criteria are used extensively to identify
waters of special concern or those with exceptional
water quality. In addition to the High Quality Waters
(HQW) and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
designations, Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) at
risk for eutrophication are assessed using biological
22
-------
Chapter 4: Integrating Biological Criteria
criteria. Although specific biological measures are
not in the regulations, strengthened use of biological
monitoring data to assess water quality is being
proposed for incorporation in North Carolina's water
quality standards.
3 Maine has enacted a revised Water Quality
Classification Law specifically designed to facilitate
the use of biological assessments. Each of four
water classes contains descriptive aquatic life condi-
tions necessary to attain that class. Based on a
statewide database of macroinvertebrate samples
collected above and below outfalls, Maine is now
developing a set of dichotomous keys that serve as
the biological criteria. Maine's program is not ex-
pected to have a significant roie in permitting, but will
be used to assess the degree of protection afforded
by effluent limitations.
¦ Ohio has instituted the most extensive use of
biological criteria for defining use classifications and
assessing water quality. Biological criteria were
developed for Ohio rivers and streams using an
ecoregional reference site approach. Within each of
the State's five ecoregions, criteria for three biologi-
cal indices (two for fish communities and one for
macroinvertebrates) were derived. Ohio successfully
uses biological criteria to demonstrate attainment of
aquatic life uses and discover previously unknown or
unidentified environmental degradation (e.g., twice
as many impaired waters were discovered using
biological criteria and water chemistry together than
were found using chemistry alone). The upgraded
use designations based on biological criteria were
upheld in Ohio courts and the Ohio EPA successfully
proposed their biological criteria for inclusion in the
State water quality standards regulations.
States and EPA have learned a great deal about
the effectiveness of integrated biological assess-
ments through the development of biological criteria
for freshwater streams. This information is par-
ticularly valuable in providing guidance on develop-
ing biological criteria for other surface water types.
As previously discussed, EPA plans to produce sup-
porting technical guidance for biological criteria
development in streams and other surface waters.
Production of these guidance documents will be
contingent on technical progress made on each sur-
face water type by researchers in EPA, States and
the academic community.
EPA will also be developing outreach work-
shops to provide technical assistance to Regions
and States working toward the implementation of
biological criteria programs in State water quality
management programs. In the interim, States
should use the technical guidance currently avail-
able in the Technical Support Manual(s): Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
tainability Analysis (U.S. EPA 1983b, 1984a,b).
During the next triennium, State effort will be
focused on developing narrative biological criteria.
Full implementation and integration of biological
criteria will require several years. Using available
guidance, States can complement the adoption of
narrative criteria by developing implementation
plans that include:
1.	Defining program objectives, developing
research protocols, and setting priorities;
2.	Determining the process for establishing
reference conditions, which includes
developing a process to evaluate habitat
characteristics;
3.	Establishing biological survey protocols that
include justifications for surface water
classifications and selected aquatic
community components to be evaluated;
and
4.	Developing a formal document describing
the research design, quality assurance and
quality control protocols, and required
training for staff.
Whether a State begins with narrative biological
criteria or moves to fully implement numeric criteria,
the shift of the water quality program focus from
source control to resource management represents
a natural progression in the evolution from the tech-
nology-based to water quality-based approaches in
water quality management. The addition of a
biological perspective allows water quality programs
to more directly address the objectives of the Clean
Water Act and to place their efforts in a context that
is more meaningful to the public.
23
-------
Biotogical Criteria: Nation^ Program Guidance
Future Directions
Biological criteria now focus on resident aquatic
communities in surface waters. They have the
potential to expand in scope toward greater ecologi-
cal integration. Ecological criteria may encompass
the ambient aquatic communities in surface waters,
wildlife species that use the same aquatic resour-
ces, and the aquatic community inhabiting the
gravel and sediments underlying the surface waters
and adjacent land (hyporheic zone); specific criteria
may apply to physical habitat. These areas may rep-
resent only a few possible options for biological
criteria in the future.
Many wildlife species depend on aquatic resour-
ces. If aquatic population levels decrease or if the
distribution of species changes, food sources may
be sufficiently altered to cause problems for wildlife
species using aquatic resources. Habitat degrada-
tion that impairs aquatic species will often impact
important wildlife habitat as well. These kinds of im-
pairments are likely to be detected using biological
criteria as currently formulated. In some cases,
however, uptake of contaminants by resident
aquatic organisms may not result in altered struc-
ture and function of the aquatic community. These
impacts may go undetected by biological criteria,
but could result in wildlife impairments because of
bioaccumulation. Future expansion of biological
criteria to include wildlife species that depend on
aquatic resources could provide a more integrative
ecosystem approach.
Rivers may have a subsurface flood plain ex-
tending as far as two kilometers from the river chan-
nel. Preliminary mass transport calculations made
in the Flathead River basin in Montana indicate that
nutrients discharged from this subsurface flood
plain may be crucial to biotic productivity in the river
channel (Stanford and Ward 1988). This is an unex-
plored dimension in the ecology of gravel river beds
and potentially in other surface waters.
As discussed in Chapter 1, physical integrity is a
necessary condition for biological integrity. Estab-
lishing the reference condition for biological criteria
requires evaluation of habitat. The rapid bioassess-
ment protocol provides a good example of the im-
portance of habitat for interpreting biological
assessments (Plafkin et al. 1989). However, it may
be useful to more fully integrate habitat charac-
teristics into the regulatory process by establishing
criteria based on the necessary physical structure of
habitats to support ecological integrity.
24
-------
Part II
The Implementation
Process
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
The implementation of biological criteria requires: (1) selection of unimpaired
(minimal impact) surface waters to use as the reference condition for each desig-
nated use, (2) measurement of the structure and function of aquatic communities in
reference surface waters to establish biological criteria, and (3) establishment of a
protocol to compare the biological criteria to biota in impacted waters to determine
whether impairment has occurred. These elements serve as an interactive network
that is particularly important during early development of biological criteria
where rapid accumulation of information is effective for refining both designated
uses and developing biological criteria values. The following chapters describe
these three essential elements.
26
-------
DllB
The Reference Condition
A key step in developing values for support-
ing narrative and creating numeric biologi-
cal criteria is to establish reference
conditions; it is an essential feature of environmental
impact evaluations (Green 1979). Reference condi-
tions are critical for environmental assessments be-
cause standard experimental controls are rarely
available. For most surface waters, baseline data
were not collected prior to an impact, thus impair-
ment must be inferred from differences between the
impact site and established references. Reference
conditions describe the characteristics of waterbody
segments least impaired by human activities and are
used to define attainable biological or habitat condi-
tions.
Wide variability among natural surface waters
across the country resulting from climatic, landform,
and other geographic differences prevents the
development of nationwide reference conditions.
Most States are also too heterogeneous for single
reference conditions. Thus, each State, and when
appropriate, groups of States, will be responsible for
selecting and evaluating reference waters within the
State to establish biological criteria for a given sur-
face water type or category of designated use. At
least seven methods for estimating attainable condi-
tions for streams have been identified (Hughes et al.
1986). Many of these can apply to other surface
waters. References may be established by defining
models of attainable conditions based on historical
data or unimpaired habitat (e.g., streams in old
growth forest). The reference condition established
as before-after comparisons or concurrent mea-
Reference conditions should be established by
measuring resident biota in unimpaired surface waters.
sures of the reference water and impact sites can be
based on empirical data (Hall et al. 1989).
Currently, two principal approaches are used for
establishing the reference condition. A State may
opt to (1) identify site-specific reference sites for
each evaluation of impact or (2) select ecologically
similar regional reference sites for comparison with
impacted sites within the same region. Both ap-
proaches depend on evaluations of habitats to en-
sure that waters with similar habitats are compared.
The designation of discrete habitat types is more
fully developed for streams and rivers. Development
of habitat types for lakes, wetlands, and estuaries is
ongoing.
27
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guldanco
Site-Specific Reference
Condition
A site-specific reference condition, frequently
used to evaluate the impacts from a point discharge,
is best for surface waters with a strong directional
flow such as in streams and rivers (the upstream-
downstream approach). However, it can also be
used for other surface waters where gradients in
contaminant concentration occur based on
proximity to a source (the near field-far field ap-
proach). Establishment of a site-specific reference
condition requires the availability of comparable
habitat within the same waterbody in both the refer-
ence location and the impacted area.
A site-specific reference condition is difficult to
establish if (1) diffuse nonpoint source pollution con-
taminates most of the water body; (2) modifications
to the channel, shoreline, or bottom substrate are
extensive; (3) point sources occur at multiple loca-
tions on the waterbody; or (4) habitat characteristics
differ significantly between possible reference loca-
tions and the impact site (Hughes et ai. 1986; Plaf-
kin et ai. 1989). In these cases, site-specific
reference conditions could result in underestimates
of impairment. Despite limitations, the use of site-
specific reference conditions is often the method of
choice for point source discharges and certain
waterbodies, particularly when the relative impair-
ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
mined.
The Upstream-Downstream
Reference Condition
The upstream-down stream reference condition
is best applied to streams and rivers where the
habitat characteristics of the waterbody above the
point of discharge are similar to the habitat charac-
teristics of the stream below the point of discharge.
One standard procedure is to characterize the biotic
condition just above the discharge point (accounting
for possible upstream circulation) to establish the
reference condition. The condition below the dis-
charge is also measured at several sites. If sig-
nificant differences are found between these
measures, impairment of the biota from the dis-
charge is indicated. Since measurements of resi-
dent biota taken in any two sites are expected to
differ because of natural variation, more than one
biological assessment for both upstream and
downstream sites is often needed to be confident in
conclusions drawn from these data (Green, 1979).
However, as more data are collected by a State, and
particularly if regional characteristics of the water-
bodies are incorporated, the basis for determining
impairment from site-specific upstream-downstream
assessments may require fewer Individual samples.
The same measures made below the "recovery
zone" downstream from the discharge will help
define where recovery occurs.
The upstream-downstream reference condition
should be used with discretion since the reference
condition may be impaired from impacts upstream
from the point source of interest. In these cases it is
important to discriminate between individual point
source impact versus overall impairment of the sys-
tem. When overall impairment occurs, the resident
biota may be sufficiently impaired to make it impos-
sible to detect the effect of the target point source
discharger.
The approach can be cost effective when one
biological assessment of the upstream reference
condition adequately reflects the attainable condi-
tion of the impacted site. However, routine com-
parisons may require assessments of several
upstream sites to adequately describe the natural
variability of reference biota. Even so, measuring a
series of site-specific references will likely continue
to be the method of choice for certain point source
discharges, especially where the relative impair-
ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
mined.
The Near Field-Far Field Reference
Condition
The near field-far field reference condition is ef-
fective for establishing a reference condition in sur-
face waters other than rivers and streams and is
particularly applicable for unique waterbodies (e.g.,
estuaries such as Puget Sound may not have com-
parable estuaries for comparison). To apply this
method, two variables are measured (1) habitat
characteristics, and (2) gradient of impairment. For
reference waters to be identified within the same
waterbody, sufficient size is necessary to separate
the reference from the impact area so that a
gradient of impact exists. At the same time, habitat
characteristics must be comparable.
28
-------
Chapter 5: The Rotoronce Condition
Although not fully developed, this approach may
provide an effective way to establish biological
criteria for estuaries, large lakes, or wetlands. For
example, estuarine habitats could be defined and
possible reference waters identified using physical
and chemical variables like those selected by the
Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. EPA 1987a, e.g.,
substrate type, salinity, pH) to establish comparable
subhabitats in an estuary. To determine those areas
least impaired, a "mussel watch" program like that
used in Narragansett Bay (i.e., captive mussels are
used as indicators of contamination, (Phelps 1988))
could establish impairment gradients. These two
measures, when combined, could form the basis for
selecting specific habitat types in areas of least im-
pairment to establish the reference condition.
Regional Reference
Conditions
Some of the limitations of site-specific reference
conditions can be overcome by using regional refer-
ence conditions that are based on the assumption
that surface waters integrate the character of the
land they drain. Waterbodies within the same water-
shed in the same region should be more similar to
each other than to those within watersheds in dif-
ferent regions. Based on these assumptions, a dis-
tribution of aquatic regions can be developed based
on ecological features that directly or indirectly re-
late to water quality and quantity, such as soil type,
vegetation (land cover), land-surface form, climate,
and land use. Maps that incorporate several of
these features will provide a general purpose broad
scale ecoregional framework (GaJlant et aJ. 1989).
Regions of ecological similarity are based on
hydrologic, climatic, geologic, or other relevant
geographic variables that influence the nature of
biota in surface waters. To establish a regional refer-
ence condition, surface waters of similar habitat
type are identified in definable ecological regions.
The biological integrity of these reference waters is
determined to establish the reference condition and
develop biological criteria. These criteria are then
used to assess impacted surface waters in the
same watershed or region. There are two forms of
regional reference conditions: (1) paired water-
sheds and (2) ecoregions.
Paired Watershed Reference
Conditions
Paired watershed reference conditions are es-
tablished to evaluate impaired waterbodies, often
impacted by multiple sources. When the majority of
a waterbody is impaired, the upstream-downstream
or near field-far field reference condition does not
provide an adequate representation of the unim-
paired condition of aquatic communities for the
waterbody. Paired watershed reference conditions
are established by identifying unimpaired surface
waters within the same or very similar local water-
shed that is of comparable type and habitat. Vari-
ables to consider when selecting the watershed
reference condition include absence of human dis-
turbance, waterbody size and other physical charac-
teristics, surrounding vegetation, and others as
described in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion" feature.
This method has been successfully applied
(e.g., Hughes 1985) and is an approach used in
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al.
1989). State use of this approach results in good
reference conditions that can be used immediately
in current programs. This approach has the added
benefit of promoting the development of a database
on high quality waters in the State that could form
the foundation for establishing larger regional refer-
ences (e.g., ecoregions.)
Ecoregional Reference Conditions
Reference conditions can also be developed on
a larger scale. For these references, waterbodies of
similar type are identified in regions of ecological
similarity. To establish a regional reference condi-
tion, a set of surface waters of similar habitat type
are identified in each ecological region. These sites
must represent similar habitat type and be repre-
sentative of the region. As with other reference con-
ditions, the biological integrity of selected reference
waters is determined to establish the reference.
Biological criteria can then be developed and used
to assess impacted surface waters in the same
region. Before reference conditions may be estab-
lished, regions of ecological similarity must be
defined.
29
-------
Criteria: National Program Guidance
Regional Reference Site
Selection
To determine specific regional reference sites
for streams, candidate watersheds are selected
from the appropriate maps and evaluated to
determine if they are typical for the region An
evaluation of level of human disturbance is made
and a number of relatively undisturbed reference
sites are selected from the candidate sites
Generally, watersheds are chosen as regional ref-
erence sites when they fall entirely within typical
areas of the region. Candidate sites are then
selected by aerial and ground surveys. Identifica-
tion of candidate sites is based on: (1) absence
of human disturbance, (2) stream size, (3) type
of stream channel. (4) location within a natural or
political refuge, and (5) historical records of resi-
dent biota and possible migration barriers
Final selection of reference sites depends on
a determination of minimal disturbance derived
from habitat evaluation made during site visits.
For example, indicators of good quality streams in
forested ecoregions include: (1) extensive, old,
natural riparian vegetation; (2) relatively high het-
erogeneity in channel width and depth: (3) abun-
dant large woody debris, coarse bottom sub-
strate, or extensive aquatic or overhanging vege-
tation; (4) relatively high or constant discharge;
(5) relatively dear waters with natural color and
odor; (6) abundant diatom, insect, and fish as-
semblages; and (7) the presence of piscivorous
birds and mammals.
One frequently used method is described by
Omernik (1987) who combined maps of land-sur-
face form, soil, potential natural vegetation, and
land use within the conterminous United States to
generate a map of aquatic ecoregions for the
country. He also developed more detailed regional
maps. The ecoregions defined by Omernik have
been evaluated for streams and small rivers in
Arkansas (Rohm et al. 1987), Ohio (Larsen et al.
1986; Whittier et al. 1987), Oregon (Whittier et al.
1988), Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989), and Wiscon-
sin (Lyons 1989) and for lakes in Minnesota (Heis-
kary et al. 1987). State ecoregion maps were
developed for Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989) and
Oregon (Clarke et al. mss). Maps for the national
ecoregions and six multi-state maps of more
detailed ecoregions are available from the U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon.
Ecoregions such as those defined by Omernik
(1987) provide only a first step in establishing
regional reference sites for development of the ref-
erence condition. Field site evaluation is required to
account for the inherent variability within each
ecoregion. A general method for selecting reference
sites for streams has been described (Hughes et al.
1986). These are the same variables used for com-
parable watershed reference site selection.
Regional and on-site evaluations of biological fac-
tors help determine specific sites that best represent
typical but unimpaired surface water habitats within
the region. Details on this approach for streams is
described in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion" feature. To date, the regional approach has
been tested on streams, rivers, and lakes. The
method appears applicable for assessing other in-
land ecosystems. To apply this approach to wet-
lands and estuaries will require additional
evaluation based on the relevant ecological features
of these ecosystems (e.g. Brooks and Hughes,
1988).
Ideally, ecoregional reference sites should be
as little disturbed as possible, yet represent water-
oodies for which they are to serve as reference
waters. These sites may serve as references for a
large number of similar waterbodies (e.g., several
reference streams may be used to define the refer-
ence condition for numerous physically separate
streams if the reference streams contain the same
range of stream morphology, substrate, and flow of
the other streams within the same ecological
region).
An important benefit of a regional reference sys-
tem is the establishment of a baseline condition for
the least impacted surface waters within the
dominant land use pattern of the region. In many
areas a return to pristine, or presettlement, condi-
tions is impossible, and goals for waterbodies in ex-
tensively developed regions could reflect this.
Regional reference sites based on the least im-
pacted sites within a region will help water quality
programs restore and protect the environment in a
way that is ecologically feasible.
30
-------
Chapter 5: The Reference Condition
This approach must be used with caution for two
reasons. First, in many urban, industrial, or heavily
developed agricultural regions, even the least im-
pacted sites are seriously degraded. Basing stand-
ards or criteria on such sites will set standards too
low if these high levels of environmental degrada-
tion are considered acceptable or adequate. In such
degraded regions, alternative sources for the
regional reference may be needed (e.g., measures
taken from the same region in a less developed
neighboring State or historical records from the
region before serious impact occurred). Second, in
some regions the minimally-impacted sites are not
typical of most sites in the region and may have
remained unimpaired precisely because they are
unique. These two considerations emphasize the
need to select reference sites very carefully, based
on solid quantitative data interpreted by profes-
sionals familiar with the biota of the region.
Each State, or groups of States, can select a
series of regional reference sites that represent the
attainable conditions for each region. Once biologi-
cal criteria are established using this approach, the
cost for evaluating local impairments is often lower
than a series of measures of site-specific reference
sites. Using paired watershed reference conditions
immediately in regulatory programs will provide the
added benefit of building a database for the
development of regions of ecological similarity.
31
-------
The Biological Survey
critical element of biological criteria is the
characterization of biological communities
.inhabiting surface waters. Use of biological
data is not new; biological information has been used
to assess impacts from pollution since the 1890s
(Forbes 1928), and most States currently incor-
porate biological information in their decisions about
the quality of surface waters. However, biological in-
formation can be obtained through a variety of
methods, some of which are more effective than
others for characterizing resident aquatic biota.
Biological criteria are developed using biological sur-
veys; these provide the only direct method for
measuring the structure and function of an aquatic
community.
Different subhabitat within the same surface water will
contain unique aquatic community components. In
fast-flowing stream segments species such as (1) black
fly larva; (2) brook trout; (3) water penny; (4) crane fly
larva; and (5) water moss occur.
However, In slow-flowing stream segments, species
like (1) water stridor; (2) small mouth bass; (3) crayfish;
and (4) fingernail dams are abundant.
Biological survey study design is of critical im-
portance to criteria development. The design must
be scientifically rigorous to provide the basis for
legal action, and be biologically relevant to detect
problems of regulatory concern. Since it is not finan-
cially or technically feasible to evaluate all or-
ganisms in an entire ecosystem at all times, careful
selection of community components, the time and
place chosen for assessments, data gathering
methods used, and the consistency with which
these variables are applied will determine the suc-
cess of the biological criteria program. Biological
surveys must therefore be carefully planned to meet
scientific and legal requirements, maximize informa-
tion, and minimize cost.
33
-------
fUotogk*! Criteria: National Program Guidance
Biological surveys can range from collecting
samples of a single species to comprehensive
evaluations of an entire ecosystem. The first ap-
proach is difficult to interpret for community assess-
ment; the second approach is expensive and
impractical. A balance between these extremes can
meet program needs. Current approaches range
between detailed ecological surveys, biosurveys of
targeted community components, and biological in-
dicators (e.g., keystone species). Each of these
biosurveys has advantages and limitations. Addi-
tional discussion will be provided in technical
guidance under development.
No single type of approach to biological surveys
is always best. Many factors affect the value of the
approach, including seasonal variation, waterbody
size, physical boundaries, and other natural charac-
teristics. Pilot testing alternative approaches in
State waters may be the best way to determine the
sensitivity of specific methods for evaluating biologi-
cal integrity of local waters. Due to the number of al-
ternatives available and the diversity of ecological
systems, individuals responsible for research
design should be experienced biologists with exper-
tise in the local and regional ecology of target sur-
face waters. States should develop a data
management program that includes data analysis
and evaluation and standard operating procedures
as part of a Quality Assurance Program Plan.
When developing study designs for biological
criteria, two key elements to consider include (1)
selecting aquatic community components that will
best represent the biological integrity of State sur-
face waters and (2) designing data collection
protocols to ensure the best representation of the
aquatic community. Technical guidance currently
available to aid the development of study design in-
clude: Water Quality Standards Handbook (U.S.
EPA 1983a), Technical Support Manual: Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
tainability Analyses (U.S. EPA 1983b); Technical
Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assess-
ments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses,
Volume II: Estuarine Systems (U.S. EPA 1984a);
and Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems (U.S. EPA
1984b). Future technical guidance will build on
these documents and provide specific guidance for
biological criteria development.
Selecting Aquatic
Community Components
Aquatic communities contain a variety of
species that represent different trophic levels,
taxonomic groups, functional characteristics, and
tolerance ranges. Careful selection of target
taxonomic groups can provide a balanced assess-
ment that is sufficiently broad to describe the struc-
tural and functional condition of an aquatic
ecosystem, yet be sufficiently practical to use on a
daily basis (Plafkin et al. 1989; Lenat 1988). When
selecting community components to include in a
biological assessment, primary emphasis should go
toward including species or taxa that (1) serve as ef-
fective indicators of high biological integrity (i.e.,
those likely to live in unimpaired waters), (2) repre-
sent a range of pollution tolerances, (3) provide pre-
dictable, repeatable results, and (4) can be readily
identified by trained State personnel.
Fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and zooplank-
ton are most commonly used in current bioassess-
ment programs. The taxonomic groups chosen will
vary depending on the type of aquatic ecosystem
being assessed and the type of expected impair-
ment. For example, benthic macroinvertebrate and
fish communities are taxonomic groups often
chosen for flowing fresh water. Macroinvertebrates
and fish both provide valuable ecological informa-
tion while fish correspond to the regulatory and
public perceptions of water quality and reflect
cumulative environmental stress over Tonger time
frames. Plants are often used in wetlands, and
algae are useful in lakes and estuaries to assess
eutrophication. In marine systems, benthic macroin-
vertebrates and submerged aquatic vegetation may
provide key community components. Amphipods,
for example, dominate many aquatic communities
and are more sensitive than other invertebrates
such as polychaetes and molluscs to a wide variety
of pollutants including hydrocarbons and heavy me-
tals (Reich and Hart 1979; J.D. Thomas, pers.
comm.).
It is beneficial to supplement standard groups
with additional community components to meet
specific goals, objectives, and resources of the as-
sessment program. Biological surveys that use two
or three taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, macroinver-
tebrates, algae) and, where appropriate, include dif-
ferent trophic levels within each group (e.g.,
primary, secondary, and tertiary consumers) will
34
-------
Chapter & The Biological Survey
provide a more realistic evaluation of system
biological integrity. This is analogous to using
species from two or more taxonomic groups in
bioassays. Impairments that are difficult to detect
because of the temporal or spatial habits or the pol-
lution tolerances of one group may be revealed
through impairments in different species or as-
semblages (Ohio EPA 1988a).
Selection of aquatic community components
that show different sensitivities and responses to
the same perturbation will aid in identifying the na-
ture of a problem. Available data on the ecological
function, distribution, and abundance of species in a
given habitat will help determine the most ap-
propriate target species or taxa for biological sur-
veys in the habitat. The selection of community
components should also depend on the ability of the
organisms to be accurately identified by trained
State personnel. Attendent with the biological
criteria program should be the development of iden-
tification keys for the organisms selected for study
in the biological survey.
Biological Survey Design
Biological surveys that measure the structure
and function of aquatic communities will provide the
information needed for biological criteria develop-
ment. Elements of community structure and function
may be evaluated using a series of metrics. Struc-
tural metrics describe the composition of a com-
munity, such as the number of different species,
relative abundance of specific species, and number
and relative abundance of tolerant and intolerant
species. Functional metrics describe the ecological
processes of the community. These may include
measures such as community photosynthesis or
respiration. Function may also be estimated from
the proportions of various feeding groups (e.g., om-
nivores, herbivores, and insectivores, or shredders,
collectors, and grazers). Biological surveys can
offer variety and flexibility in application. Indices cur-
rently available are primarily for freshwater streams.
However, the approach has been used for lakes and
can be developed for estuaries and wetlands.
Selecting the metric
Several methods are currently available for
measuring the relative structural and functional well-
being of fish assemblages in freshwater streams,
such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI); Karr 1981;
Karr et al. 1986; Miller et a). 1988) and the Index of
Well-being (IWB; Gammon 1976, Gammon et al.
1981). The IBI is one of the more widely used as-
sessment methods. For additional detail, see the
"Index of Biotic Integrity" feature.
• proportion of hybrids
' proportion of individuals with disease .
Each metric is scored 1 (worst), 3. or 5 (best),
depending on how the field data compare with an
expected value obtained from reference sites. All
12 metric values are then summed to provide an
overall index value that represents relative in-
tegrity. The 181 was designed for midwestern
streams; substitute metrics reflecting the same
structural and functional characteristics have
been created to accommodate regional variations
in fish assemblages (Miller et al. 1988).
Index of Biotic Integrity
The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is commonly
used for fish community analysis (Karr 1981). The
original IBI was comprised of 12 metrics:
~	six metrics evaluate species richness and
composition
•	number of species
' number of darter species
' number of sucker species
•	number of sun fish species
° number of intolerant species
•	proportion of green sun fish
~	three metrics quantify trophic composition
•	proportion of omnivores
' proportion of insectivorous cyprinids
•	proportion of piscivores
0 three metrics summarize fish abundance and
condition information
•	number of individuals in sample
35
-------
Biotogical Criteria National Program Quldanc*
Several indices that evaluate more than one
community characteristic are also available for as-
sessing stream macroinvertebrate populations.
Taxa richness, EPT taxa (number of taxa of the in-
sect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricop-
tera), and species pollution tolerance values are a
few of several components of these macroinver-
tebrate assessments. Example indices include the
Invertebrate Community Index (ICI; Ohio EPA,
1988) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI; Hilsenhoff,
1987).
Within these metrics specific information on the
pollution tolerances of different species within a sys-
tem will help define the type of impacts occurring in
a waterbody. Biological indicator groups (intolerant
species, tolerant species, percent of diseased or-
ganisms) can be used for evaluating community
biological integrity if sufficient data have been col-
lected to support conclusions drawn from the in-
dicator data. In marine systems, for example,
amphipods have been used by a number of re-
searchers as environmental indicators (McCall
1977; Botton 1979; Mearns and Word 1982).
Sampling design
Sampling design and statistical protocols are re-
quired to reduce sampling error and evaluate the
natural variability of biological responses that are
found in both laboratory and field data. High
variability reduces the power of a statistical test to
detect real impairments (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981).
States may reduce variability by refining sampling
techniques and protocol to decrease variability in-
troduced during data collection, and increase the
power of the evaluation by increasing the number of
replications. Sampling techniques are refined, in
part, by collecting a representative sample of resi-
dent biota from the same component of the aquatic
community from the same habitat type in the same
way at sites being compared. Data collection
protocols should incorporate (1) spatial scales
(where and how samples are collected) and (2) tem-
poral scales (when data are collected) (Green,
1979);
¦ Spatial Scales refer to the wide variety of sub-
habitats that exist within any surface water
habitat. To account for subhabitats, adequate
sampling protocols require selecting (1) the
location within a habitat where target groups
reside and (2) the method for collecting data on
target groups. For example, if fish are sampled
only from fast flowing riffles within stream A, but
are sampled from slow flowing pools in stream
B, the data will not be comparable.
a Temporal Scales refer to aquatic community
changes that occur over time because of diurnal
and life-cycle changes in organism behavior or
development, and seasonal or annual changes
in the environment. Many organisms go through
seasonal life-cycle changes that dramatically
affect their presence and abundance in the
aquatic community. For example, macroinver-
tebrate data collected from stream A in March
and stream B in May, would not be comparable
because the emergence of insect adults after
March would significantly alter the abundance
of subadults found in stream B in May. Similar
problems would occur if algae were collected in
lake A during the dry season and lake B during
the wet season.
Field sampling protocols that produce quality
assessments from a limited number of site visits
greatly enhance the utility of the sampling techni-
que. Rapid bioassessment protocols, recently
developed for assessing streams, use standardized
techniques to quickly gather physical, chemical, and
biological quantitative data that can assess changes
in biological integrity (Plafkin et al. 1989). Rapid
bioassessment methods can be cost-effective
biological assessment approaches when they have
been verified with more comprehensive evaluations
for the habitats and region where they are to be ap-
plied.
Biological survey methods such as the IBI for
fish and ICI for macroinvertebrates were developed
in streams and rivers and have yet to be applied to
many ecological regions. In addition, further re-
search is needed to adapt the approach to lakes,
wetlands, and estuaries, including the development
of alternative structural or functional endpoints. For
example, assessment methods for algae (e.g.
measures of biomass, nuisance bloom frequency,
community structure) have been used for lakes. As-
sessment metrics appropriate for developing
biological criteria for lakes, large rivers, wetlands,
and estuaries are being developed and tested so
that a multi-metric approach can be effectively used
for all surface waters.
36
-------
Chapter 7
Hypothesis Testing:
Biological Criteria and the
Scientific Method
Biological criteria are applied in the standards
program by testing hypotheses about the
biological integrity of impacted surface
waters. These hypotheses include the null
hypothesis—the designated use of the waterbody is
not impaired—and alternative hypotheses such as
the designated use of the waterbody is impaired
(more specific hypotheses can also be generated
that predict the type(s) of impairment). Under these
hypotheses specific predictions are generated con-
cerning the kinds and numbers of organisms repre-
senting community structure and function expected
or found in unimpaired habitats. The kinds and num-
bers of organisms surveyed in unimpaired waters
are used to establish the biological criteria. To test
the alternative hypotheses, data collection and
analysis procedures are used to compare the criteria
to comparable measures of community structure and
function in impacted waters.
Hypothesis Testing
To detect differences of biological and regula-
tory concern between biological criteria and ambient
biological integrity at a test site, it is important to es-
tablish the sensitivity of the evaluation. A10 percent
difference in condition is more difficult to detect than
a 50 percent difference. For the experimental/sur-
vey design to be effective, the level of detection
should be predetermined to establish sample size
Multiple impacts in the same surface water such as
discharges of effluent from point sources, leachate from
landfills or dumps, and erosion from habitat degradation
each contribute to impairment of the surface water. All
impacts should be considered during the diagnosis
process.
for data collection (Sokal and Rohlf 1981).
Knowledge of expected natural variation, experi-
mental error, and the kinds of detectable differences
that can be expected will help determine sample
37
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
size and location. This forms the basis for defining
data quality objectives, standardizing data collection
procedures, and developing quality assurance/
quality control standards.
Once data are collected and analyzed, they are
used to test the hypotheses to determine if charac-
teristics of the resident biota at a test site are sig-
nificantly different from established criteria values
for a comparable habitat. There are three possible
outcomes:
1.	The use is impaired when survey design and
data analyses are sensitive enough to detect
differences of regulatory importance, and
significant differences were detected. The
next step is to diagnose the cause(s) and
source(s) of impairment.
2.	The biological criteria are met when survey
design and data analyses are sensitive
enough to detect differences of regulatory
significance, but no differences were found.
In this case, no action is required by States
based on these measures. However, other
evidence may indicate impairment (e.g.,
chemical criteria are violated; see below).
3.	The outcome is indeterminate when survey
design and data analyses are not sensitive
enough to detect differences of regulatory
significance, and no differences were
detected. If a State or Region determines
that this is occurring, the development of
study design and evaluation for biological
criteria was incomplete. States must then
determine whether they will accept the
sensitivity of the survey or conduct
additional surveys to increase the power of
their analyses. If the sensitivity of the
original survey is accepted, the State should
determine what magnitude of difference the
survey is capable of detecting. This will aid
in re-evaiuating research design and desired
detection limits. An indeterminate outcome
may also occur if the test site and the
reference conditions were not comparable.
This variable may also require re-evaluation.
As with all scientific studies, when implementing
biological criteria, the purpose of hypothesis testing
is to determine if the data support the conclusion
that the null hypothesis is false (i.e., the designated
use is not impaired in a particular waterbody).
Biological criteria cannot prove attainment. This
reasoning provides the basis for emphasizing inde-
pendent application of different assessment
methods (e.g., chemical verses biological criteria).
No type of criteria can "prove" attainment; each type
of criteria can disprove attainment.
Although this discussion is limited to the null
and one alternative hypothesis, it is possible to
generate multiple working hypotheses (Popper,
1968) that promote the diagnosis of water quality
problems when they exist. For example, if physical
habitat limitations are believed to be causing impair-
ment (e.g., sedimentation) one alternative
hypothesis could specify the loss of community
components sensitive to this impact. Using multiple
hypotheses can maximize the information gained
from each study. See the Diagnosis section for addi-
tional discussion.
Diagnosis
When impairment of the designated use is
found using biological criteria, a diagnosis of prob-
able cause of impairment is the next step for im-
plementation. Since biological criteria are primarily
designed to detect water quality impairment,
problems are likely to be identified without a known
cause. Fortunately the process of evaluating test
sites for biological impairment provides significant
information to aid in determining cause.
During diagnostic evaluations, three main im-
pact categories should be considered: chemical,
physical, and biological. To begin the diagnostic
process two questions are posed:
•	What are the obvious causes of impairment?
•	If no obvious causes are apparent, what
possible causes do the biological data
suggest?
Obvious causes such as habitat degradation,
point source discharges, or introduced species are
often identified during the course of a normal field
biological assessment. Biomonitoring programs nor-
mally provide knowledge of potential sources of im-
pact and characteristics of the habitat. As such,
diagnosis is partly incorporated into many existing
State field-oriented bioassessment programs. If
more than one impact source is obvious, diagnosis
38
-------
Chapter 7: Hypothesis Tasting
will require determining which impact(s) is the cause
of impairment or the extent to which each impact
contributes to impairment. The nature of the biologi-
cal impairment can guide evaluation (e.g., chemical
contamination may lead to the loss of sensitive
species, habitat degradation may result in loss of
breeding habitat for certain species).
Case studies illustrate the effectiveness of
biological criteria in identifying impairments and
possible sources. For example, in Kansas three
sites on Little Mill Creek were assessed using Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al. 1989; see
Fig. 4). Based on the results of a comparative
analysis, habitats at the three sites were com-
parable and of high quality. Biological impairment,
however, was identified at two of the three sites and
directly related to proximity to a point source dis-
charge from a sewage treatment plant. The severely
impaired Site (STA 2) was located approximately
100 meters downstream from the plant. The slightly
impaired Site (STA 3) was located between one and
two miles downstream from the plant. However, the
unimpaired Site (STA 1(R)) was approximately 150
meters upstream from the plant (Plafkin et al. 1989).
This simple example illustrates the basic principles
of diagnosis. In this case the treatment plant ap-
pears responsible for impairment of the resident
biota and the discharge needs to be evaluated.
Based on the biological survey the results are clear.
However, impairment in resident populations of
macroinvertebrates probably would not have been
recognized using more traditional methods.
In Maine, a more complex problem arose when
effluents from a textile plant met chemical-specific
and effluent toxicity criteria, yet a biological survey
of downstream biota revealed up to 80 percent
reduction in invertebrate richness below plant out-
falls. Although the source of impairment seemed
clear, the cause of impairment was more difficult to
determine. By engaging in a diagnostic evaluation,
Maine was able to determine that the discharge con-
tained chemicals not regulated under current
programs and that part of the toxicity effect was due
to the sequential discharge of unique effluents
(tested individually these effluents were not toxic;
when exposure was in a particular sequence,
toxicity occurred). Use of biological criteria resulted
in the detection and diagnosis of this toxicity prob-
lem, which allowed Maine to develop workable alter-
native operating procedures for the textile industry
to correct the problem (Courtemanch 1989, and
pers. comm.).
During diagnosis it is important to consider and
discriminate among multiple sources of impairment.
In a North Carolina stream (see Figure 5) four sites
were evaluated using rapid bioassessment techni-

0)
90
o
c
0)

0)
80
3)

rr
70

O

$
60
c

o
50
"5
c
40
o

<>


30
eg
o

Ui
20
0

o
10
d3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Habitat Quality (% of Reference)
Fig 4 Three stream segments sampled in a stream in Kansas using Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al 1989) reveaiea
significant impairments at sites below a sewage treatment plant.
Figure 4. —Kansas: Benthic c.oassessment of Little Mill Creek (Little Mill Creek = Site-Specific Reference)
Relationship of Habitat and Bioassessment
39
-------
Biological Criteria: Nation*! Program Gutdanca
Figure 5.—The Relationship Between Habitat Quality and Benthic Community Condition at the North Carolina
Pilot Study Site.
IUU
©

o
c
90
0)

(D
80
-------
Chapter 7: Hypothesis Testing
Figure 6.—Diagnostic Process
Establish Biological Criteria
~
Conduct Field Assessment to Determine Impairment
~ V
Yes	No ^ No Further
^	Action
Evaluate Data to Determine
Probable Cause
~
Generate Testable Hypotheses
for Probable Cause
i
Collect Data and
Evaluate Results
No Apparent Cause	Obvious Cause
~	I
Propose New Alternative	Formulate Remedial
Hypotheses and Collect	Action
New Data
Fig. 6. The diagnostic process is a stepwise process for
determining the cause of impaired biological integrity in sur-
face waters It may require multiple hypotheses testing and
more than one remedial plan
to the are a suffering from biological impairment. An
analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the study area will help identify the
most likely sources and determine which data will
be most valuable. Hypotheses that distinguish be-
tween possible causes of impairment should be
generated. Study design and appropriate data col-
lection procedures need to be developed to test the
hypotheses. The severity of the impairment, the dif-
ficulty of diagnosis, and the costs involved will
determine how many iterative loops will be com-
pleted in the diagnostic process.
Normally, diagnoses of biological impairment
are relatively straightforward. States may use
biological criteria as a method to confirm impairment
from a known source of impact. However, the diag-
nostic process provides an effective way to identify
unknown impacts and diagnose their cause so that
corrective action can be devised and implemented.
41
-------
ESI
References
Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr. (1986). Applying an Index of Biotic
Integrity Based on Stream-Fish Communities: Considera-
tions in Sampling and Interpretation. Am. J. Fish. Manage. S:
418-429.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. (1988).
Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas. Regulation No. 2.
Barbour, ?.?. (1990). Personal communication. EA Engineering,
Science and Technology, Inc., Sparks, MD.
Botton, M.L. (1979). Effects of sewage sludge on the benthic in-
vertebrate community on the inshore New York Bight Es-
tuar. Coast. Shelf. Scf. 8: 169-180
Brooks, R.P and R.M. Hughes. (1988). Guidelines for assessing
the biotic communities of freshwater wetlands. Pages 276-
82 in J.A. Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, eds. Proc.
National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and
Losses. Ass. State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (1989). Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act as Amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.
Washington, D.C.
Cairns, J. Jr. (1975). Quantification of biological Integrity. Pages
171-85 in R.K. Ballentine and LJ. Guame, eds., The In-
tegrity of Water, A Symposium. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, 0 C.
Clarke, S., 0. White, and A. Schaedel. Mss. Oregon ecological
regions and subregions for water management. Connecticut
1987.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. (1987).
Water Quality Standards.
Courtemanch, D.L (1989). Implementation of blocriteria In the
water quality standards program. Water Quality Standards
for the 21st Century: Proc. Natl. Conf. Office of Drinking
Water. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
Courtemanch, D.L and S.P. Davles. (1987). Implementation of
biological standards and criteria In Maine's water classifica-
tion law. In Proc. Instream Blomonitoring and Biological
Criteria Workshop. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Lincolnwood,
IL
Courtemanch, D.L, S.P. Davles, and E.B. laverty. (1989). Incor-
poration of biological information In water quality planning.
Environ. Manage. 13:35-41.
Courtemanch, D.L and S.P. Davles. (1989). Why Maine has
Chosen to Integrate Biological Impact Standards Into State
Water Quality Law. Maine Dep. Environ. Prot., Augusta.
Eagleson, K.W., D.L Lenat, LW. Rusley and R.B. Winborne.
Comparison of Measured Instream Biological Responses
with Responses Predicted Using the Ceriodaphnia dubia
Chronic Toxicity Test. Environ. Tox. and Chemistry 9: 1019-
1028.
Forbes. S. (1928). Foreword. In R.E. Richardson, The bottom
fauna of the middle Illinois River, 1913-1925. BuH. Ill Nat.
Hist. Surv. Vol. 17, Article 7, 387-472.
Gakstatter, J., J.R. Gammon, R.M. Hughes, LS. Ischinger, M.
Johnson, J. Karr, T. Murphy, T.M. Murray, and T. Stuart.
(1981). A recommended approach for determining biological
Integrity In flowing waters. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Cor-
vallis, OR.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omemik, and R M
Hughes. (1989). Regionalization as a Tool for Managing En-
vironmental Resources. EPA/600/3-89/060. U.S. Environ.
Res. Lab. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Gammon, J.R. (1976). The fish populations of the middle 340 km
of the Wabash River. Tech. Rep. 86. Purdue Univ. Water
Resour. Res. Center, West Lafayette, IN.
Gammon, J.R., A. Spacie, J.L Hamelink, and R.L Kaesler.
(1981). Role of electrofishlng in assessing environmental
quality of the Wabash River. Pages 307-24 /nJ.M. Bates and
C.I. Weber, eds.. Ecological Assessments of Effluents Im-
pacts on Communities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms.
STP 703. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.
Green, R.H. (1979). Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for
Environmental Biologists. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hall, J.D., M.L Murphy, and R S. Aho. (1989). An improved
design for assessing impacts of watershed practices on
small streams. Proc. Int. Ass. Theoret. Appl. Lmnol. 20.
1359-65.
Hieskary, SA, C.B. Wilson, and D.P. Larsen. (1987). Analysis of
regional patterns in lake water quality: using ecoregions for
lake management in Minnesota. Lake Reserv. Manage. 3:
337-344.
Hilsenhoff, W.L (1987). An improved biotic index of organic
stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomoi. 20(1): 31-39.
Hughes, R.M. (1989a). What can biological monitoring tell us
about the environmental health of aquatic ecosystems? In
R.C. Ward, J.C. Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds., Proc. Int.
Symp. on the Design of Water Quality Information Systems.
Inf. Ser. No. 61. Colo. Water Resour. Res. Inst Colorado
State Univ., Ft. Collins.
Hughes, R.M. (1989b). Ecoreglonal biological criteria. In Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century. Proc. Natl. Conf. Off.
Water. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hughes, R.M., E. Rexstad, and C.E. Bond. (1987). The relation-
ship of aquatic ecoregions, river basins, and physiographic
provinces to the Ichthyogeographlc regions of Oregon.
Copeia: 423-432.
Hughes. R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik. (1986). Regional
reference sites: a method for assessing stream pollution. En-
viron. Manage. 10(5): 629-625.
Hughes, R.M. (1985). Use of watershed characteristics to select
control stream for estimating effects of metal mining wastes
43
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
on extensively (Ssturtoed streams. Environ. Manage. 9: 253-
262.
Judy, R.D. Jr., P.N. Seety, T.M. Murray, S.C. Svirsky, M.R. Whit-
worth, and LS. Ischlnger. (1987). 1962 National Fisheries
Survey. Vol. 1 FWSA3BS-84/06. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Karr, J.R. (1981). Assessment of biotlc Integrity using fish com-
munities. Fisheries 6(6): 21 -27.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. (1981). Ecological Perspectives on
Water Quality Goals. Environ. Manage. 5:55-68.
	. (1987). Biological monitoring and environmental assess-
ment a conceptual framework. Environ. Manage. 11(2):
249-256.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L Angermier, P.R. Yant, and I.J.
Schlosser. (1986). Assessing biological Integrity in running
waters: a method and Its rationale. Spec. Publ. 5. III. Nat.
Hist Surv.
Larsen, D.P., J.M. Omemlk, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whit-
tier, AJ. Kinney, A.L Gallant, and D.R. Dudley. (1986). The
correspondence between spatial patterns in fish as-
semblages In Ohio streams and aquatic ecoreglons. En-
viron. Manage. 10: 615-828.
Lenat, D.R. (1988). Water quality assessment of streams using a
qualitative collection method for benthlc macroinvertebrates,
J. N. Am. Bentholog. Soc. 7: 222-33.
Lyons, J. (1989). Correspondence between the distribution of fish
assemblages In Wisconsin streams and Omermk's
ecoreglons. Am. Midland Nat 122(1): 163-182.
Maine Water Quality Classification Program. (1986). Maine
Revised Status Annotation. Title 38 Article 4-A Section 465.
McCall, P.L (1977). Community patterns and adaptive strategies
of the Infaunal benthos of Long Island Sound. J. Mar. Res.
35:221-266.
Mearns. A J. and J.Q. Word. (1982). Forecasting effects of
sewage solids on manne benthic communities. Pages 495-
512 in G.F. Mayer, ed., Ecological Stress and the New York
Bight: Science and Management. Estuar Res. Fed., Colum-
bia, SC.
Miller, D.L. et al. (1988). Regional applications of an Index of
biotlc integrity for use in water resource management.
Fisheries 13(5): 12.
Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. (1989). Extinctions
of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries
14:22-38.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. (1984). The Before and After Studies. Report
No. 84-15.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (1988a). The Role of
Biological Data In Watar Quality Assessment Vol. I. Biologi-
cal Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Div. Water
Qual. Monitor. Assess. Surf. Water Section, Columbus.
	. (1988b). Water Quality Inventory 305(b). Report. Vol 1.
Div. Water Qual. Monitor. Assess. Columbus.
	. (1990). Ohio Water Quality Standards. Ohio Admin.
Code 3745-1. Adopted Feb. 2.
Omemlk. J.M. (1987). Ecoreglons of the Conterminous United
States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geog. 77(1): 118-125.
Phelps, D. K. (1988). Marlne/Estuarlne Biomonitorlng: A Concep-
tual Approach and Future Applications. Permits Div. Off.
Water, EPA 600/X-88/244. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Plafkln, J.L (1988). Water quality based controls & ecosystem
recovery. In J. Cairns, Jr., ed.. Rehabilitating Damaged
Ecosystems. Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour. K.D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R.M.
Hughes. (1989). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams and Rivers: Benthlc Macroinvertebrates and Fish.
EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington,
D.C.
Popper, K.R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper
and Row, New York.
Reich and Hart. (1979). Pollution Ecology of Estuarlne Inver-
tebrates. Academic Press.
Rohm, C.M., J.W. Giese, and C.C. Bennett (1987). Evaluation of
an aquatic ecoregion classification of streams in Arkansas.
J. Freshw. Ecol. 4:127-40.
Sokal, R.R. and FJ. Rohlf. (1981). Biometry: The Principles and
Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 2nd Ed. W.H.
Freeman, San Francisco.
Stanford, J.A. and J.B. Ward. (1988). The hyporheic habitat of
river ecosystems. Nature 335: 64-66.
Thomas J.D. (1990). Personal communication. Reef Foundation.
Big Pine Key, FL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983a). Water Quality
Standards Handbook. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
D.C.
	. (1983b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington D.C.
	. (1984a). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
Vol II. Estuarine Systems. Off. Water Reg. Stand.
Washington D.C.
	. (1984b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses
Vol III. Lake Systems. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
D.C.
	. (1989a). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund—En-
vironmental Evaluation Manual. Inter. Final. Off. Emerg
Remed. Response. Washington, D.C.
	. (1989b). Report of a Workshop on Biological Criteria.
Diagnosis Strategies for Impaired Waterbody Uses. Sub-
mitted by Battelle. Sept 30,1989. Unpubl.
	. (1987a). Surface Welter Monitoring: A Framework for
Change. Off. Water. Off. Policy Plann. Eval. Washington,
D.C.
	. (1987b). Report of the National Workshop on Instream
Biological Monitoring and Criteria. Off. Water Reg. Stand. In-
stream Blolog. Criteria Comm. Region V. Environ. Res. Lab.
U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Corvaills
Water Quality Act of 1987. (1989). In The Environment Reporter.
Bur. Natl. Affairs. Washington, D.C.
Whittier, T.R., D.P. Larsen, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, A.L Gal-
lant, and J.M. Omernik. (1987). Ohio Stream Reglonalization
Project: A Compendium of Results. Environ. Res. Lab. U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency. Corvaills, OR.
Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and D.P. Larsen,. (1988). Correspon-
dence between ecoreglons and spatial patterns In stream
ecosystems In Oregon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sd. 45: 1264-
78.
Yoder, C.O. (1989). The development and use biological criteria
for Ohio surface waters. Water Quality Standards for the
21st Century. Proc. Natl. Conf. Off. Water. U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C.
Code of Federal Regulations. (1989). Vol. 40, Part 131.10, U.S
Gov. Print. Off. Washington, D.C.
44
-------
Common Questions and
Their Answers
Q. How will implementing biological criteria
benefit State water quality programs?
A. State water quality programs will benefit from
biological criteria because they:
a)	directly assess impairments in ambient
biota from adverse impacts on the
environment;
b)	are defensible and quantifiable;
c)	document improvements in water quality
resulting from agency action;
d)	reduce the likelihood of false positives (i.e.,
a conclusion that attainment is achieved
when it is not);
e)	provide information on the integrity of
biological systems that is compelling to the
public.
Q. How will biological criteria be used in a
permit program?
A. When permits are renewed, records from
chemical analyses and biological assessments are
used to determine if the permit has effectively
prevented degradation and led to improvement. The
purpose for this evaluation is to determine whether
applicable water quality standards were achieved
under the expiring permit and to decide if changes
are needed. Biological surveys and criteria are par-
ticularly effective for determining the quality of
waters subject to permitted discharges. Since
biosurveys provide ongoing integrative evaluations
of the biological integrity of resident biota, permit
writers can make informed decisions on whether to
maintain or restrict permit limits.
Q. What expertise and staff will be needed to
implement a biological criteria program?
A. Staff with sound knowledge of State aquatic
biology and scientific protocol are needed to coor-
dinate a biological criteria program. Actual field
monitoring could be accomplished by summer-hire
biologists led by permanent staff aquatic biologists.
Most States employ aquatic biologists for monitor-
ing trends or issuing site-specific permits.
Q. Which management personnel should be
involved in a biologically-based approach?
A. Management personnel from each area
within the standards and monitoring programs
should be involved in this approach, including per-
mit engineers, resource managers, and field per-
sonnel.
Q. How much will this approach cost?
A. The cost of developing biological criteria is a
State-specific question depending upon many vari-
ables. However, States that have implemented a
biological criteria program have found it to be cost
effective (e.g., Ohio). Biological criteria provide an
integrative assessment over time. Biota reflect mul-
tiple impacts. Testing for impairment of resident
aquatic communities can actually require less
monitoring than would be required to detect many
impacts using more traditional methods (e.g.,
chemical testing for episodic events).
45
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Q. What are some concerns of dischargers?
A. Dischargers are concerned that biological
criteria will identify impairments that may be er-
roneously attributed to a discharger who is not
responsible. This is a legitimate concern that the
discharger and State must address with careful
evaluations and diagnosis of cause of impairment.
However, it is particularly important to ensure that
waters used for the reference condition are not al-
ready impaired as may occur when conducting
site-specific upstream-downstream evaluations. Al-
though a discharger may be contributing to surface
water degradation, it may be hard to detect using
biosurvey methods if the waterbody is also impaired
from other sources. This can be evaluated by test-
ing the possible toxicity of effluent-free reference
waters on sensitive organisms.
Dischargers are also concerned that current
permit limits may become more stringent if it is
determined that meeting chemical and whole-ef-
fluent permit limits are not sufficient to protect
aquatic life from discharger activities. Alternative
forms of regulation may be needed; these are not
necessarily financially burdensome but could in-
volve additional expense.
Burdensome monitoring requirements are addi-
tional concerns. With new rapid bioassessment
protocols available for streams, and under develop-
ment for other surface waters, monitoring resident
biota is becoming more straightforward. Since resi-
dent biota provide an integrative measure of en-
vironmental impacts over time, the need for
continual biomonitoring is actually lower than
chemical analyses and generally less expensive.
Guidance is being developed to establish accept-
able research protocols, quality assurance/quality
control programs and training opportunities to en-
sure that adequate guidance is available.
Q. What are the concerns of
environmentalists?
A. Environmentalists are concerned that biologi-
cal criteria could be used to alter restrictions on dis-
chargers if biosurvey data indicate attainment of a
designated use even though chemical criteria
and/or whole-effluent toxicity evaluations predict im-
pairment. Evidence suggests that this occurs infre-
quently (e.g., in Ohio, 6 percent of 431 sites
evaluated using chemical-specific criteria and
biosurveys resulted in this disagreement). In those
cases where evidence suggests more than one con-
clusion, independent application applies. If biologi-
cal criteria suggest impairment but chemical-
specific and/or whole-effluent toxicity implies attain-
ment of the use, the cause for impairment of the
biota is to be evaluated and, where appropriate,
regulated. If whole effluent and/or chemical-specific
criteria imply impairment but no impairment is found
in resident biota, the whole-effluent and/or chemi-
cal-specific criteria provide the basis for regulation.
Q. Do biological criteria have to be codified
in State regulations?
A. State water quality standards require three
components: (1) designated uses, (2) protective
criteria, and (3) an antidegradation clause. For
criteria to be enforceable they must be codified in
regulations. Codification could involve general nar-
rative statements of biological criteria, numeric
criteria, and/or criteria accompanied by specific test-
ing procedures. Codifying general narratives
provides the most flexibility—specific methods for
data collection the least flexibility—for incorporating
new data and improving data gathering methods as
the biological criteria program develops. States
should carefully consider how to codify these
criteria.
Q. How will biocriteria fit into the agency's
method of implementing standards?
A. Resident biota integrate multiple impacts
over time and can detect impairment from known
and unknown causes. Biocriteria can be used to
verify improvement in water quality in response to
regulatory efforts and detect continuing degradation
of waters. They provide a framework for developing
improved best management practices for nonpoint
source impacts. Numeric criteria can provide effec-
tive monitoring criteria for inclusion in permits.
Q. Who determines the values for biological
criteria and decides whether a waterbody meets
the criteria?
The process of developing biological criteria, in-
cluding refined use classes, narrative criteria, and
numeric criteria, must include agency managers,
staff biologists, and the public through public hear-
ings and comment. Once criteria are established,
determining attainment\nonattainment of a use re-
46
-------
Appendix A Common Questions and Their Answers
quires biological and statistical evaluation based on
established protocols. Changes in the criteria would
require the same steps as the initial criteria: techni-
cal modifications by biologists, goal clarification by
agency managers, and public hearings. The key to
criteria development and revision is a clear state-
ment of measurable objectives.
Q. What additional information is available
on developing and using biological criteria?
A. This program guidance document will be
supplemented by the document Biological Criteria
Development by States that includes case histories
of State implementation of biological criteria as nar-
ratives, numerics, and some data procedures. The
purpose for the document is to expand on material
presented in Part I. The document will be available
in October 1990.
A general Biological Criteria Technical Refer-
ence Guide will also be available for distribution
during FY 1991. This document outlines basic ap-
proaches for developing biological criteria in all sur-
face waters (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands,
estuaries). The primary focus of the document is to
provide a reference guide to scientific literature that
describes approaches and methods used to deter-
mine biological integrity of specific surface water
types.
Over the next triennium more detailed guidance
will be produced that focuses on each surface water
type (e.g., technical guidance for streams will be
produced during FY 91). Comparisons of different
biosurvey approaches will be included for accuracy,
efficacy, and cost effectiveness.
47
-------
Biological Criteria Technical
Reference Guide
Table of Contents (tentative)
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
~	Purpose of the Technical Support Document
~	Organization of the Support Document
SECTION 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
~	Definitions
~	Biocriteria and the Scientific Method
~	Hypothesis Formulation and Testing
3 Predictions
~	Data Collection and Evaluation
SECTION 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
~	Data Quality Objectives
~	Quality Assurance Program Plans and Project Plans
q Importance of QA/QC for Bioassessment
~	Training
~	Standard Procedures
a Documentation
~	Calibration of Instruments
SECTION 4. PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOCRITERIA
a Designated Uses
~	Reference Site or Condition
~	Biosurvey
a Biological Criteria
49
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
SECTION 5. BIOASSESSMENT STRATEGIES TO DETERMINE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
a Detailed Ecological Reconnaissance
~	Biosurveys of Targeted Community Segments
~	Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
~	Bioindicators
SECTION 6. ESTABLISHING THE REFERENCE CONDITION
q Reference Conditions Based on Site-Specific Comparisons
a Reference Conditions Based on Regions of Ecological Similarity
a Reference Conditions Based on Habitat Assessment
SECTION 7. THE REFERENCE CATALOG
SECTION 8. THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT ON BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
q Habitat Assessment for Streams and Rivers
~	Habitat Assessment for Lakes and Reservoirs
a Habitat Assessment for Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
~	Habitat Assessment for Wetlands
SECTION 9. BIOSURVEY METHODS TO ASSESS BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
a Biotic Assessment in Freshwater
a Biotic Assessment in Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
~	Biotic Assessment in Wetlands
SECTION 10. DATA ANALYSIS
~	Sampling Strategy and Statistical Approaches
a Diversity Indices
a Biological Indices
a Composite Community Indices
APPENDIX A. Freshwater Environments
APPENDIX B. Estuarine and Near-Coastal Environments
APPENDIX C. Wetlands Environments
APPENDIX D. Alphabetical Author/Reference Cross Number Index for the Reference Catalog
APPENDIX E. Reference Catalog Entries
LIST OF FIGURES
~	Figure 1 Bioassessment decision matrix
~	Figure 2 Specimen of a reference citation in the Reference Catalog
50
-------
eiiJsTtiiTe
Biological Criteria
Development by States
Table of Contents (tentative)
I.	Introduction
II.	Key Concepts
III.	Biological Criteria Across the 50 States
IV.	Case Study of Ohio
A.	Introduction
1.	Derivation of Biological Criteria
2.	Application of Biological Criteria
B.	History
1.	Development of Biological Criteria
2.	Current Status of Biological Criteria
C.	Discussion
1.	Program Resources
2.	Comparative Cost Calculations
3.	Program Evaluation
V.	Case Study of Main*
A.	Introduction
1.	Derivation of Biological Criteria
2.	Application of Biological Criteria
B.	History
1.	Development of Biological Criteria
2.	Program Rationale
C.	Discussion
1.	Program Resources
2.	Program Evaluation
VI.	Case Study of North Carolina
A. Introduction
1.	Derivation of Biological Criteria
2.	Application of Biological Criteria
B.	History
1.	Development of Biological Criteria
2.	Current Status of Biological Criteria
C.	Discussion
1.	Program Resources
2.	Program Evaluation
VII.	Case Study of Arkansas
A.	Introduction
1.	Derivation of Biological Criteria
2.	Application of Biological Criteria
B.	History
1.	Development of Biological Criteria
2.	Current Status of Biological Criteria
C.	Discussion
1.	Program Resources
2.	Program Evaluation
VIII.	Case Study of Florida
A.	Introduction
1.	Derivation of Biological Criteria
2.	Application of Biological Criteria
B.	History
C.	Discussion
IX.	Case Summaries of Six States
A.
Connecticut
B.
Delaware
C.
Minnesota
D.
Nebraska
E.
New York
F.
Vermont
51
-------
Contributors and Reviewers
Contributors
Gerald Ankley
John Bender
Norm Crisp
USEPA Environmental Research
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Services Division
Lab
Environmental Control
USEPA Region 7
6201 Congdon Blvd.
P.O. Box 94877
25 Funston Road
Duluth, MN 55804
State House Station
Kansas City, KS 66115

Lincoln. NE 69509

John Arthur

Susan Davles
USEPA
Mark Blosser
Maine Department of
ERL-Duluth
Delaware Department of Natural
Environmental Protection
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Resources - Water Quality Mgmt.
State House No. 17
Duluth. MN 55804
Branch
Augusta, ME 04333

P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Way

Patricia Bailey
Dover, DE 19903
Wayne Davis
Division of Water Quality

Environmental Scientist
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Robert Bode
Ambient Monitoring Section
520 Lafayette Road
New York State Department of
USEPA Region 5
St. Paul, MN 55155
Environmental Conservation
536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA)

Box 1397
Chicago, IL 60605
Joe Ball
Albany, NY 12201
Wisconsin DNR
Kenneth Duke
Water Resource Management
Lee Bridges
Battelle
(WR/2)
Indiana Department of Environment
505 King Avenue
P.O. Box 7291
Management
Columbus, OH 43201 -2693
Madison, Wl 53707
5500 W.Bradbury


Indianapolis, IN 46241
Gary Fandrel
Michael Barbour
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
EA Engineering, Science, and
Claire Buchanan
Division of Water Quality
Technology Inc.
Interstate Commission on Potomac
520 La Fayette Road North
Hunt Valley/Loveton Center
River Basin
St. Paul, MN 55155
15 Loveton Circle
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300

Sparks. MD 21152
Rockville. MD 20852-3903
Steve Fiske


Vermont Department of
Raymond Beaumler
David Courtemanch
Environmental Conservation
Ohio EPA
Maine Department of
6 Baldwin SL
Water Quality Laboratory
Environmental Protection
Montpelier, VT 05602
1030 King Avenue
Director, Division of Environmental

Columbus, OH 43212
Evaluation and Lake Studies


State House No. 17


Augusta, ME 04333

53
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
John Glesa
Arkansas Department Of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Steven Glomb
Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
USEPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Steve Goodbred
Division of Ecological Services
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1825 B. Virginia Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Jim Harrison
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St. (4WM-MEB)
Atlanta, GA 30365
Margarete Heber
Office of Water Enforcements and
Permits
USEPA (EN-336)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Steve Hedtke
US EPA Environmental Research
Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Robert Hlte
Illinois EPA
2209 West Main
Marion, IL 62959
Unda Hoist
USEPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Evan Homlg
USEPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank at Fountain
Place
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
William B. Horning II
Aquatic Biologist. Project
Management Branch
USEPA/ORD Env. Monitoring
Systems
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH *5244
Robert Hughes
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Jim Hulbert
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Suite 232
3319 Maguire Blvd.
Orlando, FL 32803
James Kennedy
Institute of Applied Sciences
North Texas State University
Denton, TX 76203
Richard Langdon
Vermont Department of
Environmental
Conservation—10 North
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
John Lyons
Special Projects Leader
Wisconsin Fish Research Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
3911 Fish Hatchery Rd.
Fitchburg, Wl 53711
Anthony Maciorowski
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Suzanne Marcy
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards
USEPA (WH 585)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Scott Mattee
Geological Survey of Alabama
PO Drawer O
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
John Maxted
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
39 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Jimmie Overton
NC Dept of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
512 N. Salisbury
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Steve Paulsen
Enviromental Research Center
University of Nevada - Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkey
Las Vegas, NV 89154
Loys Parrish
USEPA Region 8
P.O. Box 25366
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
David Penrose
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Don Phelps
USEPA
Environmental Research Lab
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Ernest Plzzuto
Connecticut Department
Environmental Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06115
James Plafkln
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards
USEPA (WH 553)
401 M Street. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ronald Preston
Biological Science Coordinator
USEPA Region 3
Wheeling Office (3ES12)
303 Methodist Building
Wheeling. WV 26003
54
-------
Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers
Ronald Raschke
Ecological Support Branch
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 4
Athens, GA 30613
Mark Southerland
Dynamac Corporation
The Dynamac Building
11140 Rickville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
James Thomas
Newfound .Harbor Marine Institute
Rt. 3, Box 170
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
Nelson Thomas
USEPA, ERL-Duluth
Senior Advisor for National Program
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Randall Walte
USEPA Region 3
Program Support Branch (3WMIO)
841 Chesnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
John Wegrzyn
Manager, Water Quality Standards
Unit
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 95004
Thom Whittler
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Bill Wuerthele
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 8 (WM-SP)
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Chris Yoder
Asst. Manager, Surface Water
Section
Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment
Ohio EPA-Water Quality Lab
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
David Yount
US EPA Environmental Research
Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Lee Zenl
Interstate Commission on Potomac
River Basin
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20852-3903
Reviewers
Paul Adamus
Wetlands Program
NSI Technology Services
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Rick Albright
USEPA Region 10 (WD-139)
1200 6th Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98101
Max Anderson
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605
Michael D. Bllgtr
USEPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
Susan Boldt
University of Wisconsin Extension
Madison, Wl
Paul Campanella
Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
USEPA (PM 222-A)
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Cindy Carusone
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
Albany, NY 12201
Brian Choy
Hawaii Department of Health
645 Haiekauwila St
Honolulu, HI 96813
Bill Creal
Michigan DNR
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
Phil Crocker
Water Quality Management Branch
USEPA Region 611445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Kenneth Cummins
Appalachian Environmental Lab
University of Maryland
Frostburg, MD 21532
Jeff OeShon
Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
Peter Farrlngton
Biomonitoring Assessments Officer
Water Quality Branch
Inland Waters Directorate
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH3
Kenneth Fenner
USEPA Region 5
Water Quality Branch
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Jack Freda
Ohio EPA
Surface Water Section
1030 King Avenue
Columbus. OH 43212
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield. IL 62706
Cynthia Fuller
USEPA GLNPO
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
55
-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
Jeff Gagler
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604
Mary Jo Garreis
Maryland Department of the
Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Building 30
Baltimore, MD 21224
Jim Giattina
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604
Jim Green
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 3
303 Methodist Bldg.
11th and Chapline
Wheeling, WV 26003
Larindo Gronner
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Martin Gurtz
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
P.O. Box 2857
Raleigh, NC 27602-2857
Rick Hafele
Oregon Department Environmental
Quality
1712S.W. 11th Street
Portland, OR 97201
Steve Heiskary
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St Paul, MN 55155
Rollie Hemmett
USEPA Region 2
Environmental Services
Woodridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Charles Hocutt
Horn Point Environmental
Laboratory
Box 775 University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD 21613
Hoke Howard
USEPA Region 4
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605
Peter Husby
USEPA Region 9
215 FreemontSt
San Francisco, CA94105
Gerald Jacobl
Environmental Sciences
School of Science and Technology
New Mexico Highlands University
Las Vegas, NM 87701
James Karr
Department of Biology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061 -0406
Roy Kleinsasser
Texas Parks and Wildlife
P.O. Box 947
San Marcos, TX 78667
Don Klemm
USEPA Environmental Monitoring
and Systems Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Robin Knox
Louisiana Department of
Environment Quality
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70726
Robert Koroncal
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 3
847 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Jim Kurztenbach
USEPA Region 2
Woodbridge Ave.
Rariton Depot Bldg. 10
Edison, NJ 08837
Roy Kwiatkowskl
Water Quality Objectives Division
Water Quality Branch
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
K1AOH3
Jim La|orchak
EMSL-Cincinnati
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Cincinnati, OH
David Lenat
NC Dept of Natural Resources and
Community Development
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
James Luey
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago. IL 60604
Terry Maret
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 69509
Wally Matsunaga
Illinois EPA
1701 First Ave., #600
Maywood, IL60153
Robert Mosher
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd. #15
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794
Phillip Oshida
USEPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA94105
Bill Painter
USEPA, OPPE
401 M Street. SW (W435B)
Washington, DC 20460
Rob Pepin
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Wayne Poppe
Tennessee Valley Authority
270 Haney Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN 37401
Walter Redmon
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
56
-------
Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers
Landon Ross
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Jean Roberts
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
2655 East Magnolia
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Charles Saylor
Tennessee Valley Authority
Field Operations Eastern Area
Division of Services and Field
Operations
Norns, TN 37828
Robert Schacht
Illinois EPA
1701 First Avenue
Maywood, IL60153
Duane Schuettpelz
Chief, Surface Water Standards and
Monitoring Section-Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Bruce Shackleford
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Larry Shepard
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604
Jerry Shulte
Ohio River Sanitation Commission
49 E. 4th St., Suite 851
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Thomas Simon
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605
J. Singh
USEPA Region 5
536 Clark St. (5SCDO)
Chicago, IL 60605
Marc Smith
Biomonitoring Section
Ohio EPA
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
Denlse Steurer
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
William Tucker
Supervisor, Water Quality
Monitoring
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
4500 S. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62706
Stephen Twldwell
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Barbara Williams
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
57
-------
APPENDIX D
National Guidance:
Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards (WH-585)
Washinton, DC 20460
EPA 440/S-90-011
July 1990
Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands
National Guidance
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
WETLANDS
National Guidance
July 1990
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Wetlands Protection
-------
This document is designated as Appendix B to Chapter 2 - General Program Guidance of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, December 1983.
Table of Contents
Page
Transmittal Memo	 v
Executive Summary	vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION		1
1.1	Objectives	2
1.2	Organization	2
1.3	Legal Authority	3
2.0 INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE WATERS	5
3.0 USE CLASSIFICATION	7
3.1	Wetland Types	8
3.2	Wetland Functions and Values	10
3.3	Designating Wetland Uses	11
4.0 CRITERIA	15
4.1	Narrative Criteria	15
4.1.1	General Narrative Criteria	16
4.1.2	Narrative Biological Criteria	16
4.2	Numeric Criteria	17
4.2.1	Numeric Criteria - Human Health	17
4.2.2	Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life	17
5.0 ANTIDEGRADATION	19
5.1 Protection of Existing Uses	19
Hi
-------
5.2	Protection of High-Quality Wetlands	20
5.3	Protection of Outstanding Wetlands	20
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION	23
6.1	Section 401 Certification	23
6.2	Discharges to Wetlands	24
6.2.1	Municipal Wastewater Treatment	24
6.2.2	Stormwater Treatment	24
6.2.3	Fills	25
6.2.4	Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control	25
6.3	Monitoring	25
6.4	Mixing Zones and Variances	26
7.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS	29
7.1	Numeric Biological Criteria for Wetlands	29
7.2	Wildlife Criteria	30
7.3	Wetlands Monitoring	30
References	31
Appendices
A - Glossary	A-1
B - Definition of "Waters of the U.S."	B-1
C - Information on the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Values	C-1
D - Regional Wetlands Coordinators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	D-1
E - Example of State Certification Action Involving Wetlands under CWA Section 401	E-1
IV
-------
ST^
$ A \	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
?	WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
% PRO^
M 30 1990
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
Final Document: National Guidance on Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands
Martha G. Prothro, Director
Office of Water Regulafcioris—aod Standards
David G. Davis, Dire
Office of Wetlands Protect!]

Regional Water Division Directors
Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy
and Management, Region VII
OW Office Directors
State Water Quality Program Managers
State Wetland Program Managers
The following document entitled "National Guidance: Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands" provides guidance for meeting the
priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to
develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-
1993 triennium. This document was developed jointly by the
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and the Office
of Wetlands Protection (OWP), and reflects the comments we
received on the February 1990 draft from EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices, EPA laboratories, and the States.
By the end of FY 1993, the minimum requirements for States
are to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters",
establish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative
and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt narrative biological
criteria for wetlands, and apply antidegradation policies to
wetlands. Information in this document related to the
development of biological criteria has been coordinated with
recent guidance issued by OWRS; "Biological Criteria: National
Program Guidance for Surface Waters", dated April 1990.
We are focusing on water quality standards for wetlands to
ensure that provisions of the Clean Water Act currently applied
to other surface waters are also being applied to wetlands. The
document focuses on those elements of water quality standards
-------
that can be developed now using the overall structure of the
water quality standards program and existing information and data
sources related to wetlands. Periodically, our offices will
provide additional information and support to the Regions and
States through workshops and additional documents. We encourage
you to let us know your needs as you begin developing wetlands
standards. If you have any questions concerning this document,
please contact us or have your staff contact Bob Shippen in OWRS
(FTS-475-7329) or Doreen Robb in OWP (FTS-245-3906).
Attachment
cc: LaJuana Wilcher
Robert wayland
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
This document provides program guidance to States on how to ensure effective application of water
quality standards (WQS) to wetlands. This guidance reflects the level of achievement EPA expects the States
to accomplish by the end of FY 1993, as defined in the Agency Operating Guidance, FY 1991, Office of Water.
The basic requirements for applying State water quality standards to wetlands include the following:
•	Include wetlands in the definition of "State waters."
•	Designate uses for all wetlands.
•	Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free froms") and appropriate numeric criteria for wetlands.
•	Adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands.
•	Apply the State's antidegradation policy and implementation methods to wetlands.
Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) applied to other surface waters are also applied to wetlands. Although Federal regulations im-
plementing the CWA include wetlands in the definition of "waters of the U.S." and therefore require water
quality standards, a number of States have not developed WQS for wetlands and have not included wetlands
in their definitions of "State waters." Applying water quality standards to wetlands is part of an overall effort
to protect and enhance the Nation's wetland resources and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation for a broad range of water quality manage-
ment activities including, but not limited to, monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402
and 404, water quality certification under Section 401, and the control of NPS pollution under Section 319.
With the issuance of this guidance, EPA proposes a two- phased approach for the development of WQS
for wetlands. Phase 1 activities presented in this guidance include the development of WQS elements for
wetlands based upon existing information and science to be implemented within the next triennium. Phase
2 involves the further refinement of these basic elements using new science and program developments. The
development of WQS for all surface waters is an iterative process.
Definition
The first and most important step in applying water quality standards to wetlands is ensuring that wetlands
are legally included in the scope of States' water quality standards programs. States may accomplish this by
adopting a regulatory definition of "State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of "waters of
the U.S." and by adopting an appropriate definition for "wetlands." States may also need to remove or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority of water quality standards over wetlands.
Use Designation
At a minimum, all wetlands must have uses designated that meet the goals of Section 101 (a)(2) of the CWA
by providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water, unless the results of a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA Section 101(a)(2) goals
cannot be achieved. When designating uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing general
-------
and water-specific classification systems, or they may set up an entirely different system for wetlands
reflecting their unique functions. Two basic pieces of information are useful in classifying wetland uses: (1)
the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values associated with such types of wetlands.
Generally, wetland functions directly relate to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of wetlands.
The protection of these functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses of
waters adjacent to, or downstream of, wetlands.
Criteria
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)) requires States to adopt criteria sufficient
to protect designated uses that may include general statements (narrative) and specific numerical values
(i.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics). Most State water quality standards
already contain many criteria for various water types and designated use classes that may be applicable to
wetlands.
Narrative criteria are particularly important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts cannot be fully
addressed by numeric criteria. Such impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals for which there are
no numeric criteria in State standards, nonpoint sources, and activities that may affect the physical and/or
biological, rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality (e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material).
Narratives should be written to protect the most sensitive designated use and to support existing uses under
State antidegradation policies. In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria provide a
further basis for managing a broad range of activities that impact the biological integrity of wetlands and
other surface waters, particularly physical and hydrologic modifications. Narrative biological criteria are
general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use
designation. EPA has published national guidance on developing biological criteria for all surface waters.
Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents, physical parameters, or biological
conditions that are adopted in State standards. Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity
of a contaminant and the amount of the contaminant consumed through ingestion of water and fish
regardless of the type of water. Therefore, EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are directly
applicable to wetlands. EPA also develops chemical-specific numeric criteria recommendations for the
protection of freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
specifically for wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable to most
wetland types. An exception to this are pH-dependent criteria, such as ammonia and pentachlorophenol,
since wetland pH may be outside the normal range of 6.5-9.0. As in other waters, natural water quality
characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range established for uses designated in State stand-
ards. These water quality characteristics may require the development of criteria that reflect the natural
background conditions in a specific wetland or wetland type. Examples of some of the wetland charac-
teristics that may fall into this category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color, and hydrogen sulfide.
Antidegradation
The antidegradation policies contained in all State standards provide a powerful tool for the protection of
wetlands and can be used by States to regulate point and nonpoint source discharges to wetlands in the
same way as other surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses and narrative criteria, antidegradation
can be used to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed by chemical criteria, such as
physical and hydrologic modifications. With the inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State," State
antidegradation policies and their implementation methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as other
surface waters. State antidegradation policies should provide for the protection of existing uses in wetlands
and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses in the same manner as provided for other
surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regulation. In the case of fills, EPA interprets protection
of existing uses to be met if there is no significant degradation as defined according to the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines. State antidegradation policies also provide special protection for outstanding natural resource
waters.
viii
-------
Implementation
Implementing water quality standards for wetlands will require a coordinated effort between related
Federal and State agencies and programs. Many States have begun to make more use of CWA Section 401
certification to manage certain activities that impact their wetland resources on a physical and/or biological
basis rather than just chemical impacts. Section 401 gives the States the authority to grant, deny, or
condition certification of Federal permits or licenses that may result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S."
Such action is taken by the State to ensure compliance with various provisions of the CWA, including the
State's water quality standards. Violation of water quality standards is often the basis for denials or
conditioning through Section 401 certification.
Natural wetlands are nearly always "waters of the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protection as
other surface waters with regard to standards and minimum wastewater treatment requirements. Water
quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through
adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies. The Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt waste transport or waste
assimilation as a designated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'." Certain activities involving the discharge of
pollutants to wetlands may be permitted; however, as with other surface waters, the State must ensure,
through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect wetland functions
and values as defined in State water quality standards. For municipal discharges to natural wetlands, a
minimum of secondary treatment is required, and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and
adjacent waters must be met. EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater discharges to wetlands will
have some similarities to the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to wetlands.
Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, also serve an important
water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of,
the wetlands. Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to complete assessments of nonpoint source
(NPS) impacts to State waters, including wetlands, and to prepare management programs to control NPS
impacts. Water quality standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management
programs for wetlands.
In addition, States can address physical and hydrological impacts on wetland quality through the applica-
tion of narrative criteria to protect existing uses and through application of their antidegradation policies.
The States should provide a linkage in their water quality standards to the determination of "significant
degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws affecting
the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands.
Finally, water quality management activities, including the permitting of wastewater and stormwater
discharges, the assessment and control of NPS pollution, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the designated and existing uses of "waters of
the U.S." are maintained and protected. The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
basis for conducting both wetland-specific and status and trend monitoring of State wetland resources.
Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may include several approaches, including biological
measurements (i.e., plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish), that have shown promise for monitoring stream
quality. The States are encouraged to develop and test the use of biological indicators.
Future Directions
Development of narrative biological criteria are included in the first phase of the development of water
quality standards for wetlands. The second phase involves the implementation of numeric biological criteria.
This effort requires the detailed evaluation of the components of wetland communities to determine the
structure and function of unimpaired wetlands. Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife species. It is
therefore also important to consider wildlife in developing criteria that protect the functions and values of
be
-------
wetlands. During the next 3 years, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
water quality criteria to determine whether adjustments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of criteria (e.g.,
tissue concentration criteria) are needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources.
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards is also developing guidance for EPA and State surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the end of FY 1990. Other technical guidance and support
for the development of State water quality standards will be forthcoming from EPA in the next triennium.
-------
Chapter 1.0
Introduction
Our understanding of the many benefits that
wetlands provide has evolved rapidly over
the last 20 to 30 years. Recently,
programs have been developed to restore and
protect wetland resources at the local, State, and
Federal levels of government. At the Federal level,
the President of the United States established the
goal of "no net loss" of wetlands, adapted from the
National Wetlands Policy Forum recommendations
(The Conservation Foundation 1988). Applying
water quality standards to wetlands is part of an
overall effort to protect the Nation's wetland resour-
ces and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
programs for managing wetlands to meet this goal.
As the link between land and water, wetlands play
a vital role in water quality management programs.
Wetlands provide a wide array of functions including
shoreline stabilization, nonpoint source runoff filtra-
tion, and erosion control, which directly benefit ad-
jacent and downstream waters. In addition, wet-
lands provide important biological habitat, including
nursery areas for aquatic life and wildlife, and other
benefits such as groundwater recharge and recrea-
tion. Wetlands comprise a wide variety of aquatic
vegetated systems including, but not limited to,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, bogs, fens,
vernal pools, and marshes. The basic elements of
water quality standards (WQS), including desig-
nated uses, criteria, and an antidegradation policy,
provide a sound legal basis for protecting wetland
resources through State water quality management
programs.
Water quality standards traditionally have been
applied to waters such as rivers, lakes, estuaries,
and oceans, and have been applied tangentially, if at
all, to wetlands by applying the same uses and
criteria to wetlands as to adjacent perennial waters.
Isolated wetlands not directly associated with peren-
nial waters generally have not been addressed in
State water quality standards. A recent review of
State water quality standards (USEPA 1989d) shows
that only half of the States specifically refer to wet-
lands, or use similar terminology, in their water
quality standards. Even where wetlands are refer-
1
-------
enced, standards may not be tailored to reflect the
unique characteristics of wetlands.
Water quality standards specifically tailored to
wetlands provide a consistent basis for the develop-
ment of policies and technical procedures for
managing activities that impact wetlands. Such
water quality standards provide the goals for
Federal and State programs that regulate dischar-
ges to wetlands, particularly those under CWA Sec-
tions 402 and 404 as well as other regulatory
programs (e.g., Sections 307, 318, and 405) and
nonregulatory programs (e.g., Sections 314, 319,
and 320). In addition, standards play a critical role
in the State 401 certification process by providing
the basis for approving, conditioning, or denying
Federal permits and licenses, as appropriate. Final-
ly, standards provide a benchmark against which to
assess the many activities that impact wetlands.
1.1 Objectives
The objective of this document is to assist States
in applying their water quality standards regulations
to wetlands in accordance with the Agency Operat-
ing Guidance (USEPA 1990a), which states:
By September 30, 1993, States and qualified
Indian Tribes must adopt narrative water
quality standards that apply directly to wet-
lands. Those Standards shall be established
in accordance with either the National
Guidance. Water Quality Standards for Wet-
lands... or some other scientifically valid
method. In adopting water quality standards
for wetlands, States and qualified Indian
Tribes, at a minimum, shall: (1) define wet-
lands as "State waters(2) designate uses
that protect the structure and function of wet-
lands; (3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria
(the "free froms") and appropriate numeric
criteria in the standards to protect the desig-
nated uses; (4) adopt narrative biological
criteria in the standards; and (5) extend the
antidegradation policy and implementation
methods to wetlands. Unless results of a use
attainability analysis show that the section
101(a) goals cannot be achieved, States and
qualified Indian Tribes shall designate uses
for wetlands that provide for the protection of
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation. When
extending the antidegradation policy and im-
plementation methods to wetlands, con-
sideration should be given to designating
critical wetlands as Outstanding National
Resource Waters. As necessary, the an-
tidegradation policy should be revised to
reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands.
This level of achievement is based upon existing
science and information, and therefore can be com-
pleted within the FY 91-93 triennial review cycle.
Initial development of water quality standards for
wetlands over the next 3 years will provide the foun-
dation for the development of more detailed water
quality standards for wetlands in the future based on
further research and policy development (see Chap-
ter 7.O.). Activities defined in this guidance are
referred to as "Phase 1 activities," while those to be
developed over the longer term are referred to as
"Phase 2 activities." Developing water quality stand-
ards is an iterative process.
This guidance is not regulatory, nor is it designed
to dictate specific approaches needed in State water
quality standards. The document addresses the
minimum requirements set out in the Operating
Guidance, and should be used as a guide to the
modifications that may be needed in State stand-
ards. EPA recognizes that State water quality stand-
ards regulations vary greatly from State to State, as
do wetland resources. This guidance suggests ap-
proaches that States may wish to use and allows for
State flexibility and innovation.
1.2 Organization
Each chapter of this document provides guidance
on a particular element of Phase 1 wetland water
quality standards that EPA expects States to under-
take during the next triennial review period (i.e., by
September 30, 1993). For each chapter, a discus-
sion of what EPA considers to be minimally accept-
able is followed by subsections providing informa-
tion that may be used to meet, and go beyond, the
minimum requirements during Phase 1. Documents
referenced in this guidance provide further informa-
tion on specific topics and may be obtained from the
sources listed in the "References" section. The fol-
lowing paragraphs introduce each of the chapters of
this guidance.
Most wetlands fall within the definition of "waters
of the U.S." and thus require water quality stand-
2
-------
ards. EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993 to
include wetlands in their definition of "State waters"
consistent with the Federal definition of "waters of
the U.S." Guidance on the inclusion of wetlands in
the definition of "State waters" is contained in Chap-
ter 2.0.
The application of water quality standards to wet-
lands requires that States designate appropriate
uses consistent with Sections 101(a)(2) and
303(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA ex-
pects States by the end of FY 1993 to establish
designated uses for all wetlands. Discussion of
designated uses is contained in Chapter 3.0.
The WQS regulation (40 CFR 131) requires States
to adopt water quality criteria sufficient to protect
designated uses. EPA expects the States, by the
end of FY 1993, to adopt aesthetic narrative criteria
(the "free froms"), appropriate numeric criteria, and
narrative biological criteria for wetlands. Narrative
criteria are particularly important for wetlands, since
many activities may impact upon the physical and
biological, as well as chemical, components of
water quality. Chapter 4.0 discusses the application
of narrative and numeric criteria to wetlands.
EPA also expects States to fully apply an-
tidegradation policies and implementation methods
to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. Antidegradation
can provide a powerful tool for the protection of
wetlands, especially through the requirement for full
protection of existing uses as well as the States'
option of designating wetlands as outstanding na-
tional resource waters. Guidance on the application
of State antidegradation policies to wetlands is con-
tained in Chapter 5.0.
Many State water quality standards contain
policies affecting the application and implementa-
tion of water quality standards (e.g., variances,
mixing zones). Unless otherwise specified, such
policies are presumed to apply to wetlands in the
same manner as to other waters of the State. States
should consider whether such policies should be
modified to reflect the characteristics of wetlands.
Guidance on the implementation of water quality
standards for wetlands is contained in Chapter 6.0.
Application of standards to wetlands will be an
iterative process; both EPA and the States will refine
their approach based on new scientific information
as well as experience developed through State
programs. Chapter 7.0 outlines Phase 2 wetland
standards activities for which EPA is planning addi-
tional research and program development.
1.3 Legal Authority
The Clean Water Act requires States to develop
water quality standards, which include designated
uses and criteria to support those uses, for
"navigable waters." CWA Section 502(7) defines
"navigable waters" as "waters of the U.S." "Waters of
the U.S." are, in turn, defined in Federal regulations
developed for the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (40 CFR 122.2) and permits for
the discharge of dredged or fill material (40 CFR
230.3 and 232.2). "Waters of the U.S." include
waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; inter-
state waters (including interstate wetlands) and in-
trastate waters (including wetlands), the use,
destruction, or degradation of which could affect
interstate commerce; tributaries of the above; and
wetlands adjacent to the above waters (other than
waters which are themselves waters). See Appendix
B for a complete definition.
The term "wetlands" is defined in 40 CFR
232.2(r) as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas.
This definition of "waters of the U.S.," which in-
cludes. most wetlands, has been debated in Con-
gress and upheld by the courts. In 1977, a proposal
to delete CWA jurisdiction over most wetlands for
the purpose of the Section 404 permit program was
defeated in the Senate. The debate on the amend-
ment shows a strong congressional awareness of
the value of wetlands and the importance of retain-
ing them under the statutory scheme. Various
courts have also upheld the application of the CWA
to wetlands. See, e.g., United States v. Riverside
Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985); United States
v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1979); Avoyelles
Sportsmen's League v. Marsh, 715 F 2d 897 (5th
3
-------
Cir. 1983); United States v. Leslie Salt [1990
decision]. The practical effect is to make nearly all
wetlands "waters of the U.S."
Created wastewater treatment wetlands1
designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater
treatment systems are generally not considered to
be waters of the U.S. Water quality standards that
apply to natural wetlands generally do not apply to
such created wastewater treatment wetlands. Many
created wetlands, however, are designed, built, and
operated to provide, in addition to wastewater treat-
ment, functions and values similar to those provided
by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances,
such created multiple use wetlands may be con-
sidered waters of the U.S. and as such would require
water quality standards. This determination must be
made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetlands and other appropriate factors.
1 Different offices within EPA use different terminology (e.g., "create" or "constructed") to describe
wastewater treatment wetlands. This terminology is evolving; for purposes of this guidance
document, the terms are interchangeable in meaning.
-------
Chapter 2.0
Inclusion of Wetlands in
the Definition of State
Waters
The first, and most important, step in apply-
ing water quality standards to wetlands is
ensuring that wetlands are legally included
in the scope of States' water quality standards
programs. EPA expects States' water quality stand-
ards to include wetlands in the definition of "State
waters" by the end of FY 1993. States may ac-
complish this by adopting a regulatory definition of
"State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal
definition of "waters of the U.S." and by adopting an
appropriate definition for "wetlands." For example,
one State includes the following definitions in their
water quality standards:
"Surface waters of the State"... means all
streams,... lakes..., ponds, marshes, wet-
lands or other waterways...
"Wetlands" means areas of land where the
water table is at, near or above the land sur-
face long enough each year to result in the
formation of characteristically wet (hydric)
soil types, and support the growth of water
dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation. Wet-
lands include, but are not limited to, marshes,
swamps, bogs, and other such low-lying
areas.
States may also need to remove or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits
the authority of water quality standards over wet-
lands. In certain instances, such as when water
5
-------
B9
quality standards are statutory or where a statute
defines or limits regulatory authority over wetlands,
statutory changes may be needed.
The CWA does not preclude States from adopt-
ing, under State law, a more expansive definition of
"waters of the State" to meet the goals of the act.
Additional areas that could be covered include
riparian areas, floodplains, vegetated buffer areas,
or any other critical areas identified by the State.
Riparian areas and floodplains are important and
severely threatened ecosystems, particularly in the
arid and semiarid West. Often it is technically dif-
ficult to separate, jurisdictional^, wetlands subject
to the provisions of the CWA from other areas within
the riparian or floodplain complex.
States may choose to include riparian or
floodplain ecosystems as a whole in the definition of
"waters of the State" or designate these areas for
special protection in their water quality standards
through several mechanisms, including definitions,
use classifications, and antidegradation. For ex-
ample, the regulatory definition of "waters of the
State" in one State includes:
...The flood plain of free flowing waters deter-
mined by the Department...on the basis of the
100-year flood frequency.
In another State, the definition of a use classifica-
tion states:
This beneficial use is a combination of the
characteristics of the watershed expressed in
the water quality and the riparian area.
And in a third State, the antidegradation protec-
tion for high-quality waters provides that:
These waters shall not be lowered in
quality...unless it is determined by the com-
mission that such lowering will not do any of
the following:
...[bjecome injurious to the value or
utility of riparian lands...
6
-------
Chapter 3.0
Use Classification
At a minimum, EPA expects States by the
end of FY 1993 to designate uses for all
wetlands, and to meet the same minimum
requirements of the WQS regulation (40 CFR
131.10) that are applied to other waters. Uses for
wetlands must meet the goals of Section 101(a)(2)
of the CWA by providing for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for
recreation in and on the water, unless the results of
a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA
Section 101(a)(2) goals cannot be achieved. The
Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.10(c)) allows for the designation of sub-
categories of a use, an activity that may be ap-
propriate for wetlands. Pursuant to the WQS
Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(i)), States must desig-
nate any uses that are presently being attained in
the wetland. A technical support document is cur-
rently being developed by the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards for conducting use at-
tainability analyses for wetlands.
The propagation of aquatic life and wildlife is an
attainable use in virtually all wetlands. Aquatic life
protection need not refer only to year-round fish and
aquatic life. Wetlands often provide valuable
seasonal habitat for fish and other aquatic life, am-
phibians, and migratory bird reproduction and
migration. States should ensure that aquatic life
and wildlife uses are designated for wetlands even if
a limited habitat is available or the use is attained
only seasonally.
Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand,
may not be attainable in certain wetlands that do not
have sufficient water, at least seasonally. However,
States are also encouraged to recognize and
protect recreational uses that do not directly involve
contact with water, e.g., hiking, camping, bird
watching.
The WQS regulation requires a UAA wherever a
State designates a use that does not include the
uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA; see
40 CFR Part 131.10(j). This need not be an onerous
task for States when deciding whether certain
recreational uses are attainable. States may con-
duct generic UAAs for entire classes or types of
7
-------
wetlands based on the demonstrations in 40 CFR
Part 131.10(g)(2). States must, however, designate
CWA goal uses wherever these are attainable, even
where attainment may be seasonal.
When designating uses for wetlands, States may
choose to use their existing general and water-
specific classification systems, or they may set up
an entirely different system for wetlands. Each of
these approaches has advantages and disad-
vantages, as discussed below.
Some States stipulate that wetlands are desig-
nated for the same uses as the adjacent waters.
States may also apply their existing general clas-
sification system to designate uses for specific wet-
lands or groups of wetlands. The advantage of
these approaches is that they do not require States
to expend additional effort to develop specific wet-
land uses, or determine specific functions and
values, and can be generally used to designate the
CWA goal uses for wetlands. However, since wet-
land attributes may be significantly different than
those of other waters, States with general wetland
use designations will need to review the uses for
individual wetlands in more detail when assessing
activities that may impair the specific "existing uses"
(e.g., functions and values). In addition, the "ad-
jacent" approach does not produce uses for "iso-
lated" wetlands.
Owing to these differences in attributes, States
should strongly consider adopting a separate use
classification system for wetlands based on wetland
type and/or beneficial use (function and value). This
approach initially requires more effort in developing
use categories (and specific criteria that may be
needed for them), as well as in determining what
uses to assign to specific wetlands or groups of
wetlands. The greater the specificity in designating
uses, however, the easier it is for States to justify
regulatory controls to protect those uses. States
may wish to designate beneficial uses for individual-
ly named wetlands, including outstanding wetlands
(see Section 6.3), although this approach may be
practical only for a limited number of wetlands. For
the majority of their wetlands, States may wish to
designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands
based on region or wetland type.
Two basic pieces of information are useful in
classifying wetland uses: (1) the structural types of
wetlands; and (2) the functions and values as-
sociated with such types of wetlands. The functions
and values of wetlands are often defined based
upon structural type and location within the
landscape or watershed. The understanding of the
various wetland types within the State and their
functions and values provides the basis for a com-
prehensive classification system applicable to all
wetlands and all wetland uses. As with other waters,
both general and waterbody-specific classifications
may be needed to ensure that uses are appropriate-
ly assigned to all wetlands in the State. Appropriate
and definitive use designations allow water quality
standards to more accurately reflect both the "exist-
ing" uses and the States' goals for their wetland
resources, and to allow standards to be a more
powerful tool in protecting State wetlands. Sections
3.1 through 3.3 provide further information on wet-
land types, functions, and values, and how these
can be used to designate uses for wetlands.
3.1 Wetland Types
A detailed understanding of the various wetland
types within the State provides the basis for a com-
prehensive classification system. The classification
system most often cited and used by Federal and
State wetland permit programs was developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS); see Figure 1. This system provides
the basis for wetland-related activities within the
FWS. The Cowardin system is hierarchical and thus
can provide several levels of detail in classifying
wetlands. The "System" and "Subsystem" levels of
detail appear to be the most promising for water
quality standards. The "Class" level may be useful
for designating uses for specific wetlands or wetland
types. Section 3.3 gives an example of how one
State uses the Cowardin system to generate desig-
nated uses for wetlands.
Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986, the FWS is required to complete the mapping
of wetlands within the lower 48 States by 1998
through the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and
to assess the status of the nation's wetland resour-
ces every 10 years. The maps and status and trend
reports may help States understand the extent of
their wetlands and wetland types and ensure that all
wetlands are assigned appropriate uses. To date,
over 30,000 detailed 1:24,000 scale maps have been
completed, covering approximately 60 percent of
8
-------
System
Subsystem
i— Marine -
— Estuarine-
cn
E-
<
s
<
x
at
u
H
<
>
CL.
W
U
a
Q
z
<
Cfl
G
z
<
-J
f-
U
£
- Subtidal -
- Intertidal •
• Subtidal -
- Intertidal -
— Riverine -
- Tidal -
-Lower Perennial -
-Upper Perennial -
-Intermittent -
—Lacustrine -
-Limnetic •
- Littoral -
— Palustrine-
Clas9
—Rock Bottom
—	Unconsolidated Bottom
—Aquatic Bed
—Reef
—	Aquatic Bed
—Reef
—Rocky Shore
—Unconsolidated Shore
-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
-Aquatic Bed
-	Reef
-Streambed
-	Rocky Shore
-Unconsolidated Shore
-	Emergent Wetland
-	Scrub-Shrub Wetland
-	Forested Wetland
-	Rock Bottom
-	Unconsolidated Bottom
-	Aquatic Bed
• Rocky Shore
-	Unconsolidated Shore
-	Emergent Wetland
-Rock Bottom
-	Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Rocky Shore
-	Unconsolidated Shore
-	Emergent Wetland
-	Rock Bottom
-	Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-	Rocky Shore
-	Unconsolidated Shore
-Streambed
ERock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Aquatic Bed
-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-	Rocky Shore
-	Unconsolidated Shore
-	Emergent Wetland
-	Rock Bottom
• Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-	Unconsolidated Shore
-Moss-Lichen Wetland
-	Emergent Wetland
-Scrub-Shrub Wetland
¦ Forested Wetland
Figure 1. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and
deepwater habitats, showing Systems, Subsystems, and Classes. The Palustrine System does not include deepwater
habitats (from Cowardin et al., 1979).
9
-------
the coterminous United States and 16 percent of
Alaska2.
In some States, wetland maps developed under
the NWI program have been digitized and are avail-
able for use with geographic information systems
(GIS). To date, more than 5,700 wetland maps rep-
resenting 10.5 percent of the coterminous United
States have been digitized. Statewide digital
databases have been developed for New Jersey,
Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, and
are in progress in Indiana and Virginia. NWI digital
data files also are available for portions of 20 other
States. NWI data files are sold at cost in 7.5-minute
quadrangle units. The data are provided on mag-
netic tape in MOSS export, DLG3 optional, ELAS,
and IGES formats3. Digital wetlands data may ex-
pedite assigning uses to wetlands for both general
and wetland-specific FIC classifications.
The classification of wetlands may benefit from
the use of salinity concentrations. The Cowardin
classification system uses a salinity criterion of 0.5
ppt ocean-derived salinity to differentiate between
estuarine and freshwater wetlands. Differences in
salinity are reflected in the species composition of
plants and animals. The use of salinity in the clas-
sification of wetlands may be useful in restricting
activities that would alter the salinity of a wetland to
such a degree that the wetland type would change.
These activities include, for example, the construc-
tion of dikes to convert a saltwater marsh to a fresh-
water marsh or the dredging of channels that would
deliver saltwater to freshwater wetlands.
3.2 Wetland Functions and
Values
Many approaches have been developed for iden-
tifying wetland functions and values. Wetland
evaluation techniques developed prior to 1983 have
been summarized by Lonard and Clairain (1985),
and EPA has summarized assessment
methodologies developed since 1983 (see Appendix
C). EPA has also developed guidance on the selec-
tion of a methodology for activities under the Sec-
tion 404 program entitled Draft Guidance to EPA
Regional Offices on the Use of Advance Identifica-
tion Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (USEPA 1989a). States may develop their
own techniques for assessing the functions and
values of their wetlands.
General wetland functions that directly relate to
the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
wetlands are listed below. The protection of these
functions through water quality standards also may
be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to,
or downstream of, wetlands.
•	Groundwater Recharge/Discharge
e Flood Flow Alteration
•	Sediment Stabilization
•	Sediment/Toxic Retention
•	Nutrient Removal/Transformation
•	Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
•	Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
•	Recreation
Methodologies that are flexible with regard to
data requirements and include several levels of
detail have the greatest potential for application to
standards. One such methodology is the Wetland
Evaluation Technique developed by Adamus, et al.
(1987) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
2	Information on the availability of draft and final maps may be obtained for the coterminous United
States by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS or 703-860-6045 in Virginia. In Alaska, the number is
907-271-4159, and in Hawaii the number is 808-548-2861. Further information on the FWS National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) may be obtained from the FWS Regional Coordinators listed in Appendix D.
3	For additional information on digital wetland data contact: USFWS; National Wetlands Inventory
Program, 9720 Executive Center Drive, Monroe Building, Suite 101, St. Petersburg, FL 33702;
813-893-3624, FTS 826-3624.
10
-------
Department of Transportation. The Wetland Evalua-
tion Technique was designed for conducting an ini-
tial rapid assessment of wetland functions and
values in terms of social significance, effectiveness,
and opportunity. Social significance assesses the
value of a wetland to society in terms of its special
designation, potential economic value, and strategic
location. Effectiveness assesses the capability of a
wetland to perform a function because of its physi-
cal, chemical, or biological characteristics. Oppor-
tunity assesses the [opportunity] of a wetland to
perform a function to its level of capability. This
assessment results in "high," "moderate," or "low"
ratings for 11 wetland functions in the context of
social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity.
This technique also may be useful in identifying out-
standing wetlands for protection under State an-
tidegradation policies; see Section 5.3.
The FWS maintains a Wetlands Values Database
that also may be useful in identifying wetland func-
tions and in designating wetland uses. The data are
keyed to the Cowardin-based wetland codes iden-
tified on the National Wetland Inventory maps. The
database contains scientific literature on wetland
functions and values. It is computerized and con-
tains over 18,000 citations, of which 8,000 are an-
notated. For further information, contact the NWI
Program (see Section 3.1) orthe FWS National Ecol-
ogy Research Center4. In addition, State wetland
programs, EPA Regional wetland coordinators, and
FWS Regional wetland coordinators can provide in-
formation on wetland functions and values on a
State or regional basis; see Appendix D.
3.3 Designating Wetland Uses
The functions and values of specifically identified
and named wetlands, including those identified
within the State's water-specific classification sys-
tem and outstanding national resource water
(ONRW) category, may be defined using the Wet-
land Evaluation Technique or similar methodology.
For the general classification of wetlands, however,
States may choose to evaluate wetland function and
values for all the wetlands within the State based on
wetland type (using Cowardin (1979); see Figure 1).
One State applies its general use classifications to
different wetland types based on Cowardin's system
level of detail as illustrated in Figure 2. Note that the
State's uses are based on function, and the designa-
tion approach links specific wetland functions to a
given wetland type. The State evaluates wetlands
on a case-by-case basis as individual permit
decisions arise to ensure that designated uses are
being protected and have reflected existing uses.
4 USFWS; Wetlands Values Database, National Ecology Research Center, 4512 McMurray, Ft. Collins,
CO 80522; 303-226-9407.
11
-------
BENEFICIAL USE
WETLAND TYPE (Cowardin)
MARINE ESTUARINE RIVERINE LACUSTRINE PALUSTRINE
Municipal and Domestic Supply
Agricultural Supply
Industrial Process Supply
Groundwater Recharge	x
Freshwater Replenishment
Navigation	x
Water Contact Recreation	x
Non-Contact Water Recreation	x
Ocean Commercial and Sport Fishing x
Warm Fresh Water Habitat
Cold Fresh Water Habitat
Preservation of Areas of Special
Biological Significance
Wildlife Habitat	x
Preservation of Rare and Endangered	x
Species
Marine Habitat	x
Fish Migration	x
Shellfish Harvesting	x
Estuarine Habitat
x
x
0
x
X
X
X
X
x = existing beneficial use
o = potential beneficial use
Figure 2. Example Existing and Potential Uses of Wetlands
12
-------
Alternatively, a third method may use the location
of wetlands within the landscape as the basis for
establishing general functions and values applicable
to all the wetlands within a defined region. EPA has
developed a guidance entitled Regionalization as a
Tool for Managing Environmental Resources
(USEPA 1989c). The guidance illustrates how
various regionalization techniques have been used
in water quality management, including the use of
the ecoregions developed by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development, to direct State water
quality standards and monitoring programs. These
approaches also may be useful in the classification
of wetlands.
EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-
rently refining a draft document that will provide
useful information to States related to use classifica-
tion methodologies (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).
There are likely many other approaches for desig-
nating uses for wetlands, and the States are en-
couraged to develop comprehensive classification
systems tailored to their wetland resources. As with
other surface waters, many wetlands are currently
degraded by natural and anthropogenic activities.
The classification of wetlands should reflect the
potential uses attainable for a particular wetland,
wetland type, or class of wetland.
13
-------
14
-------
Chapter 4.0
Criteria
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131.11(a)(1)) requires States to adopt
criteria sufficient to protect designated
uses. These criteria may include general statements
(narrative) and specific numerical values (i.e., con-
centrations of contaminants and water quality char-
acteristics). At a minimum, EPA expects States to
apply aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free froms")
and appropriate numeric criteria to wetlands and to
adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands by
the end of FY 1993. Most State water quality stand-
ards already contain many criteria for various water
types and designated use classes, including narra-
tive criteria and numeric criteria to protect human
health and freshwater and saltwater aquatic life, that
may be applicable to wetlands.
In many cases, it may be necessary to use a com-
bination of numeric and narrative criteria to ensure
that wetland functions and values are adequately
protected. Section 4.1 describes the application of
narrative criteria to wetlands and Section 4.2 discus-
ses application of numeric criteria for protection of
human health and aquatic life.
4.1 Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria are general statements designed
to protect a specific designated use or set of uses.
They can be statements prohibiting certain actions
or conditions (e.g., "free from substances that
produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life") or
positive statements about what is expected to occur
in the water (e.g., "water quality and aquatic life shall
be as it naturally occurs"). Narrative criteria are
used to identify impacts on designated uses and as
a regulatory basis for controlling a variety of impacts
to State waters. Narrative criteria are particularly
important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts
cannot be fully addressed by numeric criteria. Such
impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals
for which there are no numeric criteria in State
standards, from nonpoint sources, and from ac-
tivities that may affect the physical and/or biological,
rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality
(e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material). The
Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.11 (b)) states that "States should...include narra-
15
-------
tive criteria in their standards where numeric criteria
cannot be established or to supplement numeric
criteria."
4.1.1	General Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria within the water quality stand-
ards program date back to at least 1968 when five
"free froms" were included in Water Quality Criteria
(the Green Book), (FWPCA 1968). These "free
froms" have been included as "aesthetic criteria" in
EPA's most recent Section 304(a) criteria summary
document, Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA
1987a). The narrative criteria from these documents
state:
All waters [shall be] free from substances at-
tributable to wastewater or other discharge
that:
(1)	settle to form objectionable deposits;
(2)	float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to
form nuisances;
(3)	produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or
turbidity;
(4)	injure or are toxic or produce adverse
physiological responses in humans,
animals or plants; and
(5)	produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic
life.
The Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA
1983b) recommends that States apply narrative
criteria to all waters of the United States. If these or
similar criteria are already applied to all State waters
in a State's standards, the inclusion of wetlands in
the definition of "waters of the State" will apply these
criteria to wetlands.
4.1.2	Narrative Biological Criteria
Narrative biological criteria are general state-
ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water quality for a given use desig-
nation. Narrative biological criteria can take a num-
ber of forms. As a sixth "free from," the criteria
could read "free from activities that would substan-
tially impair the biological community as it naturally
occurs due to physical, chemical, and hydrologic
changes," or the criteria may contain positive state-
ments about the biological community existing or
attainable in wetlands.
Narrative biological, criteria should contain at-
tributes that support the goals of the Clean Water
Act, which provide for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Therefore, narra-
tive criteria should include specific language about
community characteristics that (1) must exist in a
wetland to meet a particular designated aquatic
life/wildlife use, and (2) are quantifiable. Supporting
statements for the criteria should promote water
quality to protect the most natural community as-
sociated with the designated use. Mechanisms
should be established in the standard to address
potentially conflicting multiple uses. Narratives
should be written to protect the most sensitive
designated use and to support existing uses under
State antidegradation policies.
In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative
biological criteria provide a further basis for manag-
ing a broad range of activities that impact the
biological integrity of wetlands and other surface
waters, particularly physical and hydrologic
modifications. For instance, hydrologic criteria are
one particularly important but often overlooked
component to include in water quality standards to
help maintain wetlands quality. Hydrology is the
primary factor influencing the type and location of
wetlands. Maintaining appropriate hydrologic con-
ditions in wetlands is critical to the maintenance of
wetland functions and values. Hydrologic manipula-
tions to wetlands have occurred nationwide in the
form of flow alterations and diversions, disposal of
dredged or fill material, dredging of canals through
wetlands, and construction of levees or dikes.
Changes in base flow or flow regime can severely
alter the plant and animal species composition of a
wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the
change is great enough. States should consider the
establishment of criteria to regulate hydrologic al-
terations to wetlands. One State has adopted the
following language and criteria to maintain and
protect the natural hydrologic conditions and values
of wetlands:
Natural hydrological conditions necessary to
support the biological and physical charac-
teristics naturally present in wetlands shall be
protected to prevent significant adverse im-
pacts on:
16
-------
(1)	Water currents, erosion or sedimentation
patterns;
(2)	Natural water temperature variations;
(3)	The chemical, nutrient and dissolved
oxygen regime of the wetland;
(4)	The normal movement of aquatic fauna;
(5)	The pH of the wetland; and
(6)	Normal water levels or elevations.
One source of information for developing more
quantifiable hydrologic criteria is the Instream Flow
Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
can provide technical guidance on the minimum
flows necessary to attain various water uses.
Narrative criteria, in conjunction with antidegrada-
tion policies, can provide the basis for determining
the impacts of activities (such as hydrologic
modifications) on designated and existing uses.
EPA has published national guidance on developing
biological criteria for all surface waters (USEPA
1990b). EPA's Office of Research and Development
also has produced a literature synthesis of wetland
biomonitoring data on a State-by-State basis, which
is intended to support the development of narrative
biological criteria (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).
4.2 Numeric Criteria
Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for
chemical constituents, physical parameters, or
biological conditions that are adopted in State
standards. These may be values not to be exceeded
(e.g., toxics), values that must be exceeded (e.g.,
dissolved oxygen), or a combination of the two
(e.g., pH). As with all criteria, numeric criteria are
adopted to protect one or more designated uses.
Under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA
publishes numeric national criteria recommenda-
tions designed to protect aquatic organisms and
human health. These criteria are summarized in
Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA 1987a).
These criteria serve as guidelines from which States
can develop their own numeric criteria, taking into
account the particular uses designated by the State.
4.2.1	Numeric Criteria - Human
Health
Human health water quality criteria are based on
the toxicity of a contaminant and the amount of the
contaminant consumed through ingestion of water
and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore,
EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are
directly applicable to wetlands. A summary of EPA
human health criteria recommendations is con-
tained in Quality Criteria for Water - 1986.
Few wetlands are used directly for drinking water
supplies. Where drinking water is a designated or
existing use for a wetland or for adjacent waters
affected by the wetland, however, States must pro-
vide criteria sufficient to protect human health based
on water consumption (as well as aquatic life con-
sumption if appropriate). When assessing the
potential for water consumption, States should also
evaluate the wetland's groundwater recharge func-
tion to assure protection of drinking water supplies
from that source as well.
The application of human health criteria, based on
consumption of aquatic life, to wetlands is a function
of the level of detail in the States' designated uses.
If all wetlands are designated under the State's
general "aquatic life/wildlife" designation, consump-
tion of that aquatic life is assumed to be an included
use and the State's human health criteria based on
consumption of aquatic life will apply throughout.
However, States that adopt a more detailed use
classification system for wetlands (or wish to derive
site-specific human health criteria for wetlands) may
wish to selectively apply human health criteria to
those wetlands where consumption of aquatic life is
designated or likely to occur (note that a UAA will be
required where CWA goal uses are not designated)
States may also wish to adjust the exposure as-
sumptions used in deriving human health criteria.
Where it is known that exposure to individuals at a
certain site, or within a certain category of wetland,
is likely to be different from the assumed exposure
underlying the States' criteria, States may wish to
consider a reasonable estimate of the actual ex-
posure and take this estimate into account when
calculating the criteria for the site.
4.2.2	Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life
EPA develops chemical-specific numeric criteria
recommendations for the protection of freshwater
17
-------
and saltwater aquatic life. These criteria may be
divided into two basic categories: (1) chemicals
that cause toxicity to aquatic life such as metals,
ammonia, chlorine, and organics; and (2) other
water quality characteristics such as dissolved
oxygen, alkalinity, salinity, pH, and temperature.
These criteria are currently applied directly to a
broad range of surface waters in State standards,
including lakes, impoundments, ephemeral and
perennial rivers and streams, estuaries, the oceans,
and in some instances, wetlands. A summary of
EPA's aquatic life criteria recommendations is pub-
lished in Quality Criteria for Water - 1986. The
numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
specifically for wetlands, were designed to be
protective of aquatic life and are generally ap-
plicable to most wetland types.
EPA's aquatic life criteria are most often based
upon toxicological testing under controlled condi-
tions in the laboratory. The EPA guidelines for the
development of such criteria (Stephan et al., 1985)
require the testing of plant, invertebrate, and fish
species. Generally, these criteria are supported by
toxicity tests on invertebrate and early life stage fish
commonly found in many wetlands. Adjustments
based on natural conditions, water chemistry, and
biological community conditions may be ap-
propriate for certain criteria as discussed below.
EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-
rently finalizing a draft document that provides addi-
tional technical guidance on this topic, including
site-specific adjustments of criteria (Hagley and
Taylor - Draft).
As in other waters, natural water quality charac-
teristics in some wetlands may be outside the range
established for uses designated in State standards.
These water quality characteristics may require the
development of criteria that reflect the natural back-
ground conditions in a specific wetland or wetland
type. States routinely set criteria for specific waters
based on natural conditions. Examples of some of
the wetland characteristics that may fall into this
category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color,
and hydrogen sulfide.
Many of EPA's aquatic life criteria are based on
equations that take into account salinity, pH,
temperature and/or hardness. These may be directly
applied to wetlands in the same way as other water
types with adjustments in the criteria to reflect these
water quality characteristics. However, two national
criteria that are pH dependent, ammonia and pen-
tachlorophenol, present a different situation. The
pH in some wetlands may be outside the pH range
of 6.5-9.0 units for which these criteria were derived.
It is recommended that States conduct additional,
toxicity testing if they wish to derive criteria for am-
monia and pentachlorophenol outside the 6.5-9.0
pH range, unless data are already available.
States may also develop scientifically defensible
site-specific criteria for parameters whose State-
wide values may be inappropriate. Site-specific ad-
justments may be made based on the water quality
and biological conditions in a specific water, or in
waters within a particular region or ecoregion. EPA
has developed guidance on the site-specific adjust-
ment of the national criteria (USEPA 1983b). These
methods are applicable to wetlands and should be
used in the same manner as States use them for
other waters. As defined in the Handbook, three
procedures may be used to develop site-specific
criteria: (1) the recalculation procedures, (2) the
indicator species procedures, and (3) the resident
species procedures. These procedures may be
used to develop site-specific numeric criteria for
specific wetlands or wetland types. The recalcula-
tion procedure is used to make adjustments based
upon differences between the toxicity to resident
organisms and those used to derive national criteria.
The indicator species procedure is used to account
for differences in the bioavailability and/or toxicity of
a contaminant based upon the physical and chemi-
cal characteristics of site water. The resident
species procedure accounts for differences in both
species sensitivity and water quality characteristics.
IS
-------
Chapter 5.0
Antidegradation
The antidegradation policies contained in all
State standards provide a powerful tool for
the protection of wetlands and can be used
by States to regulate point and nonpoint source
discharges to wetlands in the same way as other
surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses
and narrative criteria, antidegradation can be used
to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully
addressed by chemical criteria, such as physical
and hydrologic modifications. The implications of
antidegradation to the disposal of dredged and fill
material are discussed in Section 5.1 below. At a
minimum, EPA expects States to fully apply their
antidegradation policies and implementation
methods to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. No
changes to State policies are required if they are
fully consistent with the Federal policy. With the
inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State," State
antidegradation policies and their implementation
methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as
other surface waters. The WQS regulation
describes the requirements for State antidegrada-
tion policies, which include full protection of existing
uses (functions and values), maintenance of water
quality in high-quality waters, and a prohibition
against lowering water quality in outstanding nation-
al resource waters. EPA guidance on the implemen-
tation of antidegradation policies is contained in the
Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b)
and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation
(USEPA 1985a)
5.1 Protection of Existing Uses
State antidegradation policies should provide for
the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the
level of water quality necessary to protect those
uses in the same manner as for other surface
waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regula-
tion. The existing use can be determined by
demonstrating that the use or uses have actually
occurred since November 28, 1975, or that the water
quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained.
This is the basis of EPA's antidegradation policy and
is important in the wetland protection effort. States,
especially those that adopt less detailed use clas-
sifications for wetlands, will need to use the existing
use protection in their antidegradation policies to
ensure protection of wetland values and functions.
19
-------
Determination of an existing aquatic life and
wildlife use may require physical, chemical, and
biological evaluations through a waterbody survey
and assessment. Waterbody survey and assess-
ment guidance may be found in three volumes en-
titled Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses (USEPA 1983b, 1984a,
1984b). A technical support manual for conducting
use attainability analyses for wetlands is currently
under development by the Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards.
In the case of wetland fills, EPA allows a slightly
different interpretation of existing uses under the
antidegradation policy. This interpretation has been
addressed in the answer to question no. 13 in Ques-
tions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA
1985a), and is presented below:
Since a literal interpretation of the an-
tidegradation policy could result in prevent-
ing the issuance of any wetland fill permit
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
it is logical to assume that Congress intended
some such permits to be granted within the
framework of the Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR
131.12(a)(1) of the antidegradation policy to
be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if
the discharge did not result in "significant
degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem as
defined under Section 230.10(c) of the Sec-
tion 404(b)(1) guidelines. If any wetlands
were found to have better water quality than
"fishable/swimmable," the State would be al-
lowed to lower water quality to the no sig-
nificant degradation level as long as the re-
quirements of Section 131.12(a)(2) were fol-
lowed. As for the ONRW provision of an-
tidegradation (131.12(a)(3)), there is no dif-
ference in the way it applies to wetlands and
other waterbodies.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the
following effects contribute to significant degrada-
tion, either individually or collectively:
...significant adverse effects on (1) human
health or welfare, including effects on
municipal water supplies, plankton, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites
(e.g., wetlands); (2) on the life stages of
aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer,
concentration or spread of pollutants or their
byproducts beyond the site through biologi-
cal, physical, or chemical process; (3) on
ecosystem diversity, productivity and
stability, including loss of fish and wildlife
habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to
assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce
wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aes-
thetic, and economic values.
These Guidelines may be used by States to deter-
mine "significant degradation" for wetland fills. Of
course, the States are free to adopt stricter require-
ments for wetland fills in their own antidegradation
policies, just as they may adopt any other require-
ments more stringent than Federal law requires. For
additional information on the linkage between water
quality standards and the Section 404 program, see
Section 6.2 of this guidance.
5.2	Protection of High-Quality
Wetlands
State antidegradation policies should provide for
water quality in "high quality wetlands" to be main-
tained and protected, as prescribed in Section
131.12(a)(2) of the WQS regulation. State im-
plementation methods requiring alternatives
analyses, social and economic justifications, point
and nonpoint source control, and public participa-
tion are to be applied to wetlands in the same man-
ner they are applied to other surface waters.
5.3	Protection of Outstanding
Wetlands
Outstanding national resource waters (ONRW)
designations offer special protection (i.e., no
degradation) for designated waters, including wet-
lands. These are areas of exceptional water quality
or recreational/ecological significance. State an-
tidegradation policies should provide special
protection to wetlands designated as outstanding
national resource waters in the same manner as
other surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(3) of the
WQS regulation and EPA guidance Water Quality
Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b), and Ques-
tions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA
1985a). Activities that might trigger a State analysis
of a wetland for possible designation as an ONRW
are no different for wetlands than for other waters.
20
-------
The following list provides general information on
wetlands that are likely candidates for protection as
ONRWs. It also may be used to identify specific
wetlands for use designation under the State's wet-
land classification system; see Chapter 4.0. Some
of these information sources are discussed in
greater detail in EPA's guidance entitled Wetlands
and Section 401 Certification: Opportunities and
Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes
(USEPA 1989f); see Section 6.1.
o Parks, wildlife management areas, refuges, wild
and scenic rivers, and estuarine sanctuaries;
• Wetlands adjacent to ONRWs or other high-quality
waters (e.g., lakes, estuaries shellfish beds);
o Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 through
Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and
Wetland Priority Conservation Plans;
e Sites within joint venture project areas under the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan;
« Sites under the Ramsar (Iran) Treaty on Wetlands
of International Importance;
® Biosphere reserve sites identified as part of the
"Man and the Biosphere" Program sponsored by
the United Nations;
® Natural heritage areas and other similar designa-
tions established by the State or private organiza-
tions (e.g., Nature Conservancy); and
• Priority wetlands identified as part of comprehen-
sive planning efforts conducted at the local, State,
Regional, or Federal levels of government; e.g.,
Advance Identification (ADID) program under Sec-
tion 404 and Special Area Management Plans
(SAMPs) under the 1980 Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act.
The Wetland Evaluation Technique; Volume II:
Methodology (Adamus et al., 1987) provides addi-
tional guidance on the identification of wetlands with
high ecological and social value; see Section 3.2.
21
-------
Chapter 6.0
Implementation
Implementing water quality standards for wet-
lands will require a coordinated effort between
related Federal and State agencies and
programs. In addition to the Section 401 certifica-
tion for Federal permits and licenses, standards
have other potential applications for State
programs, including landfill siting, fish and wildlife
management and aquisition decisions, and best
management practices to control nonpoint source
pollution. Many coastal States have wetland permit
programs, coastal zone management programs,
and National Estuary Programs; and the develop-
ment of water quality standards should utilize data,
information and expertise from these programs. For
all States, information and expertise is available
nationwide from EPA and the Corps of Engineers as
part of the Federal 404 permit program. State
wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide
data, advice, and expertise related to wetlands.
Finally, the FWS can provide information on wet-
lands as part of the National Wetlands Inventory
program, the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Pro-
gram, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conser-
vation Program, the North American Waterfowl
Management Program and the National Wildlife
Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program
contacts are included in Appendix D.
This section provides information on certain ele-
ments of standards (e.g., mixing zones) and the
relationship between wetland standards and other
water-related activities and programs (e.g., monitor-
ing and CWA Sections 401, 402, 404, and 319). As
information is developed by EPA and the States,
EPA will periodically transfer it nationwide through
workshops and program summaries. EPA's Office
of Water Regulations and Standards has developed
an outreach program for providing this information.
6.1 Section 401 Certification
Many States have begun to make more use of
CWA Section 401 certification to manage certain
activities that impact their wetland resources. Sec-
tion 401 gives the States the authority to grant,
deny, or condition certification of Federal permits or
licenses (e.g., CWA Section 404 permits issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy
23
-------
Regulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and
Harbors Act Sections 9 and 10 permits, and CWA
Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may
result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S." Such
action is taken by the State to ensure compliance
with various provisions of the CWA. Violation of
water quality standards is often the basis for denials
or conditioning through Section 401 certification. In
the absence of wetland-specific standards, States
have based decisions on their general narrative
criteria and antidegradation policies. The Office of
Wetlands Protection has developed a handbook for
States entitled Wetlands and 401 Certification: Op-
portunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian Tribes (USEPA 1989g) on the use of Section
401 certification to protect wetlands. This docu-
ment provides several examples wherein States
have applied their water quality standards to wet-
lands; one example is included in Appendix E.
The development of explicit water quality stand-
ards for wetlands, including wetlands in the defini-
tion of "State waters," uses, criteria, and an-
tidegradation policies, can provide a strong and
consistent basis for State 401 certifications.
6.2 Discharges to Wetlands
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a Stateadopt
waste transport or waste assimilation as a desig-
nated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'." This prohibi-
tion extends to wetlands, since they are included in
the definition of "waters of the U.S." Certain ac-
tivities involving the discharge of pollutants to wet-
lands may be permitted, as with other water types,
providing a determination is made that the desig-
nated and existing uses of the wetlands and
downstream waters will be maintained and
protected. As with other surface waters, the State
must ensure, through ambient monitoring, that per-
mitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect
wetland functions and values as defined in State
water quality standards; see Section 6.4.
Created wastewater treatment wetlands that are
not impounded from waters of the United States and
are designed, built, and operated solely as was-
tewater treatment systems, are a special case, and
are not generally considered "waters of the U.S."
Some such created wetlands, however, also provide
other functions and values similar to those provided
by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances,
such created, multiple use wetlands may be con-
sidered "waters of the U.S.," and as such, would be
subject to the same protection and restrictions on
use as natural wetlands (see Report on the Use of
Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal (USEPA 1987b)). This determination must
be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetland.
6.2.1	Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment
State standards should be consistent with the
document developed by the Office of Municipal Pol-
lution Control entitled Report on the Use of Wet-
lands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
posal (USEPA 1987b), on the use of wetlands for
municipal wastewater treatment. This document
outlines minimum treatment and other requirements
under the CWA for discharges to natural wetlands
and those specifically created and used for the pur-
pose of wastewater treatment.
The following is a brief summary of the above-ref-
erenced document. For municipal discharges to
natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treat-
ment is required, and applicable water quality stand-
ards for the wetland and adjacent waters must be
met. Natural wetlands are nearly always "waters of
the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protec-
tion as other surface waters with regard to stand-
ards and minimum treatment requirements. There
are no minimum treatment requirements for wet-
lands created solely for the purpose of wastewater
treatment that do not qualify as "waters of the U.S."
The discharge from the created wetlands that do not
qualify as "waters of the U.S." must meet applicable
standards for the receiving water. EPA encourages
the expansion of wetland resources through the
creation of engineered wetlands while allowing the
use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment
only under limited conditions. Water quality stand-
ards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and over-
use of natural wetlands for treatment through adop-
tion of proper uses and criteria and application of
State antidegradation policies.
6.2.2	Stormwater Treatment
Stormwater discharges to wetlands can provide
an important component of the freshwater supply to
wetlands. However, stormwater discharges from
24
-------
various land use activities can also contain a sig-
nificant amount of pollutants. Section 402(p)(2) of
the Clean Water Act requires that EPA, or States
with authorized National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) programs, issue
NPDES permits for certain types of stormwater dis-
charges. EPA is in the process of developing
regulations defining the scope jaf this program as
well as developing permits for these discharges.
Stormwater permits can be used to require controls
that reduce the pollutants discharged to wetlands as
well as other waters of the United States. In addi-
tion, some of the stormwater management controls
anticipated in permits will require creation of wet-
lands or structures with some of the attributes of
wetlands for the single purpose of water treatment.
EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands will have some similarities to
the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to
wetlands. Natural wetlands are "waters of the
United States" and are afforded a level of protection
with regard to water quality standards and technol-
ogy-based treatment requirements. The discharge
from created wetlands must meet applicable water
quality standards for the receiving waters. EPA will
issue technical guidance on permitting stormwater
discharges, including permitting stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands, over the next few years.
6.2.3 Fills
Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of
dredged and fill material into "waters of the U.S."
The Corps of Engineers' regulations for the 404 pro-
gram are contained in 33 CFR Parts 320-330, while
EPA's regulations for the 404 program are contained
in 40 CFR Part 230-33.
One State uses the following guidelines for fills in
their internal Section 401 review guidelines:
(a)	if the project is not water dependent, cer-
tification is denied;
(b)	if the project is water dependent, certifica-
tion is denied if there is a viable alternative
(e.g., available upland nearby is a viable
alternative);
(c)	if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to
wetland cannot be made acceptable
through conditions on certification (e.g.,
fish movement criteria, creation of flood-
ways to bypass oxbows, flow through
criteria), certification is denied.
Some modification of this may be incorporated
into States' water quality standards. The States.are
encouraged to provide a linkage in their water
quality standards to the determination of "significant
degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40
CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws af-
fecting the disposal of dredged or fill materials in
wetlands; see Section 5.1.
6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment
and Control
Wetlands, as with other waters, are impacted by
nonpoint sources of pollution. Many wetlands,
through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and
sediment, also can serve an important water quality
control function for nonpoint source pollution ef-
fects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, the
wetlands. Water quality standards play a pivotal
role in both of the above. First, Section 319 of the
CWA requires the States to complete assessments
of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts to State waters,
including wetlands, and to prepare management
programs to control NPS impacts. Water quality
standards for wetlands can form the basis for these
assessments and management programs for wet-
lands. Second, water quality standards require-
ments for other surface waters such as rivers, lakes,
and estuaries can provide an impetus for States to
protect, enhance, and restore wetlands to help
achieve nonpoint source control and water quality
standards objectives for adjacent and downstream
waters. The Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
ards and the Office of Wetlands Protection have
developed guidance on the coordination of wetland
and NPS control programs entitled National
Guidance - Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control
Programs (USEPA 1990c).
6.3 Monitoring
Water quality management activities, including
the permitting of wastewater and stormwater dis-
charges, the assessment and control of NPS pollu-
tion, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to en-
sure that the designated and existing uses of
"waters of the U.S." are maintained and protected.
In addition, Section 305(b) of the CWA requires
25
-------
States to report on the overall status of their waters
in attaining water quality standards. The inclusion
of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
basis for conducting both wetland-specific and
status and trend monitoring of State wetland resour-
ces. Information gathered from the 305(b) reports
may also be used to update and refine the desig-
nated wetland uses. The monitoring of wetlands is
made difficult by limitations in State resources.
Where regulated activities impact wetlands or other
surface waters, States should provide regulatory in-
centives and negotiate monitoring responsibilities of
the party conducting the regulated activity.
Monitoring of activities impacting specific wet-
lands may include several approaches. Monitoring
methods involving biological measurements, such
as plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish (e.g., biomass
and diversity indices), have shown promise for
monitoring stream quality (Plafkin et al., 1989).
These types of indicators have not been widely
tested for wetlands; see Section 7.1. However, the
State of Florida has developed biological criteria as
part of their regulations governing the discharge of
municipal wastewater to wetlands5. The States are
encouraged to develop and test the use of biological
indicators. Other more traditional methods current-
ly applied to other surface waters, including but not
limited to the use of water quality criteria, sediment
quality criteria, and whole effluent toxicity, are also
available for conducting monitoring of specific wet-
lands.
Discharges involving persistent or bioaccumula-
tive contaminants may necessitate the monitoring of
the fate of such contaminants through wetlands and
their impacts on aquatic life and wildlife. The ex-
posure of birds and mammals to these contaminants
is accentuated by the frequent use of wetlands by
wildlife and the concentration of contaminants in
wetlands through sedimentation and other proces-
ses. States should conduct monitoring of these
contaminants in wetlands, and may require such
monitoring as part of regulatory activities involving
these contaminants.
Status and trend monitoring of the wetland
resources overall may require additional ap-
proaches; see Section 3.1. Given current gaps in
scientific knowledge concerning indicators of wet-
land quality, monitoring of wetlands over the next
few years may focus on the spatial extent (i.e., quan-
tity) and physical structure (e.g., plant types, diver-
sity, and distribution) of wetland resources. The
tracking of wetland acreage and plant communities
using aerial photography can provide information
that can augment the data collected on specific ac-
tivities impacting wetlands, as discussed above.
EPA has developed guidance on the reporting of
wetland conditions for the Section 305(b) program
entitled Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990
State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report
(USEPA 1989b). When assessing individual specific
wetlands, assessment information should be
managed in an automated data system compatible
with the Section 305(b) Waterbody System. In addi-
tion, the NWI program provides technical proce-
dures and protocols for tracking the spatial extent of
wetlands for the United States and subregions of the
United States. These sources provide the
framework for reporting on the status and trends of
State wetland resources.
6.4 Mixing Zones and Variances
The guidance on mixing zones in the Water
Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b) and
the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control (TSD) (USEPA 1985b) apply
to all surface waters, including wetlands. This in-
cludes the point of application of acute and chronic
criteria. As with other surface waters, mixing zones
may be granted only when water is present, and
may be developed specifically for different water
types. Just as mixing zone procedures are often
different for different water types and flow regimes
(e.g., free flowing streams versus lakes and es-
tuaries), separate procedures also may be
developed specifically for wetlands. Such proce-
dures should meet the requirements contained in
the TSD.
5 Florida Department of Environmental Regulations; State Regulations Part I, "Domestic Wastewater
Facilities," Subpart C, "Design/Performance Considerations," 17-6.055, "Wetlands Applications."
26
-------
As in other State waters, variances may be
granted to discharges to wetlands. Variances must
meet one or more of the six requirements for the
removal of a designated use (40CFR Part 131.10(g))
and must fully protect any existing uses of the wet-
land.
27
-------
Chapter 7.0
Future Directions
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and
Standards' planning document Water
Quality Standards Framework (USEPA -
Draft 1989e), identifies the major objectives for the
program and the activities necessary to meet these
objectives. Activities related to the development of
water quality standards for wetlands are separated
into two phases: (1) Phase 1 activities to be
developed by the States by the end of FY 1993,
discussed above; and (2) Phase 2 activities that will
require additional research and program develop-
ment, which are discussed below.
7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria
for Wetlands
Development of narrative biological criteria is in-
cluded in the first phase of the development of water
quality standards for wetlands; see Section 5.1.2.
The second phase involves the implementation of
numeric biological criteria. This effort requires the
detailed evaluation of the components of wetland
communities to determine the structure and function
of unimpaired wetlands. These measures serve as
reference conditions for evaluating the integrity of
other wetlands. Regulatory activities involving dis-
charges to wetlands (e.g., CWA Sections 402 and
404) can provide monitoring data to augment data
collected by the States for the development of
numeric biological criteria; see Section 7.4. The
development of numeric biological criteria for wet-
lands will require additional research and field test-
ing over.the next several years.
Biological criteria are based on local and regional
biotic characteristics. This is in contrast to the na-
tionally based chemical-specific aquatic life criteria
developed by EPA under controlled laboratory con-
ditions. The States will have primary responsibility
for developing and implementing biological criteria
for their surface waters, including wetlands, to
reflect local and regional differences in resident
biological communities. EPA will work closely with
the States and the EPA Office of Research and
Development to develop and test numeric biological
criteria for wetlands. Updates on this work will be
provided through the Office of Water Regulations
29
-------
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division's
regular newsletter.
• identifying high-quality waters deserving special
protection;
7.2	Wildlife Criteria
Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife
species. It is therefore important to consider wildlife
in developing criteria that protect the functions and
values of wetlands. Existing chemical-specific
aquatic life criteria are derived by testing selected
aquatic organisms by exposing them to con-
taminants in water. Although considered to be
protective of aquatic life, these criteria often do not
account for the bioaccumulation of these con-
taminants, which may cause a major impact on
wildlife using wetland resources. Except for criteria
for PCB, DDT, selenium, and mercury, wildlife have
not been included during the development of the
national aquatic life criteria.
During the next 3 years, the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
water quality criteria to determine whether adjust-
ments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of
criteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are
needed to adequately protect wildlife species using
wetland resources. Since wetlands may not have
open surface waters during all or parts of the year,
alternative tissue based criteria based on con-
taminant concentrations in wildlife species and their
food sources may become important criteria for
evaluating contaminant impacts in wetlands, par-
ticularly those that bioaccumulate. Based on
evaluations of current criteria and wildlife at risk in
wetlands, national criteria may be developed.
7.3	Wetlands Monitoring
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards
is developing guidance for EPA and State surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the
end of FY 1990." This guidance will (1) encourage
States to use monitoring data in a variety of program
areas to support water quality management
decisions; and (2) provide examples of innovative
monitoring techniques through the use of case
studies. The uses of data pertinent to wetlands that
will be discussed include the following:
• refining use classification systems by developing
physical, chemical, and biological water quality
criteria, goals, and standards that account for
regional variation in attainable conditions;
•	using remote-sensing data;
•	using integrated assessments to detect subtle,
ecological impacts; and
•	identifying significant nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion that will prevent attainment of uses.
One or more case studies will address efforts to
quantify the extent of a State's wetlands and to iden-
tify sensitive wetlands through their advance iden-
tification (USEPA 1989a).
30
-------
References
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E.
Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Techni-
que (WET); Volume II: Methodology. Opera-
tional Draft Technical Report Y-87; U.S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. (Source #11)
Adamus, P.R. and K. Brandt. Draft. Impacts on
Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United
States: A Survey of Techniques, Indicators,
and Applications of Community-level
Biomonitoring Data. USEPA Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. (Source
#8)
The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting
America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The
Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy
Forum. Washington, DC. (Source #10)
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
FWS/OBS-79/31. (Source #6a)
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
1968. Water Quality Criteria (the Green
Book), Report of the National Technical Ad-
visory Committee to the Secretary of the Inte-
rior. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC. (out of print).
Hagley, C.A. and D.L. Taylor. Draft. An Approach
for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria
for Wetlands Protection. USEPA Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
(Source #12)
Lonard, R.I. and E.J. Clairain. 1986. Identification
of Methodologies for the Assessment of Wet-
land Functions and Values, Proceeding of the
National Wetland Assessment Symposium,
Association of Wetland Managers, Berne,
NY. pp. 66-72. (Source #1)
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross,
and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassess-
ment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers, USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards. EPA/444/4-89/001. (Source
#2)
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile,
G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985.
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. USEPA,
Office of Research and Development, Duluth,
MN. NTIS# PB-85-227049. (Source #3)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a.
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
(Source #4)
	. 1983b. Water Quality Standards Hand-
book. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. (Source #4)
	. 1984a. Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
ing Use Attainability Analyses. Vol II. Estuarine Sys-
tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. (Source #4)
	. 1984b. Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
ing Use Attainability Analyses. Vol III. Lake Sys-
tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. (Source #4)
	. 1985a. Questions and Answers on: An-
tidegradation. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #4)
	. 1985b. Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.
(Source #5)
	. 1987a. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. (Source #6b)
	. 1987b. Report on the Use of Wetlands
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal.
Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington,
DC. (with Attachment D, September 20, 1988).
EPA 430/09-88-005. (Source #9)
31
-------
	. 1989a. Guidance to EPA Regional Of-
fices on the Use of Advanced Identification
Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington,
DC. (Source #1)
	. 1989b. Guidelines for the Preparation
of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report). Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
ards, Washington, DC. (Source #2)
	. 1989c. Regionalization as a Tool for
Managing Environmental Resources. Office of Re-
search and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-
89/060. (Source #8)
	. 1989d. Survey of State Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands. Office of Wetlands Protec-
tion, Washington, D.C. (Source #1)
	. 1989e. Water Quality Standards
Framework (draft). Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #4)
	. 1989f. Wetland Creation and Restora-
tion: The Status of the Science. Office of Research
and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-89/038a
and EPA 600/3-89/038b. (Source #8)
	. I989g. Wetlands and 401 Certification:
Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian Tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection,
Washington, DC. (Source #1)
	. 1990a. Agency Operating Guidance,
FY 1991: Office of Water. Office of the Ad-
ministrator, Washington, DC. (Source #7)
	. 1990b. Biological Criteria, National Pro-
gram Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #4)
	. 1990c. National Guidance, Wetlands
and Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
(Source #2)
Sources of Documents
1	USEPA, Office of Wetlands Protection
Wetlands Strategies and State
Programs Division
401 M St., S.W. (A-104F)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5048
2	USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards
Assessment and Watershed Protec-
tion Division
401 M St., S.W. (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7040
3	National Technical Information Ser-
vice (NTIS)
5285 Front Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22116
(703) 487-4650
4	USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards
Criteria and Standards Division
401 M St., S.W. (WH-585)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-7315
5	Out of print. A revised Technical Sup-
port Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control will be available
October 1990 from:
Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits
Permits Division
401 M St., S.W. (EN-336)
Washington, DC 20460
6	U.S. Government Printing Office
North Capitol St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20401
(202) 783-3238
a Order No. 024-010-00524-6
b Order No. 955-002-0000-8
32
-------
7	USEPA, Water Policy Office
401 M St., S.W. (WH-556)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5818
8	USEPA, Office of Research and
Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 420-4666
9	USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution
Control
401 M St., S.W. (WH-546)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5850
10	The Conservation Foundation
1250 Twenty-Fourth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 293-4800
11	U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Research Program
(601) 634-3774
12	USEPA, Office of Research and
Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
Duluth, MN 55804
(218) 780-5549
33
-------
Appendix A
Glossary
Ambient Monitoring - Monitoring within natural
systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to
determine existing conditions.
Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did
not formerly occur. Created wetlands are designed
to meet a variety of human benefits including, but
not limited to, the treatment of water pollution dis-
charges (e.g., municipal wastewater, stormwater)
and the mitigation of wetland losses permitted under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This term en-
compasses the term "constructed wetland" as used
in other EPA guidance and documents.
Enhancement - An activity increasing one or
more natural or artificial wetland functions. For ex-
ample, the removal of a point source discharge im-
pacting a wetland.
Functions - The roles that wetlands serve, which
are of value to society or the environment.
Habitat - The environment occupied by in-
dividuals of a particular species, population, or com-
munity.
Hydrology - The science dealing with the proper-
ties, distribution, and circulation of water both on
the surface and under the earth.
Restoration - An activity returning a wetland from
a disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage
or functions to a previous condition with greater
wetland acreage or functions. For example, restora-
tion might involve the plugging of a drainage ditch to
restore the hydrology to an area that was a wetland
before the installation of the drainage ditch.
Riparian - Areas next to or substantially in-
fluenced by water. These may include areas ad-
jacent to rivers, lakes, or estuaries. These areas
often include wetlands.
Upland - Any area that does not qualify as wet-
land because the associated hydrologic regime is
not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegeta-
tion, soils and/or hydrologic characteristics as-
sociated with wetlands, or is defined as open
waters.
Waters of the U.S. - See Appendix B for Federal
definition; 40 CFR Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2.
Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. See Federal
definition contained in Federal regulations: 40 CFR
Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2.
A -1
-------
Appendix B
The Federal definition of "waters of the United
States" (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)) is:
(1)	All waters which are currently used, were
used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, in-
eluding all waters which are subject to the
ebb and flow of the tide;
(2)	All interstate waters including interstate wet-
lands;
(3)	All other waters such as intrastate lakes,
rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use,
degradation or destruction of which would
or could affect interstate or foreign com-
merce including any such waters:
(i)	Which are or could be used by inter-
state or foreign travelers for recrea-
tional or other purposes; or
(ii)	From which fish or shellfish could be
taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce;
(iii)	Which are used or could be used for
industrial purposes by industries in in-
terstate commerce;*
(4)	All impoundments of waters otherwise
defined as waters of the United States under
this definition;
(5)	Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs
1-4;
(6)	The territorial sea; and
(7)	Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than
waters that are themselves wetlands) iden-
tified in 1-6; waste treatment systems, in-
cluding treatment ponds or lagoons
designed to meet the requirements of CWA
(other than cooling ponds as defined in 40
CFR 423.11(m) which also meet criteria in
this definition) are not waters of the United
States.
(*Note: EPA has clarified that waters of the
U.S. under the commerce connection in (3)
above also include, for example, waters:
Which are or would be used as
habitat by birds protected by
Migratory Bird Treaties or migratory
birds which cross State lines;
Which are or would be used as
habitat for endangered species;
Used to irrigate crops sold in inter-
state commerce.)
B-l
-------
Appendix C
Information on the
Assessment of Wetland
Functions and Values
Summary of Methodologies Prior to 1983
(Lonard and Clairain 1986)
Introduction
Since 1972, a wide variety of wetlands evaluation
methodologies have been developed by Federal or
State agencies, private consulting firms, and the
academic community. These evaluation methods
have been developed to ascertain all or selected
wetland functions and values that include habitat;
hydrology, including water quality recreation;
agriculture/silviculture; and heritage functions.
Publications by the U.S. Water Resources Council
(Lonard et al., 1981) and the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard et al., 1984)
documented and summarized pre-1981 wetland
evaluation methods. The two documents include a
critical review of the literature, identification of re-
search needs, and recommendations for the im-
provement of wetlands evaluation methodologies.
Methodology analyses include an examination of
wetlands functions; geographic features; personnel
requirements for implementation, data require-
ments, and products; field testing; flexibility; and
administrative uses. Recently, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, with technical assistance
from WAPORA, Inc. (1984) summarized freshwater
wetland evaluation methodologies related to
primary and cumulative impacts published prior to
1981. The specific objective of this paper is to
present a summary of wetlands evaluation
methodologies identified from the pre-1981 litera-
ture, and to present an update of methodologies
published since 1981.
Methods
In 1981, a U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station (WES) study team evaluated 40 wet-
lands evaluation methodologies according to
several screening criteria, and examined 20 of the
methodologies in detail using a series of descriptive
parameters (Lonard et al., 1981). The criteria and
parameters were developed to ensure consistency
during review and analysis of methodologies. Five
additional methodologies proposed since 1981 have
been analyzed and summarized for this paper using
the same criteria. This does not suggest, however,
that only five methodologies have been developed
since 1981.
Available Wetlands Evaluation Methodologies
Abstracts of 25 wetlands evaluation
methodologies that met the WES study team's
criteria include the following:
1. Adamus, P.R., and Stockwell, L.T. 1983. "A
Method for Wetland Functional Assessment.
Volume I. Critical Review and Evaluation
Concepts," U.S. Department of Transporta-
C-l
-------
tion. Federal Highway Administration. Of-
fice of Research, Environmental Division.
Washington, D.C. 20590; and Adamus, P.R.
1983. "A Method for Wetland Functional As-
sessment. Volume II. The Method," U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal
Highway Administration. Office of Re-
search, Environmental Division.
Washington, D.C. 20590.
Volume I of the method provides a detailed litera-
ture review and discussion of the rationale of the
method. The wetland functional assessment or
evaluation methodology presented in Volume II con-
sists of three separate procedures. Procedure I,
referred to as a "Threshold Analysis," provides a
methodology for estimating the probability that a
single wetland is of high, moderate, or low value for
each of 11 wetland functions discussed in detail in
Volume I. This procedure is based on assessment
of 75 bio-physical wetland features obtained from
office, field, and quantitative studies. It also incor-
porates consideration of the social significance of
the wetland as indicated by public priorities. The
priorities are determined based on results of a series
of questions that the evaluator must consider. Pro-
cedure II, designed as a "Comparative Analysis,"
provides parameters for estimating whether one
wetland is likely to be more important than another
for each wetland function, and Procedure II, referred
to as "Mitigation Analysis," provides an outline for
comparing mitigation alternatives and their
reasonableness." The evaluation methodology is
qualitative in its approach.
2. Brown, A., Kittle, P., Dale, E.E., and Huf-
fman, R.T. 1974. "Rare and Endangered
Species, Unique Ecosystems, and Wet-
lands," Department of Zoology and Depart-
ment of Botany and Bacteriology. The
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkan-
sas.
The Arkansas Wetlands Classification System
contains a two-part, multivariate approach for
evaluating freshwater wetlands for maximum wildlife
production and diversity. Initially, Arkansas wet-
lands were qualitatively classified as prime or non-
prime wetlands habitats according to use by man. A
numerical value for a wetland was determined by
calculating a subscore, which was based on the
multiplication of a significance coefficient by a
determined weighted value. The values for each
variable were summed, and a total wetland qualita-
tive value was obtained for use by decision makers.
3.	Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N., Duke, K.,
Whitman, I., and Fahringer, D. 1973. "En-
vironmental Evaluation System for Water
Resources Planning," Water Resources Re-
search, Vol 9, No. 3, pp 523-534.
The Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is a
methodology for conducting environmental impact
analysis. It was developed by an interdisciplinary
research team, and is based on a hierarchical arran-
gement of environmental quality indicators, an ar-
rangement that classifies the major areas of environ-
mental concern into major categories, components,
and ultimately into parameters and measurements
of environmental quality. The EES provides for en-
vironmental impact evaluation in four major
categories: ecology, environmental pollution, aes-
thetics, and human interest. These four categories
are further broken down into 18 components, and
finally into 78 parameters. The EES provides a
means for measuring or estimating selected en-
vironmental impacts of large-scale water resource
development projects in commensurate units
termed environmental impact units (EIU). Results of
using the EES include a total score in EIU "with" and
"without" the proposed project; the difference be-
tween the two scores in one measure of environ-
mental impact. Environmental impact scores
developed in the EES are based on the magnitude of
specific environmental impacts and their relative im-
portance. Another major output from the EES is an
indication of major adverse impacts called "red
flags," which are of concern of and by themselves.
These red flags indicate "fragile" elements of the
environment that must be studied in more detail.
(Authors' abstract.)
4.	Euler, D.L., Carreiro, F.T., McCullough, G.B.,
Snell, E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H.
1983. "An Evaluation System for Wetlands
of Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield,"
First Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources and Canadian Wildlife Service,
Ontario Region. Variously paged.
The methodology was developed to evaluate a
wide variety of wetland functions that include
biological, social, hydrological, and special fea-
C-2
-------
tures. The procedures includes a rationale of scien-
tific and technical literature for wetlands values, the
evaluation methodology, a step-by-step procedure
manual, a wetland data record, and a wetland
evaluation record. The procedure was developed to
evaluate and rank a wide variety of inland wetlands
located in Ontario, Canada, south of the
Precambrian Shield.
5.	Fried, E. 1974. "Priority Rating of Wetlands
for Acquisition," Transaction of the North-
east Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31,
pp 15-30.
New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act
of 1972 provides $5 million for inland wetland ac-
quisition, $18 million for tidal wetlands acquisition,
and $4 million for wetlands restoration. A priority
rating system, with particular emphasis on inland
wetlands, was developed to guide these programs.
The governing equation was: priority rating = (P +
V + A) x 5, where the priority rating is per acre
desirability for acquisition, P is biological produc-
tivity, V is vulnerability, and A is additional factors.
Both actual and potential conditions could be rated.
The rating system was successfully applied to some
130 inland wetlands. Using a separate equation,
wetland values were related to costs. (Authors's
abstract.)
6.	Galloway, G.E. 1978. "Assessing Man's Im-
pact on Wetlands," Sea Grant Publications
Nos. UNC-SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136,
University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
The Wetland Evaluation System (WES) proposed
by Galloway emphasizes a system approach to
evaluate man's impact on a wetland ecosystem. Im-
pacts are determined and compared for "with" and
"without" project conditions. The advice of an inter-
disciplinary team, as well as the input of local
elected officials and laymen, are included as part of
the WES model. Parameters that make up a wetland
are assessed at the macro-level, and the results of
the evaluation are displayed numerically and graphi-
cally with computer assisted techniques.
7.	Golet, F.C. 1973. "Classification Evaluation
of Freshwater Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in
the Glaciated Northeast," Transactions of
the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference,
Vol 30, pp 257-279.
A detailed classification system for freshwater
wetlands is presented along with 10 criteria for the
evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat. The
results are based on a 2-year field study of over 150
wetlands located throughout the state of Mas-
sachusetts. The major components of the clas-
sification system include wetland classes and sub-
classes, based on the dominant life form of vegeta-
tion and surface water depth and permanence; size
categories; topographic and hydrologic location;
surrounding habitat types; proportions and inter-
spersion of cover and water; and vegetative inter-
spersion. These components are combined with
wetland juxtaposition and water chemistry to
produce criteria for a wetland evaluation. Using a
system of specification and ranks, wetlands can be
arranged according to their wildlife value for
decision-making. (Author's abstract.) "At this point,
the system has been used in numerous states on
thousands of wetlands; recent revisions have
resulted in such use." (F.C. Golet)
8.	Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973. "Valua-
tion of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Fresh-
water Wetlands in Massachusetts," Journal
of the Northeastern Agricultural Council, Vol
2, No 1, pp 262-273.
The authors suggested an alternative to the "will-
ingness to pay" approaches for measuring the social
values of natural open space and recreational
resources. The method combines an identification
and measurement of the physical qualities of the
resource by landscape architects. Measurement
values were expressed in the context of the political
system and current public views. The procedure is
demonstrated by its application to freshwater wet-
lands in Massachusetts.
9.	Kibby, H.V. 1978. "Effects of Wetlands on
Water Quality," Proceedings of the Sym-
posium on Strategies for Protection and
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and
other Riparian Ecosystems, General Techni-
cal Report No. GTR-WO-12, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Washington, D.C.
C-3
-------
Wetlands potentially have significant effects on
water quality. Significant amounts of nitrogen are
assimilated during the growing season and then
released in the fall and early spring. Phosphorus,
while assimilated by wetlands, is also released
throughout the year. Some potential management
tools for evaluating the effect of wetlands on water
quality are discussed. (Author's abstract.)
10. Larson, J.S. (ed.) 1976. "Models for As-
sessment of Freshwater Wetlands," Publica-
tion No. 32. Water Resources Research
Center, University of Massachusetts, Am-
herst, Massachusetts.
Four submodels for relative and economic evalua-
tion of freshwater wetlands are presented within a
single, 3-phase elimination model. The submodels
treat wildlife, visual-cultural, groundwater, and
economic values.
The wildlife and visual-cultural models are based
on physical characteristics that, for the most part,
can be measured on existing maps and aerial
photographs. Each characteristic is given values by
rank and coefficient. A relative numerical score is
calculated for the total wetland characteristics and
used to compare it with a broad range of north-
eastern wetlands or with wetlands selected by the
user. The groundwater model places wetlands in
classes of probable groundwater yield, based on
surficial geologic deposits under the wetland.
The economic submodel suggests values for
wildlife, visual-cultural aspects, groundwater, and
flood control. Wildlife values are derived from the
records of state agency purchases of wetlands with
sportsmen's dollars for wildlife management pur-
poses. Visual-cultural economic values are based
on the record of wetland purposes for open space
values by municipal conservation commissions.
Groundwater values stem from savings realized by
selection of a drilled public water supply over a sur-
face water source. Flood control values are based
on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data on flood con-
trol values of the Charles River, Massachusetts,
mainstream wetlands.
The submodels are presented within the
framework of an overall 3-phase eliminative model.
Phase I identifies outstanding wetlands that should
be protected at all costs. Phase II applies the
wildlife, visual-cultural, and groundwater submodels
to those wetlands that do not meet criteria for out-
standing wetlands. Phase III develops the
economic values of the wetlands evaluated in Phase
II.
The models are intended to be used by local,
regional, and state resource planners and wetlands
regulation agencies. (Author's abstract.)
11.	Marble, A.D., and Gross, M. 1984. "A
Method for Assessing Wetland Charac-
teristics and Values," Landscape Planning,
VoM1, pp 1-17.
The method presented for assessing wetland
values identified the relative importance of wetlands
in providing wildlife habitat, flood control, and im-
provement of surface water quality. All wetlands in
the study area were categorized on the basis of their
landscape position of hilltop, hillside, or valley.
Each of the wetland values measured were then re-
lated to the corresponding landscape position
categories. Valley wetlands were found to be most
valuable in all instances. The method provides infor-
mation on wetland values that can be simply
gathered and easily assessed, requiring only avail-
able data and a minimum of resources. Implemen-
tation of this method on a regional or municipality-
wide basis can provide decision makers with readily
accessible and comparative information on wetland
values. (Authors' abstract.)
12.	Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
1980. "Manual for Wetland Evaluation Tech-
niques: Operation Draft," Division of Land
Resource Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 29
PP-
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Wetland Evaluation Technique is designed
to assist decision makers on permit applications in-
volving projects where significant impacts are an-
ticipated. The manual describes the criteria to be
used in evaluating any particular wetland. The tech-
nique provides a means of evaluating the status of
existing wetlands as well as potential project-related
impacts on wetland structure and aerial extent. One
part of the technique requires examination of six
basic features of wetlands, including: (1) hydrologic
functions; (2) soil characteristics; (3) wildlife
habitat/use evaluation; (4) fisheries habitat/use; (5)
C-4
-------
nutrient removal/recycling functions; (6) removal of
suspended sediments. A second part of the
analysis includes consideration of public interest
concerns. This method also includes brief con-
sideration of cumulative, cultural/historic, and
economic impacts.
13.	Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E.,
Messman, L., and Meyers, C. 1979. "Wet-
land Values: Concepts and Methods for
Wetlands Evaluation," IWR Research Report
79-R-1, U.S. Army Engineer Institute for
Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
The evaluation of wetlands is based on the
analysis of their physical, biological, and human use
characteristics. The report discusses these func-
tional characteristics and identifies specific criteria
for determining the efficiency with which the respec-
tive functions are performed.
Two potential wetlands evaluation methods are
described. One is a non-quantitative method in
which individual wetland areas are evaluated based
on the deductive analysis of their individual function-
al characteristics. The other is a semi-quantitative
method in which the relative values of two or more
site alternatives are established through the mathe-
matical rating and summation of their functional
relationships.
The specific functions and values of wetlands that
are covered in this report are (1) natural biological
functions, including food chain productivity and
habitat; (2) their use as sanctuaries, refuges, or
scientific study areas; (3) shoreline protection; (4)
groundwater recharge; (5) storage for flood and
stormwater; (6) water quality improvement; (7)
hydrologic support; and (8) various cultural values.
(Authors' abstract.)
14.	Shuldiner, P.W., Cope, D.F., and Newton,
R.B. 1979. "Ecological Effects on Highway
Fills of Wetlands," Research Report. Nation-
al Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report No. 218A, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.; and Shuldiner, P.W.,
Cope, D.F., and Newton, R.B. 1979.
"Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on Wet-
lands," User's Manual. National Coopera-
tive Highway Research Program Report No.
218B, Transportation Research Board, Na-
tional Research Council, Washington, D.C.
The two reports include a Research Report and a
User's Manual to provide, in concise format,
guidelines and information needed for the deter-
mination of the ecological effects that may result
from the placement of highway fills on wetlands and
associated floodplains, and to suggest procedures
by which deleterious impacts can be minimized or
avoided. The practices that can be used to enhance
the positive benefits are also discussed. Both
reports cover the most common physical, chemical,
and biological effects that the highway engineer is
likely to encounter when placing fills in wetlands,
and displays the effects and their interactions in a
series of flowcharts and matrices.
15.	SCS Engineers. 1979. "Analysis of Selected
Functional Characteristics of Wetlands,"
Contract No. DACW73-78-R-0017, Reston,
Virginia.
The investigation focused on identifying factors
and criteria for assessing the wetland functions of
water quality improvement, groundwater recharge,
storm and floodwater storage, and shoreline protec-
tion. Factors and criteria were identified that could
be used to develop procedures to assist Corps per-
sonnel in wetlands assessing the values of general
wetland types and of specific wetlands in performing
the functions indicated. To the extent possible, pro-
cedures were then outlined that allow the applica-
tion of these criteria in specific sites.
16.	Smardon, R.D. 1972. "Assessing Visual-
Cultural Values on Inland Wetlands in Mas-
sachusetts," Master of Science Thesis.
University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Mas-
sachusetts.
This study deals with the incorporation of visual-
cultural values of inland wetlands into the decision
making process of land use allocation of inland wet-
lands in Massachusetts. Visual-cultural values of in-
land wetlands may be defined as visual, recreation-
al, and educational values of inland wetlands to
society. The multivariate model is an eliminative
and comparative model that has three levels of
evaluation. The first level identifies those wetlands
that are outstanding natural areas, have regional
landscape value, or are large wetland systems.
C - 5
-------
These wetlands have top priority for preservation.
The second level is a rating and ranking system. At
this stage, the combined natural resource values of
the wetland are evaluated. Wetlands with high
ratings or rank from this level are eliminated and
have the next highest priority for preservation or
some sort of protection. The third level evaluation
considers the cultural values (e.g., accessibility,
location near schools) of wetlands. The model is
designed to be utilized at many different levels of
decision making. For example, it can be used by
state agencies, town conservation commissions,
and conceivably could be used by other states in
northeastern United States. (Author's abstract.)
17.	Solomon, R.D., Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
Richardson, S.E., Ganter, L.W., and Vlachos,
E.C. 1977. "Water Resources Assessment
Methodology (WRAM)--lmpact Assessment
and Alternative Evaluation," Technical
Report Y-77-1, Environmental Effects
Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Missis-
sippi.
This study presented a review of 54 impact as-
sessment methodologies and found that none en-
tirely satisfied the needs or requirements for the
Corps' water resources project and programs.
However, salient features contained in several of the
methodologies were considered pertinent and were
utilized to develop a water resources assessment
methodology (WRAM). One of the features con-
sisted of weighting impacted variables and scaling
the impacts of alternatives. The weighted rankings
technique is the basic weighting and scaling tool
used in this methodology. Principal components of
WRAM include assembling an interdisciplinary team;
selecting and ensuring assessment variables; iden-
tifying, predicting, and evaluating impacts and alter-
natives; and documenting the analysis. Although
developed primarily for use by the Corps in water
resources management, WRAM is applicable to
other resources agencies.
18.	State of Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. Undated. "Environmental
Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands (Draft),"
Tidal Wetlands Study, pp 181-208.
The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of coas-
tal wetlands is based on the recognition of 32 dis-
tinct types of vegetation in the marshes and swamps
of tidewater areas of the state. Rankings of vegeta-
tion types were developed and parameters for the
evaluation of specific areas of wetlands were
described. The application of the scheme is ex-
plained and demonstrated. Guidance is provided
for the interpretation of results. The application of
the Maryland scheme requires a detailed inventory
of the types of vegetation in the area selected for
evaluation.
19.	U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island.
1983. "Wetland Evaluation Methodology,"
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour-
ces, Bureau of Water Regulation and
Zoning.
The Wetland Evaluation Methodology is a shor-
tened and revised version of a technique developed
for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (see
Adamus, 1983; Number 1). The FHWA technique
was designed to assess all wetland types whereas
the Wetland Evaluation Methodology assesses
those wetlands in Wisconsin (e.g., assessment pro-
cedures in the FHWA technique for estuarine mar-
shes have been omitted from the Wetland Evaluation
Methodology). Other changes have also been in-
corporated into the Wetland Evaluation Methodol-
ogy to more closely reflect other regional condi-
tions.
20.	U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Missis-
sippi Valley. 1980. "A Habitat Evaluation
System for Water Resources Planning," U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi
Valley Division, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
A methodology is presented for determining the
quality of major habitat types based on the descrip-
tion and quantification of habitat characteristics.
Values are compared for existing baseline condi-
tions, future conditions without the project, and with
alternative project conditions. Curves, parameter
characteristics, and descriptive information are in-
cluded in the appendices. The Habitat Evaluation
System (HES) procedure includes the following
steps for evaluating impacts of a water resource
development project. The steps include; (1) obtain-
ing habitat type or land use acreage; (2) deriving
Habitat Quality Index scores; (3) deriving Habitat
Unit Values; (4) projecting Habitat Unit Values for
the future "with" and "without" project conditions; (5)
C-6
-------
aa
using Habitat Unit Values to assess impacts of
project conditions; and (6) determining mitigation
requirements.
21.	U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.
1972. "Charles River: Main Report and At-
tachments," Waltham, Massachusetts.
The study was a long-term project directed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the resour-
ces of the Charles River Watershed in eastern Mas-
sachusetts. It had an emphasis on how to control
flood damage in the urbanized lower watershed, and
how to prevent any significant flood damage in the
middle and upper watershed. Seventeen crucial
wetlands were identified for acquisition to maintain
flood storage capacity in the watershed as a non-
structural alternative for flood protection in the lower
Charles River basin. Various aspects of the water-
shed were studied in an interdisciplinary fashion.
22.	U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. "Wet-
lands Evaluation Criteria-Water and Related
Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Mas-
sachusetts," Soil Conservation Service, Am-
herst, Massachusetts.
A portion of the document contains criteria used
to evaluate major wetlands in the coastal region of
Massachusetts. Each of the 85 wetlands evaluated
was subjected to map study and field examination
Ratings were assigned based on point values ob-
tained for various attributes. A rationale for each
evaluation item was developed to explain the
development of the criteria.
23.	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980.
"Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
Manual (102ESM)," Washington, D.C.
HEP is a method that can be used to document
the quality and quantity of available habitat for
selected wildlife species. HEP provides information
for two general types of wildlife habitat com-
parisons: (1) the relative value of different areas at
the same point in time; and (2) the relative value of
the same area at future points in time. By combin-
ing the two types of comparisons, the impact of
proposed or anticipated land and water changes on
wildlife habitat can be quantified. This document
described HEP, discusses some probable applica-
tions, and provides guidance in applying HEP in the
field.
24.	Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Un-
dated. "Evaluation of Virginia Wetlands,"
(mimeographed). Glouchester Point, Vir-
ginia.
The authors presented a procedure to evaluate
the wetlands of Virginia. The objective of the wet-
land evaluation program was to recognize wetlands
that possess great ecological significance as well as
those of lesser significance. Two broad categories
of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological
significance of wetlands: (1) the interaction of wet-
lands with the marine environment; and (2) the inter-
action of the wetland with the terrestrial environ-
ment. A formula was developed to incorporate
various factors into "relative ecological significance
values."
25.	Winchester, B.H., and Harris, L.D. 1979.
"An Approach to Valuation of Florida Fresh-
water Wetlands," Proceedings of the Sixth
Annual Conference on the Restoration and
Creation of Wetlands, Tampa, Florida.
A procedure was presented for estimating the
relative ecological and functional value of Florida
freshwater wetlands. Wetland functions evaluated
by this procedure include water quality enhance-
ment, water detention, vegetation diversity and
productivity, and wildlife habitat value. The field
parameters used in the assessment were wetland
size, contiguity, structural vegetative diversity, and
an edge-to-area ration. The procedure was field
tested and was time- and cost-effective. Allowing
flexibility in both the evaluative criteria used and the
relative weight assigned to each criterion, the
methodology is applicable in any Florida region for
which basic ecological data are available.
C - 7
-------
Literature Cited
Adamus, P. and Stockwell, L.R. 1983. A method for
wetland functional assessment. Volume 1.
Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S.
Department of Transportation. ¦ Federal High-
way Administration. Office Research, En-
vironmental Division. Washington, D.C.
20590 (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).
Adamus, P.R. 1983. A method for wetland function-
al assessment. Volume II. The method. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal High-
way Administration. Office of Research, En-
vironmental Division. Washington, D.C.
20590. (No. FHWA-IP-82-24).
Brown, A., Kittle, P., Dale, E.E., and Huffman, R.T.
1974. Rare and endangered species, unique
ecosystems, and wetlands. Department of
Zoology and Department of Botany and Bac-
teriology. University of Arkansas, Fayet-
teville, Arkansas.
Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N., Duke, K., Whitman,
I., and Fahringer, D. 1973. Environmental
evaluation system for water resources plan-
ning. Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No.
3, pp 523-534.
Euler, D.L., Carreiro, F.T., McCullough, G.B., Snell,
E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H. 1983.
An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario
south of the Precambrian Shield. First Edi-
tion. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario
Region. Variously paged.
Fried, E. 1974. Priority rating of wetlands for ac-
quisition. Transaction of the Northeast Fish
and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31, pp 15-30.
Galloway, G.E. 1978. Assessing man's impact on
wetlands, Sea Grant Publication Nos. UNC-
SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136, University of
North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Golet, F.C. 1973. Classification and evaluation of
freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the
glaciated Northeast. Transactions of the
Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol
30, pp 257-279.
Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973. Evaluation of
visual-cultural benefits from freshwater wet-
lands in Massachusetts, Journal of the North-
eastern Agricultural Council, Vol 2, No. 2, pp
262-273.
Kibby, H.V. 1978. Effects of wetlands on water
quality. Proceedings of the symposium on
strategies for protection and management of
floodplain wetlands and other riparian
ecosystems, General Technical Report No.
GRW-WO-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Larson, J.S. (ed.) 1976. Models for assessment of
freshwater wetlands. Publication No. 32,
Water Resources Center, University of Mas-
sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy,
J.W., Brown, L.D., Ballard, P.E., and Watts,
J.W. 1981. Analysis of methodologies used
for the assessment of wetlands values. U.S.
Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C.
Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy,
J.W., Brown, L.D., Ballard, P.E., and Watts,
J.W. 1984. Wetlands function and values
study plan; Appendix A: Analysis of
methodologies for assessing wetlands
values. Technical Report Y-83-2, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Marble, A.D., and Gross, M. 1984. A method for
assessing wetland characteristics and
values. Landscape Planning II, pp 1-17.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1980.
Manual for wetland evaluation techniques:
operation draft. Division of Land Resources
Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 22 pp.
Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E., Messman, L.,
and Meyer, C. 1979. Wetlands values: con-
cepts and methods for wetlands evaluation.
IWR Research Report 79-R-1, U.S. Army En-
gineer Institute for Water Resources, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia.
C-S
-------
Shuldiner, P.W., Cope, D.F., and Newton, R.B.
1979a. Ecological effects of highway fills on
wetlands. Research Report No. 218B,
Transportation Research Board, National Re-
search Council. Washington, D.C.
Smardon, R.C. 1972. Assessing visual-cultural
values on inland wetlands in Massachusetts.
Master of Science Thesis, University of Mas-
sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Solomon, R.D., Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
Richardson, S.E., Canter, L.W., and Vlachos,
E.C. 1977. Water resources assessment
methodology (WRAM)-impact assessment
and alternative evaluation. Technical Report
Y-77-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-
periment Station, CE, Vlcksburg, Mississippi.
State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Undated. Environmental evaluation of coas-
tal wetlands (Draft). Tidal Wetlands Study,
pp 181-208.
Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers,
Inc. 1979. Analysis of selected functional
characteristics of wetlands. Contract No.
DACW72-78-0017, Draft Report, prepared for
U.S. Army Engineers Research Center by the
authors, Reston, Virginia.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Val-
ley. 1980. A habitat evaluation system
(HES) for water resources planning. U.S.
Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi
Valley. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England. 1972.
Charles River; main report and attachments.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.
Waltham, Massachusetts.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Wetland
evaluation criteria-water and related land
resources of the coastal region of Mas-
sachusetts. Soil Conservation Service, Am-
herst, Massachusetts.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984.
Technical report: literature review of wetland
evaluation methodologies. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Il-
linois.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat
evaluation procedures (HEP) manual. 102
ESM, Washington, D.C.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Undated.
Evaluation of Virginia wetlands.
Mimeographed Paper, Glouchester Point,
Virginia.
Winchester, B.H., and Harris, L.D. 1979. An ap-
proach to valuation of Florida freshwater wet-
lands. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Con-
ference on the Restoration and Creation of
Wetlands, Hillsborough Community College,
Tampa, Florida.
C-9
-------
Wetland Assessment Techniques
Developed Since 1983 (USEPA 1989a)
•	Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus, et al.
1987). This nationally applicable procedure has
been used in at least six ADIDs to date, mostly in
its original form (known popularly as the "FHWA"
or "Adamus" method). It has since been extensive-
ly revised and is available at no cost (with simple
software) from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Research Program (contact: Buddy Clairain, 601-
634-3774). Future revisions are anticipated.
•	Bottomland Hardwoods WET (Adamus 1987).
This is a simplified, regionalized version of WET,
applicable to EPA Regions 4 and 6. It is available
from OWP (contact: Joe DaVia at 202-475-8795).
Supporting software is being developed, and fu-
ture revisions are anticipated.
•	Southeastern Alaska WET (Adamus Resource As-
sessment 1987). This is also a simplified, regional-
ized version of WET.
•	Minnesota Method (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-
St.'Paul, 1988). This was a joint State-Federal effort
that involved considerable adaptation of WET. A
similar effort is underway in Wisconsin.
e Onondaga County Method (SUNY-Syracuse
1987). This was adapted from WET by Smardon
and others at the State University of New York.
•	Hollands-Magee Method. This is a scoring techni-
que developed by two consultants and has been
applied to hundreds of wetlands in New England
and part of Wisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at
603-472-5191). Supporting software is available.
•	Ontario Method (Euler et al. 1983). This is also a
scoring technique, and was extensively peer-
reviewed in Canada. (Contact: Valanne Gloos-
chenko, 416-965-7641).
•	Connecticut Method (Amman et al. 1986). This is
a scoring technique developed for inland
municipal wetland agencies.
•	Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1984).
This was developed for a local application in Con-
necticut.
•	Habitat Evaluation System (HES) (Tennessee
Dept. of Conservation 1987). This is a revised
version of a Corps-sponsored method used to
evaluate Lower Mississippi wildlife habitat.
C-10
-------
References
Adamus, P.R. (ed.) 1987. Atlas of breeding birds in
Maine 1978-1983. Maine Department of In-
land Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 366 pp.
Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. 1987. Juneau
wetlands: functions and values. City and
Borough of Juneau Department of Com-
munity Development, Juneau, Alaska. 3 vols.
Amman, A.P., R.W. Franzen, and J.L.
Johnson. 1986.
Method for the evaluation of inland wetlands in Con-
necticut. Bull. No. 9. Connecticut Dept.
Envir. Prot. and USDA Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Hartford, Connecticut.
Euler, D.L., F.T. Carreiro, G.B. McCullough, G.B.
Snell, V.
Glooschenko, and R.H. Spurr. 1983. An evaluation
system for wetlands of Ontario south of the
Precambrian Shield. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources and Canadian Wildlife
Service, Ontario Region.
Marble, A.D. and M. Gross. 1984. A method for
assessing wetland characteristics and
values. Landscape Planning 2:1-17.
State University of New York at Syracuse (SUNY).
1987. Wetlands evaluation system for Onon-
daga County, New York State. Draft. 93 pp.
Tennessee Dept. of Conservation. 1987. Habitat
Evaluation
System: Bottomland Forest Community Model.
Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Ecological
Services Division, Nashville. 92 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St. Paul. 1988. The
Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology
for the North Central United States. Min-
nesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology
Task Force and Corps of Engineers-St. Paul
District. 97 pp. + appendices.
C-ll
-------
Appendix D
REGIONAL COORDINATORS
Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator
David Neleigh, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 1
USEPA, Region 6
Water Management Division
Water Management Division
JFK Federal Building
1445 Ross Avenue
Boston, MA 02203
First Interstate Bank Tower
(FTS) 835-3533
Dallas, TX 75202
(617) 565-3533
(FTS) 255-7145

(214) 655-7145
Rick Balla, WQS Coordinator

USEPA, Region 2
John Houlihan, WQS Coordinator
Water Management Division
USEPA, Region 7
26 Federal Plaza
Water Compliance Branch
New York, NY 10278
726 Minnesota Avenue
(FTS) 264-1559
Kansas City, KS 66101
(242) 264-1559
(FTS) 276-7432

(913) 551-7432
Linda Hoist, WQS Coordinator

USEPA, Region 3
Bill Wuerthele, WQS Coordinator
Water Management Division
USEPA, Region 8 (8WM-SP)
841 Chestnut Street
Water Management Division
Philadelphia, PA 19107
999 18th Street
(FTS) 597-0133
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(215) 597-3425
(FTS) 330-1586

(303) 293-1586
Fritz Wagener, WQS Coordinator

USEPA, Region 4
Phil Woods, WQS Coordinator
Water Management Division
USEPA, Region 9
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Water Management Division (W-3-1)
Atlanta, GA 30365
75 Hawthorne Street
(FTS) 257-2126
San Francisco, CA 94105
(404) 347-2126
(FTS) 484-1994

(415) 744-1994
Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator

USEPA, Region 5 (TUD-8)
Sally Marquis, WQS Coordinator
Water Management Division
USEPA, Region 10
230 South Dearborn Street
Water Management Division (WD-139)
Chicago, IL 60604
1200 Sixth Avenue
(FTS) 886-0135
Seattle, WA 98101
(312) 886-0135
(FTS) 399-2116

(206) 442-2116
D-l
-------
Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Doug Thompson, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 1
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211
(FTS) 835-4422
(617) 565-4422
Dan Montella, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 2
Water Management Division
Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(FTS) 264-5170
(212) 264-5170
Barbara D'Angelo, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 3
Environmental Service Division
Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(FTS) 597-9301
(215) 597-9301
Tom Welborn, Wetlands Coordinator
(Regulatory Unit)
Gail Vanderhoogt, Wetlands Coordinator
(Planning Unit)
USEPA, Region 4
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(FTS) 257-2126
(404) 347-2126
Doug Ehorn, Wetland Coordinator
USEPA, Region 5
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(FTS) 886-0243
(312) 886-0243
Jerry Saunders, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 6
Environmental Services Division
Federal Activities Branch
12th Floor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202
(FTS) 255-2263
(214) 655-2263
Diane Hershberger, Wetlands Coordinator
Assistant Regional Administrator for
Policy and Management
USEPA, Region 7
Environmental Review Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(FTS) 276-7573
(913) 551-7573
Gene Reetz, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 8
Water Management Division
State Program Management Branch
One Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
(FTS) 330-1565
(303) 293-1565
Phil Oshida, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 9
Water Management Division
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuarine Branch
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, California 94103
(FTS) 464-2187
(415) 744-2180
Bill Riley, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 10
Water Management Division
Environmental Evaluation Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(FTS) 399-1412
(206) 422-1412
D - 2
-------
Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Region 1	California, Hawaii,	Regional Wetland Coordinator
Idaho, Nevada,	USFWS, Region 1
Oregon, Washington	Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
1002 N.E. Holladay Street
RWC: Dennis Peters	Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
ASST: Howard Browers	COM: 503/231-6154
FTS: 429-6154
Region 2
Arizona, New Mexico
Oklahoma, Texas
RWC: Warren Hagenbuck
ASST: Curtis Carley
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 2
Room 4012
500 Gold Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
COM: 505/766-2914
FTS: 474-2914
Region 3	Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri,
Ohio, Wisconsin
RWC: Ron Erickson
ASST: John Anderson
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 3
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Federal Building, Ft Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
COM: 612/725-3536
FTS: 725-3536
Region 4	Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi,
North Carolina,
Puerto Rico,
South Carolina,
Tennessee,
Virgin Islands
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 4
R.B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Suite 1276
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
COM: 404/331-6343
FTS: 841-6343
RWC: John Hefner
ASST: Charlie Storrs
D-3
-------
Region 5	Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine,
Maryland,
Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York,
New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 5
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Corner, MA 02158
COM: 617/965-5100
FTS: 829-9379
RWC: Ralph Tiner
ASST: Glenn Smith
Region 6
Colorado, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota,
South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming
RWC: Chuck Elliott
ASST: Bill Pearson
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 6
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
COM: 303/236-8180
FTS: 776-8180
Region 7
Alaska
RWC: Jon Hall
ASST: David Dall
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 7
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
COM: 907/786-3403 or 3471
FTS: (8) 907/786-3403
D-4
-------
Appendix E
EXAMPLE OF STATE CERTIFICATION ACTION INVOLVING
WETLANDS UNDER CWA SECTION 401
The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was
to be 3,000 feet long and 17 feet high. The dam was
to consist of 32 bottom-hinged flap gates. The dam
would have created an impoundment with a surface
area of 3,800 acres, a total storage capacity of
35,000 acre-feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet.
The backwater would have extended approximately
8 miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
approximately 3 miles upstream on the Con-
odoguinet Creek.
The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility,
using the head difference created by the dam to
create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have
been 10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12.5), and minimum
flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal con-
ditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed
through the turbines.
The public notice denying 401 certification for this
project stated as follows:
1. The construction and operation of the
project will result in the significant loss of
wetlands and related aquatic habitat and
acreage. More specifically:
a. The destruction of the wetlands will
have an adverse impact on the local
river ecosystem because of the in-
tegral role wetlands play in maintain-
ing that ecosystem.
The destruction of the wetlands will
cause the loss of beds of emergent
aquatic vegetation that serve as
habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this
habitat will adversely affect the rela-
tive abundance of juvenile and adult
fish (especially smallmouth bass).
The wetlands which will be lost are
critical habitat for, among other
species, the yellow crowned night
heron, black crowned night heron,
marsh wren and great egret. In addi-
tion, the yellow crowned night heron
is a proposed State threatened
species, and the marsh wren and
great egret are candidate species of
special concern.
All affected wetlands areas are impor-
tant and, to the extent that the loss of
these wetlands can be mitigated, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the mitigation proposed is ade-
quate. To the extent that adequate
mitigation is possible, mitigation must
include replacement in the river sys-
tem.
Proposed riprapping of the shoreline
could further reduce wetland
acreage. The applicant has failed to
demonstrate that there will not be an
E-l
-------
adverse water quality and related
habitat impact resulting from riprap-
ping.
f. Based upon information received by
the Department, the applicant has un-
derestimated the total wetland
acreage affected.
2.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will be no adverse water quality im-
pacts from increased groundwater levels
resulting from the project. The ground
water model used by the applicant is not
acceptable due to erroneous assumptions
and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The
applicant has not provided sufficient infor-
mation concerning the impact of increased
groundwater levels on existing sites of sub-
surface contamination, adequacy of subsur-
face sewage system replacement areas and
the impact of potential increased surface
flooding. Additionally, information was not
provided to adequately assess the effect of
raised groundwater on sewer system
laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation
measures and potential for increased flows
at the Harrisburg wastewater plant.
3.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be a dissolved oxygen problem
as a result of the impoundment. Present in-
formation indicates the existing river system
in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved
oxygen fluctuation. Sufficient information
was not provided to allow the Department to
conclude that dissolved oxygen standards
will be met in the pool area. Additionally, the
applicant failed to adequately address the
issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels
below the dam.
4.	The proposed impoundment will create a
backwater on the lower three miles of the
Conodoguinet Creek. Water quality in the
Creek is currently adversely affected by
nutrient problems. The applicant has failed
to demonstrate that there will not be water
quality degradation as a result of the im-
poundment.
5.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact resulting from combined sewer over-
flows.
6.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact to the 150-acre area downstream of
the proposed dam and upstream from the
existing Dock Street dam.
7.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
the construction and operation of the
proposed dam will not have an adverse im-
pact on the aquatic resources upstream
from the proposed impoundment. For ex-
ample, the suitability of the impoundment for
smallmouth bass spawning relative to the
frequency of turbid conditions during
spawning was not adequately addressed
and construction of the dam and impound-
ment will result in a decrease in the diversity
and density of the macroinvertebrate com-
munity in the impoundment area.
8.	Construction of the dam will have an ad-
verse impact on upstream and downstream
migration of migratory fish (especially shad).
Even with the construction of fish pas-
sageways for upstream and downstream
migration, significant declines in the num-
bers of fish successfully negotiating the
obstruction are anticipated.
9.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact related to sedimentation within the
pool area.
E-2
-------
APPENDIX E
An Approach for Evaluating
Numeric Water Quality Criteria
for Wetlands Protection
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
AN APPROACH FOR EVALUATING NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR WETLANDS PROTECTION
by
Cynthia A. Hagley and Debra L. Taylor
Asci Corporation
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
Project Officer
William D. Sanville
Project Leader
Environmental Research Laboratory
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
DU: BIOL
ISSUE: A
PPA: 16
PROJECT: 39
DELIVERABLE: 8234
July 8, 1991
-------
ABSTRACT
Extension of the national numeric aquatic life criteria to
wetlands has been recommended as part of a program to develop
standards and criteria for wetlands. This report provides an
overview of the need for standards and criteria for wetlands and
a description of the numeric aquatic life criteria. The numeric
aquatic life criteria are designed to be protective of aquatic
life and their uses for surface waters, and are probably
applicable to most wetland types. This report provides a
possible approach, based on the site-specific guidelines, for
detecting wetland types that might not be protected by direct
application of national numeric criteria. The evaluation can be
simple and inexpensive for those wetland types for which
sufficient water chemistry and species assemblage data are
available, but will be less useful for wetland types for which
these data are not readily available. The site-specific approach
is described and recommended for wetlands for which modifications
to the numeric criteria are considered necessary. The results of
this type of evaluation, combined with information on local or
regional environmental threats, can be used to prioritize wetland
types (and individual criteria) for further site-specific
evaluations and/or additional data collection. Close
coordination among regulatory agencies, wetland scientists, and
criteria experts will be required.
i
-------
> A \
158BH*


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUL 19 1981
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Numeric Water Quality Criteria
FROM:	William R. Diamond, Director	Li/A.
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Science and Technology
TO:	Water Management Division Directors (Regions I-X)
Environmental Services Division Directors (Regions I-X)
TO:
State Water Pollution Control Agency Directors
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a copy
of a report entitled "An Approach for Evaluation of Numeric Water
Quality Criteria for Wetlands Protection", prepared by EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota. This
report was requested in the early stages of planning for wetland
water quality standards to assess the applicability of EPA's
existing numeric aquatic life criteria methodology for wetlands.
This report was prepared by the Wetlands Research Program and is
part of the Agency's activities to assist States with developing
water quality standards for wetlands.
The report evaluates EPA's numeric aquatic life criteria to
determine how they can be applied to wetlands. Numeric aquatic
life criteria are designed to be protective of aquatic life for a
wide range of surface water types. The report suggests that most
numeric aquatic life criteria are applicable to most wetland
types.
However, there are some wetland types where EPA's criteria
are not appropriate. This report presents an approach that
States may use as a screening tool to detect those wetland types
that may be under- or overprotected by EPA's criteria. The
proposed approach relies on data readily available from EPA's
304(a) criteria documents, as well as species assemblages and
water quality data from individual wetland types. The results of
this type of simple evaluation can be used to prioritize wetland
types where further evaluation may be needed prior to setting
criteria. Two example analyses of the approach are included in
the report. EPA's site-specific criteria development guidelines
can then be used to modify criteria if appropriate.
-------
This report compiles existing information from EPA's 304(a)
criteria guidance documents and site-specific criteria
methodologies and does not contain new guidance or policy. The
report has been peer reviewed by ERL/Duluth scientists who
develop EPA's 3 04 criteria. The report also has been reviewed by
the Standards and Applied Science Division and the Wetlands
Division.
If you have additional questions on the information
contained in this report or its applications, contact the
following persons: David Sabock, Water Quality Standards Branch,
at 202-475-7315 regarding designated uses and water quality
standards policies; Bob April, Ecological Risk Assessment Branch,
at 202-475-7315, regarding EPA's aquatic life criteria; or Bill
Sanville, Environmental Research Laboratory/Duluth, at 218-720-
5500, regarding the research for this report.
Attachment
cc: Water Quality Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
Water Quality Standards Coordinators (Regions I-X)
Wetlands Coordinators (Regions I-X)
David Sabock
Bob April
Bill Sanville
2
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract	i
Tables	iii
Acknowledgements	iv
1.	Introduction	1
Need for standards for wetlands	1
Proposed approach to development of wetland
standards	3
Purpose of this document	4
2.	Current Surface Water Standards and Criteria	6
Description of standards and criteria	6
Development of national aquatic life numeric
criteria	7
Site-specific guidelines	8
3.	The Need for Evaluating Numeric Water
Quality Criteria: Use of the Site-Specific
Guidelines	9
Overall relevance of criteria to wetlands	9
Wetland variability	10
Use of the site-specific guidelines for
wetlands	10
Aquatic plants	14
4.	Evaluation Program	16
Classification	16
Evaluating the appropriateness of direct
application of criteria	17
Developing site-specific criteria	18
5.	Example Analyses	19
Example 1	19
Example 2	21
Summary of the example analyses	24
6.	Conclusions	26
References	28
Appendices
A.	Sources used in species habitat identification
for Minnesota marshes	31
B.	Sources used in species habitat identification
for prairie potholes	32
ii
-------
TABLES
NnmhgT-	Page
1	Freshwater numeric aquatic life criteria	33
2	Suitability of wetland species to fill minimum
family requirements for six criterion chemicals	34
3	Some conditions recommended for dilution water
for water quality criteria testing	35
4	Effects of cofactors on criterion chemical toxicity	36
5	Water chemistry for selected Minnesota marshes	37
6	Comparison of test species with Minnesota marsh
biota for six criterion chemicals	38
7	Number of species tested for acute criteria and
percentage of test species that are not found in
Minnesota marshes or oligosaline prairie potholes	40
8	Water quality characteristics for oligosaline
prairie potholes	41
9	Comparison of test species with prairie pothole
biota for six criterion chemicals	42
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of this document has been funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared
at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,
Minnesota, through Contract # 68033544 to AScI Corporation. This
document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review. Excellent reviews and assistance were
received from C. Stephan, R. Spehar, C. Johnston, E. Hunt, D.
Robb, and J. Minter.
iv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
NEED FOR STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS
Wetlands have been studied and appreciated for a relatively
short time in relation to other types of aquatic systems. The
extent of their value in the landscape has only recently been
recognized? in fact, a few decades ago government policies
encouraged wetland drainage and conversion. Wetlands
traditionally have been recognized as important fish and wildlife
habitats, and it is estimated that over one-third of U.S.
endangered species require wetland habitat for their continued
existence. Some of their many other values, however, have become
apparent only recently. These include attenuation of flood
flows, groundwater recharge, shoreline and stream bank
stabilization, filtering of pollutants from point and nonpoint
sources, unique habitats for both flora and fauna, and
recreational and educational opportunities.1
Impacts to Wetlands
Despite new appreciation of the valuable functions that
wetlands perform in the landscape, they continue to be destroyed
and altered at a rapid pace. Since pre-settlement times over
half of the wetlands in the continental U.S. have been destroyed,
and losses over the last few decades have remained high.2 These
figures only represent actual loss of acreage and do not account
for alterations to or contamination of still-extant wetlands.
The causes of wetland destruction and degradation include:3
*	Urbanization - Resulting in drainage and filling,
contamination, and ecological isolation of wetlands.
*	Agriculture Conversion - Drainage, cropping, and
grazing which change or destroy wetland structure and
ecological function.
*	Water Resource Development - Water flow alterations to
wetlands from diking, irrigation diversions,
alterations to rivers for navigation, diversions for
1
-------
water supply, and groundwater pumping. These result in
changes in the hydrology that sustains the wetland
system.
*	Chemical Pollution - From point and nonpoint sources,
hazardous waste sites, mining, and other activities.
These can overwhelm the assimilative capacity of
wetlands or be toxic to wetland organisms.
*	Biological Disturbances - Introduction or elimination
of plant and animal species that affect ecosystem
processes.
Gaps in Federal Regulatory Programs
Existing Federal regulatory programs intended to reduce some
of the impacts described above leave major gaps in the protection
of wetlands. Section 4 04 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a
permit to be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers, in
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
before dredged material or fill can be discharged into waters of
the United States. Alterations such as drainage, water
diversion, and chemical contamination are not covered by Section
404 unless material will be discharged into the wetland in
association with such alterations. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which regulates the disposal of hazardous wastes,
and the CWA, which regulates contamination from waste-water
discharges and nonpoint-source pollution, could provide
protection from certain impacts, but they have not been used
consistently to regulate impacts to wetlands. Programs designed
to protect endangered species, migratory birds, and marine
mammals have also been used to reduce impacts to wetlands, but
"the application of these programs also has been uneven."4
Gaps in State Regulatory Programs
Wetland regulations vary greatly among States. Some States
are now developing narrative standards for wetlands (e.g.
Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and others). On the other hand,
although wetlands are included in the Federal definition of
"waters of the United States" and are protected by Section 101(a)
of the CWA, not all States include them as "waters of the State"
in their definitions. A review conducted in 1989 by the EPA
Office of Wetlands Protection and the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards found that only 27 of 50 States mentioned wetlands
in definitions of State waters. The review verified that there
generally is a lack of consideration given to water quality
standards for wetlands.5
2
-------
Effective Use of Existing Regulatory Options
Although some impacts (e.g. excavation, most drainage, and
destruction of vegetation) are not addressed by the current
implementation of existing regulations and programs, much of the
chemical contamination of wetlands could be controlled through
existing Federal and State water pollution control laws.4 The
National Wetlands Policy Forum recommended that EPA and State
water pollution control agencies review the implementation of
their water guality programs to ensure that the chemical
integrity of wetlands is adequately protected. The Forum
stressed the need to develop water quality standards designed to
protect sensitive wetlands.
Under Section 401 of the CWA, States have authority to
authorize, condition, or deny all Federal permits or licenses in
order to comply with State water quality standards, including,
but not limited to, Sections 402 and 404 of the CWA, Sections 9
and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission licenses. States with water quality
standards that apply to or are specifically designed for wetlands
can use 401 certification much more effectively as a regulatory
tool.
As wetlands receive more recognition as important components
of State water resources, the need for testing the applicability
of some existing guidelines and standards to wetlands regulation
becomes more apparent.
PROPOSED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND STANDARDS
The EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards and Office
of Wetlands Protection recently completed a document entitled,
"National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands."6 It
recommends a two-phased approach for the development of water
quality standards for wetlands. In the first 3-year phase of
this program, standards for wetlands would be developed using
existing information in order to provide protection to wetlands
consistent with the protection afforded other State waters.
Technical support for this initial phase will be provided through
documents such as this one, which focuses on the application of
existing numeric criteria to wetlands. These criteria are widely
used. Applying them to wetlands requires a small amount of
effort and can be accomplished quickly.
The development of narrative biocriteria is also required in
the initial phase of standards development. The long-term goal
(3-10 years) of this program is to develop numeric biocriteria
for wetlands. It is anticipated that both narrative and numeric
3
-------
biocriteria can provide a more integrative estimate of whole-
wetland health and better identification of impacts and trends
than can be attained by traditional numeric chemical criteria.
Field-based, community-level biosurveys can be implemented to
complement, and help validate, laboratory-based conclusions.
Results of such surveys can be used to monitor wetlands for
degradation and establish narrative or numeric biocriteria or
guidance which take into account "real world" biological
interactions and the interactions of multiple stressors.
More information on the development of numeric biocriteria
will be available in a guidance document in coming years.
Technical guidance to support the development of biological
criteria for wetlands has also been prepared.7 This guidance
provides a synthesis of technical information on field studies of
inland wetland biological communities.
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
A number of steps are needed to develop wetland standards.
The document, "National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for
Wetlands," mentioned above, provides general guidelines to the
States for each of the following steps: the inclusion of
wetlands in definitions of State waters, the relationship between
wetland standards and other water-related programs, use
classification systems for wetlands, the definition of wetland
functions and values, the applicability of existing narrative and
numeric water quality criteria to wetlands, and the application
of antidegradation policies to wetlands.
The technical document for biological criteria7 and this
report are companions to the guidance document described above.
This report is directed primarily toward wetland scientists
unfamiliar with water quality regulation and is intended to
provide a basis for dialogue between wetland scientists and
criteria experts regarding adapting numeric aquatic life criteria
to wetlands. More specifically:
1)	It provides background information and an overview of
water quality standards and numeric chemical criteria, including
application to wetlands.
2)	The need for evaluating numeric water quality criteria is
discussed. The site-specific guidelines are introduced and
discussed in two contexts: a) as an initial screening tool to
ensure that water quality in extreme wetland types is adequately
protected by criteria, and b) in terms of using the site-specific
guidelines to modify criteria for wetlands where criteria might
be over or underprotective.
4
-------
3)	An approach is described that uses information available
from criteria documents and is designed to: a) detect wetland
types where water quality is not clearly protected by existing
criteria, and b) help prioritize further evaluations and research
efforts.
4)	A simple test of the approach is presented with two
examples. Results are not considered conclusive and are
presented only as an example of the procedure.
Most of the data and examples are based on the freshwater
acute criteria. A similar approach should be equally applicable
to the saltwater acute criteria and to both saltwater and
freshwater chronic criteria.
5
-------
SECTION 2
CURRENT SURFACE WATER STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
This section describes how criteria are used in State
standards, how national numeric criteria are derived, and what
options are currently available for modifying national aquatic
life criteria.
DESCRIPTION OF STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Surface waters are protected by Section 101(a) of the CWA
with the goal: "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters." State water
quality standards are developed to meet this goal.
State Standards
There are two main components to establishing a standard:
1) The level of water quality attainable for a particular
waterbody, or the designated use of that waterbody (e.g.
recreational, fishery, etc.) is determined; 2) Water quality
criteria (usually a combination of narrative and numeric) are
established to protect that designated use. Water quality
standards also contain an antidegradation policy "to maintain and
protect existing uses and water quality, to provide protection
for higher quality waters, and to provide protection for
outstanding national resource waters."8 State standards for a
particular waterbody must be met when discharging wastewaters.
The "National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands"6
outlines a basic program to achieve these goals for wetlands.
Aquatic Criteria
Narrative Criteria—
Narrative criteria are statements, usually expressed in a
"free from ..." format. For example, all States have a narrative
statement in their water quality standards which requires that
their waters not contain "toxic substances in toxic amounts."
Narrative criteria are typically applied at the State level when
combinations of pollutants must be controlled or when pollutants
are present which are not listed in State water quality
6
-------
standards.8 States must document the process by which they
propose to implement these narrative criteria in their standards.
Numeric Criteria—
Pollutant-specific numeric criteria are used by the States
when it is necessary to control individual pollutants in order to
protect the designated use of a waterbody. Fate and transpor
models commonly are used to translate these criteria into permit
limits for individual dischargers. Some criteria apply State-
wide and others are specific to particular designated uses or
waterbodies.
National numeric criteria are developed by EPA based on best
available scientific information. They serve as recommendations
to assist States in developing their own criteria and to assist
in interpreting narrative criteria.9 These include human health
and aquatic life pollutant-specific criteria and whole effluent
toxicity criteria. Sediment criteria are now being developed.
States can adopt national numeric criteria directly.
Alternatively, site-specific criteria may be developed using EPA-
specified guidelines, and State-specific criteria can be derived
using procedures developed by the State.8
DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL AQUATIC LIFE NUMERIC CRITERIA
National aquatic life criteria are usually derived using
single-species laboratory toxicity tests. Tests are repeated
with a wide variety of aquatic organisms for each chemical. The
criteria are designed to protect against unacceptable effects to
aquatic organisms or their uses caused by exposures to high
concentrations for short periods of time (acute effects), to
lower concentrations for longer periods of time (chronic
effects), and to combinations of both.' EPA criteria are
composed of 1) magnitude (what concentration of a pollutant is
allowable); 2) duration of exposure (the period of time over
which the in-stream concentration is averaged for comparison with
criteria concentrations); and 3) frequency (how often the
criterion can be exceeded without unacceptably affecting the
community).10 Separate criteria are determined for fresh water
and salt water. Field data are used when appropriate.
All acceptable data regarding toxicity to fish and
invertebrates are evaluated for inclusion in the criteria. Data
on toxicity to aquatic plants are evaluated to determine whether
concentrations of the chemical that do not cause unacceptable
effects to aquatic animals will cause unacceptable effects to
plants. Bioaccumulation data are examined to determine if
residues in the organisms might exceed FDA action levels or cause
known effects on the wildlife that consume them. For a complete
7
-------
description of the procedures for deriving ambient criteria,
consult the "National Guidelines" (1985).
Numeric water quality criteria are designed to protect most
of the species inhabiting a site.9 A wide variety of taxa with a
range of sensitivities are required for deriving criteria.
Guidelines are followed to determine the availability of
sufficient experimental data from enough appropriate taxa to
derive a criterion. For example, to derive a freshwater Final
Acute Value for a chemical, results of acute tests with at least
one species of freshwater animal in at least eight different
families are required. Acute and chronic values can be made to
be a function of a water quality characteristic such as Ph,
salinity, or hardness, when it is determined that these
characteristics impact toxicity, and enough data exist to
establish the relationship. Table l lists the chemicals for
which freshwater aquatic life criteria have been developed and
indicates which of those criteria are pH, hardness, or
temperature dependent.
SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
An option for modifying national aquatic life water quality
criteria to reflect local conditions is presented in the site-
specific guidelines. States may develop site-specific criteria
by modifying the national criteria for sites where 1) water
quality characteristics, such as pH, hardness, temperature, etc.,
that might impact toxicity of the pollutants of concern differ
from the laboratory water used in developing the criterion; or 2)
the types of organisms at the site differ from, and may be more
or less sensitive than, those used to calculate the criterion; or
3) both may be true. Site-specific criteria take local
conditions into account to provide an appropriate level of
protection. They can also be used to set seasonal criteria when
there is high temporal variability.8
A testing program can be used to determine whether site-
specific modifications to criteria are necessary. This program
may include water quality sampling and analysis, a biological
survey, and acute and chronic toxicity tests.11 If site-specific
modifications are deemed necessary, 3 separate procedures are
available for using site-specific guidelines to modify criteria
values, including the recalculation procedure, the indicator
species procedure, and the resident species procedure. These
will be discussed more fully in the next section.
8
-------
SECTION 3
THE NEED FOR EVALUATING NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA:
USE OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
OVERALL RELEVANCE OF CRITERIA TO WETLANDS
The national aquatic life criteria have been developed to
provide guidance to the States for the protection of aquatic life
and their uses in a variety of surface waters. They are designed
to be conservative and "... have been developed on the theory
that effects which occur on a species in appropriate laboratory
tests will generally occur on the same species in comparable
field situations. All North American bodies of water and
resident aquatic species and their uses are meant to be taken
into account, except for a few that may be too atypical . . . "9 A
wide variety of taxonomic groups sensitive to many materials are
used in testing, including many taxa common to both wetlands and
other surface waters. In order to ensure that criteria are
appropriately protective, water used for testing is low in
particulate matter and organic matter, because these substances
can reduce availability and toxicity of some chemicals. For
these reasons, the "National Guidance: Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands" states that, in most cases, criteria should be
protective of wetland biota.6
Although the water quality criteria are probably generally
protective of wetlands and provide the best currently available
tool for regulating contamination from specific pollutants, there
are many different types of wetlands with widely variable
conditions. There might be some wetland types where the resident
biota or chemical and physical conditions are substantially
different from what the criteria were designed to protect. These
differences could result in underprotection or overprotection of
the wetland resource. This section discusses the use of site-
specific guidelines for wetland types for which certain criteria
might be over or underprotective, but its primary focus is to
provide a mechanism to identify wetland types that might be
underprotected by certain criteria and that might require further
research.
9
-------
WETLAND VARIABILITY
Wetlands are usually located at the interface between
terrestrial systems and truly aquatic systems, and so combine
attributes of both.12 They are intermediate between terrestrial
and aquatic systems in the amount of water they store and process
and are very sensitive to changes in hydrology.12 Their chemical
and physical properties, such as nutrient availability, degree of
substrate anoxia, soil salinity, sediment properties, and pH are
influenced greatly by hydrologic conditions. Attendees at a
Wetlands Water Quality Workshop (held in Easton, Maryland in
August, 1988) listed the most common ways in which wetlands
differ from "typical" surface waters: higher concentrations of
organic carbon and particulate matter, more variable and
generally lower pH, more variable and generally lower dissolved
oxygen, more variable temperatures, and more transient
availability of water.13
There is also high variability among wetland types.
Wetlands, by definition, share hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and a water table at or near the surface at some time
during the growing season. Beyond these shared features,
however, there is tremendous hydrological, physical, chemical,
and biological variability. For example, an early
classification system for wetlands. "Circular 39", listed 20
distinctly different wetland types'4, and the present "Cowardin"
system lists 56 classes of wetlands.15 This variability makes it
important to evaluate different wetland types individually.
USE OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR WETLANDS
The site-specific guidelines outlined in Section 2 are
designed to address the chemical and biological variability
described above. Determining the need for site-specific
modifications to criteria requires a comparison of the aquatic
biota and chemical conditions at the site to those used for
establishing the criterion. This comparison is useful for
identifying wetland types that might require additional
evaluation. The three site-specific options are discussed in the
context of their general relevance to wetlands and are used in
this discussion to provide a framework for evaluating the
protectiveness of criteria for wetlands.
In most cases, because of the conservative approach used in
the derivation of the criteria, use of the site-specific
guidelines to modify criteria results in no change or in their
relaxation, provided that an adequate number of species are used
in the calculations. However, criteria can also become more
10
-------
restrictive. Newly tested species could be especially sensitive
to certain pollutants, or extreme water conditions found in some
surface waters or wetland types might not reduce the toxicity of
a chemical. Disease, parasites, predators, other pollutants,
contaminated or insufficient food, and fluctuating and extreme
conditions might all affect the ability of organisms to withstand
toxic pollutants.9
Appropriateness of Testing Organisms: Recalculation Procedure
The first option given in the site-specific guidelines is
the recalculation procedure.8,11 This approach is designed to
take into account differences between the sensitivity of resident
species and those used to calculate a criterion for the material
of concern. It involves eliminating data from the criterion
database for species that are not resident at that site. It
could require additional resident species testing in laboratory
water if the number of species remaining for recalculating the
criterion drops below the minimum data requirements. "Resident"
species include those that seasonally or intermittently exist at
a site.11,16
Use of the recalculation procedure will not necessarily
result in a higher acute criterion value (less restrictive), even
if sensitive species are eliminated from the dataset and minimum
family requirements are met. The number of families used to
calculate Final Acute Values is important. If a number of non-
wetland species are dropped out of the calculation without adding
a sufficient number of new species, a lower (more restrictive)
Final Acute Value can result, because data are available for
fewer species.11
Similarity of Required Taxa and Typical Wetland Species—
The variety of test species required to establish the
national numeric criteria was chosen to represent a wide range of
taxa having a wide range of habitat requirements and sensitivity
to toxicants. Establishment of a freshwater Final Acute Value
for a chemical requires a minimum of 8 different types of
families to be tested. These include: 1) the family Salmonidae;
2) a second family of fish, preferably a warmwater species; 3) a
third family in the phylum Chordata (fish, amphibian, etc.); 4) a
planktonic crustacean; 5) a benthic crustacean; 6) an insect; 7)
a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata; and 8) a
family in any order of insect or phylum not already represented.9
When a required type of family does not exist at a site, the
guidelines for the recalculation procedure specify that
substitutes from a sensitive family, resident in the site, should
be added to meet the minimum family data requirement. Should it
happen that all resident families have been tested and the
11
-------
minimum data requirements still have not been met, the acute
toxicity value from the most sensitive resident family that has
been tested should be used as the site-specific value.
Most of the required families are probably well-represented
in most wetland types. Some types of wetlands, however, seldom
or never contain fish, and most wetland types do not support
salmonids or aquatic insects requiring flowing water.
General Evaluation of Species Suitability—
Table 2 presents six criterion chemicals chosen as examples
and the eight taxonomic groups required to establish criteria.
The chemicals include two organochlorines: polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs - used in industrial applications,
environmentally-persistent, bioaccumulate) and pentachlorophenol
(widely used fungicide and bactericide); one organophosphate:
parathion (insecticide); two metals: zinc and chromium(VI); and
cyanide.
The species used for acute toxicity testing for each of the
six chemicals have been broken down by taxonomic group and
evaluated based on the likelihood that those species can be found
in wetlands. Except for the unsuitability of the Salmonidae to
most wetland types, most of the taxonomic groups are well-
represented for the six chemicals used as examples. Wetland
species were not present in the list of species used to calculate
the Final Acute Value for the "non-arthropod/non-chordate" and
"another insect or new phylum" groups for a few of the criteria.
This is not because these groups are not represented in wetlands.
These are very general classifications. For example, the "non-
arthropod/non-chordate" group can include rotifers, annelids, and
mollusks among other phyla, all of which should have many
representatives in most types of wetlands. There is a large
degree of variation in the total number of species tested for the
six chemicals used as examples, ranging from 10 fish and
invertebrates for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to 45 for zinc
(Table 7). Criteria based on smaller numbers of species are less
likely to include a sufficient number of wetland species to
fulfill the minimum family requirements. Additional toxicity
testing, using laboratory water and wetland species from the
missing families, can be done to fill these gaps.
While the general taxonomic groups required for toxicity
testing are fairly well represented in wetlands, the similarity
between the genera and species inhabiting individual wetland
types and those used for criteria testing varies widely among
criteria and wetland types. Species chosen for toxicity testing
were seldom or never chosen with wetlands in mind. In addition,
relatively little is known about species assemblages in some
types of wetlands (particularly in those lacking surface waters,
12
-------
such as wet meadows or bogs). Defining typical wetland taxa is
difficult. For example, while most types of wetlands do not
support salmonids, Coho salmon are highly dependent on wetlands
in Alaska, where there is a higher percentage and acreage of
wetlands than in any other State. Part of the utility of the
evaluation proposed here is in identifying where significant gaps
in data exist.
Influence of Cofactors: Indicator Species Procedure
The second of the three site-specific procedures, the
indicator species procedure, accounts for differences in
biological availability and/or toxicity of a material caused by
physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site water, or
cofactors. For the acute test, the effect of site water is
compared to the effect of laboratory water, using at least two
resident species or acceptable non-resident species (one fish and
one invertebrate) as indicators. A ratio is determined, which is
used to modify the Final Acute Value. See Carlson et al. (1984)
for information and guidelines for determination of site-specific
chronic values.11
Suitability of Standard Testing Conditions—
Standard aquatic toxicity tests are performed using natural
or reconstituted dilution water that should not of itself affect
the results of toxicity tests. For example, organic carbon and
particulate matter are required to be low to avoid sorption or
complexation of toxicants, which might lower the toxicity or
availability of some criterion chemicals. Recommended acute test
conditions for certain water quality characteristics of fresh and
salt water are listed in Table 3. Wetlands, as well as some
types of surface waters, can have values far outside the ranges
used for standard testing for some of these characteristics (most
notably total organic carbon, particulate matter, pH, and
dissolved oxygen). Wetland types can be evaluated to identify
these extremes.
Wetland Cofactors--
Many water quality characteristics can 1) act as cofactors
to affect the toxicity of pollutants (e.g. alkalinity/acidity,
hardness, ionic strength, organic matter, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids); 2) can be directly toxic to organisms
(e.g. un-ionized ammonia, high or low pH, hydrogen sulfide, low
dissolved oxygen); or 3) can interfere mechanically with feeding
and reproduction (e.g. suspended solids). The criteria for some
of these water quality characteristics can be naturally exceeded
in many wetland types, as well as in some lakes and streams.
Hardness, pH, and temperature adjustments built into a few
of the criteria account for effects from these cofactors in a few
13
-------
cases, but no other cofactors are now included in the criteria,
despite some known effects. For example, alkalinity, salinity,
and suspended solids, in addition to pH and hardness, are known
to affect the toxicities of heavy metals and ammonia. These
cofactors are not included in the criteria primarily because
there are insufficient data.9 For example, most toxicity tests
have been performed under conditions of low or high salinity, so
that estuaries, where salinity values can vary greatly, may
require salinity-dependent site-specific criteria for some
metals.11 An initial evaluation of the adequacy of protection
provided to a wetland type by a criterion should take possible
cofactor effects into account.
Combination: Resident Species Procedure
The resident species procedure accounts for differences in
both species sensitivity and water quality characteristics.11
This procedure is costly, because it requires that a complete
minimum dataset be developed using site water and resident
species. It is designed to compensate concurrently for
differences in the sensitivity range of species represented in
the dataset used to derive the criterion and for site water
differences which may markedly affect the biological availability
and/or toxicity of the chemical.11
AQUATIC PLANTS
One of the most notable differences between wetlands and
other types of surface waters is the dominance (and importance)
of aquatic macrophytes and other hydrophytic vegetation in
wetlands. Aquatic plants probably constitute the majority of the
biomass in most wetland types.
Few data concerning toxicity to aquatic plants are currently
required for deriving aquatic life criteria. Traditionally,
procedures for aquatic toxicity tests on plants have not been as
well developed as for animals. Although national numeric
criteria development guidelines state that results of a test with
a freshwater alga or vascular plant "should be available" for
establishing a criterion, they do not require that information.9
The Final Plant Value is the lowest (most sensitive) result from
tests with important aquatic plant species (vascular plant or
alga), in which the concentrations of test material were measured
and the endpoint was biologically important. Plant values are
compared to animal values to determine the relative sensitivities
of aquatic plants and animals. If plants are "among the aquatic
organisms that are most sensitive to the material," results of a
second test with a plant from another phylum are included.9
14
-------
Results of tests with plants usually indicate that criteria
which protect aquatic animals and their uses also protect aquatic
plants and their uses.9 As criteria are evaluated for their
suitability for wetlands, however, plant values should be
examined carefully. Additional plant testing may be advisable in
some cases. If site-specific adjustments are made to some
criteria, they could result in less restrictive acute and chronic
values for animals. Some plant values could then be as sensitive
or more sensitive than the animal values. Chemicals with fairly
sensitive plant values include: aluminum, arsenic(III), cadmium,
chloride, chromium(VI), cyanide, and selenium(VI). For example,
fish are generally much more sensitive to cyanide than
invertebrates. If the recalculation procedure was used to
develop a site-specific cyanide criterion for a wetland type
containing no fish, values for these sensitive species would be
replaced in the calculation, possibly by less sensitive species.
A less restrictive criterion could result, possibly making the
plant value more sensitive than the animal value. Therefore,
additional consideration should be given to plant toxicity data
for wetland systems.
15
-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION PROGRAM
The direct application of existing aquatic life criteria to
wetlands is assumed to be reasonable in most cases. It provides
a practical approach towards protecting the biological integrity
of wetlands. The following evaluation program offers a possible
strategy to identify extreme wetland types that might be
underprotected by some criteria, to prioritize wetland types and
criterion chemicals for further testing or research, and to
identify gaps in available data. The approach can be helpful for
identifying those instances where modifications to existing
criteria might be advisable. The proposed evaluation program
offers a screening tool to begin to answer the following
questions: 1) Are there some wetland types for which certain
criteria are underprotective? 2) For criteria in wetland types
that cannot be applied directly, can site-specific guidelines be
used to modify the criteria to protect the wetland? 3) Will
additional toxicity testing under wetland conditions and with
wetland species be necessary in some cases in order to establish
site-specific criteria?
The proposed approach relates species and water quality
characteristics of individual wetland types to species and water
quality characteristics important in deriving each criterion. It
involves identifying wetland types of concern, identifying
cofactors possibly affecting toxicity for the criteria of
interest, gathering data on the biota and water quality
characteristics of the wetland type, and comparing to data used
to derive the criterion.
CLASSIFICATION
The proposed program for the evaluation of the suitability
of aquatic life criteria discussed in this section can be done
separately for individual wetland types. These can be defined in
the classification process, which is the first step in developing
standards for wetlands. The classification process requires the
identification of the various structural types of wetlands and
identification of their functions and values.6 The
classification should provide groups of wetlands that are similar
16
-------
enough structurally and functionally so that they can reasonably
be expected to respond in kind to inputs of toxic chemicals.
EVALUATING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF DIRECT APPLICATION OF CRITERIA
Information Needed
1.	Identification of cofactors. Cofactors potentially
affecting mobility and biological availability for eac;h criterion
chemical should be identified. Cofactors known to affect each
criterion chemical are listed in individual national criteria
documents and are summarized in Table 4. The absence of a
relationship between a cofactor and a chemical on Table 4 does
not ensure that no relationship exists, merely that none was
discussed in the criteria document. The chemistry of the effects
of the cofactors on the chemicals is often very complicated, and
limited data are available regarding some of the relationships.
The approach presented here is simplistic and is geared toward
directing further efforts. Other sources of information, in
addition to the criteria documents, should be consulted when
actually applying this approach. Criteria that include hardness-
or pH-dependent correction factors (Table 1) should apply
directly to wetlands unless the wetland type has extremes of pH
or hardness well outside the ranges used in toxicity testing.
For example, the pH of acid bogs can be as low as 3.5, well below
the 6.5 lower limit for toxicity testing (Table 3).
2.	Comparison to wetland water chemistry. Natural levels
and variability of those cofactors should be identified as well
as possible for each major wetland type of interest. Wetlands-
related information can be accumulated through consultation with
wetland researchers, through literature searches, and from
monitoring agencies.
3.	Comparison of species lists. Species lists of fish,
invertebrates, and plants should be compiled for each wetland
type and compared to lists of species used for testing each
criterion. Lists should be evaluated on two levels: a) Species
level.- Are the species used for toxicity testing representative
(the same species or genera, or "similar" in terms of sensitivity
to toxicants) of the species found in the wetland type?
b) Family level - Does the wetland contain suitable
representatives for each of the families listed in the minimum
family requirements?8,11 Consultation with fish and invertebrate
specialists, plant ecologists, and wetlands expe s will be
necessary to do this comparison.
17
-------
Adoption of Existing Water Quality Criterion
The existing water quality criterion should be suitable for
that wetland type if the following are true:
1.	Important cofactor levels are not naturally exceeded in
the wetland to a degree that might seriously affect toxicity or
availability of the chemical. Would toxicity likely be higher,
lower, or not influenced by typical levels or extremes of a
particular cofactor in a particular wetland type?
2.	Sufficient species or genera used for aquatic toxicity
testing are found in the wetland type so that the minimum family
requirements can be met by resident wetland species.
Consultation between wetland scientists and criteria experts will
be necessary in many cases to make judgements on how well-
represented some wetland types are.
3.	The criterion itself is not naturally exceeded in the
wetland.
DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA
When one or more of these stipulations is not true or when
insufficient data are available, more evaluation is advisable.
Again, consultation between wetland scientists and criteria
experts might be helpful in prioritizing those wetland types for
which additional protection, or additional research, might be
needed for some chemicals. Once a priority list for further
evaluation is established, an approach to obtaining the
additional required data can be determined. It might be possible
to group wetlands by type, and possibly by designated use, and
then develop site-specific criteria for all wetlands of that type
in the State.
18
-------
SECTION 5
EXAMPLE ANALYSES
Evaluations of the applicability of the six criteria listed
in Table 2 will be made for two sets of wetland data, including
shallow marshes and prairie potholes. The analyses in these
examples were made with limited data for each wetland type and
are preliminary. They have been compiled to be used only as
illustrations of the usefulness of this approach.
EXAMPLE 1
The first example is based on a wetland study taking place
in southcentral Minnesota. The wetlands are being studied to
evaluate the effects of disturbance on water quality, as well as
the effects of pesticides on wetland communities. Therefore
chemical and biological data have been collected.18
Classification
The wetland study sites are primarily shallow marshes
(freshwater palustrine, persistent emergent, semi-permanently or
seasonally-flooded, according to Cowardin15) , dominated by
Phalaris (reed canary grass) and Typha (cattails), but also
include a small number of wet meadow/seasonally-flooded wetlands,
deep marsh, shrub/scrub + woody wetlands, and ponds.
Steps l and 2: Identification of Cofactors and Comparison to
Wetland Water Chemistry
Cofactors are identified for criteria chemicals in Table 4.
Some water quality characteristics averaged for 5 seasons for the
Minnesota wetlands are summarized in Table 5.
Although some water chemistry conditions in the shallow
marshes were within the ranges of the aquatic toxicity testing
conditions, others were exceeded (Table 3). Wetland values for
pH were well within the 6.5-9.0 range allowed for testing, so
criteria having pH as a possible cofactor affecting toxicity
and/or biological availability should not be underprotective
because of pH effects. As Table 4 shows, PCP, chromium(VI),
zinc, and cyanide can be more toxic at low pH values, so a very
19
-------
acidic wetland might require additional evaluation in regard to
pH. The PCP criterion has an adjustment factor for pH, which
indicates that enough suitable data are available to allow this
relationship to be incorporated into the criterion.
Hardness values were not available for these marshes, but
were probably fairly low since alkalinity was low. Table 4 lists
hardness as a cofactor for zinc and chromium(VI). Table 1
reveals that the zinc criterion has an adjustment factor for
hardness, so any effect of hardness on zinc toxicity and/or
biological availability is already included in the criterion and
does not have to be considered further. Chromium(VI) is more
toxic at low alkalinity and hardness, but the criterion was
derived using soft water and should be protective for the
wetlands.
Total organic carbon (TOC) was highly variable in the
wetlands and generally well above the 5 mg/L limit for toxicity
testing. However parathion and zinc, the two criteria with TOC
cofactor effects, have reduced toxicity and/or biological
availability at high levels of organic matter (Table 4), so
criteria should be protective.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) was highly variable in the wetlands
and reached very low levels in late summer. The shallow waters
of the marshes were extremely warm on hot summer days. Toxicity
and/or biological availability is increased by low DO and high
temperatures for PCBs, PCP, and cyanide. These relationships
will require further evaluation.
Step 3: Comparisons of Species Lists
In Step 3, fish, invertebrates, and plants inhabiting the
wetlands are compared to species used in testing each criterion.
For these examples, only the acute toxicity lists have been
consulted. A list of genera common to both the marshes and to
the toxicity tests was compiled for each criterion. When
identical species were not found, species from the same genus
were compared to determine whether habitat requirements are
suitable enough to include them as representative species for
these wetlands. The shortened list of marsh species the same as
or similar to, species used for toxicity testing was examined to
determine whether the minimum family requirements for acute
toxicity tests could be met for each criterion. Table 6 contains
a list of marsh genera that could be used to fulfill minimum
family requirements for each criterion. Appendix A contains a
list of the sources that have been consulted in making this
comparison.
20
-------
The aquatic species found in the Minnesota wetlands were
fairly well-represented by the acute toxicity test species for
the six chemicals used in this example. The percentages of total
species tested that have not been found in these wetlands were
below 50% for all six criteria (Table 7). Except for PCBs,-for
which no plant value is available, plant species tested
overlapped with species occurring in the wetlands. The absence
of salmonids in wetlands was the only consistent omission.
Of all the species tested, the salmonids are the most
sensitive to POP and cyanide and are much more sensitive than
most invertebrate species. The inclusion of highly sensitive
salmonid data in the criteria calculations probably ensures that
these two criteria are adequately protective when applied to
wetlands not containing this sensitive family (not considering
cofactor effects). It would perhaps be more important to
consider the effects of the absence of salmonids in Minnesota
marshes for criteria where salmonids are among the least
sensitive species, including parathion and chromium(VI). In this
case, the presence of salmonid toxicity data in the criterion
calculation, despite their absence from the wetlands, could
possibly cause the criterion to be less restrictive than is
appropriate for the wetland.
Salmonids do not occur in the wetlands included in this
example. Three criteria were missing an additional required
taxonomic group (from Table 6: PCBs, chromium(VI), and cyanide).
There are certainly representatives of this taxonomic group
(nonarthropod/nonchordate) inhabiting the wetlands, but the
genera used for toxicity tests did not correspond to the wetland
genera. These three criteria have the least species on the acute
toxicity list, so there are less species to compare to, in
relation to the other criteria (Table 7). Toxicity experts and
wetland biologists might be able to fill some of these data gaps
by reaching conclusions on the suitability of wetland species to
fulfill the minimum family requirements.
EXAMPLE 2
This example is based on data for a number of oligosaline
prairie pothole wetlands in southcentral North Dakota. ,2°
Oligosaline is defined as ranging from 0.5-5 g/kg salinity, or
specific conductance of 800-8,000 /iS/cm at 25°C.
The chemical types of the majority of wetlands used in this
example include magnesium bicarbonate, magnesium sulfate, and
sodium sulfate.20
21
-------
Classification
Wetlands included in this example are semipermanent (cover
type 4 of the classification system developed by Stewart and
Kantrud for the glaciated prairie region), containing wet_
meadow, shallow marsh, and deep marsh. Classification of these
wetlands based on the Cowardin system can be found in Kantrud et
al.20
Steps 1 and 2: Identification of Cofactors and Comparison to
Wetland Water Chemistry
Cofactors are identified for criteria chemicals in Table 4.
Water quality data for the prairie pothole wetlands are
summarized in Table 8. A comparison of water chemistry
conditions for the prairie potholes with standard toxicological
testing conditions (Table 3) reveals a number of differences.
These wetlands are extremely alkaline and saline compared to
water used for freshwater toxicity testing. Salinity (reported
as specific conductance) can vary greatly over the year and is
concentrated by the high rates of evaporation and transpiration
that take place in the summer. A number of the wetlands have pH
values above the 6.5-9.0 range that the criteria are designed to
protect. No data were available for total organic carbon (TOC),
but dissolved organic carbon values from other prairie pothole
systems were generally well above the TOC limit of 5 mg/L used
for toxicity testing. 2 As in Example 1, hardness can be
eliminated from consideration as a cofactor, because toxicity
and/or biological availability is decreased as hardness
increases. Similarly, the probable high TOC levels would
decrease toxicity and/or biological availability for zinc and
chromium(VI). The high pH values should cause decreased toxicity
and/or biological availability. Bioavailability of zinc is
reduced in high ionic strength waters such as these.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels drop in the winter and in
middle to late summer, allowing anoxic conditions to develop.
Although no aquatic temperature data were available, the Dakotas
have moderately hot summers (mean July temperature of 22.3°C).20
The shallow waters of the prairie potholes probably become very
warm in late summer, corresponding with low DO levels. Toxicity
and/or biological availability is increased by low DO and high
temperatures for PCBs, PCP, and cyanide. These relationships
will require further evaluation.
Step 3: Comparisons of Species Lists
Semi-permanent prairie pothole wetlands are generally
shallow and eutrophic. Water levels fluctuate greatly, as does
22
-------
salinity. The cold winters can cause some of the wetlands to
freeze to the bottom. Both winterkill and summerkill, caused by
the effects of lack of oxygen, can occur. Fish can survive only
in semipermanent wetlands that have connections to deeper water
habitat. The only native fishes known to occur in semi-permanent
prairie potholes are fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and
brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans).
The invertebrate taxa of prairie potholes are typical of
other eutrophic, alkaline systems in the United States.
Macroinvertebrate species assemblages are highly influenced by
hydroperiod and salinity in these systems, and species diversity
drops as salinity increases.20 Care must be taken in aggregating
large salinity ranges into one wetland type (i.e. "oligosaline"
may be too broad a class in terms of species representativeness).
Comparisons of species typical of the wetlands with the criteria
species lists reveals some major differences. For example, a
large proportion of the aquatic insects tested for each criterion
are found in flowing water, and therefore might not be
characteristic of prairie pothole aquatic insects. Although many
species of aquatic insects are found in these wetlands20, there
are not many suitable aquatic insects on the criteria species
lists to compare to resident wetland species. Prairie pothole
wetlands do not harbor Decapods (crayfish and shrimp), another
common group for testing. Eubranchiopods (fairy, tadpole, and
clam shrimp) are commonly found in prairie pothole wetlands20,
but only one representative of this group has been used to
establish criteria, and that species was not on the list for any
of the criteria used as examples here. Except for PCBs, for
which no plant value is available, plant species tested do
overlap with species occurring in the wetlands. Appendix B
contains sources used in making comparisons.
The above discussion has obvious implications for
determining applicability of criteria based on suitability of
species. As Table 7 shows, the percentages of species tested for
each criterion that have not been found in prairie potholes are
rather high (up to 67%). There are more gaps in the minimum
family requirements for fish and chordates (Table 9) than were
found for the Minnesota marsh example. The lack of fish in these
wetlands dictates that amphibians or other chordates be used to
fill these family requirements. The paucity of fish in these
wetlands again has relevance to the protectiveness of the
criteria. Fish are the most sensitive group tested for PCP and
cyanide, so these criteria may have an added "buffer" of
protection (in relation to the other criteria used as examples)
when applied with no modifications to this wetland type.
23
-------
SUMMARY OF THE EXAMPLE ANALYSES
The conclusions discussed below should be considered as
examples only. They should not be considered final for these
wetland types.
Cofactor Effects
Based on this simple analysis, the only cofactors that
potentially could cause criteria to be underprotective were DO
and temperature. The low DO and high temperatures common in both
wetland types in mid to late summer could cause increased
toxicity and/or biological availability for PCBs, PCP, and
cyanide. Cofactor effects for chromium(VI), zinc, and parathion
were either not important under the chemical conditions
encountered in these wetlands or should result in criteria being
more, rather than less, protective for the wetland biota. Based
on water quality characteristics, it can be concluded that
chromium(VI), zinc, and parathion criteria are probably
adequately protective of these wetland types with no acute
modification.
The importance of the DO and temperature relationship
requires further evaluation for PCBs, PCP, and cyanide. Chemists
and wetlands experts should be consulted and further literature
reviews should be completed to evaluate the need for additional
toxicity tests. If it is determined that a modification to a
criterion is warranted, seasonal site-specific criteria might be
appropriate in this case. The indicator species procedure could
be used, requiring toxicity tests using site water on one fish
and one invertebrate. The tests could be done at the high
temperatures and low DO found in late summer in the wetlands.
Species Comparisons
The Salmonidae are a required family group for establishing
a Final Acute Value and yet are not present in either of the
wetland types used as examples. This evaluation is most
concerned with ensuring that criteria are adequately protective,
so the absence of this family in the wetlands should only be
considered a problem if the unmodified criterion (which includes
the Salmonidae) might be underprotective. This would most likely
be true for parathion and chromium(VI).
For several criteria, some family requirements are not
fulfilled because the available toxicity data for that taxonomic
group do not include wetland species or genera ("NT" in Tables 6
and 9). While this document made comparisons at the genus level,
others have made comparisons at the family level to determine if
the species listed in the criteria document is a member of a
24
-------
family that exists at the site.16 Issues related to species
comparisons should be addressed through discussion with criteria
experts and wetlands ecologists and through further literature
review.
The absence of fish in prairie potholes to fill the "other
chord. 3S" category for cyanide, zinc, chromium(VI), and PCBs may
warrar. additional toxicity tests and site-specific
modifications. The only other fish likely to be present in these
wetlands is the brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans)20 which was
not tested for any of the six criteria. No non-fish chordates
were tested either, so no evaluation of the probable sensitivity
of other chordates to these criteria can be made based on the
criteria documents.
If it is decided upon more rigorous evaluation that these
differences in taxonomic groups warrant additional efforts and
development of site-specific criteria, the recalculation
procedure can be used. A suitable family, resident in the
wetlands, can be added to the list to replace the Salmonidae
and/or other missing groups, either through additional toxicity
tests or by including additional available data.
Further Evaluation
This approach helps to prioritize wetland types and criteria
for further evaluation. It was concluded that zinc,
chromium(VI), and parathion criteria require no modification with
regard to cofactor effects. PCBs, PCP, and cyanide, however,
should be evaluated further in regard to the effects of high
temperatures and low DO on toxicity, for both wetland types. The
absence of salmonids may be most important for parathion and
chromium(VI) in both wetland types. Further consideration should
be given to the need for additional tests with chordates from
prairie pothole wetlands for cyanide, zinc, chromium(VI) and
PCBs, although there is no evidence to suggest that the absence
of representative wetland chordates from the test species will
result in underprotective criteria.
This type of evaluation, done for a number of wetland types
and criteria, can be combined with information on the types of
pollutants that threaten particular wetland types. In this way
wetland types requiring additional evaluation and perhaps
eventually some additional toxicity testing for particular
pollutants can be prioritized based on adequacy of existing
criteria, potential threats to the system, and resources
available for testing. These examples illustrate the need for
wetland scientists to work closely with criteria experts. Expert
judgement is needed to evaluate the significance of the gaps in
the available data.
25
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS
The efficient use of limited resources dictates that
criteria and standards for wetlands be developed by making good
use of the wealth of data that has been accumulated for other
surface waters. This report focused on the application of
numeric aquatic life criteria to wetlands. The numeric aquatic
life criteria are designed to protect aquatic life and their
uses. The criteria are conservative, and for most wetland types
are probably protective or overprotective.
A simple, inexpensive evaluation technique has been proposed
in this document for detecting wetland types that might be
underprotected for some chemicals by existing criteria. The
approach relies on information contained in criteria documents,
data regarding species composition and water quality
characteristics for the wetland types of interest, and
consultation with experts. It is intended to be used as a
screening tool for prioritizing those wetland types that require
additional evaluations and research.
Two tests of the approach demonstrated that it can be used
to identify cases in which criteria might be underprotective, but
further evaluation and close coordination among regulatory
agencies, wetland scientists, and criteria experts are needed to
determine when actual modifications to the criteria are
necessary.
Site-specific guidelines for modifying the numeric criteria
should be appropriate for use on wetlands in cases where
additional evaluations reveal that modifications are needed. The
approach described in this document can be used to compile lists
of the most commonly under-represented species and the most
frequently encountered chemicals. Aquatic toxicity tests can
then be conducted which would apply to a number of wetland types.
Information obtained with this approach can be used to
prioritize further evaluations and research, identify gaps in
data, and make further testing more efficient, but has some
limitations. It does not adequately address the importance of
plants in wetland systems and applies only to the aquatic
component of wetlands. It relies on species assemblage and water
26
-------
quality data that are not available for some wetland types. For
these reasons, a meeting of wetland scientists and criteria
experts is recommended to discuss the need for this type of
evaluation, the utility of this approach, and possible
alternative approaches.
The application of numeric criteria to wetlands is just one
part of a large effort to develop wetland standards and criteria.
The development of biocriteria, sediment criteria, and wildlife
criteria will help to ensure that all components of the wetland
resource are adequately protected.
27
-------
REFERENCES
1.	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. An Overview of Major
Wetland Functions and Values.
2.	Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States:
Current Status and Recent Trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
3.	U.S. EPA, Office of Water. 1989. The Water Planet.
4.	The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's
Wetlands: An Action Agenda: The Final Report of the
National Wetlands Policy Forum.
5.	U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office
of Wetlands Protection. 1989. Survey of State Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands. Internal report.
6.	U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office
of Wetlands Protection. In Review. Draft National
Guidance: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands.
7.	Adamus, P.R., K. Brandt, and M. Brown. 1990. Use of
Biological Community Measurements for Determining Ecological
Condition of, and Criteria for, Inland Wetlands of the
United States - A Survey of Techniques, Indicators,
Locations, and Applications. U.S. EPA, Corvallis, Oregon.
8.	U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 1986.
Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/5-86-001. U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
9.	Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A.
Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. PB85-227049. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
10.	U.S. EPA, Office of Water. 1985. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. EPA-440/4-
85-032.
28
-------
11.	Carlson, A.R., W.A. Brungs, G.A. Chapman, and D.J. Hansen.
1984.	Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National
Criteria. EPA-600/3-84-099. U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota.
12.	Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
13.	Phillip, K. 1989. Review of Regulated Substances and
Potential Cofactors in Wetland Environments. Draft internal
report submitted to U.S. EPA.
14.	Shaw, S.P., and C.G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United
States, Their Extent, and Their Value for Waterfowl and
Other Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular
39. Washington, D.C., 67p.
15.	Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
16.	Hansen, D.J., J. Cardin, L.R. Goodman, and G.M. Cripe.
1985.	Applicability of Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria
Obtained Using the Resident Species Recalculation Option.
Internal report, U.S. EPA, Narragansett, Rhode Island and
Gulf Breeze, Florida.
17.	American Society for Testing Materials. 1988. Standard
Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with Fishes,
Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians. Standard E 729-88a,
ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
18.	Detenbeck, N.E. 1990. Effects of Disturbance on Water-
Quality Functions of Wetlands: Interim Progress Report:
January 1990. Natural Resources Research Institute.
Internal report submitted to U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota.
19.	Swanson, G.A., T.C. Winter, V.A. Adomaitis, and J.W.
LaBaugh. 1988. Chemical Characteristics of Prairie Lakes
in South-central North Dakota - Their Potential for
Influencing Use by Fish an Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Technical Report 18.
20.	Kantrud, H.A., G.L. Krapu, and G.A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie
Basin Wetlands of the Dakotas: A Community Profile. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28).
29
-------
21.	Stewart, R.E., and H.A. Kantrud. 1971. Classification of
Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 92.
57p.
22.	LaBaugh, J.W. 1989. Chemical Characteristics of Water in
Northern Prairie Wetlands. Pages 56-90 In A.G. van der
Valk, ed., Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University
Press.
30
-------
APPENDIX A
SOURCES USED IN SPECIES HABITAT IDENTIFICATION
FOR MINNESOTA MARSHES
Fishes:
Eddy, S., and J.C. Underhill. 1974. Northern Fishes. 3rd
edition. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World. 2nd edition. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Niering, W.A. 1987. Wetlands. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Personal Communications:
P. DeVore and C. Richards of the Natural Resources
Research Institute, Duluth, Minnesota.
G. Montz, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources.
Macroinvertebrates:
Niering, W.A. 1987. Wetlands. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United
States. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Williams, W.D. 1976. Freshwater Isopods (Asellidae) of
North America. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati.
Personal Communications:
P. DeVore and A. Hershey of the Natural Resources
Research Institute, Duluth, Minnesota.
P. Mickelson of the University of Minnesota, Duluth.
31
-------
APPENDIX B
SOURCES USED IN SPECIES HABITAT IDENTIFICATION
FOR PRAIRIE POTHOLES
Fishes:
Kantrud, H.A., G.L. Krapu, and G.A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie
Basin Wetlands of the Dakotas: A Community Profile. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28).
Swanson, G.A., T.C. Winter, V.A. Adomaitis, and J.W.
LaBaugh. 1988. Chemical Characteristics of Prairie Lakes
in South-central North Dakota - Their Potential for
Influencing Use by Fish an Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Technical Report 18.
Macroinvertebrates:
Broschart, M.R. and R.L Linder. 1986. Aquatic
invertebrates in level ditches and adjacent emergent marsh
in a South Dakota wetland. Prairie Nat. 18(3):167-178.
Eddy, S. and A.C. Hodson. 1961. Taxonomic Keys to the
Common Animals of the Northcentral States. Minneapolis:
Burgess Publishing Co.
Krapu, G.L. 1974. Feeding ecology of pintail hens during
reproduction. The Auk 91:278-290.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United
States. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Swanson, G.A. 1984. Invertebrates consumed by dabbling
"ducks (Anatinae) on the breeding grounds. Journal of the
Minnesota Academy of Science 50:37-45.
van der Valk, A., ed. 1989. Northern Prairie Marshes.
Ames: Iowa State University Press.
32
-------
TABLE 1. FRESHWATER NUMERIC AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA*
Chemical
H, T, or pH
Dependent
Chemical
H, T, or pH
Dependent
Organochlorines:
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Organophosphates:
Chlorpyrifos
Parathion
PH
Metals:
Aluminum
Arsenic(III)
Cadmium	H
Chromium(III)	H
Chromium(VI)
Copper	H
Lead	H
Mercury
Nickel	H
Selenium
Silver	H
Zinc	H
Others:
Ammonia	pH, T
Chloride
Chlorine
Cyanide
Dissolved oxygen T
* Summarized from individual criteria documents. Chemicals
that have adjustment factors built into the criteria are
indicated.
** H = Hardness, T = Temperature.
33
-------
TABLE 2. SUITABILITY OF WETLAND SPECIES TO FILL MINIMUM FAMILY
REQUIREMENTS FOR SIX CRITERION CHEMICALS
Required
Taxonomic
Group
PCBs
Para-
thion
PCP
Cyanide
Zinc
Chrom-
ium (VI)
Salmonid
NP*
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Other Fish
Y"
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Other
Chordate
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Planktonic
Crustacean
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Benthic
Crustacean
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Insect
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
NT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Another
Insect
or New Phylum
Y
Y
Y
NT
Y
Y
*NP Not present: Taxonomic group not present
types.
**Y Wetland genera represented adequately.
***NT Not tested: Available toxicity data does
in most wetland
not include
sufficient wetland species.
34
-------
TABLE 3. SOME CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DILUTION WATER
FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TESTING17
Characteristic
Total organic carbon
Particulate matter
PH
Hardness
(mg/L as CaC03)
Salinity
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Freshwater
<5 mg/L
<5 mg/L
6.5-9.0
Soft water 40-48
Range <5 mg/Lb
+/- 5 °C of watere
of origin
Saltwater
<20 mg/La
<20 mg/La
Stenohaline 8.0
Euryhaline 7.7
Range <0.2
Stenohaline 34 g/kg
Euryhaline 17 g/kg
Range <2 g/kg*
60-100% saturationd 60-100% saturation*1
a <5 mg/L for tests other than saltwater bivalve molluscs.
b Or 10% of average, whichever is higher.
c Or 2 0% of average, whichever is higher.
d For flow-through tests (40-100% for static tests).
e For invertebrates only.
35
-------
TABLE 4. EFFECTS OF COFACTORS ON CRITERION CHEMICAL TOXICITY
COFACTORS: Effect of Greater Value
pH
TOC TURB TEMP DO H IONIC S NUTR/ORG
Organochlorines:
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane
Endosulfan
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Toxaphene
+
+
+
+
Organophosphates:
Parathion
Chlorpyrifos
Metals:
Ax^enic (III)
Lum
'nium (VI)
C. -.mium (III)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum

+
*?
+
+
+
0
+
Other:
Chlorine
Cyanide
Ammonia
Chloride
DO
o
+
+
+
+?

7
0
+: increased toxicity/mobility
O: no effect on toxicity/mobility
decreased toxicity/mobility
TOC: total organic carbon
TURB: turbidity
: ionic strength/cations
?: tested and found inconclusive
: not discussed in criteria document
+: short-term increase/long-term decrease
DO: dissolved oxygen H: hardness
NUTR/ORG: nutrients/organic acids
S: salinity
36
-------
TABLE 5. WATER CHEMISTRY FOR SELECTED MINNESOTA MARSHES*
Comparison with
Water Quality	Standard Testing
Characteristic	Mean Value	Range	Conditions
pH (pH units)
7.1
6.1
- 7.6
Within range
Total organic



High
carbon (mg/L)
20
5
- 60
Dissolved




oxygen (mg/L)
8.2
0.4
- 15.4
Seasonally low
Hardness
No data

—
-
(mg/L as CaC03)




Alkalinity
8
4
- 14
-
(mg/L as CaC03)




Temperature (°C)
11.9
0.3
- 31.0
Seasonal extremes
Turbidity (NTU)
33
1
- 412
-
* Data taken from Detenbeck (1990), n=42 wetlands.18
37
-------
TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF TEST SPECIES WITH
MINNESOTA MARSH BIOTA FOR SIX CRITERIA
Required
Taxonomic
Group
PCBs
Parathion
PCP
Salmonid
NP*1
NP
NP
Other Fisha
Micropterus
Lepomis
Micropterus
Other
Chordate
Pimephales
Pimephales
Rana
Planktonic
Crustacean
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Benthic
Crustacean
unknown
amphipod
Orconectes
Orconectes
Insect
Ishnurab
Chironomus
Tanytarsus
Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
NT®
unknown0
nematodes/
annelids
unknown6
nematodes/
annelids
Another
Insect
or New Phylum
Tanytarsus
Ishnura
unknown
amphipod/
isopod
Aquatic
Plant
NT
alga
Lemna
continued
38
-------
TABLE 6, CONTINUED
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Cyanide
Zinc
Chromium(VI)
Salmonid
NP
NP
NP
Other Fish8
Perca
Lepomis
Lepomis
Other
Chordate
Lepomis
Pimephales
Pimephales
Planktonic
Crustacean
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Benthic
Crustacean
unknownc
amphipod/
isopod
unknown0
amphipod/
isopod
Orconectes
Insect
Tanytarsus
Argiab
Chironomus
Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
Physa
Physa
Physa
Another
Insect
or New Phylum
NT
unknown0
annelid/
nematode
NT
Aquatic
Plant
Lemna
Lemna
alga
a Fish were sampled in water bodies associated with some of
the wetlands, not in the wetlands themselves,
b Probable or seen as an adult.
c Unknown species from these taxa found in wetlands. May or
may not be similar in terms of habitat requirements, etc. to
species used in toxicity tests,
d Not present: Taxonomic group not present in wetland type,
e Not tested: Available toxicity data does not include
sufficient wetland species.
39
-------
TABLE 7. NUMBER OF SPECIES TESTED FOR ACUTE CRITERIA AND
PERCENTAGE OF TEST SPECIES THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN
MINNESOTA MARSHES OR OLIGOSALINE PRAIRIE POTHOLES*
Species Used to Not Present Not Present in
Chemical Establish FAV** in Marshes Prairie Potholes
(Total Number)	(Per cent)	(Per cent)
PCBs
10
30%
40%
Parathion
37
43%
64%
PCP
37
22%
43%
Cyanide
17
29%
65%
Zinc
45
45%
67%
Chromium(VI)
33
27%
64%
Remainder of percentage includes both those species that are
known to occur in these wetlands and those species that may
occur in the wetlands, but insufficient data are available.
Final Acute Value.
40
-------
TABLE 8. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS FOR
OLIGOSALINE PRAIRIE POTHOLES8
Water Quality
Characteristic
Mean Value
Range
Comparison with
Standard Testing
Conditions
pH (pH units)	8.9
Total organic
carbon (mg/L) No datac
Dissolved
oxygen (ppm)	No datad
Hardness	No datae
(mg/L as CaC03)
Alkalinity	650
(mg/L as CaC03)
Temperature (°C) No dataf
Specific conductance 3568
(MS/cm at 25°C)
7.4 - 10.3'
High
230 - 1300
High
750 - 8000
a
b
c
d
e
f
Data summarized from Swanson et al. (1988).19
N=27 wetlands.
Dissolved organic carbon data for Manitoba prairie potholes
ranged from 0.4-102 mg/L, and for Nebraska, from 20-60 mg/L
in one study and 139-440 mg/L in another study.22
Winterkill, caused by low dissolved oxygen under ice, occurs
in many of these lakes.
An estimate of hardness based on alkalinity values gives a
mean of 7 60 mg/L as CaCO,.
Region is characterized by very cold winters and warm
summers.
41
-------
TABLE 9. COMPARISON OF TEST SPECIES WITH
PRAIRIE POTHOLE BIOTA FOR SIX CRITERIA
Required
Taxonomic
Group
PCBs
Parathion
PCP
Salmonid
NP
NP
NP
Other Fish
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Other
Chordate
NT
Pseudacris8
Rana8
Planktonic
Crustacean
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Benthic
Crustacean
Gairunarus3
Gammarus3
Hyalella
Insect
damselflyb
Peltodytes
Tanytarsusb
Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
NT
tubificid
wormb
tubificid
wormb
Another
Insect
or New Phylum
Tanytarsusb
Chironomus
Physa
Aquatic
Plant
NT
Microcystis
Lemna
42
-------
TABLE 9, CONTINUED
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Cyanide
Zinc
Chromium(VI)
Salmonid
NP
NP
NP
Other Fish
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Other
Chordate
NT
NT
NT
Planktonic
Crustacean
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Benthic
Crustacean
Gammarus3
Gammarus"
Hyalella
Insect
Tanytarsus6
Argiab
Chironomus*
Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
Physa3
Physa3
Physa8
Another
Insect
or New Phylum
NT
tubificid
wormb
damselflyb
Aquatic
Plant
Lemna
Lemna
Nitzschia
a Genus is present in the wetlands? may not be same species,
b Species representative of that taxonomic group from criteria
testing lists probably present in prairie potholes, but no
actual data available.
43
-------
APPENDIX F
COORDINATION BETWEEN THE
ENVIORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND NATIONAL
MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS UNDER
THE CLEAN WATER ACT
July 27, 1992
Signed by:
Ralph MorgenwecJc, Assistant Director
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dr. Tudor Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Nancy Foster, Director
Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
Coordination Between the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service Regarding the Development of Water Quality Criteria and
Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act
PURPOSE
This memorandum sets forth the procedures to be followed by
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
insure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA in the development of
water quality criteria published pursuant to Section 304(a) of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the adoption of water quality
standards under Section 303(c) of the CWA. Consultation will be
conducted pursuant to 50 C.F.R. Part 402. Regional Offices of
EPA and the Services may establish agreements, consistent with
these procedures, specifying how they will implement this
Memorandum.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Guiding Principles
The agencies recognize that EPA's water quality criteria and
standards program has the express goal of ensuring the protection
of the biological integrity of U.S. waterbodies and associated
aquatic life. The agencies also recognize that implementation of
the CWA in general, and the water quality standards program in
particular, is primarily the responsibility of states. EPA's
role in this program is primarily to provide scientific guidance
to states to aid in their development of water quality standards
and to oversee state adoption and revision of standards to insure
that they meet the requirements of the CWA.
In view of the decentralized nature of EPA's water quality
standards program responsibilities, and the agencies' desire to
carry out their respective statutory obligations in the most
efficient manner possible, the agencies believe that consultation
should occur, to the maximum extent possible, at the national
level. Should additional coordination be necessary on the
regional level, the procedures outlined below are designed to
insure that the Services are integrated early into EPA's
oversight of the states' standards adoption process so that
threatened and endangered species concerns can be addressed in
the most efficient manner possible.
(9/14/93)
F-l
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
B.	Legal Authorities
1. Section 7 of the ESA
Section 7~of the ESA contains several provisions which
require federal agencies to take steps to conserve endangered and
threatened species, and which impose the responsibility on
agencies to insure, in consultation with the appropriate Service,
that certain actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.
Section 7 also requires agencies to confer with the appropriate
Service regarding actions affecting species or critical habitat
that have been proposed for listing or designation under section
4, but for which no final rule has been issued.
In particular, section 7(a)(1) provides that federal
agencies shall "utilize their authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of [the ESA] by carrying out programs for the
conservation of endangered species and threatened species ..."
Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to insure, in
consultation with the appropriate Service, that actions which
they authorize, fund or carry out are "not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
habitat of such species which is determined . . . to be
critical." Section 7(a)(4) requires a conference for actions that
are "likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of species
proposed for listing or that are likely to "result in the
destruction or adverse modification" of proposed critical
habitat.
The procedures for consultation between federal agencies and
the Services under section 7 of the ESA are contained in 50
C.F.R.	Part 402. Section 402.14 of these regulations requires
that agencies engage in formal consultation with the appropriate
Service where any action of that agency may affect listed species
or critical habitat. Formal consultation is not required if the
action agency prepares a biological assessment or consults
informally with the appropriate Service and obtains the written
concurrence of the Service that the action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. Formal
consultation culminates in the issuance of a biological opinion
by the Service which concludes whether the agency action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
2
F-2
(9/14/93)
-------
Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
habitat.1 If the Service makes a jeopardy finding, the opinion
shall include reasonable and prudent alternatives, if any, to
avoid jeopardy. If the Service anticipates that an action would
result in an incidental take of a listed species (defined in 50
C.F.R. 402.02), the Service shall include an incidental take
statement and reasonable and prudent measures that the Director
considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact. Such
measures cannot alter the basic design, location, scope, duration
or timing of the action and may involve only minor changes.
Evaluation of the potential effects of an agency action on
listed species or their habitat is to be based upon the best
scientific and commercial data available or which can be obtained
prior to or during the consultation. 50 C.F.R. 402.14(d).
2. Water Quality Standards Development Under the CWA
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act provides for the
development by states of water quality standards which are
designed to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of the CWA. Such
standards consist of designated uses of waterways (e.g.,
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife) and
criteria which will insure the protection of designated uses.
Under the CWA, the development of water quality standards is
primarily the responsibility of States. However, pursuant to
section 304(a) of the CWA, EPA from time to time publishes water
quality criteria which serve as scientific guidance to be used by
states in establishing and revising water quality standards.
These EPA criteria are not enforceable requirements, but are
recommended criteria levels which states may adopt as part of
their legally enforceable water quality standards; states may
adopt other scientifically defensible criteria in lieu of EPA's
recommended criteria. See 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b).
Standards adopted by states constitute enforceable
requirements with which permits issued by States or EPA under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act must assure compliance. CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C). Under section 303(c) of the CWA, EPA must
review water quality standards adopted by states and either
approve them if the standards meet the requirements of the CWA or
disapprove them if the standards fail to do so. However, EPA's
disapproval of state water quality standards does not alter the
enforceable requirements with which CWA section 402 permits must
comply, because the state standards remain in full force and
1 Any reference in this document to "jeopardy" for purposes
of section 7 of the ESA is intended also to include the concept
of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
3
(9/14/93)
F-3
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
effect under state law. The state-adopted standards remain
effective for all purposes of the CWA until they are revised by
the state or EPA promulgates federal water quality standards
applicable to the state.
II. PROCEDURES
A. Development of Water Quality Criteria Guidance Under Section
304(a) of the CWA
EPA will integrate the Services into its criteria
development process by consulting with the Services regarding the
effect EPA's existing aquatic life criteria (and any new or
revised criteria) may have on listed endangered or threatened
species. References below to endangered or threatened species
include species proposed to be listed by the Services. In
addition, EPA will include the Service(s) on the aquatic life
criteria guidelines revision committee which is currently
revising the methodological guidelines that will form the
technical basis for future criteria adopted by EPA.
1. Consultation on Existing Criteria
EPA has developed and published aquatic life criteria
documents explaining the scientific basis for aquatic life
criteria that EPA has published. EPA will consult with the
appropriate Service regarding the aquatic life criteria as
described below.
Step 1: Services' Identification of Species that May Be Affected
Bv Water Quality Degradation
The Services and EPA will request their regional offices to
identify the endangered and threatened species within their
jurisdictions that may be affected by degraded water quality.
Each Service will provide EPA with a consolidated list of these
species. To facilitate this process, the initial species list
will include information identifying the areas where such species
are located, a description of the pollutants causing the water
quality problems affecting the species (if known) and any other
relevant information provided by the Services' regional offices.
In future consultations, the Services will provide a species
list, as required in 50 C.F.R. Part 402, and access to any
relevant data concerning identified species.
4
F-4
(9/14/93)
-------
Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
Step 2: EPA Initiation of Informal Consultation and Performance
of Biological Assessment
Based upon a review of information provided by the Services
under Step lr above, and any other information available to EPA
(as described by 50 C.F.R. 402.12 (f) (1)-(5)), EPA will determine
what species may be affected by the aquatic life criteria and
will request informal consultation with the appropriate Service
regarding such species. EPA will submit to the appropriate
Service a biological assessment that evaluates the potential
effects of the criteria levels on those species. The biological
assessment will be developed in an iterative process between EPA
and the Service (initially involving submission of a "pilot"
assessment addressing 2 or 3 chemicals), and is expected to
contain the information listed in the Appendix of this
Memorandum.
Step 3: Further steps Based on Results of Biological Assessment
Based upon the findings made by EPA in the Biological
-Assessment, the consultation will proceed as follows (see 50
C.F.R. 402.12(k)):
For those criteria/species where EPA determines that
there is no effect, EPA will not initiate formal consultation.
For those criteria/species where there is a "may affect"
situation, and EPA determines that the species is not likely to
be adversely affected, the appropriate Service will either concur
or nonconcur with this finding under Step 4, below.
Where EPA finds that a species is likely to be adversely
affected, formal consultation will occur between the agencies
under Step 5, below.
Step 4: Service Reviews Biological Assessment and Responds to
EPA
Within 30 days after EPA submits a complete biological
assessment to the Service, the Service will provide EPA with a
written response that concurs or does not concur with any
findings by EPA that species are not likely to be adversely
affected by EPA's criteria. For those species/criteria where the
Service concurs in EPA's finding, consultation is concluded and
no formal consultation will be necessary. For any
species/criteria where the Service does not concur in EPA's
finding, formal consultation on the criteria/species will occur
under step 5, below (see 50 C.F.R. 402.14).
5
(9/14/93)
F-5
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Step 5: Formal Consultation
Formal consultation will occur between the agencies
(coordinated by the agencies' headquarters' offices) beginning on
the date the Service receives a written consultation request from
EPA regarding those species where EPA or the Service believe
there is likely to be an adverse affect, as determined under
steps 3 and 4, above. The consultation will be based on the
information supplied by EPA in the biological assessment and
other relevant information that is available or which can
feasibly be collected during the consultation period (see 50
C.F.R 402.14(d)). The Service will issue a biological opinion
regarding whether any of the species are likely to be jeopardized
by the pollutant concentrations contained in EPA's criteria. Any
jeopardy conclusion will specify the specific pollutant(s),
specie(s) and geographic area(s) which the Service believes is
covered by such conclusion. If the Service makes a jeopardy
finding, it will identify any available reasonable and prudent
alternatives, which may include, but are not limited to, those
specified below. EPA will notify the Service of its action
regarding acceptance and implementation of all reasonable and
prudent alternatives.
1.	EPA works with the relevant State during its pending
triennial review period to insure adoption (or revision) of water
quality standards for the specific pollutants and water bodies
that will avoid jeopardy. Such adoption or revision may include
adoption of site-specific criteria in accordance with EPA's site-
specific criteria guidance, or other basis for establishing more
stringent criteria.
2.	EPA disapproves relevant portions of state water quality
standards (see 40 C.F.R. 131.21) and initiates promulgation of
federal standards for the relevant water body (see 40 C.F.R.
131.22) that will avoid jeopardy. Where appropriate, EPA will
promulgate such standards on an expedited basis.
2. Service Participation in Committee Revising Criteria's
Methodological Guidelines
An EPA committee is currently charged with revising and
updating the methodological guidelines which will in the future
be followed by EPA when it issues new 304(a) water quality
criteria. The Service(s) will become a member of the workgroup
as an observer/advisor to insure that the methodological
guidelines take into account the need to protect endangered and
threatened species. The guidelines will be subject to peer
review and public notice and comment prior to being finalized.
During the public comment period, the Services will provide the
agencies' official position on the guidelines.
6
F-6
(9/14/93)
-------
Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
3. Consultation with the Services on New or Revised Aquatic
Life Criteria and New Wildlife and Sediment Criteria
When EPA develops and publishes new or revised aquatic life
criteria and new wildlife and sediment criteria under section
304(a), EPA will request consultation with the Services on such
criteria, which will proceed in accordance with the procedures
outlined in section II.A.1 of this Memorandum.
B. EPA Review of State Water Quality Standards Under Section 303
of the CWA
In order to insure timely resolution of issues related to
protection of endangered or threatened species, EPA and the
Services will coordinate in the following manner with regard to
state water quality standards that are subject to EPA review and
approval under section 303(c) of the CWA.
1.	Participation of the Services in EPA/State Planning
Meetings
Unless other procedures ensuring adequate coordination are
agreed to by the regional offices of EPA and the Service(s), EPA
regional offices will request in writing that the Services attend
EPA/state meetings where the state's plan for reviewing and
possibly revising water quality standards is discussed. The
invitation will include any preliminary plans submitted by the
state and any suggestions offered by EPA to the state that will
be discussed at the planning meeting, as well as a request for
the Services to suggest any additional topics of concern to them.
Service staff will attend the planning session and be
prepared to identify areas where threatened and endangered
species that may be affected by the proposed action may be
present in the state and to provide access to any data available
to the Services in the event additional discussions will need to
occur. If the Service does not intend to attend the planning
meeting, it will notify the EPA regional office in writing. If
threatened and endangered species may be present in the waters
subject to the standards, such notice will include a species
list.'
2.	Consultation on EPA Review of State Water Quality
Standards Where Federally Listed Species Are Present
Except in those cases where the Service's Director, at the
Washington Office level, requests consultation, EPA may complete
its review and approval of state water quality standards without
requesting consultation where (1) the state's criteria are as
stringent as EPA's section 304(a) aquatic life criteria and
consultation between EPA and the appropriate Service on EPA's
7
(9/14/93)
F-7
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
criteria has resulted in a Service concurrence with an EPA
finding of "not likely to adversely affect," a "no jeopardy"
biological opinion (or EPA's implementation of a reasonable and
prudent alternative contained in the Service's "jeopardy"
biological opinion), and EPA's adherence to the terms and
conditions of any incidental take statement and (2) the state has
designated use classifications for the protection and propagation
of fish and shellfish.
However, if a State adopts water quality standards
consistent with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, but
the Service believes that consultation may be necessary in either
of the circumstances described below, only the Service's
Director, at the Washington Office level, may request
consultation with EPA. Such consultation may be necessary (1)
where review of a state water quality standard identifies factors
not considered during the relevant water quality criterion review
under this Memorandum which indicate that the standard may affect
an endangered or threatened species, or (2) where new scientific
information not available during the earlier consultation
indicates that the criterion, as implemented through the state
water quality standard, may affect endangered or threatened
species in a manner or to an extent not considered in the earlier
consultation.
If a state submits water quality standards containing
aquatic life criteria that are less stringent than EPA's section
304(a) aquatic life criteria, or use designations that do not
provide for the protection and propagation of fish and shellfish,
EPA will consult with the appropriate Service regarding the
state's standards. EPA's request for formal or informal
consultation (as appropriate) shall be made as early as possible
in the standards development process (e.g., when standards
regulation are under development by the state). The EPA region
should not wait until standards are formally submitted by the
state to request such consultation.
If a state water quality standard under review by EPA
relates to specie(s), pollutant(s) and geographic area(s) that
were the subject of a jeopardy opinion issued by the Service
under section II.A. of this Memorandum, EPA will consider the
opinion (and any reasonable and prudent alternatives specified by
the Service) and take action that, in EPA's judgment, will insure
that water quality standards applicable to the state are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of species' critical habitat. EPA will notify the
Service that issued the biological opinion of its action, in
accordance with 50 C.F.R. 402.15.
Except in those cases where the Service's Director, at the
Washington Office level, requests consultation, EPA may take
8
F-8
(9/14/93)
-------
Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
action pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(4) to promulgate federal
standards applicable to a water of the state without requesting
consultation where (1) the aquatic life criteria promulgated by
EPA are no less stringent than EPA's section 304(a) criteria
guidance and consultation between EPA and the Service on EPA's
criteria has resulted in a Service concurrence with an EPA
finding of "not likely to adversely affect," a "no jeopardy"
biological opinion (or EPA's implementation of a reasonable and
prudent alternative contained in the Service's "jeopardy"
biological opinion), and EPA's adherence to the terms and
conditions of any incidental take statement and (2) the
applicable use classifications provide for the protection and
propagation of fish and shellfish.
However, if EPA promulgates water quality standards
consistent with the provisions of the previous paragraph, but the
Service believes that consultation may be necessary in either of
the circumstances described below, only the Service's Director,
at the Washington Office level, may request consultation with
EPA. Such consultation may be necessary (1) where review of the
water quality standard identifies factors not considered during
the relevant water quality criterion review under this Memorandum
which indicate that the standard may affect an endangered or
threatened species, or (2) where new scientific information not
available during the earlier consultation indicates that the
criterion, as implemented through the water quality standard, may
affect endangered or threatened species in a manner or to an
extent not considered in the earlier consultation.
III.	Revisions to Agreement
EPA and the Services may jointly revise the procedures
agreed to in this document based upon the experience gained in
the pilot consultation on EPA's aquatic life criteria or other
experience in the implementation of the above procedures.
IV.	Third Party Enforcement
The terms of this Memorandum are not intended to be
enforceable by any party other than the signatories hereto.
V.	Reservation of Agency Positions
No party to this Memorandum waives any administrative
claims, positions or interpretations it may have with respect to
the applicability or the enforceability of the ESA.
VI.	Effective Date: Termination
This Memorandum will become effective upon signature by each
of the parties hereto. Any of the parties may withdraw from this
Memorandum upon 60 days' written notice to the other parties;
9
(9/14/93)
F-9
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
provided that any Section 7 consultation covered by the terms of
this Memorandum that is pending at the time notice of withdrawal
is received by the parties, and those activities covered by this
Memorandum that begin the consultation process with the 60-day
notice period, _will continue to be governed by the procedures in
this Memorandum.
! .
^ J	2)	° : ? 2,
Ralph Morgenweck, Assistant" Director	Dat£
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement	J
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
L. "v
Dr. Tudor T. Davies, Director	D^te
Office of Science and Technology
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
* - ¦ /- '
X. .///
i-
' ' V -	'	\
. >v-~-	•' \ ( ^	v -—	
,Dr. Nancy Foster, Director	/ Datk
t Office uL Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
F-10
10
(9/14/93)
-------
Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
APPENDIX
Expected Contents of EPA's Biological Assessment
I. Introduction/Overview
A.	Benefits of pollution reduction relative to endangered
and threatened species/description of the ESA
B.	Role of Water Quality Standards under the CWA
C.	Overview of water quality criteria (philosophy,
objectives, methodology)
D.	Discussion of comparative sensitivity of listed species
(and surrogates) with criteria database
E.	Description of Fact Sheet contents
data included
description of how specific criteria derived
description of logic/thought processes supporting
findings of effect on listed species
II. Fact Sheets
Pollutant-specific fact sheets will be compiled which
evaluate the available data and reach conclusions regarding the
findings of effect of the criteria on endangered and threatened
species. The fact sheets will be presented largely in tabular,
graph form.
A.	Summary of toxicological relationships (from water
quality criteria documents)
1.	acute (acute lethality)
2.	chronic (life processes at risk)
3.	plants
4.	residues
5.	other key data
6.	updated information through review of ACQUIRE
database and other key data
B.	Taxa at risk vis-a-vis listed species (through use of
surrogates, where appropriate)
C.	Impact of other water quality factors — describe
effects such as environmental variability, ph, hardness,
temperature, etc.
11
(9/14/93)
F-ll
-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
D. Assessment of impact on listed species
Findings to be made regarding whether each criteria (1)
"may affect" and/or (2) is likely to adversely affect, listed
species.
F-12
12
(9/14/93)
-------
APPENDIX G
Questions and Answers on:
Antidegradation
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
United States	Office of Water	August 1985
Environmental Protection	Regulations and Standards
Agency	Washington, DC 20460
Water
SI»ER^ Questions & Answers on:
Antidegradation
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON ANTIDEGRADATION
INTRODUCTION
This document provides guidance on the antidegradation
policy component of water quality standards and its application.
The document begins with the text of the policy as stated in the
water quality standards regulation, 40 CFR 131.12 (40 FR 51400,
November 8, 1983), the portion of the Preamble discussing
the antidegradation policy, and the response to comments
generated during the public comment period on the regulation.
The document then uses a question and answer format
to present information about the origin of the policy, the
meaning of various terms, and its application in both general
terms and in specific examples. A number of the questions
and answers are closely related; the reader is advised to
consider the document in its entirety, for a maximum under-
standing of the policy, rather than to focus on particular
answers in isolation. While this document obviously does
not address every question which could arise concerning the
policy, we hope that the principles it sets out will aid the
reader in applying the policy in other situations. Additional
guidance will be developed concerning the application of the
antidegradation policy as it affects pollution from nonpoint
sources. Since Congress is actively considering amending the
Clean Water Act to provide additional programs for the control
of nonpoint sources, EPA will await the outcome of congressional
action before proceeding further.
EPA also has available, for public information, a summary
of each State's antidegradation policy. For historical
interest, limited copies are available of a Compendium of
Department of the Interior Statements on Non-Degradation of
Interstate Waters, August, 1968. Information on any aspect
of the water quality standards program and copies of these
documents may be obtained from:
David Sabock, Chief
Standards Branch (WH-585)
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
This document is designated as Appendix A to Chapter 2 -
General Program Guidance (antidegradation) of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, December 1983.
/James M. Conlon, Acting Director
/ /Office of Water Regulations
' and Standards
-------
regulation
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday. November H, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51407
5 131.12 Antidegradation policy.
(a) The State shall develop and adopt
a statewide antidegradation policy and
identify the methods for implementing
such policy pursuant to this subpart. The
antidegradation policy and
implementation methods shall, at a
minimum, be consistent with the
following:
(1)	Existing instream water uses and
the level of water quality necessary to
protect the existing uses shall be
maintained and protected.
(2)	Where the quality of the waters
exceed levels necessary to support
propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and recreation in and on the
water, that quality shrill be maintained
and protected unless the Slate finds,
after full satisfaction of the
intergovernmental coordination and
public participation piovisions of the
Statu s continuing planning process, that
allowing lower water quality is
necessary to accommodate important
economic or social development in the
area in which the waters are located. In
allowing such degradation or lower
water quality, the State shall assure
water qyality adequate to protect
existing uses fully. Further, the State
shall assure that there shall be achieved
the highest statutory and regulatory
requirements for all new and existing
point sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices
for nonpoint source control.
(3)	Where high quality waters
constitute an outstanding National
resource, such as waters of National and
State parks and wildlife refuges and
waters of exceptional recreation.il or
ecological significance, that water
quality shall be maintained and
protected.
(4)	In those cases where potential
water quality impairment associated
with a thermal discharge is involved, the
antidegradation policy and
implementing method shall be
consistent with section 316 of the Act.
i
-------
PREAMBLE
51402 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 217 / Tuesday. November 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Anhdegradation Policy
The preamble to the proposed rule
discussed three options for changing the
existing antidegradation policy. Option
1. the proposed option, provided simply
that uses attained would be maintained.
Option 2 stated that not only would uses
attained be maintained but that high
quality waters, i.e. waters with quality
better than that needed to protect fish
and wildlife, would be maintained (that
is, the existing antidegradation policy
minus the "outstanding natural resource
waters" provision). Option 3 would have
allowed changes in an existing use if
maintaining that use would effectively
prevent any future growth in the
community or if the benefits of
maintaining the use do not bear a
reasonable relationship to the costs.
Although there was support for
Option 2, there was greeter support for
retaining the full existing policy,
including the provision on outstanding
National resource waters. Therefore,
EPA has retained the existing
antidegradation policy (Section 131.12)
because it more accurately reflects the
degree of water quality protection
desired by the public, and is consistent
with the goals and purposes o' the Act.
In retaining the policy EPA made four
changes. First, the provisions on
maintaining and protecting existing
instream uses and high quality waters
were retained, out the sentences stating
that no further water quality
degradation /vhich would interfere with
or becop .njuricus to existing instream
uses i' lowed were deleted. The
dele* ,s were made because the terms
"in! ere" and "injurious" were subject
tr ^interpretation as precluding any
ivity which might even momentarily
add poIInI.nits to the water Moreover,
wi believe the deleted sentence was
intended merely as a restatement of the
basic policy. Since the rewritten
provision, with the addition of a phrase
on water quality described in the next
sentence, stands alone as expressing the
basic thrust and intent of the
antidegradation policy, we deleted the
confusing phrases. Second, in
§ 131.12(a)(1) a phrase was added
requiring that the level of water quality
necessary to protect an existing use be
maintained and protected. The previous
policy required only that an existing use
be maintained. In § 131.12(a)(2) a phrase
was added that "In allowing such
degradation or lower water quality, the
State shall assure water quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully".
This means that the full use must
continue to exist even if some change in
water quality may be permitted. Third,
in the first sentence of § 131.12(a)(2) the
wording was changed from ". . .
significant economic or social
development. . to . . important
economic or social development. . . ."
In the context of t. antidegradation
policy the word ' .inportant" strengthens
the intent of protecting higher quality
waters. Although common usage of the
words may imply otherwise, the correct
definitions of the two terms indicate that
the greater degree of environmental
protection is afforded by the word
"important."
Fourth, § 131.12(a)(3) dealing with the
designation of outstanding National
resource waters (ONRW) was changed
to provide a limited exception to the
absolute "no degradation" requirement.
EPA was concerned that waters which
properly could have been designated as
CNRW were not being so designated
jecause of the flat no degradation
provision, and therefore were not being
given special protection. The no
degradation provision waa sometimes
interpreted as prohibiting any activity
(including temporary or short-term) from
being conducted. States may allow some
limited activities which result in
temporary and short-term changes in
water quality. Such activities are
considered to be consistent with the
intent and purpose of an ONRW.
Therefore. EPA has rewritten the
provision to read ". . . that water
quality shall he maintained and
protected," and removed the phrase "No
degradation shall be allowed. . . ."
ii
„ In its entirety, the antidegradation
policy represents a three-tiered
approach to ma"itaining and protecting
various levels oi water quality and uses.
At its base [Section 131.12(a)(1)), all
existing uses and the level of water
quality necessary to protect those us^s
must be maintained and protected. This
provision establishes the absolute floor
of water quality in all waters of the
United States. The second level (Section
131.12(a)(2)) provides protection of
actual water quality in areas where the
quality of the waters exceed levels
necessary to support propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in
and on the water ("fishable/
swimmable"). There are provisions
contained in this subsection to allow
some limited water quality degradation
after extensive public involvement, as
long as the water quality remains
adequate to be "fishable/swimmable."
Finally § 131.23(a)(3) provides special
protection of waters for which the
ordinary use classifications and water
quality criteria do not suffice, denoted
"outstanding National resource water."
Ordinarily most people view this
subsection as protecting and
maintaining the highest quality waters
of the United States: that is clearly the
thrust of the provision. It does, however,
also offer special protection for waters
of "ecological significance." These are
water bodies which are important,
unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
whose water quality as measured by the
traditional parameters (dissolved
oxygen. pH, etc.) may not be particularly
high or whose character cannot be
adequately described by these
parameters.
-------
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 217 / Tuesday. November 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 51409
Antidegradation Policy
EPA's proposal, which would have
limited the antidegradation policy to the
maintenance of existing uses, plus three
alternative policy statements described
in the preamble to the proposal notice,
generated extensive public comment.
F.PA's response is described in the
Preamble to this final rule and includes
a response to both the substantive and
philosophical comments offered. Public
comments overwhelmingly supported
retention of the existing policy and EPA
did so in the final rule.
EPA's response to several comments
dealing with the antidegradation policy,
which were not discussed in the
Preamble are discussed below.
Option three contained in the
Agency's proposal would have allowed
the possibility of exceptions to
maintaining existing uses. This option
was cither criticized for being illegal or
was supported because it provided
additional flexibility for economic
growth. The latter commenters believed
that allowances should be made for
carefully defined exceptions to the
absolute requirement that uses attained
must be maintained. EPA rejects this
contention as being totally inconsistent
with the spirit and intent of both the
Clean Water Act and the underlying
philosophy of the antidegradation
policy. Moreover, although the Agency
specifically asked for examples of
where the existing antidegradation
policy had precluded growth, no
examples were provided. Therefore,
wholly apart from technical legal
concerns, there appears to be no
justification for adopting Option 3.
Most critics ot the proposed
antidegradation policy objected to
removing the public's ability to affect
decisions on high quality waters and
outstanding national resource waters. In
attempting to explain how the proposed
antidegradation policy would be
implemented, the Preamble to the
proposed rule stated that no public
participation would be necessary in
certain instances because no change
was being mude in a State's water
quality standard. Although that
statement was technically accurate, it
left the mistaken impression that all
public participation was removed from
the discussions on high quality waters
and that is not correct. A NPDES permit
would have to be issued or a 208 plan
amended for any deterioration in water
quality to be "allowed". Both actions
require notice and an opportunity for
public comment. However. EPA retained
the existing policy so this issue is moot.
Other changes in the policy affecting
ONRW are discussed in the Preamble.
iii
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON ANTIDEGRADATION
1.	WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?
The basic policy was established on February 8, 1968, by
the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. It
was included in EPA's first water quality standards regula-
tion 40 CFR 130.17, 40 FR 55340-41, November 28, 1975. It
was slightly refined and repromulgated as part of the current
program regulation published on November 8, 1983 (48 FR
51400, 40 CFR §131.12). An antidegradation policy is one
of the minimum elements required to be included in a State's
water quality standards.
2.	WHERE IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR AN
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY OR SUCH A POLICY EXPRESSED?
There is no explicit requirement for such a policy in the
Act. However, the policy is consistent with the spirit,
intent, and goals of the Act, especially the clause "...
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters" (§101(a)) and arguably is
covered by the provision of 303(a) which made water quality
standard requirements under prior law the "starting point"
for CWA water quality requirements.
3.	CAN A STATE JUSTIFY NOT HAVING AN ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY IN
ITS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS?
EPA's water quality standards regulation requires each
State to adopt an antidegradation policy and specifies the
minimum requirements for a policy. If not included in the
standards regulation of a State, the policy must be specifi-
cally referenced in the water quality standards so that the
functional relationship between the policy and the standards
is clear. Regardless of the location of the policy, it must
meet all applicable requirements.
4.	WHAT HAPPENS IF A STATE'S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY DOES NOT
MEET THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS?
If this occurs either through State action to revise its
policy or through revised Federal requirements, the State
would be given an opportunity to make its policy consistent
with the regulation. If this is not done, EPA has the auth-
ority to promulgate the policy for the State pursuant to
Section 303(c)(4) of the Clean Water Act.
-1-
-------
5. WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF A STATE FAILED TO IMPLEMENT ITS ANTI-
DEGRADATION POLICY PROPERLY?
If a State issues an NPDES permit which violates the re-
quired antidegradation policy, it would be subject to a
discretionary EPA veto under Section 402(d) or to a
citizen challenge. In addition to actions on permits, any
wasteload allocations and total maximum daily loads violating
the antidegradation policy are subject to EPA disapproval and
EPA promulgation of a new wasteload allocation/total maximum
daily load under Section 303(d) of the Act. If a significant
pattern of violation was evident, EPA could constrain the
award of grants or possibly revoke any Federal permitting
capability that had been delegated to the State. If the
State issues a §401 certification (for an EPA-issued NPDES
permit) which fails to reflect the requirements of the
antidegradation policy, EPA will, on its own initiative,
add any additional or more stringent effluent limitations
required to ensure compliance with Section 301(b)(1)(C).
If the faulty §401 certification related to permits issued
by other Federal agencies (e.g. a Corp of Engineers Section
404 permit), EPA could comment unfavorably upon permit
issuance. The public, of course, could bring pressure
upon the permit issuing agency.
6.	WILL THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ADVERSELY
IMPACT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?
This concern has been raised since the inception of the
antidegradation policy. The answer remains the same. The
policy has been carefully structured to minimize adverse
effects on economic development while protecting the water
quality goals of the Act. As Secretary Udall put it in 1968,
the policy serves "...the dual purpose of carrying out the
letter and spirit of the Act without interfering unduly
with further economic development" (Secretary Udall, February
8, 1968). Application of the policy could affect the levels
and/or kinds of waste treatment necessary or result in the
use of alternate sites where the environmental impact would
be less damaging. These effects could have economic implica-
tions as do all other environmental controls.
7.	I THAT IS THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "AN EXISTING
USE"?
An existing use can be established by demonstrating that
fishing, swimming, or other uses have actually occurred
since November 28, 1975, or that the water quality is suit-
able to allow such uses to occur (unless there are physical
problems which prevent the use regardless of water quality).
An example of the latter is an area where shellfish are
propagating and surviving in a biologically suitable
habitat and are available and suitable for harvesting.
Such facts clearly establish that shellfish harvesting is
an "existing" use, not one dependent on improvements in
water quality. To argue otherwise would be to say that
-2-
-------
the only time an aquatic protection use "exists" is if someone
succeeds in catching fish.
8.	THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION STATES THAT "EXISTING
USES AND THE LEVEL OF WATER QUALITY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
EXISTING USES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED." HOW FULLY AND
AT WHAT LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS AN EXISTING USE TO BE PROTECTED
IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT?
No activity is allowable under the antidegradation policy
which would partially or completely eliminate any existing
use whether or not that use is designated in a State's water
quality standards. The aquatic protection use is a broad category
requiring further explanation. Species that are iji the water
body and which are consistent with the designated use (i.e.,
not aberrational) must be protected, even if not prevalent in
number or importance. Nor can activity be allowed which would
render the species unfit for maintaining the use. Water
quality should be such that it results in no mortality and
no significant growth or reproductive impairment of resident
species. (See Question 16 for situation where an aberrant sen-
sitive species may exist.) Any lowering of water quality below
this full level of protection is not allowed. A State may
develop subcategories of aquatic protection uses but cannot
choose different levels of protection for like uses. The fact
that sport or commercial fish are not present does not mean
that the water may not be supporting an aquatic life protection
function. An existing aquatic community composed entirely of
invertebrates and plants, such as nay be found in a pristine
alpine tributary stream, should still be protected whether or
not such a stream supports a fishery. Even though the shorthand
expression "fishable/swimmable" is often used, the actual objec-
tive of the act is to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of our Nation's waters
(section 101(a) ).^/ The term "aquatic life" would more accurately
reflect the protection of the aquatic community that was
intended in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act.
9.	IS THERE ANY SITUATION WHERE AN EXISTING USE CAN BE REMOVED?
In general, no. Water quality may sometimes be affected,
but an existing use, and the level of water quality to
protect it must be maintained (§ 131.12(a)(1) and (2) of the
regulation). However, the State may limit or not designate
such a use if the reason for such action is non-water quality
related. For example, a State may wish to impose a temporary
shellfishing ban to prevent overharvesting and ensure an
abundant population over the long run, or may wish to restrict
swimming from heavily trafficked areas. If the State chooses,
JV Note: "Fishable/swimmable" is a term of convenience used in
the standards program in lieu of constantly repeating
the entire text of Section 101(a)(2) goal of the Clean
Water Act. As a short-hand expression it is potentially
misleading.
-3-
-------
for non-water quality reasons, to limit use designations,
it must still adopt criteria to protect the use if there is
a reasonable likelihood it will actually occur (e.g. swimming
in a prohibited water). However, if the State's action is
based on a recognition that water quality is likely to be
lowered to the point that it no longer is sufficient to
protect and maintain an existing use, then such action is
inconsistent with the antidegradation policy.
10. HOW DOES THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LEVEL OF WATER QUALITY
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE EXISTING USE(S) BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED,
WHICH APPEARS IN §131.12(a)(1),(2), AND (3) OF THE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS REGULATION, ACTUALLY WORK?
Section 131.12(a)(1), as described in the Preamble to the
regulation, provides the absolute floor of water quality in
all waters of the United States. This paragraph applies a
minimum level of protection to all waters. However, it is
most pertinent to waters having beneficial uses that are
less than the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act. If it
can be proven, in that situation, that water quality exceeds
that necessary to fully protect the existing use(s) and
exceeds water quality standards but is not of sufficient
quality to cause a better use to be achieved, then that
water quality may be lowered to the level required to fully
protect the existing use as long as existing water quality
standards and downstream water quality standards are not
affected. If this does not involve a change in standards,
no public hearing would be required under Section 303(c).
However, public participation would still be provided in
connection with the issuance of a NPDES permit or amendment
of a 208 plan. If, however, analysis indicates that the
higher water quality does result in a better use, even if
not up to the Section 101(a)(2) goals, then the water quality
standards must be upgraded to reflect the uses presently
being attained (§131.10(i)).
Section 131.12(a)(2) applies to waters whose quality
exceeds that necessary to protect the Section 101(a)(2)
goals of the Act. In this case, water quality may not be
lowered to less than the level necessary to fully protect
the "fishable /swimmable" uses and other existing uses and
may be lowered even to those levels only after following
all the provisions described in §131.12(a)(2). This require-
ment applies to individual water quality parameters.
Section 131.12(a)(3) applies to so-called outstanding National
Resource (ONRW) waters where the ordinary use classifications
and supporting criteria are not appropriate. As described in
the Preamble to the water quality standards regulation "States
may allow some limited activities which result in temporary
and short-term changes in water quality," but such changes
in water quality should not alter the essential character or
special use which makes the water an ONRW. (See also pages
2-14,-15 of the Water Quality Standards Handbook.)
Any one or a combination of several activities may trigger
the antidegradation policy analysis as discussed above. Such
activities include a scheduled water quality standards review,
-4-
-------
the establishment of new or revised wasteload allocations
NPDES permits, the demonstration of need for advanced treatment
or request by private or public agencies or individuals for a
special study of the water body.
11. WILL AN ACTIVITY WHICH WILL DEGRADE WATER QUALITY, AND PRECLUDE
AN EXISTING USE IN ONLY A PORTION OF A WATER BODY (BUT ALLOW IT
TO REMAIN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WATER BODY) SATISFY THE ANTIDEGRAD-
ATION REQUIREMENT THAT EXISTING USES SHALL BE MAINTAINED
AND PROTECTED?
No. Existing uses must be maintained in all parts of the
water body segment in question other than in restricted
mixing zones. For example, an activity which lowers water
quality such that a buffer zone must be established within a
previous shellfish harvesting area is inconsistent with the
antidegradation policy. (However, a slightly different
approach is taken for fills in wetlands, as explained in
Question 13.)
12. DOES ANTIDEGRADATION APPLY TO POTENTIAL USES?
No. The focus of the antidegradation policy is on protecting
existing uses. Of course, insofar as existing uses and
water quality are protected and maintained by the policy
the eventual improvement of water quality and attainment of
new uses may be facilitated. The use attainability require-
ments of §131.10 also help ensure that attainable potential
uses are actually attained. (See also questions 7 and 10.)
13. FILL OPERATIONS IN WETLANDS AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATE ANY
EXISTING USE IN THE FILLED AREA. HOW IS THE ANTIDEGRADATION
POLICY APPLIED IN THAT SITUATION?
Since a literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy
could result in preventing the issuance of any wetland fill
permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and it is
logical to assume that Congress intended some such permits
to be granted within the framework of the Act, EPA interprets
§131.12 (a)(1) of the antidegradation policy to be satisfied
with regard to fills in wetlands if the discharge did not
result in "significant degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem
as defined under Section 230.10(c) of the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines. If any wetlands were found to have better
water quality than "fishable/ swimmable", the State would
be allowed to lower water quality to the no significant
degradation level as long as the requirements of Section
131.12(a)(2) were followed. As for the ONRW provision of
antidegradation (131.(a)(2)(3)), there is no difference in
the way it applies to wetlands and other water bodies.
-5-
-------
14.	IS POLLUTION RESULTING FROM NONPOINT SOURCE ACTIVITIES SUBJECT
TO PROVISIONS OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?
Monpoint source activities are not exempt from the provisions
of the antidegradation policy. The language of Section 131.12
(a)(2) of the regulation: "Further, the State shall assure
that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory
requirements for all new and existing point sources and all
cost-effective and reasonable best mangement practices for
nonpoint source control" reflects statutory provisions of the
Clean Water Act. While it is true that the Act does not
establish a regulatory program for nonpoint sources, it clearly
intends that che BMPs developed and approved under sections
205(j), 208 and 303(e) be agressively implemented by the States.
As indicated in the introduction, EPA will be developing additional
guidance in this area.
15.	IN HIGH QUALITY WATERS, ARE NEW DISCHARGERS OR EXPANSION OF
EXISTING FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ANTIDEGRADATION?
Yes. Since such activities would presumably lower water quality,
they would not be permissible unless the State finds that it is
necessary to accommodate important economic or social development
(Section 131.12(a)(2). In addition the minimum technology based
requirements must be met, including new source performance
standards. This standard would be implemented through the wast;e-
load and NPDES permit process for such new or expanded sources.
16.	A STREAM, DESIGNATED AS A WARM WATER FISHERY, HAS BEEN
FOUND TO CONTAIN A SMALL, APPARENTLY NATURALLY OCCURRING POPULATION
OF A COLD-WATER GAME FISH. THESE FISH APPEAR TO HAVE ADAPTED TO
THE NATURAL WARM WATER TEMPERATURES OF THE STREAM WHICH WOULD NOT
NORMALLY ALLOW THEIR GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION. WHAT IS THE
EXISTING USE WHICH MUST BE PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 131.12(a)(1)?
Section 131.12(a)(1) states that "Existing instream water-
uses and level of water quality necessary to protect the
existing uses shall be maintained and protected." While
sustaining a small cold-water fish population, the stream
does not support an existing use of a "cold-water fishery."
The existing stream temperatures are unsuitable for a thriving
cold-water fishery. The snail marginal population is an
artifact and should not be employed to mandate a more stringent
use (true cold-water fishery) where natural conditions are
not suitable for that use.
A use attainability analysis or other scientific assessment
should be used to determine whether the aquatic life population
is in fact an artifact or is a stable population requiring
-6-
-------
water;quality protection. Where species appear in areas not
normally expected, some adaptation may have occurred and site-
specific criteria may be appropriately developed. Should
the cold-water fish population consist of a threatened or
endangered species, it may require protection under the
Endangered Species Act. Otherwise the stream need only be
protected as a warm water fishery.
17.	HOW DOES EPA'S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY APPLY TO A WATERBODY
WHERE A CHANGE IN MAN'S ACTIVITIES IN OR AROUND THAT WATERBODY
WILL PRECLUDE AN EXISTING USE FROM BEING FULLY MAINTAINED?
If a planned activity will forseeably lower water quality
to the extent that it no longer is sufficient to protect
and maintain the existing uses in that waterbody, such an
activity is inconsistent with EPA's antidegradation policy
which requires that existing uses are to be maintained. In
such a circumstance the planned activity must be avoided or
adequate mitigation or preventive measures must be taken to
ensure that the existing uses and the water quality to
protect them will be maintained.
In addition, in "high quality waters", under §131.12(a)(2),
before any lowering of water quality occurs, there must be:
1) a finding that it is necessary in order to accommodate
important economical or social development in the area in
which the waters are located, (2) full satisfaction of all
intergovernmental coordination and public participation
provisions and (3) assurance that the highest statutory and
regulatory requirements and best management practices for
pollutant controls are achieved. This provision can normally
be satisfied by the completion of Water Quality Management
Plan updates or by a similar process that allows for public
participation and intergovernmental coordination. This
provision is intended to provide relief only in a few extra-
ordinary circumstances where the economic and social need
for the activity clearly outweighs the benefit of maintaining
water quality above that required for "fishable/swimmable"
water, and the two cannot both be achieved. The burden of
demonstration on the individual proposing such activity will
be very high. In any case, moreover, the existing use must
be maintained and the activity shall not preclude the maintenance
of a "fishable/swimmable" level of water quality protection.
18.	WHAT DOES EPA MEAN BY "...THE STATE SHALL ENSURE THAT THERE
SHALL BE ACHIEVED THE HIGHEST STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
FOR ALL NEW AND EXISTING POINT SOURCES AND ALL COST EFFECTIVE
AND REASONABLE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR NON-POINT SOURCE
CONTROL" (§131.12(a)(2)?
This requirement ensures that the limited provision for
lowering water quality of high quality waters down to "fish-
able /swimmable" levels will not be used to undercut the
Clean Water Act requirements for point source and non-point
source pollution control. Furthermore, by ensuring compliance
-7-
-------
with such statutory and regulatory controls, there is less
chance that a lowering of water quality will be sought in
order to accommodate new economic and social development.
19. WHAT DOES EPA MEAN BY "...IMPORTANT ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA IN WHICH THE WATERS ARE LOCATED"
IN 131.1 2(a)(2)?
This phrase is simply intended to convey a general concept
regarding what level of social and economic development could
be used to justify a change in high quality waters. Any more
exact meaning will evolve through case-by-case application
under the State's continuing planning process. Although
EPA has issued suggestions on what might be considered in
determining economic or social impacts, the Agency has no
predetermined level of activity that is defined as "important".
20.	IF A WATER BODY WITH A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DESIGNATED USE
IS, FOR NON-WATER QUALITY REASONS, NO LONGER USED FOR DRINKING
WATER MUST THE STATE RETAIN THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY USE AND
CRITERIA IN ITS STANDARDS?
Under 40 CFR 131.10(h)(1), the State may delete the public
water supply use designation and criteria if the State adds
or retains other use designations for the waterbodies which
have more stringent criteria. The State may also delete
the use and criteria if the public water supply is not an
"existing use" as defined in 131.3 (i.e., achieved on or
after November 1975), as long as one of the §131.10(g)
justifications for removal is met.
Otherwise, the State must maintain the criteria even if it
restricts the actual use on non-water quality grounds, as
long as there is any possibility the water could actually
be used for drinking. (This is analogous to the swimming
example in the preamble.)
21.	WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS, TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS, AND THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?
Wasteload allocations distribute the allowable pollutant
loadings to a stream between dischargers. Such allocations
also consider the contribution to pollutant loadings from non-
point sources. Wasteload allocations must reflect applicable
State water quality standards including the antidegradation
policy. No wasteload allocation can be develped or NPDES permit
issued that would result in standard being violated, or, in the
case of waters whose quality exceeds that necessary for the
Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act, can result a lowering
of water quality unless the applicable public participation,
intergovernmental review and baseline control requirements
of the antidegradation policy have been met.
-8-
-------
22.	DO THE I NT hii«oO V	t\ u COuiNHiiLn< r-u^Li 1'ubLik- f Ai\i li/ATION
REQUIREMENTS WHICH ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THAT
WATER QUALITY WHICH EXCEEDS THAT NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE SECTION
101(a)(2) GOAL OF THE ACT MAY BE LOWERED APPLY TO CONSIDERING
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPED FOR THE DISCHARGERS
IN THE AREA?
Yes. Section 131.12(a)(2) of the water quality standards
regulation is directed towards changes in water quality per
se, not just towards changes in standards. The intent is to
ensure that no activity which will cause water quality to
decline in existing high quality waters is undertaken without
adequate public review. Therefore, if a change in wasteload
allocation could alter water quality in high quality waters,
the public participation and coordination requirements
apply.
23.	IS THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION DIFFERENT IF THE WATER
QUALITY IS LESS THAN THAT NEEDED TO SUPPORT "FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE"
USES?
Yes. Nothing in either the water quality standards or the
wasteload allocation regulations requires the same degree
of public participation or intergovernmental coordination
for such waters as is required for high quality waters.
However, as discussed in question 10, public participation
would still be provided in connection with the issuance of a
NPDES permit or amendment of a 208 plan. Also, if the action
which causes reconsideration of the existing wasteloads (such
as dischargers withdrawing from the area) will result in an
improvement in water quality which makes a better use
attainable, even if not up to the "fishable/swimmable" goal,
then the water quality standards must be upgraded and full
public review is required for any action affecting changes in
standards. Although not specifically required by the standards
regulation between the triennial reviews, we recommend that
the State conduct a use attainability analysis to determine if
water quality improvement will result in attaining higher uses
than currently designated in situations where significant
changes in wasteloads are expected (see question 10).
24. SEVERAL FACILITIES ON A STREAM SEGMENT DISCHARGE PHOSPHORUS-
CONTAINING WASTES. AMBIENT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS MEET CLASS B
STANDARDS, BUT BARELY. THREE DISCHARGERS ACHIEVE ELIMINATION OF
DISCHARGE BY DEVELOPING A LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM. AS A RESULT,
ACTUAL WATER QUALITY IMPROVES (I.E., PHOSPHORUS LEVELS DECLINE)
BUT NOT QUITE TO THE LEVEL NEEDED TO MEET CLASS A (FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE)
STANDARDS. CAN THE THREE REMAINING DISCHARGERS NOW INCREASE
THEIR PHOSPHORUS DISCHARGE WITH THE RESULT THAT WATER QUALITY
DECLINES (PHOSPHORUS LEVELS INCREASE) TO PREVIOUS LEVELS?
Nothing in the water quality standards regulation expli-
citly prohibits this (see answer to questions 10 and 23).
Of course, changes in their NPDES permit limits may be
subject to non-water quality constraints, such as BPT
or BAT, which may restrict this.
-9-
-------
25.	SUPPOSE IN THE ABOVE SITUATION WATER QUALITY IMPROVES TO THE
POINT THAT ACTUAL WATER QUALITY NOV; MEETS CLASS A REQUIREMENTS.
IS THE ANSWER DIFFERENT?
Yes. The standards must be upgraded (see answer to question 10).
26.	AS AN ALTERNATIVE CASE, SUPPOSE PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS GO DOWN
AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVES BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN FARMING PRACTICES,
E.G., INITIATION OF A SUCCESSFUL NON-POINT PROGRAM. ARE THE
ABOVE ANSWERS THE SAME?
Yes. Whether the improvement results from a change in point
or nonpoint source activity is immaterial to how any aspect of
the standards regulation operates. Section 131.10(d) clearly
indicates that uses are deemed attainable if they can be achieved
by "... cost-effective and reasonable best management practices
for nonpoint source control". Section 131.12(a)(2) of the anti-
degradation policy contains essentially the same wording.
27.	V7HEN A POLLUTANT DISCHARGE CEASES FOR ANY REASON, MAY THE
WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR THE OTHER DISCHARGES IN THE AREA BE
ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL LOADING AVAILABLE?
This may be done consistent with the antidegradation policy
only under two circumstances: (1) In "high quality waters"
where after the full satisfaction of all public participation
and intergovernmental review requirements, such adjustments
are considered necessary to accomodate important economic or
social development, and the "threshold" level requirements
are met; or (2) in less than "high quality waters", when the
expected improvement in water quality will not cause a
better use to be achieved, the adjusted loads still meet water
quality standards, and the new wasteload allocations are at
least as stringent as technology-based limitations. Of
course, all applicable requirements of the Section 402
permit regulations would have to be satisfied before a
permittee could increase its discharge.
28. HOW MAY THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS BE SATISFIED?
This requirement may be satisfied in several ways. The State
may obviously hold a public hearing or hearings. The State
may also satisfy the requirement by providing the opportunity
for the public to request a hearing. Activities which may
affect several water bodies in a river basin or sub-basin
may be considered in a single hearing. To ease the resource
burden on both the State and public, standards issues may be
combined with hearings on environmental impact statements,
water management plans, or permits. However, if this is
done, the public must be clearly informed that possible
changes in water quality standards are being considered
along with other activities. In other words, it is inconsis-
tent with the water quality standards regulation to "back-door"
changes in standards through actions on EIS's, wasteload
allocations, plans, or permits.
-10-
-------
29.	WHAT IS MEANT BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT t WHERE A THERMAL
DISCHARGE IS INCLUDED, THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 316 OF THE ACT?
This requirement is contained in Section 131.12 (a)(4) of the
regulation and is intended to coordinate the requirements and
procedures of the antidegadation policy with those established
in the Act for setting thermal discharge limitations.
Regulations implementing Section 316 may be found at 40 CFR
124.66. The statutory scheme and legislative history indicate
that limitations developed under Section 316 take precedence
over other requirements of the Act.
30.	WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY,
STATE WAT FIR RIGHTS USE LAWS AND SECTION 101(g) OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT WHICH DEALS WITH STATE AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE
WATER QUANTITIES?
The exact limitations imposed by section 101(g) are unclear;
however, the legislative history and the courts interpreting
it do indicate that it does not nullify water quality measures
authorized by CWA (such as water quality standards and their
upgrading, and NPDES and 402 permits) even if such measures
incidentally affect individual water rights; those authorities
also indicate that if there is a way to reconcile water
quality needs and water quantity allocations, such accomodation
should be be pursued. In other words, where there are
alternate ways to meet the water quality requirements of the
Act, the one with least disruption to water quantity allocations
should be chosen. Where a planned diversion would lead to a
violation of water quality standards (either the antidegradation
policy or a criterion), a 404 permit associated with the
diversion should be suitably conditioned if possible and/or
additional nonpoint and/or point source controls should be
imposed to compensate.
31.	AFTER READING THE REGULATION, THE PREAMBLE, AND ALL THESE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND ANTIDEGRADATION.
WHOM CAN I TALK TO?
Call the Standards Branch at: (202) 245-3042. You can also
call the water quality standards coordinators in each of our
EPA Regional offices.
-11-
-------
APPENDIX H
Derivation of the 1985
Aquatic Life Criteria
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Derivation of the 1985
Aquatic Life Critera
The following is a summary of the Guidelines for Derivation of Criteria for Aquatic Life. The complete text is found in "Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses," available from National
Technical Information Service - PB85-227049.
Derivation of numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and
their uses is a complex process that uses information from many areas of aquatic toxicology. When a
national criterion is needed for a particular material, all available information concerning toxicity to
and bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms is collected, reviewed for acceptability, and sorted. If
enough acceptable data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals are available, they are used to estimate
the highest one-hour average concentration that should not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic
organisms and their uses. If justified, this concentration is made a function of water quality
characteristics such as pH, salinity, or hardness. Similarly, data on the chronic toxicity of the
material to aquatic animals are used to estimate the highest four-day average concentration that
should not cause unacceptable toxicity during a long-term exposure. If appropriate, this
concentration is also related to a water quality characteristic.
Data on toxicity to aquatic plants are examined to determine whether plants are likely to be
unacceptably affected by concentrations that should not cause unacceptable effects on animals.
Data on bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms are used to determine if residues might subject
edible species to restrictions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or if such residues
might harm wildlife that consumes aquatic life. All other available data are examined for adverse
effects that might be biologically important.
If a thorough review of the pertinent information indicates that enough acceptable data exists,
numerical national water quality criteria are derived for fresh water or salt water or both to protect
aquatic organisms and their uses from unacceptable effects due to exposures to high concentrations
for short periods of time, lower concentrations for longer periods of time, and combinations of the
two.
I. Definition of Material of Concern
A.	Each separate chemical that does not ionize substantially in most natural bodies of water
should usually be considered a separate material, except possibly for structurally similar
organic compounds that exist only in large quantities as commercial mixtures of the
various compounds and apparently have similar biological, chemical, physical, and toxi-
cological properties.
B.	For chemicals that do ionize substantially in most natural waterbodies (e.g., some phenols
and organic acids, some salts of phenols and organic acids, and most inorganic salts and
coordination complexes of metals), all forms in chemical equilibrium should usually be
considered one material. Each different oxidation state of a metal and each different
non-ionizable covalently bonded organometallic compound should usually be
considered a separate material.
C.	The definition of the material should include an operational analytical component.
Identification of a material simply, for example, as "sodium" obviously implies "total
sodium" but leaves room for doubt. If "total" is meant, it should be explicitly stated. Even
-------
"total" has different operational definitions, some of which do not necessarily measure
"all that is there" in all sample. Thus, it is also necessary to reference or describe one
analytical method that is intended. The operational analytical component should take into
account the analytical and environmental chemistry of the material, the desirability of
using the same analytical method on samples from laboratory tests, ambient water and
aqueous effluents, and various practical considerations such as labor and equipment
requirements and whether the method would require measurement in the field or would
allow measurement after samples are transported to a laboratory.
The primary requirements of the operational analytical component are that it be
appropriate for use on samples of receiving water, compatible with the available toxicity
and bioaccumulation data without making overly hypothetical extrapolations, and rarely
result in underprotection or overprotection of aquatic organisms and their uses. Because
an ideal analytical measurement will rarely be available, a compromise measurement will
usually be used. This compromise measurement must fit with the general approach: if an
ambient concentration is lower than the national criterion, unacceptable effects will
probably not occur (i.e., the compromise measurement must not err on the side of
underprotection when measurements are made on a surface water). Because the chemical
and physical properties of an effluent are usually quite different from those of the
receiving water, an analytical method acceptable for analyzing an effluent might not be
appropriate for analyzing a receiving water, and vice versa. If the ambient concentration
calculated from a measured concentration in an effluent is higher than the national
criterion, an additional option is to measure the concentration after dilution of the effluent
with receiving water to determine if the measured concentration is lowered by such
phenomena as complexation or sorption. A further option, of course, is to derive a
site-specific criterion (1,2,3). Thus, the criterion should be based on an appropriate
analytical measurement, but the criterion is not rendered useless if an ideal measurement
either is not available or is not feasible.
The analytical chemistry of the material might need to be considered when defining
the material or when judging the acceptability of some toxicity tests, but a criterion should
not be based on the sensitivity of an analytical method. When aquatic organisms are more
sensitive than routine analytical methods, the proper solution is to develop better
analytical methods, not to underprotect aquatic life.
II. Collection of Data
A.	Collect all available data on the material concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by,
aquatic animals and plants; FDA action levels (compliance Policy Guide, U.S. Food &
Drug Admin. 1981) and chronic feeding studies and long-term field studies with wildlife
species that regularly consume aquatic organisms.
B.	All data that are used should be available in typed, dated, and signed hard copy
(publication, manuscript, letter, memorandum) with enough supporting information to
indicate that acceptable test procedures were used and that the results are probably
reliable. In some cases, additional written information from the investigator may be
needed. Information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise not available for
distribution should not be used.
C.	Questionable data, whether published or unpublished, should not be used. Examples
would be data from tests that did not contain a control treatment, tests in which too many
organisms in the control treatment died or showed signs of stress or disease, and tests in
which distilled or deionized water was used as the dilution water without addition of
appropriate salts.
D.	Data on technical grade materials may be used, if appropriate; but data on formulated
mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates of the material may not be used.
-------
E.	For some highly volatile, hydrolyzable, or degradable materials, only use data from
flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material were measured often
enough with acceptable analytical methods.
F.	Data should be rejected if obtained by using;
•	Brine shrimp — because they usually occur naturally only in water with salinity
greater than 35 g/ kg;
•	Species that do not have reproducing wild populations in North America; or
•	Organisms that were previously exposed to substantial concentrations of the test
material or other contaminants.
G.	Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates, and data
obtained with nonresident species or previously exposed organisms may be used to
provide auxiliary information but should not be used in the derivation of criteria.
Required Data
A.	Certain data should be available to help ensure that each of the four major kinds of
possible adverse effects receives adequate consideration: results of acute and chronic
toxicity tests with representative species of aquatic animals are necessary to indicate the
sensitivities of appropriate untested species. However, since procedures for conducting
tests with aquatic plants and interpreting the results are not as well developed, fewer data
concerning toxicity are required. Finally, data concerning bioaccumulation by aquatic
organisms are required only with relevant information on the significance of residues in
aquatic organisms.
B.	To derive a criterion for freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses, the following should
be available:
1.	Results of acceptable acute tests (see section IV) with at least one species of freshwater
animal in at least eight different families including all of the following:
•	The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes.
•	A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or
recreationally important warmwater species, such as bluegill or channel catfish.
•	A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may
be an amphibian, etc.).
•	A planktonic crustacean such as a cladoceran or copepod.
•	A benthic crustacean (ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.).
•	An insect (mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.).
•	A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata, such as Rotifera,
Annelida, Mollusca.
•	A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.
2.	Acute-chronic ratios (see section VI) with species of aquatic animals in at least three
different families, provided that:
•	At least one is a fish;
•	A t least one is an invertebrate; and
•	At least one is an acutely sensitive freshwater species (the other two may be
saltwater species).
3.	Results of at least one acceptable test with a freshwater alga or vascular plant (see
section VIII). If the plants are among the aquatic organisms that are most sensitive to
the material, test data on a plant in another phylum (division) should also be available.
-------
4. At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an appropriate
freshwater species, if a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available (see
section IX).
C.	To derive a criterion for saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses, the following should
be available:
1.	Results of acceptable acute tests (see section IV) with at least one species of saltwater
animal in at least eight different families, including all of the following;
•	Two families in the phylum Chordata;
•	A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata;
•	Either the Mysidae or Penaeidae family;
•	Three other families not in the phylum Chordata (may include Mysidae or
Penaeidae, whichever was not used previously); and
•	Any other family.
2.	Acute-chronic ratios (see section VI) with species of aquatic animals in at least three
different families, provided that of the three species:
•	At least one is a fish;
•	At least one is an invertebrate; and
•	At least one is an acutely sensitive saltwater species (the other may be an acutely
sensitive freshwater species).
3.	Results of at least one acceptable test with a saltwater alga or vascular plant (see
section VHI). If plants are among the aquatic organisms most sensitive to the material,
results of a test with a plant in another phylum (division) should also be available.
4.	At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an appropriate
saltwater species, if a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available (see
section DC).
D.	If all required data are available, a numerical criterion can usually be derived, except in
special cases. For example, derivation of a criterion might not be possible if the available
acute-chronic ratios vary by more than a factor of 10 with no apparent pattern. Also, if a
criterion is to be related to a water quality characteristic T (see sections V and VII), more
data will be necessary.
Similarly, if all required data are not available, a numerical criterion should not be
derived except in special cases. For example, even if not enough acute and chronic data are
available, it might be possible to derive a criterion if the available data clearly indicate that
the Final Residue Value should be much lower than either the Final Chronic Value or the
final Plant Value.
E.	Confidence in a criterion usually increases as the amount of available pertinent data
increases. Thus, additional data are usually desirable.
Final Acute Value
A. Appropriate measures of the acute (short-term) toxicity of the material to a variety of
species of aquatic animals are used to calculate the Final Acute Value. The Final Acute
Value is an estimate of the concentration of the material, corresponding to a cumulative
probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for genera used in acceptable acute tests
conducted on the material. However, in some cases, if the Species Mean Acute Value of a
commercially or recreationally important species is lower than the calculated Final Acute
Value, then that Species Mean Acute Value replaces the calculated Final Acute Value to
protect that important species.
-------
B.	Acute toxicity tests should have been conducted using acceptable procedures (ASTM
Standards E 729 and 724).
C.	Except for tests with saltwater annelids and mysids, do not use results of acute tests
during which test organisms were fed, unless data indicate that the food did not affect the
toxicity of the test material.
D.	Results of acute tests conducted in unusual dilution water (dilution water in which total
organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded 5 mg/L) should not be used unless a
relationship is developed between acute toxicity and organic carbon or particulate matter
or unless data show that the organic carbon or particulate matter does not affect toxicity.
E.	Acute values should be based on endpoints that reflect the total severe acute adverse
impact of the test material on the organisms used in the test. Therefore, only the following
kinds of data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals should be used:
1.	Tests with daphnids and other cladocerans should be started with organisms less than
24-hours old, and tests with midges should be stressed with second- or third-instar
larvae. The result should be the 48-hour EC50 based on percentage of organisms
immobilized plus percentage of organisms killed. If such an EC50 is not available from
a test, the 48-hour LC50 should be used in place of the desired 48-hour EC50. An EC50 or
LC50 of longer than 48 hours can be used as long as the animals were not fed and the
control animals were acceptable at the end of the test.
2.	The result of a test with embryos and larvae of barnacles, bivalve molluscs (clams,
mussels, oysters, and scallops), sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and abalones
should be the 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms with incompletely
developed shells plus the percentage of organisms killed. If such an EC50 is not
available from a test, the lower of the 96-hour EC50, based on the percentage of
organisms with incompletely developed shells and the 96-hour LC50 should be used
in place of the desired 96-hour EC50. If the duration of the test was between 48 and 96
hours, the EC50 or LC50 at the end of the test should be used.
3.	The acute values from tests with all other freshwater and saltwater animal species and
older life stages of barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimps,
and abalones should be the 96-hour EC50 based on the percentage of organisms
exhibiting loss of equilibrium, plus the percentage of organisms immobilized, plus the
percentage of organisms killed. If such an EC50 is not available from a test, the 96-hour
LC50 should be used in place of the desired 96-hour EC50.
4.	Tests with single-celled organisms are not considered acute tests, even if the duration
was 96 hours or less.
5.	If the tests were conducted properly, acute values reported as "greater than" values
and those above the solubility of the test material should be used because rejection of
such acute values would unnecessarily lower the Final Acute Value by eliminating
acute values for resistant species.
F.	If the acute toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently has been shown to be
related to a water quality characteristic such as hardness or particulate matter for
freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final Acute
Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. (Go to section V.)
G.	If the available data indicate that one or more life stages are at least a factor of 2 more resistant
than one or more other life stages of the same species, the data for the more resistant life stages
should not be used in the calculation of the Species Mean Acute Value because a species can be
considered protected from acute toxicity only if all life stages are protected.
H.	The agreement of the data within and between species should be considered. Acute values
that appear to be questionable in comparison with other acute and chronic data for the
same species and for other species in the same genus probably should not be used in
-------
calculation of a Species Mean Acute Value. For example, if the acute values available for a
species or genus differ by more than a factor of 10, some or all of the values probably
should not be used in calculations.
I. For each species for which at least one acute value is available, the Species Mean Acute
Value should be calculated as the geometric mean of the results of all flow-through tests in
which the concentrations of test material were measured. For a species for which no such
result is available, the Species Mean Acute Value should be calculated as the geometric
mean of all available acute values — i.e., results of flow-through tests in which the
concentrations were not measured and results of static and renewal tests based on initial
concentrations of test material. (Nominal concentrations are acceptable for most test
materials if measured concentrations are not available.)
NOTE; Data reported by original investigators should not be rounded off. Results of all
intermediate calculations should be rounded to four significant digits.
NOTE; The geometric mean of N numbers is the N,h root of the product of the N numbers.
Alternatively, the geometric mean can be calculated by adding the logarithms of the N
numbers, dividing the sum by N, and taking the antilog of the quotient. The geometric mean
of two numbers is the square root of the product of the two numbers, and the geometric mean
of one number is that number. Either natural (base 0) or common (base 10) logarithms can be
used to calculate geometric means as long as they are used consistently within each set of data
(i.e., the antilog used must match the logarithm used).
NOTE: Geometric means rather than arithmetic means are used here because the distributions
of individual organisms' sensitivities in toxicity tests on most materials, and the distributions
of species' sensitivities within a genus, are more likely to be lognormal than normal. Similarly,
geometric means are used for acute-chronic ratios and bioconcentration factors because
quotients are likely to be closer to lognormal than normal distributions. In addition, division
of the geometric mean of a set of numerators by the geometric mean of the set of
corresponding denominators will result in the geometric mean of the set of corresponding
quotients.
J. The Genus Mean Acute Value should be calculated as the geometric mean of the Species
Mean Acute Values available for each genus.
K. Order the Genus Mean Acute Value from high to low.
L. Assign ranks, R, to the Genus Mean Acute Value from "1" for the lowest to "N" for the
highest. If two or more Genus Mean Acute Values are identical, arbitrarily assign them
successive ranks.
M. Calculate the cumulative probability, P, for each Genus Mean Acute Value as R/ (N+l).
N. Select the four Genus Mean Acute Values that have cumulative probabilities closest to
0.05. (If there are less than 59 Genus Mean Acute Values, these will always be the four
lowest Genus Mean Acute Values).
O. Using the selected Genus Mean Acute Values and Ps, calculate:
:2 _ I((ln GMAV)2) - ((Z(ln GMAV))2/4)
2(P) - ((I(VF))2/4)
L= (2(ln GMAV) = S(Z(VP)))/4
A=S(VOI537 + L
FAV = eA
(See original document, referenced at beginning of this appendix, for development of the
calculation procedure and Appendix 2 for example calculation and computer program.)
NOTE; Natural logarithms (logarithms to base e, denoted as In) are used herein merely
because they are easier to use on some hand calculators and computers than common (base 10)
logarithms. Consistent use of either will produce the same result.
-------
P. If for a commercially or recreationally important species the geometric mean of the acute
values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material were
measured is lower than the calculated Final Acute Value, then that geometric mean should
be used as the Final Acute Value instead of the calculated Final Acute Value.
Q. Go to section VI.
Final Acute Equation
A.	When enough data are available to show that acute toxicity to two or more species is similarly
related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account as
described in section IV, steps B through G, or using analysis of covariance. The two methods
are equivalent and produce identical results. The manual method described below provides
an understanding of this application of covariance analysis, but computerized versions of
covariance analysis are much more convenient for analyzing large data tests. If two or more
factors affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis should be used.
B.	For each species for which comparable acute toxicity values are available at two or more
different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of
the acute toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic to
obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for each species.
NOTE: Because the best documented relationship fitting these data is that between hardness
and acute toxicity of metals in freshwater and a log-log relationship, geometric means and
natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are used in the rest of this section. For
relationships based on other water quality characteristics such as pH, temperature, or salinity,
no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate
changes will be necessary.
C.	Decide whether the data for each species are useful, taking into account the range and
number of the tested values of the water quality characteristic and the degree of
agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on six data points
might be of limited value if based only on data for a very narrow range of water quality
characteristic values. A slope based on only two data points, however, might be useful if
consistent with other information and if the two points cover a broad enough range of the
water quality characteristic.
In addition, acute values that appear to be questionable in comparison with other
acute and chronic data available for the same species and for other species in the same
genus probably should not be used. For example, if after adjustment for the water quality
characteristic the acute values available for a species or genus differ by more than a factor
of 10, probably some or all of the values should be rejected. If useful slopes are not
available for at least one fish and one invertebrate, or if the available slopes are too
dissimilar, or if too few data are available to adequately define the relationship between
acute toxicity and the water quality characteristic, return to section IV.G, using the results
of tests conducted under conditions and in waters similar to those commonly used for
toxicity tests with the species.
D.	Individually for each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available acute values
and then divide each of these acute values by the mean for the species. This normalizes the
values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species, individually,
and for any combination of species is 1.0.
E.	Similarly normalize the values of the water quality characteristic for each species,
individually.
F.	Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized acute
toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic.
The resulting slopes and 95 percent confidence limits will be identical to those obtained in
-------
step B. However, now, if the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for each individual
species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.
G.	Treat normalized data as if they were all for the same species and perform a least squares
regression of all the normalized acute values on the corresponding normalized values of
the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled acute slope, V, and its 95 percent
confidence limits. If all the normalized data are actually plotted, the line of best fit will go
through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.
H.	For each species, calculate the geometric mean, W, of the acute toxicity values and the
geometric mean, X, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were calculated
in steps D and E.)
I.	For each species, calculate the logarithm, Y, of the Species Mean Acute Value at a selected
value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:
Y = In W - V(ln X - In Z).
J. For each species, calculate the SMAV at Z using the equation:
SMAV = ey.
NOTE: Alternatively, the Species Mean Acute Values at Z can be obtained by skipping step H
using the equations in steps I and J to adjust each acute value individually to Z, and then
calculating the geometric mean of the adjusted values for each species individually.
This alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the adjusted acute
values for each species.
K. Obtain the Final Acute Value at Z by using the procedure described in section IV, steps J
through O.
L. If the Species Mean Acute Value at Z of a commercially or recreationally important species
is lower than the calculated Final Acute Value at Z, then that Species Mean Acute Value
should be used as the Final Acute Value at Z instead of the calculated Final Acute Value.
M. The Final Acute Equation is written as:
Final Acute Value = eCJ$n(waiir quality characteristic)] + In A - V[ln Z])
where
V = pooled acute slope
A = Final Acute Value at Z.
Because V, A, and Z are known, the Final Acute Value can be calculated for any
selected value of the water quality characteristic.
Final Chronic Value
A. Depending on the data that are available concerning chronic toxicity to aquatic animals,
the Final Chronic Value might be calculated in the same manner as the Final Acute Value
or by dividing the Final Acute Value by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio. In some cases, it
may not be possible to calculate a Final Chronic Value.
NOTE: As the name implies, the Acute-Chronic Ratio is a way of relating acute and chronic
toxicities. The Acute-Chronic Ratio is basically the inverse of the application factor, but this
new name is better because it is more descriptive and should help prevent confusion between
"application factors" and "safety factors." Acute-Chronic Ratios and application factors are
ways of relating the acute and chronic toxicities of a material to aquatic organisms. Safety
factors are used to provide an extra margin of safety beyond the known or estimated
sensitivities of aquatic organisms. Another advantage of the Acute-Chronic Ratio is that it will
usually be greater than 1; this should avoid the confusion as to whether a large application
factor is one that is close to unity or one that has a denominator that is much greater than the
numerator.
-------
B.	Chronic values should be based on results of flow- through chronic tests in which the
concentrations of test material in the test solutions were properly measured at appropriate
times during the test. (Exception: renewal, which is acceptable for daphnids.)
C.	Results of chronic tests in which survival, growth, or reproduction in the control treatment
was unacceptably low should not be used. The limits of acceptability will depend on the
species.
D.	Results of chronic tests conducted in unusual dilution water (dilution water in which total
organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded 5 mg/L) should not be used, unless a
relationship is developed between chronic toxicity and organic carbon or particulate
matter, or unless data show that organic carbon, particulate matter (and so forth) do not
affect toxicity.
E.	Chronic values should be based on endpoints and lengths of exposure appropriate to the
species. Therefore, only results of the following kinds of chronic toxicity tests should be
used:
1.	Life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more groups of
individuals of a species to a different concentration of the test material throughout a
life cycle. To ensure that all life stages and life processes are exposed, tests with fish
should begin with embryos or newly hatched young less than 48-hours old, continue
through maturation and reproduction, and end not less than 24 days (90 days for
salmonids) after the hatching of the next generation. Tests with daphnids should
begin with young less than 24-hours old and last for not less than 21 days. Tests with
mysids should begin with young less than 24-hours old and continue until seven days
past the median time of first brood release in the controls.
For fish, data should be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth of adults
and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned per female, embryo
viability (salmonids only), and hatchability. For daphnids, data should be obtained
and analyzed on survival and young per female. For mysids, data should be
obtained and analyzed on survival, growth, and young per female.
2.	Partial life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more groups of
individuals in a fish species to a concentration of the test material through most
portions of a life cycle. Partial life-cycle tests are allowed with fish species that require
more than a year to reach sexual maturity so that all major life stages can be exposed to
the test material in less than 15 months.
Exposure to the test material should begin with immature juveniles at least two
months prior to active gonad development, continue through maturation and
reproduction, and end not less than 24 days (90 days for salmonids) after the
hatching of the next generation. Data should be obtained and analyzed on survival
and growth of adults and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned
per female, embryo viability (salmonids only), and hatchability.
3.	Early life stage toxicity tests consisting of 28- to 32-day (60 days post hatch for
salmonids) exposures of the early life stages of a fish species from shortly after
fertilization through embryonic, larval, and early juvenile development. Data should
be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth.
NOTE; Results of an early life stage test are used as predictions of results of life-cycle and
partial life-cycle tests with the same species. Therefore, when results of a total or partial
life-cycle test are available, results of an early life stage test with the same species should
not be used. Also, results of early life stage tests in which the incidence of mortalities or
abnormalities increased substantially near the end should not be used because these
results are possibly not good predictions of the results of comparable total or partial life
cycle or partial life cycle tests.
-------
F.	A chronic value can be obtained by calculating the geometric mean of the lower and upper
chronic limits from a chronic test or by analyzing chronic data using regression analysis. A
lower chronic limit is the highest tested concentration in an acceptable chronic test that did
not cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on any of the specified biological
measurements and below which no tested concentration caused an unacceptable effect. An
upper chronic limit is the lowest tested concentration in an acceptable chronic test that did
cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on one or more of the specified biological
measurements and above which all tested concentrations also caused such an effect.
NOTE: Because various authors have used a variety of terms and definitions to interpret and
report results of chronic tests, reported results should be reviewed carefully. The amount of
effect that is considered unacceptable is often based on a statistical hypothesis test but might
also be defined in terms of a specified percent reduction from the controls. A small percent
reduction (e.g., 3 percent) might be considered acceptable even if it is statistically significantly
different from the control, whereas a large percent reduction (e.g., 30 percent) might be
considered unacceptable even if it is not statistically significant.
G.	If the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently has been shown to be
related to a water quality characteristic such as hardness or particulate matter for
freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final Chronic
Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. Go to section VII.
H.	If chronic values are available for species in eight families as described in sections DI.B.1 or
IEI.C.l, a Species Mean Chronic Value should also be calculated for each species for which
at least one chronic value is available by calculating the geometric mean of all chronic
values available for the species; appropriate Genus Mean Chronic Values should also be
calculated. The Final Chronic Value should then be obtained using the procedure
described in section HI, steps J through O. Then go to section VI.M.
I.	For each chronic value for which at least one corresponding appropriate acute value is
available, calculate an acute-chronic ratio using for the numerator the geometric mean of
the results of all acceptable flow-through acute tests in the same dilution water and in
which the concentrations were measured. (Exception: static is acceptable for daphnids.)
For fish, the acute test(s) should have been conducted with juveniles and should have
been part of the same study as the chronic test. If acute tests were not conducted as part of
the same study, acute tests conducted in the same laboratory and dilution water but in a
different study may be used. If no such acute tests are available, results of acute tests
conducted in the same dilution water in a different laboratory may be used. If no such
acute tests are available, an acute-chronic ratio should not be calculated.
J. For each species, calculate the species mean acute-chronic ratio as the geometric mean of
all acute-chronic ratios available for that species.
K. For some materials, the acute-chronic ratio seems to be the same for all species, but for
other materials, the ratio seems to increase or decrease as the Species Mean Acute Value
increases. Thus the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio can be obtained in four ways, depending on
the data available:
1.	If the Species Mean Acute-Chronic ratio seems to increase or decrease as the Species
Mean Acute Value increases, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should be calculated as the
geometric mean of the acute-chronic ratios for species whose Species Mean Acute
Values are close to the Final Acute Value.
2.	If no major trend is apparent, and the acute-chronic ratios for a number of species are
within a factor of 10, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should be calculated as the
geometric mean of all the Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios available for both
freshwater and saltwater species.
3.	For acute tests conducted on metals and possibly other substances with embryos and
larvae of barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and
abalones (see section IV.E.2), it is probably appropriate to assume that the
-------
acute-chronic ratio is 2. Chronic tests are very difficult to conduct with most such
species, but the sensitivities of embryos and larvae would likely determine the results
of life cycle tests. Thus, if the lowest available Species Mean Acute Values were
determined with embryos and larvae of such species, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
should probably be assumed to be 2, so that the Final Chronic Value is equal to the
Criterion Maximum Concentration (see section XI.B)
4. If the most appropriate Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios are less than 2.0, and
especially if they are less than 1.0, acclimation has probably occurred during the
chronic test. Because continuous exposure and acclimation cannot be assured to
provide adequate protection in field situations, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should
be assumed to be 2, so that the Final Chronic Value is equal to the Criterion Maximum
Concentration (see section XI.B).
If the available Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios do not fit one of these cases, a
Final Acute-Chronic Ratio probably cannot be obtained, and a Final Chronic Value
probably cannot be calculated.
L. Calculate the Final Chronic Value by dividing the Final Acute Value by the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio. If there was a Final Acute Equation rather than a Final Acute Value,
see also section VII. A.
M. If the Species Mean Chronic Value of a commercially or recreationally important species is
lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value, then that Species Mean Chronic Value
should be used as the Final Chronic Value instead of the calculated Final Chronic Value.
N. Go to section VIII.
VII. Final Chronic Equation
A.	A Final Chronic Equation can be derived in two ways. The procedure described here will
result in the chronic slope being the same as the acute slope. The procedure described in
steps B through N usually will result in the chronic slope being different from the acute
slope.
1.	If acute-chronic ratios are available for enough species at enough values of the water
quality characteristic to indicate that the acute-chronic ratio is probably the same for
all species and is probably independent of the water quality characteristic, calculate
the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio as the geometric mean of the available Species Mean
Acute-Chronic Ratios.
2.	Calculate the Final Chronic Value at the selected value Z of the water quality
characteristic by dividing the Final Acute Value at Z (see section V.M) by the Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio.
3.	Use V = pooled acute slope (see section V.M) as L = pooled chronic slope.
4.	Go to section VII.M.
B.	When enough data are available to show that chronic toxicity to at least one species is
related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account as
described in steps B through G or using analysis of covariance. The two methods are
equivalent and produce identical results. The manual method described in the next
paragraph provides an understanding of this application of covariance analysis, but
computerized versions of covariance analysis are much more convenient for analyzing
large data sets. If two or more factors affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis should be
used.
C.	For each species for which comparable chronic toxicity values are available at two or more
different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of
-------
the chronic toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic
to obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for each species.
NOTE: Because the best-documented relationship fitting these data is that between hardness
and acute toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship, geometric means and
natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are used in the rest of this section. For
relationships based on other water quality characteristics such as pH, temperature, or salinity,
no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate
changes will be necessary throughout this section. It is probably preferable, but not necessary,
to use the same transformation that was used with the acute values in section V.
D.	Decide whether the data for each species are useful, taking into account the range and
number of the tested values of the water quality characteristic and the degree of
agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on six data points
might be of limited value if founded only on data for a very narrow range of values of the
water quality characteristic. A slope based on only two data points, however, might be
useful if it is consistent with other information and if the two points cover a broad enough
range of the water quality characteristic. In addition, chronic values that appear to be
questionable in comparison with other acute and chronic data available for the same
species and for other species in the same genus probably should not be used. For example,
if after adjustment for the water quality characteristic the chronic values available for a
species or genus differ by more than a factor of 10, probably some or all of the values
should be rejected.
If a useful chronic slope is not available for at least one species, or if the available
slopes are too dissimilar, or if too few data are available to adequately define the
relationship between chronic toxicity and the water quality characteristic, the chronic
slope is probably the same as the acute slope, which is equivalent to assuming that the
acute-chronic ratio is independent of the water quality characteristic. Alternatively, return
to section VI.H, using the results of tests conducted under conditions and in waters similar
to those commonly used for toxicity tests with the species.
E.	Individually for each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available chronic values
and then divide each chronic value for a species by its mean. This normalizes the chronic
values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species individually,
and for any combination of species, is 1.0.
F.	Similarly normalize the values of the water quality characteristic for each species,
individually.
G.	Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized chronic
toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic.
The resulting slopes and the 95 percent confidence limits will be identical to those
obtained in section B. Now, however, if the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for
each individual species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.
H.	Treat all the normalized data as if they were all for the same species and perform a least
squares regression of all the normalized chronic values on the corresponding normalized
values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled chronic slope, L, and its 95
percent confidence limits. If all the normalized data are actually plotted, the line of best fit
will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.
I.	For each species, calculate the geometric mean, M, of the toxicity values and the geometric
mean, P, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were calculated in steps E
andF.)
]. For each species, calculate the logarithm, Q, of the Species Mean Chronic Value at a
selected value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:
Q = In M - L(ln P - In Z).
NOTE: Although it is not necessary, it will usually be best to use the same value of the water
quality characteristic here as was used in section V.I.
-------
K. For each species, calculate a Species Mean Chronic Value at Z using the equation:
SMCV = eQ.
NOTE: Alternatively, the Species Mean Chronic Values at Z can be obtained by skipping step J,
using the equations in steps J and K to adjust each acute value individually to Z, and then
calculating the geometric means of the adjusted values for each species individually. This
alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the adjusted chronic values for
each species.
L. Obtain the Fined Chronic Value at Z by using the procedure described in section IV, steps J
through O.
M. If the Species Mean Chronic Value at Z of a commercially or recreationally important
species is lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value at Z, then that Species Mean
Chronic Value should be used as the Final Chronic Value at Z instead of the calculated
Final Chronic Value.
N. The Final Chronic Equation is written as:
Final Chronic Value = e(Ll|n(wa,er(luali,y characteris,ic)l+ ln s" Mln ZD
where
L = pooled chronic slope
S = Final Chronic Value at Z.
Because L, S, and Z are known, the Final Chronic Value can be calculated for any selected
value of the water quality characteristic.
VIII.	Final Plant Value
A.	Appropriate measures of the toxicity of the material to aquatic plants are used to compare the
relative sensitivities of aquatic plants and animals. Although procedures for conducting and
interpreting the results of toxicity tests with plants are not well developed, results of tests with
plants usually indicate that criteria which adequately protect aquatic animals and their uses
will probably also protect aquatic plants and their uses.
B.	A plant value is the result of a 96-hour test conducted with an alga, or a chronic test
conducted with an aquatic vascular plant.
NOTE: A test of the toxicity of a metal to a plant usually should not be used if the medium
contained an excessive amount of a complexing agent, such as EDTA, that might affect the
toxicity of the metal. Concentrations of EDTA above about 200 ng/L should probably be
considered excessive.
C.	The Final Plant Value should be obtained by selecting the lowest result from a test with an
important aquatic plant species in which the concentrations of test material were
measured, and the endpoint was biologically important.
IX.	Final Residue Value
A. The Final Residue Value is intended to prevent concentrations in commercially or
recreationally important aquatic species from affecting marketability because they exceed
applicable FDA action levels and to protect wildlife (including fishes and birds) that
consume aquatic organisms from demonstrated unacceptable effects. The Final Residue
Value is the lowest of the residue values that are obtained by dividing maximum
permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate bioconcentration or bioaccumulation
factors. A maximum permissible tissue concentration is either (a) an FDA action level
(Compliance Policy Guide, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. 1981) for fish oil or for the edible
portion of fish or shellfish, or a maximum acceptable dietary intake based on observations
on survival, growth, or reproduction in a chronic wildlife feeding study or a long-term
wildlife field study. If no maximum permissible tissue concentration is available, go to
section X because no Final Residue Value can be derived.
-------
B.	Bioconcentration Factors (BCFs) and bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) are quotients of the
concentration of a material in one or more tissues of an aquatic organism, divided by the
average concentration in the solution in which the organism had been living. A BCF is
intended to account only for net uptake directly from water and thus almost must be
measured in a laboratory test. Some uptake during the bioconcentration test might not be
directly from water if the food sorbs some of the test material before it is eaten by the test
organisms. A BAF is intended to account for net uptake from both food and water in a
real-world situation. A BAF almost must be measured in a field situation in which
predators accumulate the material directly from water and by consuming prey that could
have accumulated the material from both food and water.
The BCF and BAF are probably similar for a material with a low BCF, but the BAF is
probably higher than the BCF for materials with high BCFs. Although BCFs are not too
difficult to determine, very few BAFs have been measured acceptably because adequate
measurements must be made of the material's concentration in water to ascertain if it was
reasonably constant for a long enough time over the range of territory inhabited by the
organisms. Because so few acceptable BAFs are available, only BCFs will be discussed
further. However, if an acceptable BAF is available for a material, it should be used instead
of any available BCFs.
C.	If a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available for a substance (e.g., parent
material, parent material plus metabolites, etc.), the tissue concentration used in the
calculation of the BCF should be for the same substance. Otherwise, the tissue
concentration used in the calculation of the BCF should derive from the material and its
metabolites that are structurally similar and are not much more soluble in water than the
parent material.
1.	A BCF should be used only if the test was flow-through, the BCF was calculated based
on measured concentrations of the test material in tissue and in the test solution, and
the exposure continued at least until either apparent steady state or 28 days was
reached. Steady state is reached when the BCF does not change significantly over a
period of time, such as 2 days or 16 percent of the length of the exposure, whichever is
longer. The BCF used from a test should be the highest of the apparent steady-state
BCF, if apparent steady state was reached; the highest BCF obtained, if apparent
steady state was not reached; and the projected steady state BCF, if calculated.
2.	Whenever a BCF is determined for a lipophilic material, the percent lipids should also
be determined in the tissue(s) for which the BCF was calculated.
3.	A BCF obtained from an exposure that adversely affected the test organisms may be
used only if it is similar to a BCF obtained with unaffected organisms of the same
species at lower concentrations that did not cause adverse effects.
4.	Because maximum permissible tissue concentrations are almost never based on dry
weights, a BCF calculated using dry tissue weights must be converted to a wet tissue
weight basis. If no conversion factor is reported with the BCF, multiply the dry weight
BCF by 0.1 for plankton and by 0.2 for individual species of fishes and invertebrates.
5.	If more than one acceptable BCF is available for a species, the geometric mean of the
available values should be used; however, the BCFs are from different lengths of
exposure and the BCF increases with length of exposure, then the BCF for the longest
exposure should be used.
E. If enough pertinent data exists, several residue values can be calculated by dividing
maximum permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate BCFs:
1. For each available maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a chronic feeding
study or a long-term field study with wildlife (including birds and aquatic organisms),
the appropriate BCF is based on the whole body of aquatic species that constitutes or
represents a major portion of the diet of the tested wildlife species.
-------
2. For an FDA action level for fish or shellfish, the appropriate BCF is the highest
geometric mean species BCF for the edible portion (muscle for decapods, muscle with
or without skin for fishes, adductor muscle for scallops, and total soft tissue for other
bivalve molluscs) of a consumed species. The highest species BCF is used because FDA
action levels are applied on a species-by-species basis.
F.	For lipophilic materials, calculating additional residue values is possible. Because the
steady-state BCF for a lipophilic material seems to be proportional to percent lipids from
one tissue to another and from one species to another, extrapolations can be made from
tested tissues, or species to untested tissues, or species on the basis of percent lipids.
1.	For each BCF for which the percent lipids is known for the same tissue for which the
BCF was measured, normalize the BCF to a 1 percent lipid basis by dividing it by the
percent lipids. This adjustment to a 1 percent lipid basis is intended to make all the
measured BCFs for a material comparable regardless of the species or tissue with
which the BCF was measured.
2.	Calculate the geometric mean-normalized BCF. Data for both saltwater and
freshwater species should be used to determine the mean-normalized BCF unless they
show that the normalized BCFs are probably not similar.
3.	Calculate all possible residue values by dividing the available maximum permissible
tissue concentrations by the mean-normalized BCF and by the percent lipids values
appropriate to the maximum permissible tissue concentrations, i.e.,
Residue value - (maximum permissible tissue concentration)
" (mean normalized BCF)(appropriate percent lipids)
•	For an FDA action level for fish oil, the appropriate percent lipids value is 100.
•	For an FDA action level for fish, the appropriate percent lipids value is 11 for
freshwater criteria and 10 for saltwater criteria because FDA action levels are
applied species-by-species to commonly consumed species. The highest lipid
contents in the edible portions of important consumed species are about 11
percent for both the freshwater chinook salmon and lake trout and about 10
percent for the saltwater Atlantic herring.
•	For a maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a chronic feeding study or
a long-term field study with wildlife, the appropriate percent lipids is that of an
aquatic species or group of aquatic species that constitute a major portion of the
diet of the wildlife species.
G.	The Final Residue Value is obtained by selecting the lowest of the available residue values.
NOTE: In some cases, the Final Residue Value will not be low enough. For example, a residue
value calculated from a FDA action level will probably result in an average concentration in
the edible portion of a fatty species at the action level. Some individual organisms and
possibly some species will have residue concentrations higher than the mean value, but no
mechanism has been devised to provide appropriate additional protection. Also, some
chronic feeding studies and long-term field studies with wildlife identify concentrations that
cause adverse effects but do not identify concentrations that do not cause adverse effects;
again, no mechanism has been devised to provide appropriate additional protection. These
are some of the species and uses that are not protected at all times in all places.
X. Other Data
Pertinent information that could not be used in earlier sections might be available concerning
adverse effects on aquatic organisms and their uses. The most important of these are data on
cumulative and delayed toxicity, flavor impairment, reduction in survival, growth, or
reproduction, or any other adverse effect shown to be biologically important. Especially
important are data for species for which no other data are available. Data from behavioral,
biochemical, physiological, microcosm, and field studies might also be available. Data might be
available from tests conducted in unusual dilution water (see IV.D and VI.D), from chronic tests
-------
in which the concentrations were not measured (see VLB), from tests with previously exposed
organisms (see HF), and from tests on formulated mixtures or emulsifiable concentrates (see
n.D). Such data might affect a criterion if they were obtained with an important species, the test
concentrations were measured, and the endpoint was biologically important.
XI.	Criterion
A.	A criterion consists of two concentrations: the Criterion Maximum Concentration and the
Criterion Continuous Concentration.
B.	The Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) is equal to one-half the Final Acute Value.
C.	The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is equal to the lowest of the Final Chronic
Value, the Final Rant Value, and the Final Residue Value, unless other data (see section X)
show that a lower value should be used. If toxicity is related to a water quality characteristic,
the Criterion Continuous Concentration is obtained from the Final Chronic Equation, the
Final Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value by selecting the one, or the combination, that
results in the lowest concentrations in the usual range of the water quality characteristic,
unless other data (see section X) show that a lower value should be used.
D.	Round both the Criterion Maximum Concentration and the Criterion Continuous
Concentration to two significant digits.
E.	The criterion is stated as follows:
The procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate that,
except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, (1) aquatic organisms
and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration
of (2) does not exceed (3) ng/ L more than once every three years on the average, and if the
one-hour average concentration does not exceed (4) |xg/L more than once every three
years on the average.
where (1) = insert freshwater or saltwater
(2)	= insert name of material
(3)	= insert the Criterion Continuous Concentration
(4)	= insert the Criterion Maximum Concentration.
XII.	Final Review
A. The derivation of the criterion should be carefully reviewed by rechecking each step of the
guidelines. Items that should be especially checked are
1.	If unpublished data are used, are they well documented?
2.	Are all required data available?
3.	Is the range of acute values for any species greater than a factor of 10?
4.	Is the range of Species Mean Acute Values for any genus greater than a factor of 10?
5.	Is there more than a factor of 10 difference between the four lowest Genus Mean Acute
Values?
6.	Are any of the four lowest Genus Mean Acute Values questionable?
7.	Is the Final Acute Value reasonable in comparison with the Species Mean Acute Values
and Genus Mean Acute Values?
8.	For any commercially or recreationally important species, is the geometric mean of the
acute values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material were
measured lower than the Final Acute Value?
-------
9.	Are any of the chronic values questionable?
10.	Are chronic values available for acutely sensitive species?
11.	Is the range of acute-chronic ratios greater than a factor of 10?
12.	Is the Final Chronic Value reasonable in comparison with the available acute and
chronic data?
13.	Is the measured or predicted chronic value for any commercially or recreationally
important species below the Final Chronic Value?
14.	Are any of the other data important?
15.	Do any data look like they might be outliers?
16.	Are there any deviations from the guidelines? Are they acceptable?
B. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if the
criterion is consistent with sound scientific evidence. If not, another criterion — either
higher or lower—should be derived using appropriate modifications of these guidelines.
-------
APPENDIX I
List of EPA
Water Quality Criteria Documents
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Water Quality Criteria Documents
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published water quality criteria for toxic
pollutant(s) categories. Copies of water quality criteria documents are available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Front Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 4874650.
Prices of individual documents may be obtained by contacting NTIS. Order numbers are listed
below. Where indicated, documents may be obtained from the Water Resource Center, 401 M St.,
S.W. RC-4100, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7786.
Chemical	NTIS Order No. EPA Document No.
Acenaphthene
PB 81-117269
EPA 440/5-80-015
Acrolein
PB 81-117277
EPA 440/5-80-016
Acrylonitrile
PB 81-117285
EPA 440/5-80-017
Aesthetics
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Aldrin/Dieldrin
PB 81-117301
EPA 440/5-80-019
Alkalinity
PB 263943
EPA 440/ 9-76-023
Aluminum
PB 88-245998
EPA 440/5-86-008
Ammonia
PB 85-227114
EPA 440/5-85-001
Ammonia (saltwater)
PB 89-195242
EPA 440/5-88-004
Antimony
PB 81-117319
EPA 440/5-80-020
Antimony (HI) — aquatic


(draft)
resource center

Arsenic —1980
PB 81-117327
EPA 440/5-80-021
— 1984
PB 85-227445
EPA 440/5-84-033
Asbestos
PB 81-117335
EPA 440/5-80-022
Bacteria —1976
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
— 1984
PB 86-158045
EPA 440/5-84-002
Barium
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Benzene
PB 81-117293
EPA 440/5-80-018
Benzidine
PB 81-117343
EPA 440/5-80-023
Beryllium
PB 81-117350
EPA 440/5-80-024
Boron
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Cadmium —1980
PB 81-117368
EPA 440/5-80-025
— 1984
PB 85-224031
EPA 440/5-84-032
Carbon Tetrachloride
PB 81-117376
EPA 440/5-80-026
Chlordane
PB 81-117384
EPA 440/5-80-027
Chloride
PB 88-175047
EPA 440/5-88-001
Chlorinated Benzenes
PB 81-117392
EPA 440/5-80-028
Chlorinated Ethanes
PB 81-117400
EPA 440/5-80-029
Chlorinated Naphthalene
PB 81-117426
EPA 440/5-80-031
Chlorinated Phenols
PB 81-117434
EPA 440/5-80-032
-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No.
EPA Document No.
Chlorine
PB 85-227429
EPA 440/5-84-030
Chloroalkyl Ethers
PB 81-117418
EPA 440/5-80-030
Chloroform
PB 81-117442
EPA 440/5-80-033
2-Chlorophenol
PB 81-117459
EPA 440/5-80-034
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Chlorpyrifos
PB 87-105359
EPA 440/5-86-005
Chromium —1980
PB 81-117467
EPA 440/5-80-035
—1984
PB 85-227478
EPA 440/5-84-029
Color
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Copper—1980
PB 81-117475
EPA 440/5-80-036
— 1984
PB 85-227023
EPA 440/5-84-031
Cyanide
PB 85-227460
EPA 440/5-84-028
Cyanides
PB 81-117483
EPA 440/5-80-037
DDT and Metabolites
PB 81-117491
EPA 440/5-80-038
Demeton
PB 263943
EPA 440/ 9-76-023
Dichlorobenzenes
PB 81-117509
EPA 440/5-80-039
Dichlorobenzidine
PB 81-117517
EPA 440/5-80-040
Dichloroethylenes
PB 81-117525
EPA 440/5-80-041
2,4-Dichlorophenol
PB 81-117533
EPA 440/5-80-042
Dichloropropane /


Dichloropropene
PB 81-117541
EPA 440/5-80-043
2,4-Dimethylphenol
PB 81-117558
EPA 440/5-80-044
Dinitrotoluene
PB 81-117566
EPA 440/5-80-045
Diphenylhydrazine
PB 81-117731
EPA 440/5-80-062
Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate-


aquatic (draft)
resource center

Dissolved Oxygen
PB 86-208253
EPA 440/5-86-003
Endosulfan
PB 81-117574
EPA 440/5-80-046
Endrin
PB 81-117582
EPA 440/5-80-047
Ethylbenzene
PB 81-117590
EPA 440/5-80-048
Fluoranthene
PB 81-117608
EPA 440/5-80-049
Gasses, Total Dissolved
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Guidelines for Deriving


Numerical National


Water Quality Criteria


for the Protection of


Aquatic Organisms and


Their Uses
PB 85-227049

Guthion
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Haloethers
PB 81-117616
EPA 440 / 5-80-050
Halomethanes
PB 81-117624
EPA 440/5-80-051
Hardness
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Heptachlor
PB 81-117632
EPA 440/5-80-052
Hexachlorobenzene —


aquatic (draft)
resource center

Hexachlorobutadiene
PB 81-117640
EPA 440/5-80-053
Hexachlorocyclohexane
PB 81-117657
EPA 440/5-80-054
-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No.
EPA Document No.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene PB 81-117665
EPA 440/5-80-055
Iron
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Isophorone
PB 81-117673
EPA 440/5-80-056
Lead —1980
PB 81-117681
EPA 440/5-80-057
— 1984
PB 85-227437
EPA 440/5-84-027
Malathion
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Manganese
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Mercury —1980
PB 81-117699
EPA 440/5-80-058
— 1984
PB 85-227452
EPA 440/5-84-026
Methoxychlor
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Mirex
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Naphthalene
PB 81-117707
EPA 440/5-80-059
Nickel —1980
PB 81-117715
EPA 440/5-80-060
— 1986
PB 87-105359
EPA 440/5-86-004
Nitrates/Nitrites
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Nitrobenzene
PB 81-117723
EPA 440/5-80-061
Nitrophenols
PB 81-117749
EPA 440/5-80-063
Nitrosamines
PB 81-117756
EPA 440/ 5-80-064
Oil and Grease
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Parathion
PB 87-105383
EPA 440/5-86-007
Pentachlorophenol —1980
PB 81-117764
EPA 440/5-80-065
— 1986
PB 87-105391
EPA 440/5-85-009
PH
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Phenanthrene — aquatic


(draft)
resource center

Phenol
PB 81-117772
EPA 440/5-80-066
Phosphorus
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Phthalate Esters
PB 81-117780
EPA 440/5-80-067
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PB 81-117798
EPA 440/ 5-80-068
Polynuclear Aromatic


Hydrocarbons
PB 81-117806
EPA 440/5-80-069
Selenium —1980
PB 81-117814
EPA 440/5-80-070
— 1987
PB 88-142239
EPA 440/5-87-008
Silver
PB 81-117822
EPA 440/5-80-071
Silver — aquatic (draft)
resource center

Solids (dissolved) and


Salinity
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Solids (suspended) and


Turbidity
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Sulfides/Hydrogen Sulfide PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Tainting Substances
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
Temperature
PB 263943
EPA 440/9-76-023
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-


P-Dioxin
PB 89-169825
EPA 440/5-84-007
Tetrachloroethylene
PB 81-117830
EPA 440/5-80-073
Thallium
PB 81-117848
EPA 440/5-80-074
Toluene
PB 81-117863
EPA 440/5-80-075
-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No. EPA Document No.
Toxaphene —1980
— 1986
Tributyltin — aquatic
(draft)
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol —
aquatic (draft)
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc —1980
— 1987
PB 81-117863
PB 87-105375
resource center
PB 81-117871
resource center
PB 81-117889
PB 81-117897
PB 87-143581
EPA 440/5-80-076
EPA 440/5-86-006
EPA 440/5-80-077
EPA 440/5-80-078
EPA 440/5-80-079
EPA 440/ 5-87-003
-------
APPENDIX J
Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
APPENDIX K
Procedures for the Initiation of
Narrative Biological Criteria
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
United States	Office of Science and Technology EPA-822-B-92-002
Environmental Protection	Office of Water	October 1992
Agency	Washington, D.C. 20460
Procedures for
Initiating Narrative
Biological Criteria
-------
Procedures for Initiating
Narrative Biological Criteria
By
George R. Gibson, Jr., Coordinator
Biological Criteria Program
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
October 1992
-------
Acknowledgments
Appreciation is extended to all the specialists in the States, EPA Headquarters pro-
gram offices, and the ten EPA Regional Offices for their suggestions and review com-
ments in the preparation of this document.
Fred Leutner, Kent Ballentine, and Robert Shippen of the Standards and Applied
Sciences Division contributed advice and citations pertinent to the proper application
of these criteria to EPA regulatory standards.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
To:
Users of "Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria"
Regarding: Guidance for the development of narrative biological criteria
From:	Margarete Stasikowski, Director
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. EPA
This guidance was written in response to requests from many State water resource
agencies for specific information about EPA expectations of them as they prepare narrative
biological criteria for the assessment of their surface water resources.
The array of State experiences with this form of water quality evaluation extends from
almost no experience in some cases to national leadership roles in others. It may therefore, be
that some readers will find this information too involved, while others will feel it is too basic.
To the latter we wish to express the sincere hope that this material is a fair approximation of
their good examples. To the former, we emphasize that there is no expectation that a State just
entering the process will develop a full blown infrastructure overnight. The intent is to outline
both the initiation and the subsequent implementation and application of a State program based
on commonly collected data as a starting point. User agencies are encouraged to progress
through this material at their own best pace as needs and resources determine.
Specific advice, clarification and assistance may be obtained from the U.S. EPA Regional
Offices by consultation with the designated resource personnel listed in the appendix to this
document.
Attachment
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Purpose of this Paper
The Biological Criteria Program was initiated by EPA in response to re-
search and interest generated over the last several years by Agency, State,
and academic investigators. This interest has been documented in several re-
ports and conference proceedings that were the basis for creation of the pro-
gram and for the preparation of Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). The overall concept and
"narrative biological criteria" are described in that guide.
Because establishing narrative criteria is an important first step in the pro-
cess, the material that follows here is intended to be an elaboration upon and
clarification of the term narrative biological criteria as used in the guide. The
emphasis here is on a practical, applied approach with particular attention to
cost considerations and the need to introduce the material to readers who may
not be familiar with the program.
Introduction and Background
Biological monitoring, assessment and the resultant biological criteria rep-
resent the current and increasingly sophisticated process of an evolving
water quality measurement technology. This process spans almost 200 years in
North America and the entire 20 years of EPA responsibility.
The initial efforts in the 1700's to monitor and respond to human impacts
on watercourses were based on physical observations of sediments and debris
discharged by towns, commercial operations, arid ships in port (Capper, et al.
1983).
Later, chemical analyses were developed to measure less directly observ-
able events. With industrialization, increasing technology, and land develop-
ment pressures, both types of monitoring were incorporated into the body of
our State and Federal public health and environmental legislation.
Valuable as these methods were, early investigations and compliance with
water quality standards relied primarily on water column measurements re-
flecting only conditions at a given time of sampling. Investigators and manag-
ers have long recognized this limitation and have used sampling of resident
organisms in the streams, rivers, lakes, or estuaries to enhance their under-
standing of water resource quality over a greater span of time. During the past
20 years, this biological technique has become increasingly sophisticated and
reliable and is now a necessary adjunct to the established physical and chemi-
cal measures of water resources quality. In fact, the Clean Water Act states in
Section 101 (a) that the objective of the law is to restore and maintain the chemi-
cal, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
EPA has therefore concluded that biological assessment and consequent bi-
ological criteria are an appropriate and valuable complement to the Nation's
surface water management programs. This added approach not only expands
and refines this management effort, it is also consistent with the country's
growing concern that the environment must be protected and managed for
more than the legitimate interests of human health and welfare. The protection
-------
of healthy ecosystems is part of EPA's responsibility arid is indeed related to
the public's welfare. Fish, shellfish, wildlife, and other indigenous flora and
fauna of our surface waters require protection as intrinsic components of the
natural system. Inherent to the Biological Criteria Program is the restoration
and protection of this "biological integrity" of our waters.
A carefully completed survey and subsequent assessment of these resident
organisms in relatively undisturbed areas reveal not only the character, e.g.,
biological integrity, of a natural, healthy waterbody, they also provide a bench-
mark or biological criterion against which similar systems may be compared
where degradation is suspected. Biological measurements also help record
waterbody changes over time with less potential temporal variation than
physical or chemical approaches to water quality measurement. Thus, they
can be used to help determine "existing aquatic life uses" of waterbodies re-
quiring protection under State management programs.
This document elaborates on the initiation of narrative biological criteria
as described in Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.
Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to
facilitate development and implementation of both narrative and numerical
criteria for each of the surface water types.
Narrative Biological Criteria
The first phase of the program is the development of "narrative biological
criteria". These are essentially statements of intent incorporated in State
water laws to formally consider the fate and status of aquatic biological com-
munities. Officially stated, biological criteria are .. numerical values or nar-
rative expressions that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use" (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a).
While a narrative criterion does not stipulate that numerical indices or
other population parameters be used to indicate a particular level of water
quality, it does rely upon the use of standard.measures and data analyses to
make qualitative determinations of the resident communities.
The State, Territory, or Reservation should not only carefully compose the
narrative biological criteria statement but should also indicate how its applica-
tion is to be accomplished. The determination of text (how the narrative bio-
logical criteria are written) and measurement procedures (how the criteria will
be applied) is up to the individual States in consultation with EPA. Some de-
gree of standardization among States sharing common regions and waters will
be in their best interests. This regional coordination and cooperation could
help improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand the data base available to
each State so that management determinations can be made with greater cer-
tainty.
-------
Attributes of A Sound Narrative Criteria Statement
A narrative biological criterion should:
1.	Support the goals of the Clean Water Act to provide for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters;
2.	Protect the most natural biological community possible by
emphasizing the protection of its most sensitive components.
3.	Refer to specific aquatic, marine, and estuarine community
characteristics that must be present for the waterbody to meet a
particular designated use, e.g., natural diverse systems with their
respective communities or taxa indicated; and then,
4.	Include measures of the community characteristics, based on sound
scientific principles, that are quantifiable and written to protect and or
enhance the designated use;
5.	In no case should impacts degrading existing uses or the biological
integrity of the waters be authorized.
An Example of A Narrative Biocriteria Statement
The State will preserve, protect, and restore the water resources of [name
of State] in their most natural condition. The condition of these waterbodies
shall be determined from the measures of physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of each surface waterbody type, according to its designated use.
As a component of these measurements, the biological quality of any given
water system shall be assessed by comparison to a reference condition(s)
based upon similar hydrologic and watershed characteristics that represent
the optimum natural condition for that system.
Such reference conditions or reaches of water courses shall be those ob-
served to support the greatest variety and abundance of aquatic life in the re-
gion as is expected to be or has been historically found in natural settings
essentially undisturbed or minimally disturbed by human impacts, develop-
ment, or discharges. This condition shall be determined by consistent sam-
pling and reliable measures of selected indicative communities of flora and /or
fauna as established by ... [appropriate State agency or agencies]... and may
be used in conjunction with acceptable chemical, physical, and microbial
water quality measurements and records judged to be appropriate to this pur-
pose.
Regulations and other management efforts relative to these criteria shall
be consistent with the objective of preserving, protecting, and restoring the
most natural communities of fish, shellfish, and wildlife attainable in these
waters; and in all cases shall protect against degradation of the highest exist-
ing or subsequently attained uses or biological conditions pursuant to State
antidegradation requirements.
-------
Data Gathering to Establish and Support Narrative
Biological Criteria
A State need not specifically list in the narrative statement the sampling
procedures and parameters to be employed, but it should identify and charge
the appropriate administrative authority with this responsibility as indicated
parenthetically in the preceding example.
The selection and sampling process, certainly at the outset, should be sim-
ple, reliable, and cost effective. In many instances existing data and State pro-
cedures will be adequate to initiate a biological criteria program, but there is
no limitation on the sophistication or rigor of a State's procedures.
In reviewing existing procedures and in designing new ones, it is impor-
tant that the planning group include the water resource managers, biologists,
and chemists directly involved with the resource base. They should be the pri-
mary participants from the outset to help ensure that the data base and de-
rived information adequately support the decisions to be made.
The State may choose to create procedures and regulations more complex
and complete than are indicated here; however, the basic design and method-
ology should include the following elements:
69 1. Resource Inventory. A field review of State water resource
conditions and a first hand documentation of the status of water qual-
ity relative to the use designation categories ("305(b)" reports) are es-
sential to provide reliable data for the selections of reference sites, test
sites, and for setting program priorities.
S 2. Specific Objectives and Sampling Design. States will
need to design a system identifying "natural, unimpacted" reference
sources appropriate to each surface waterbody type in each of the des-
ignated use categories in the State (e.g., streams, lakes and reservoirs,
rivers, wetlands, estuaries and coastal waters) and the use categories
(see example, Page 8) for each grouping of these waterbody types.
Sources for defining reference condition may include historical data
sets, screening surveys, or a consensus of experts in the region of inter-
est, particularly in significantly disrupted areas as discussed later (see
item 6, page 7).
Because natural water courses do not always follow political
boundaries, the most effective approach may be a joint or group effort
between two or more States. Where this coordination and cooperation
is possible, it may produce a superior data base at less cost than any
individual State effort. EPA is working through its regional offices to
assist in the development of such joint operations through the use of
ecoregions and subregions (Gallant et al. 1988). Regional EPA biolo-
gists and water quality or standards coordinators can advise and assist
with these interstate cooperative efforts.
In any case, reference sites or sources for each waterbody type,
subcategory of similar waters, and designated use category will be
needed. These may be drawn from "upstream" locations, "far field"
transects or selected nearby or "ecoregional" sites representative of rel-
-------
atively unimpacted, highest quality natural settings (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990a).
Care must be taken to equate comparable physical characteristics
when selecting reference sites for the waterbodies to be evaluated. For
example, a site on a piedmont stream cannot be the reference source
against which sites on a coastal plain stream are compared; similarly,
coastal tidal and nontidal wetlands should not be compared.
The organisms to be collected and communities sampled should
represent an array of sensitivities to be as responsive and informative
as possible. An example would be to collect fish, invertebrates repre-
senting both insects and shellfish, and perhaps macrophytes as ele-
ments of the sampling scheme.
¦ 3. Collection Methods. The same sampling techniques should
always be employed at both the reference sites and test sites and
should be consistent as much as possible for both spatial and temporal
conditions. For example, a consistent seining or electroshocking tech-
nique should always be used in collecting fish over the same length of
stream and with the same degree of effort using the same gear. In ad-
dition, the sampling area must be representative of the entire reach or
waterbody segment. The temporal conditions to be considered include
not only such factors as the length of time spent towing a trawl at a
constant speed but also extend to the times of year when data are gath-
ered.
Seasonality of life cycles and natural environmental pressures
must be addressed to make legitimate evaluations. For example, the
spring hatch of aquatic insects is usually avoided as a sampling period
in favor of more stable community conditions later in the summer.
Conversely, low nutrient availability in mid-summer may temporarily
but cyclically reduce the abundance of estuarine or marine benthos.
Dissolved oxygen cycles are another seasonal condition to consider as
are migratory patterns of some fish and waterfowl. The entire array of
temporal and spatial patterns must be accommodated to avoid incon-
sistent and misleading data gathering.
Processing and analysis of the collected specimens is usually based
on the number and identity of taxa collected and the number of indi-
viduals per taxon. This preliminary information is the foundation of
most of the subsequent analytical processes used to evaluate commu-
nity composition. In the course of examining and sorting the plants or
animals, notations should be made of any abnormal gross morphologi-
cal or pathological conditions such as deformities, tumors or lesions.
This information on disease and deformities in itself can be an impor-
tant assessment variable.
Taxonomic sorting can also be the basis for functional groupings of
the data, and preservation of the specimens allows for the option of
additional analyses after the field season is concluded.
Table 1 is not all inclusive in the sense of a thorough biological in-
vestigation, but it does represent an initial approach to the selection of
parameters for biological assessment to support the narrative criteria.
5
-------
Table 1.—Indicator communities and reference sources for biological criteria.
WATERBODY FLORA / FAUNA INDICATORS REFERENCE STATIONS
Freshwater Fish, periphyton &
Streams	macroinvertebrates, incl.
insects & shellfish
Lakes &	Same, also macrophytes
Reservoirs
Rivers	Same as lake & reservoirs
Wetlands	All of above, plus emergent
and terrestrial vegetation &
perhaps wildlife & avian spp.
Estuarine & Fish, periphyton &
near-coastal macroinvertebrates, esp.
Waters	shellfish, echinoderms,
polychaetes
Ecoregion, upstream and
downstream stations
May need to start with trophic
groups; far- and near-field
transects, ecoregions*
Upstream and downstream stations;
where appropriate, far- and
near-field transects, ecoregions*
Ecoregion;* far- and near-field
transects
Far- and near-field transects;
ecoregion* or physiographic
province
* Where appropriate; ecoregions that are heterogeneous may need to be subdivided into
cohesive subregions or these subregions aggregated where financial resources are limited or
aquatic systems are large (tidal rivers, estuaries, near-coastal marine waters). Also, major
basins and watersheds could be considered for "keystone indicators" for fish and shellfish.
H 4. Quality Control. Much of the analytical potential and
strength of any conclusions reached will depend upon the precision
and accuracy of sampling techniques and data handling procedures.
Rigorous attention should therefore be given to the design and consis-
tency of data gathering techniques and to the training and evaluation
of field and laboratory staff. Data cataloging and record keeping pro-
cedures also must be carefully designed and strictly adhered to by all
parties involved. EPA Regional Office personnel can provide advice
and Agency guidance manuals on this subject; an example is the 1990
field and laboratory manual by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, (1990b). Similarly, many States already have excellent quality
assurance procedures that can be used as a foundation for their biolog-
ical criteria program.
S 5. Analytical Procedures. The usual approach to biological
analyses is to identify the presence of impairment and establish the
probability of being certain in that judgment.
For example, if there is a significant increase in the number of de-
formed or diseased organisms, and a significant decrease in the taxa
and/or individuals and in sensitive or intolerant taxa — given that the
physical habitats and collection techniques are equivalent — then the
study site may be presumed to be degraded. This conclusion will have
further support if the trend holds true over time; is also supported by
applicable chemical or physical data; or if probable sources are identi-
fied. The apparent source or sources of perturbation should then be in-
vestigated and further specific diagnostic tests conducted to establish
cause. Remedial action may then follow through regulatory or other
appropriate management procedures.
-------
B 6. Reference Condition and Criteria for Significantly Dis-
rupted Areas. In regions of significantly disrupted land use such as
areas of intensive agricultural or urban/suburban development, the
only data base available to serve as a reference condition might be sim-
ply "the best of what is left." To establish criteria on this basis would
mean an unacceptable lowering of water quality objectives and de
facto acceptance of degraded conditions as the norm; or worse, as the
goal of water quality management. The alternative would be to estab-
lish perhaps impossible goals to restore the water system to pristine,
pre-development conditions.
A rational solution avoiding these two pitfalls is to establish the
reference condition from the body of historical research for the region
and the consensus opinion of a panel of qualified water resource ex-
perts. The panel, selected in consultation with EPA, should be required
tq establish an objective and reasonable expectation of the restorable
(achievable) water resource quality for the region. The determination
would become the basis of the biological criteria selected.
Consistent with State antidegradation requirements, the best exist-
ing conditions achieved since November 28, 1975 [see 40 CFR 131.3(c)
and 131.12(a)(1)] must be the lowest acceptable status for interim con-
sideration while planning, managing, and regulating to meet the
higher criteria established above. In this way reasonable progress can
be made to improve water quality without making unrealistic de-
mands upon the community.
Application of Biological Criteria to State Surface
Water Use Attainability Procedures
Another application of the data collected is in helping define the desig-
nated uses to be achieved by comparing all test sites relative to the benchmark
of reference conditions established per designated use category. Biological cri-
teria can be used to help define the level of protection for "aquatic life use"
designated uses for surface waters. These criteria also help determine relative
improvement or decline of water resource quality, and should be equated to
appropriate reference site conditions as closely as possible. Determinations of
attainable uses and biological conditions should be made in accordance with
the requirements stipulated in Section 131.10 of the EPA Water Quality Stan-
dards Regulations (40 CFR 131). A hypothetical State-designated use category
system might be as follows:
¦ Class A: Highest quality or Special Category State waters. In-
cludes those designated as unique aesthetic or habitat resources and
fisheries, especially protected shellfish waters. No discharges of any
kind and no significant landscape alterations are permitted in the
drainage basins of these waters. Naturally occurring biological life
shall be attained, maintained, and protected in all respects. (Indica-
tor sensitive resident species might be designated to help define
each class, e.g., trout, some darters, mayflies, oysters, or clams, etc.)
B Class B: High quality waters suitable for body contact. Only
highly treated nonimpacting discharges and land development with
-------
well established riparian vegetative buffer zones are allowed. Natu-
rally occurring biological life shall be protected and no degradation
of the aquatic communities of these waters is allowed. (Indicator
sensitive species might be suckers and darters, stoneflies, or soft-
shelled clams, etc.)
B Class C: Good quality water but affected by runoff from pre-
vailing developed land uses. Shore zones are protected, but buffer
zones are not as extensive as Class B. Highly treated, well-diluted
final effluent permitted. Existing aquatic life and community com-
position shall be protected and no further degradation of the aquatic
communities is allowed. (Indicator sensitive species might be sun-
fish, caddisflies, or blue crabs, etc.)
I Class D: Lowest quality water In State's designated use sys-
tem. Ambient water quality must be or become sufficient to support
indigenous aquatic life and no further degradation of the aquatic
community is allowed. Structure and function of aquatic community
must be preserved, but species composition may differ from Class C
waters.
Since all States have some form of designated use classification system,
bioassessment procedures can be applied to each surface water type by class
and the information used to help determine relative management success or
failure. In concert with other measurements, bioassessments and biocriteria
help determine designated use attainment under the Clean Water Act. This at-
tainment or nonattainment in turn determines the need for or the conditions
of such regulatory requirements as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In addi-
tion, biological assessments based on these biological criteria can be used to
help meet section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires periodic re-
ports from the States on the status of their surface water resources. The proce-
dure also can be used to support regulatory actions, detect previously
unidentified problems, and help establish priorities for management projects
(see "Additional Applications of Biological Criteria," Page 10).
Table 2 is a simplified illustration of this approach to evaluating compre-
hensive surface water quality conditions by each designated use to help deter-
mine and report "designated use attainment" status.
It is important to construct and calibrate each table according to consistent
regional and habitat conditions.
Using quantitative parameters or metrics derived from the data base and
the reference condition, standings in the tables can be established from which
relative status can be defined. This material can eventually serve as the basis
for numeric biological criteria.
A well-refined quantitative approach to the narrative process can be ad-
ministratively appended to the States' preexisting narrative criteria to meet fu-
ture needs for numeric criteria. This can be accomplished fairly easily by
amending the narrative statement, as illustrated on page 3, to include a desig-
nated regulatory responsibility for the appropriately identified agency. The
advantage of this approach is as changes in the supportive science evolve, the
criteria can be appropriately adjusted.
-------
Table 2.—Data display to facilitate evaluating waterbody condition and
relative designated use attainment. 	
DESIGNATED USE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS (by number)
(per Sf. water type) Taxa Tax3 Invertebrates Flah Diseased
	Inverts	Fish	Intolerants Intolerants	
Highest quality in	high	high	high	high	low
designated use
Good quality in
designated use
Adequate to
designated use
Marginal for
designated use
Poor quality	low	low	low	low	high
DESIGNATED USE PUBLIC HEALTH, CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL DATA
(per Sf. water type) T. Coll E. Coli D.O.
pH
P04
N03
Turb.
Highest quality in low low high
designated use
Good quality in
designated use
Adequate to
designated use
Marginal for
designated use
Poor quality	high high low
Usually Usually Usually
low low low
Vbl
by
region
Usually Usually Usually
high high high
Further, the compiling of physical and chemical data with the biological
data facilitates comprehensive evaluations and aids in the investigation of
causes of evident water quality declines. Having the numbers all in one place
helps the water resource manager assess conditions. However, it is important
to note that none of these parameters should supercede the others in manage-
ment or regulations because they have unique as well as overlapping attri-
butes. Failure of a designated site to meet any one of a State's physical,
chemical, or biological criteria should be perceived as sufficient justification
for corrective action.
One other note on the use of biological criteria is important. The data gath-
ered should be comprehensively evaluated on a periodic basis. This gives the
manager an opportunity to assess relative monitoring and management suc-
cess, monitor the condition of the reference sites, and adjust procedures ac-
cordingly. As conditions improve, it will also be important to reassess and
adjust the biological criteria. This may be particularly appropriate in the case
of "significantly disrupted areas" discussed earlier.
-------
Additional Applications of Biological Criteria
As shown in the previous illustrations, narrative biological criteria can
have many applications to the management and enhancement of surface water
quality.
Bl Refinement and augmentation of existing waterbody monitor-
ing procedures. With between 200 and 500 new chemicals entering
the market annually, it is impossible to develop chemical criteria
that address them all. Further, synergism between even regulated
chemicals meeting existing standards may create degraded condi-
tions downstream that are identifiable only by using biological mon-
itoring and criteria. Thus, the approach may help identify and
correct problems not previously recognized.
H Non-chemical impairments (e.g., degradation of physical habitats,
changes in hydrologic conditions, stocking, and harvesting) can be
identified. Remediation of these impairments, when they are the pri-
mary factor, can be less expensive and more relevant than some
point source abatements.
E9 Waterbody management decisionmaking. By reviewing an array
of diverse parameters in a comprehensive manner, the decisionma-
ker is able to make better judgments. The strengths of this diversity
can be used to determine with greater confidence the resources to
assign to a given waterbody or groups of waterbodies in the alloca-
tion of scarce manpower or funds. The information can also be used
to set priorities where required by law, such as section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act, or to help guide regulatory decisions.
In conjunction with nutrient, chemical, and sediment parame-
ters, biological information and criteria are an important tool for wa-
tershed investigations. The combined data helps the manager select
areas of likely nonpoint as well as point sources of pertebation and
makes it possible to focus remedial efforts on key subbasins.
H Regulatory aspect. Once established to the satisfaction of the State
and EPA, the biocriteria process may be incorporated in the State's
system of regulations as part of its surface water quality protection
and management program. Biological assessment and criteria can
become an important additional tool in this context as the Nation in-
creasingly upgrades the quality of our water resources.
Perspective of the Future: Implementing
Biological Criteria
This guide to narrative biological criteria was composed with the fiscal
and technical constraints of all the States, Territories, and Reservations in
mind. The array of scientific options available to biological assessment and cri-
teria illustrated here is by no means exhaustive, and many jurisdictions will
prefer a more involved approach. In no way is this guide intended to restrain
States from implementing more detailed or rigorous programs. In fact, we
welcome comments and suggestions for additional techniques and parameters
to consider.
-------
The basic approach discussed here, while compiled to be the least de-
manding on State budgets, equipment, and manpower pools, consists of a reli-
able, reproducible scientific method. The metrics considered should not be
restricted to those illustrated in this guide. Rather, they should be developed
from the expertise of State biologists and water resource managers — perhaps
in concert with colleagues in neighboring States for a coordinated regional ap-
proach to waterbodies and natural biological regions that cross political
boundaries. Good science should be applied to a realistic appraisal of what
can actually be accomplished, and the EPA regional office specialists, listed on
the following pages, can assist in such assessments and coordination. For
more detailed discussions of sampling and analytical methods, the reader is
also referred to the references appended to this text.
The structure for narrative biological criteria described here is an appro-
priate interim step for the eventual development of numeric biological criteria.
The infrastructure developed now may be expanded and refined to meet fu-
ture needs.
References
Capper, J., G. Power and F.R. Shivers, Jr. 1983. Chesapeake Waters, Pollution, Public Health,
and Public Opinion, 1607-1972. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville, MD.
Gallant, A.L. et al. 1989. Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources.
EPA/600-3-89-060. Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Biological Criteria National Program Guid-
ance for Surface Waters. EPA /440-5-90-004. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, DC.
	. 1990b. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biologi-
cal Integrity of Surface Waters. EPA/600/4-90/030. Environ. Monitor. Syst. Lab., U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
	. 1990c. Protection of Environment. Code of Fed. Reg. (CFR), Part 131. Off. Fed. Regis-
ter, Nat. Archives and Records Admin., Washington, DC.
Additional References
Plafkin, J.L. et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Pish. EPA/444/4-89-001. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century.
Proceedings of a national conference. Office of Water, Standards and Applied Science
Division, Washington, DC.
	. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
EPA/505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
	. 1991. Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation. Proceedings of a symposium.
EPA-440/5-91-005. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washing-
ton, DC.
	. 1991. Biological Criteria: Guide to Technical Literature. EPA-440/5-91 -004. Office of
Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
	. 1991. Biological Criteria: State Development and Implementation Efforts. EPA-
440/5-91 -003. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
-------
U.S. EPA Regional Sources of
Technical Assistance
REGION 1: JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203
Regional Biologist: Pete Nolan/Celeste Barr (617) 860-4343
Monitoring Coordinator: Diane Switzer (617) 860-4377
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Eric Hall (617) 565-3533
REGION 2: 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278
Regional Biologist: Jim Kurtenbach (908) 321-6716
Monitoring Coordinator: Randy Braun (908) 321-6692
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Felix Locicero (212) 264-5691
REGION 3: 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Regional Biologist: Ron Preston (304)233-2315
Monitoring Coordinator: Chuck. Kanetsky (215) 597-8176
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: HeleneDrago (215) 597-9911
JtEGION 4: 345 Courtiand Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365
Regional Biologist: Hoke Howard/Jerry Stober/William Peltier (706) 546-2296
Monitoring Coordinator: Larinda Tervelt (706) 347-2126
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Fritz Wagener/Jim Harrison (706) 347-3396
REGION 5: 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, 1L 60604
Regional Biologist: Charles Steiner (312) 353-9070
Monitoring Coordinator: Donna Williams (312) 886-6233
Water Quality Standards Coordinators: David Pfiefer (312) 353-9024
Tom Simon (312) 353-8341
REGION 6: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202
Regional Biologist: Evan Hornig/Philip Crocker/Terry Hollister (214) 655-2289
Monitoring Coordinator: Charles Howell (214) 655-2289
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Cheryl Overstreet (214) 655-7145
REGION 7: 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101
Regional Biologist: Michael Tucker/Gary Welker (913) 551-5000
Monitoring Coordinator: John Helvig (913) 551-5002
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Lawrence Shepard (913) 551-7441
REGION 8: 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2405
Regional Biologist: Loys Parrish (303) 236-5064
Monitoring Coordinator: Phil Johnson (303) 293-1581
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Bill Wuerthele (303) 293-1586
REGION 9: 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Regional Biologist: Peter Husby (415) 744-1488
Monitoring Coordinator: Ed Liu (415) 744-2006
Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Phillip Woods (415) 744-1997
REGION 10:1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
Regional Biologist: Joseph Cummins (206) 871-0748, ext. 1247
Monitoring Coordinator: Gretchen Hayslip (206) 553-1685
Water Quality Standards Coordinators: Sally Marquis (206) 553-2116
Marica Lagerloeff (206) 553-0176
HEADQUARTERS: 401 M Street SW, Biocriteria Program (WH 586),
Washington, DC 20640
Program Coordinators: George Gibson (202) 260-7580
Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800
NOTE: Address provided is the EPA Regional Office; personnel indicated may be located at
satellite facilities.
12
-------
APPENDIX L
Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
APPENDIX M
Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
APPENDIX N
Integrated Risk Information System
Background Paper
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
Integrated Risk Information System
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
FEBRUARY, 1993	VERSION 1.0
-------
IRIS Background Paper
On February 25, 1993, a FEDERAL REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490) was
published on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This background paper is
a companion piece to that notice.
Table of Contents
Introduction	1
General Background 	1
Data Base Contents	3
Noncancer Health Effects Information 	3
Cancer Effects Health Information	4
Scientific Contacts	4
Bibliographies 	5
Supplementary Information	5
Use and Development of Health Hazard Information	5
Management	6
Oversight 	6
Information Development Process	6
CRAVE	6
RfD/RfC 	8
Methods and Guidelines	10
Public Involvement	11
tst
For further information on IRIS, please contact:
IRIS User Support
(Operated by Computer Sciences Corporation)
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive (MS-190)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone (513) 569-7254 Facsimile (513) 569-7916
-------
Introduction
This background paper provides the history, purposes, and goals of the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and a detailed description of the current
processes used by the two Agency scientific work groups responsible for developing
the health hazard information in IRIS. This background will help interested persons to
better understand the focus and contents of the companion FEDERAL REGISTER
notice.
The February 25, 1993 FEDERAL REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490): (1)
announces the availability of this paper that describes IRIS, its contents, and the
current processes used by the two Agency work groups responsible for developing
IRIS information; (2) discusses an Agency activity to review IRIS processes and solicits
comments on this review; (3) highlights points in the current process where public
input, including information submissions, is encouraged; (4) describes how to access
IRIS; and (5) announces a new process to publish regularly a list of the substances
scheduled for IRIS work group review and to solicit pertinent data, studies, and
comments on these substances.
General Background
IRIS is an EPA data base, updated monthly, containing Agency consensus
positions on the potential adverse human health effects of approximately 500 specific
substances. It contains summaries of EPA qualitative and quantitative human health
information that support two of the four major steps of the risk assessment process
outlined in the National Research Council's (NRC) 1983 publication, "Risk Assessment
in the Federal Government: Managing the Process."
The risk assessment process described in the 1983 NRC publication consists of
four major steps: hazard identification, dose-response evaluation, exposure
assessment, and risk characterization. IRIS includes information in support of the first
two of those steps, hazard identification and dose-response evaluation. Hazard
identification is the qualitative determination of how likely it is that a substance will
increase the incidence and/or severity of an adverse health effect. Dose-response
evaluation is the quantitative relationship between the magnitude of the effect and the
dose inducing such an effect. IRIS information supporting risk characterization
consists of brief statements on the quality of data and very general statements on
confidence in the dose-response evaluation. IRIS consensus information does not
include exposure assessment information. Combined with specific situational
exposure assessment information, the summary health hazard information in IRIS may
be used as one source in evaluating potential public health risks of or from
environmental contaminants.
-------
Many EPA program offices and program support offices, including the Office
of Research and Development, both at Headquarters and in EPA's ten Regional
offices, are involved in assessment activities in support of various legislative mandates.
In the 1980s, as health risk assessment became a more widespread practice across
Agency programs, the need became clear for greater consensus and consistency in
the areas of hazard identification and dose-response assessment. It was determined
that an internal process should be established for reaching an Agency-wide judgment
on the potential health effects of substances of common interest to these offices, and
a system developed for communicating that Agency judgment to EPA risk assessors
and risk managers. These would provide the needed consistency and coordination.
In 1986, two EPA work groups with representation from program offices involved in
risk assessment were convened to carry out such an internal process to reach
consensus Agency positions on a chemical-by-chemical basis. In 1986, the IRIS data
base was created for EPA staff as the official repository of that consensus information.
On June 2, 1988, a FEDERAL REGISTER notice (53 FR 20162-20164) of public
availability of IRIS was published. That notice described IRIS, the types of risk
information it contains, and how to get access to the system. It informed the public
about the establishment of the IRIS Information Submission Desk. The submission
desk was intended to provide opportunity for public input. The notice explained the
procedures for submission of data or comments by interested parties on substances
either on IRIS or scheduled for review by the work groups. As stated in the June 1988
notice, a list of the substances scheduled for work group review has been a separate
file on IRIS since it became publicly available. It was hoped that users would submit
pertinent information to the IRIS Information Submission Desk. In fact, few users have
taken advantage of the opportunity to submit data and comments.
Therefore, data submission procedures are reiterated in the FEDERAL
REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490) related to this paper and a list of the substances
scheduled for review by specific work groups is included. The data submission
procedures will be reprinted in the FEDERAL REGISTER every 6 months with a new or
revised list of substances scheduled for work group review. For the latest status of
the substances scheduled for review, interested persons should first check the IRIS
data base itself or contact:
IRIS User Support (Operated by Computer Sciences Corporation)
U.S. EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive (MS-190)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7254 Facsimile: (513) 569-7916
2
-------
Data Base Contents
The core of IRIS is the three consensus health hazard information summary
sections: the reference dose for noncancer health effects resulting from oral
exposure, the reference concentration for noncancer health effects resulting from
inhalation exposure, and the carcinogen assessment for both oral and inhalation
exposure. All of these terms are commonly used for judging the effects of lifetime
exposure to a given substance or mixture. Citations for the scientific methodologies
that are the basis for the consensus health hazard sections on IRIS are included on
page 10 of this paper.
In addition, an IRIS substance file may include supplemental information such
as summaries of health advisories, regulatory actions, and physical/chemical
properties.
Noncancer Health Effects Information
An oral reference dose (RfD) is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps
an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is believed likely to be without an appreciable risk of certain
deleterious effects during a lifetime ("Reference Dose [RfD]; Description and Use in
Health Risk Assessment" Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 8:471-486, 1988).
RfDs are developed by an assessment method that assumes that there is a dose
threshold below which adverse effects will not occur. An RfD, which is expressed in
milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), is based on the determination of a
critical effect from a review of all toxicity data and a judgment of the necessary
uncertainty and modifying factors based on a review of available data. IRIS substance
files contain the following information pertaining to the oral RfD: reference dose
summary tables, principal and supporting studies, uncertainty and modifying factors
used in calculating the RfD, a statement of confidence in the RfD, EPA documentation
and review, EPA scientific contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.
The inhalation reference concentration (RfC) is analogous to the oral RfD
(Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation Concentrations, EPA/600/8-90/066A).
It is also based on the assumption that thresholds exist for noncancer toxic effects.
The RfC considers toxic effects for both the respiratory system (portal-of-entry) and for
effects peripheral to the respiratory system (extra-respiratory). The inhalation RfC is
expressed in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/cu.m). The RfC method departs from
that used to determine the oral RfD primarily by the integration of the anatomical and
physiological dynamics of the respiratory system (i.e., portal-of-entry) with the
physicochemical properties of the substance or substances entering the system.
Different dosimetric adjustments are made according to whether the substance is a
particle or gas and whether the observed toxicity is respiratory or extra-respiratory.
These adjustments scale the concentration of the substance that causes an observed
effect in laboratory animals (or in humans, when available from occupational
epidemiology studies) to a human equivalent concentration for ambient exposures.
3
-------
IRIS substance files contain the following inhalation RfC information: reference
concentration summary tables, description of dosimetric adjustment, principal and
supporting studies, uncertainty and modifying factors used to calculate the RfC, a
statement of confidence in the RfC, EPA documentation and review, EPA scientific
contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.
Cancer Health Effects Information
The carcinogen assessment of an IRIS substance file contains health hazard
identification and dose-response assessments developed from procedures outlined in
the EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992-43003, September
24, 1986). Each cancer assessment, as a rule, is based on an Agency document that
has received external peer review. The hazard identification involves a judgment in the
form of a weight-of-evidence classification of the likelihood that the substance is a
human carcinogen. It includes the type of data used as the basis of the classification.
This judgment is made independently of considerations of the strength of the possible
response. The dose-response assessment is a quantitative estimate of the potential
activity or magnitude of a substance's carcinogenic effect, usually expressed as a
cancer unit risk. A cancer unit risk is an upper-bound estimate on the increased
likelihood that an individual will develop cancer when exposed to a substance over a
lifetime at a concentration of either 1 microgram per liter (1 /yg/L) in drinking water for
oral exposure or 1 microgram per cubic meter (1 /yg/cu.m) in air for continuous
inhalation exposure. Generally, a slope factor for dietary use is also given. It is an
upper-bound estimate of cancer risk for humans per milligram of agent per kilogram of
body weight per day.
IRIS contains the following information in the cancer assessment section: EPA
weight-of-evidence classification and its basis, a summary of human carcinogenicity
studies when available, a summary of animal carcinogenicity studies, a summary of
other data supporting the classification, oral and/or inhalation quantitative estimates,
dose-response data used to derive these estimates and the method of calculation,
statements of confidence in magnitude of unit risk, documentation and review, EPA
scientific contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.
Scientific Contacts
It is important to note that in each of the three sections described above, EPA
staff names and telephone numbers are included as scientific contacts for further
information. The Agency believes that the inclusion of Agency scientific contacts able
to discuss the basis for the Agency's position, has been very valuable. These
individuals play a major role in providing public access to IRIS and a conduit for
valued public comment.
4
-------
Bibliographies
IRIS contains full bibliographic citations for each substance file, directing the
user to the primary cited studies and pertinent scientific literature. One of the major
intents of IRIS was to encourage users to evaluate the primary literature used to
develop the IRIS information in light of the assumptions and uncertainties underlying
the risk assessment process.
Supplementary Information
In addition to the RfD, RfC, and carcinogenicity sections, IRIS substance files
may contain one or more of three supplementary information sections: a summary of
an Office of Water's Drinking Water Health Advisory, a summary of EPA regulatory
actions, and a summary of physical/chemical properties. The only purpose of these
supplemental sections is to serve as accessory information to the consensus health
hazard information. Since the primary intent of the IRIS data base is to communicate
EPA consensus health hazard information, these other sections are only included as
auxiliary material to provide a broader profile of a substance and are never added until
at least one of the consensus health hazard sections described above (namely, the
RfD section, RfC section, or carcinogenicity section) is prepared and approved for final
inclusion on the data base. These supplemental sections should not be used as the
sole or primary source of information on the current status of EPA substance-specific
regulations.
Use and Development of Health Hazard Information
The type of substance-specific consensus health hazard information on IRIS
may become part of the supporting materials used to develop site-specific EPA health
hazard assessments. These assessments may in turn lead to EPA risk management
decisions, generally resulting in the formal Agency rulemaking process. This
rulemaking process often includes FEDERAL REGISTER publication of a proposed rule
where the public is encouraged to comment. These comments may be directed at
both the proposed rule and the scientific basis of the decision, including information
obtained from IRIS and thus offer a further opportunity for comment on the risk
information in the context of its use.
The area of human health risk assessment has evolved over the past several
years. As the risk assessment community has grown and the field itself has matured,
new approaches to the assessment and use of human health risk information have
been developed. The evolving nature of risk assessment has also resulted in changes
to IRIS. The development of methodologies such as those for the inhalation RfC
determination illustrates the ability of the IRIS information development process to
grow with the changing science. Areas of future growth may include less-than-lifetime
risk information and developmental toxicity risk information and other endpoint-specific
health hazard information. Also, on several occasions, the information in IRIS has
5
-------
been reevaluated and modified to reflect new information and approaches. New
studies on individual substances are continually being conducted by Federal, private,
and academic institutions and may have significant impact on IRIS information. In
those cases, the IRIS substance information is reevaluated in light of the new data;
any changes resulting from that reevaluation are included on the system.
Management of the Data Base
The IRIS data base is managed and maintained by the Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment (OHEA), Office of Research and Development (ORD). IRIS
is an Agency system primarily funded by OHEA with additional significant support from
EPA program offices.
Oversight
Oversight activities for IRIS are conducted by the IRIS Oversight Committee, a
subgroup of the Agency's Risk Assessment Council. Committee membership consists
of senior Agency risk assessors. The main purpose of the IRIS Oversight Committee
is to serve as a forum for discussion and advice on significant scientific or science
policy issues involving IRIS. The Council, which is chaired by EPA's Deputy
Administrator, receives periodic status reports on IRIS and related work group
activities.
Information Development Process
There are two EPA work groups, the Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification
Endeavor (CRAVE) and the Oral Reference Dose/Inhalation Reference Concentration
(RfD/RfC) Work Group, that develop consensus health hazard information for IRIS.
Each group consists of EPA scientists from a mix of pertinent disciplines and
represents intra-Agency membership. The work groups serve as the Agency's final
review for EPA risk assessment information. When the work groups reach consensus
on the health effects information and the dose-response assessment for a particular
substance, the descriptive summary is added to IRIS.
CRAVE: Information Development Procedures
The goals of the CRAVE are to reach Agency consensus on Agency carcinogen
risk assessments; to arrive at a unified view on potential cancer risk from exposure to
specific substances across Agency programs; and to identify, discuss, and resolve
general issues associated with methods used to estimate carcinogenic risks for
specific agents. The major outputs of the work group are summaries of risk
6
-------
information that have been previously developed and documented by scientific experts
in Agency program and program support offices, and results of discussions of general
issues in carcinogen risk assessment.
Scientists are selected by executive appointment from respective member
offices. Membership is open to all major Agency program and regional offices, ORD,
and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE). Substances are discussed
at the request of Agency offices or regions according to an established timetable. The
CRAVE priorities are determined by the member offices. The office requesting review
prepares a summary describing both a judgment on the weight-of-evidence for
potential health hazard effects and any dose-response information for the substances
according to an established format. Literature files on the substances including critical
studies, pertinent EPA documents, and other relevant supporting documentation are
made available to work group members in advance of the meeting. Generally, the
judgment and the dose-response assessment are expected to have appeared in a
publicly available document of some sort.
The CRAVE usually meets bimonthly for two days. Work group members
normally receive draft summaries for pre-meeting review at least one week prior to the
scheduled meeting. At the meeting, data and documentation are examined, and there
is discussion of the basis for the risk information and the methods by which it was
derived. In addition, the nature and extent of previous internal and external peer
review, including the comments received, are reviewed by the work group. The
summary is revised by the office originating the review to reflect the meeting
discussion and accurately express the consensus view of the work group. After the
process of revision is completed, the summary is circulated again to the work group
for final approval prior to its inclusion on IRIS.
Consensus means that no member office is aware either of information that
would conflict with the final carcinogenicity summary, or of analyses that would
suggest that a different view is more credible. Such assurance rests on the
capabilities of the individuals who represent their offices; thus, every effort is made to
seek scientists who are both expert in the area of human health assessment and who
can represent their office.
Peer review has generally been part of the IRIS information development
processes from the beginning of the system. In the preparation of summaries,
emphasis has been placed on the use of peer-reviewed EPA assessments. These
have included Office of Pesticide Programs assessments that have received both
program office peer review and Science Advisory Panel review. Other EPA
documentation includes assessments prepared by OHEA such as Health Assessment
Documents, Health and Environmental Effects Documents, and Health Effects
Assessments. These documents receive OHEA review and program office review and
some receive Science Advisory Board (SAB) or other external review. Assessments
developed by or for the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and incorporated
7
-------
in either Drinking Water or Ambient Water Criteria Documents, or in Drinking Water
Health Advisories generally receive extensive Agency review and SAB review prior to
discussion by CRAVE.
On occasion, risk assessments that were contained in draft documents have
been discussed by CRAVE. In these instances, results of the work group
deliberations have been incorporated into the document development process at the
program office or program support office level. Loading of the information on IRIS is
delayed pending completion of the document.
tf consensus is not reached at the meeting it is generally because an issue is
raised that requires resolution. Work group deliberations continue until consensus is
achieved. In the case of substance-specific issues, the substance is referred back to
the member office that initiated the review for more information and clarification. In
some instances, it has been necessary for more than one program office to engage in
a dialogue to resolve the issue.
For general issues, CRAVE practice has been to form a subcommittee to
prepare an issue paper that is subsequently discussed at a special meeting. As
examples of this process, issue papers have been developed for (1) issues relating to
accuracy and precision of quantitative dose-response information, (2) factors involving
confidence in quantitative estimates, and (3) use of split classifications and combining
estimates.
When consensus is not achieved on a particular substance at a meeting of the
CRAVE, it is considered to have "under review" status. If after three months, there is
no further activity to bring the substance back to the work group for additional review,
the substance loses its "under review" status The substance is then dropped from
the work group review list after notifying the responsible office. Any office may
resubmit the substance for further discussion at any time.
Reference Dose (Rf PI/Reference Concentration (RfC): Information Development
Procedures
The purpose of the RfD/RfC Work Group is to reach consensus on oral RfDs and
inhalation RfCs for noncancer chronic human health effects developed by or in support
of program offices and the regions. The work group also works to resolve inconsistent
RfDs or RfCs among program offices and to identify, discuss, and resolve generic issues
associated with methods used to estimate RfDs and RfCs.
Scientists are selected by executive appointment from respective member offices.
Membership is open to all major Agency program and regional offices. There are two
work group co-chairs. In addition, scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry and the Food and Drug Administration are invited to work group
meetings as observers to assist the Agency in the information gathering process. Their
8
-------
involvement fosters better communication and coordination among federal agencies
regarding assessment approaches and data evaluation. Members reflect a variety of
pertinent scientific disciplines including expertise in the fields of general and inhalation
human toxicology.
Member offices schedule substances for discussion through the work group co-
chairs for specific meetings, usually one or two months in advance. Regional requests
for specific substance discussions are routed through the co-chairs, who then either
schedule these substances in the usual manner or, if the region has not prepared a file,
requests an appropriate office to undertake that task.
The RfD/RfC Work Group usually meets once a month for two days. Substances
are discussed at the request of any Agency office or region. The requesting office
generally prepares a file that consists of a summary sheet, a copy of the critical study and
supporting documentation, and distributes these to work group members prior to the
meeting.
Consensus generally means that no member office is aware either of information
that would conflict with the RfD or RfC, or of analyses that would suggest a different value
that is more credible. Such assurance rests on the capabilities of the individuals who
represent their offices; thus, a large effort is conducted biannually to seek scientists who
are both expert in this area of assessment and can represent their offices.
RfD or RfC summaries are not always based on existing EPA assessment
documents but may be based on assessments prepared specifically for the work group.
This is a fundamental difference between the usual processes of the RfD/RfC Work Group
and those of CRAVE. As stated previously, the general rule has been that for a
substance to be brought to the CRAVE Work Group for review there should be an
existing peer-reviewed Agency health effects document. However, for RfDs there may or
may not be an existing EPA document on which to base work group deliberations and
in the case of RfCs, there have not, to date, been any existing peer-reviewed EPA
documents. Thus, RfC deliberations are based on extensive assessment summaries
prepared expressly for the work group. Therefore, when an Agency peer-reviewed
document is not available, as with RfCs and some RfDs, extensive assessment summaries
are included on IRIS once the work group has completed verification and reached
consensus.
The work group co-chairs assure that the final summary accurately expresses the
consensus view of the group at the meeting as specified in the meeting notes. Once
unanimous consensus is reached, the substance-specific summary for either an RfD or
RfC is prepared for inclusion on IRIS. In some cases, the work group agrees that
adequate information is not available to derive an RfD or RfC. A message is then put on
IRIS to that effect and the reasons for the "not verifiable" status. In most cases the
message states that the health effects data for a specific substance were reviewed by the
work group and determined to be inadequate for derivation of an RfD or RfC.
9
-------
Conflicts that arise during a meeting regarding a given RfD or RfC generally are
resolved outside the meeting by scientists from the appropriate offices, and then brought
back to the work group for clarification and subsequent consensus. Conflicts that arise
regarding the methods by which RfDs or RfCs are estimated, or the incorporation of new
methods, are generally taken up at separately scheduled meetings of the work group, for
which the sponsoring office prepares the appropriate material for review.
While, as discussed above, the RfD/RfC Work Group process is somewhat
different from that of the CRAVE, they both use generally the same consensus
procedures. Other procedural similarities are discussed in the following paragraphs.
On occasion, scientific issues on individual substances, methods, or on a general
question cannot be resolved at the work group level. In the event that an issue is
unresolvable in the work group processes, the issue is referred to the Risk Assessment
Council. In some cases, the issue is brought to the IRIS Oversight Subcommittee for
review and discussion, prior to consideration by the full Council. If an issue is raised to
the Council, it may be referred by the Council to the Risk Assessment Forum for
consultation.
Both the CRAVE and RfD/RfC Work Groups, through the IRIS Information
Submission Desk, discussed in the companion FEDERAL REGISTER notice, have
received comments and studies from interested parties outside of the Agency that were
either pertinent to the work group's initial review or resulted in reconsideration of a
particular substance assessment. Further, the work groups often contact the authors of
a primary study if clarifications are necessary, and consult with outside experts on
scientific issues that require expertise that is not present in the work group. Also, through
professional societies and other private sector organizations, the work groups have
fostered discussions and exchanges regarding new and innovative approaches to human
health assessment methodologies.
Methods and Guidelines
Both Agency work groups responsible for the development of the health hazard
information on IRIS use Agency scientific methods documents and EPA's risk assessment
guidelines as the basis for their work. These guidelines and methodologies used to
develop the RfD or RfC have been peer reviewed by the SAB.
Summaries of methods used for development of oral RfDs and carcinogenicity
information on IRIS are contained in IRIS background documents that are available on the
system. A paper copy of the oral RfD and CRAVE background documents, "Reference
Dose (RfD); Description and Use in Health Risk Assessment" (Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology 8:471-486, 1988) and The U.S. EPA Approach for Assessing the Risks
Associated with Chronic Exposures to Carcinogens, respectively, is also available from
IRIS User Support by calling: (513) 569-7254.
10
-------
The draft methods document, Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation
Concentrations (EPA/600/8-90/066A), is the basis for the inhalation RfCs. A copy of the
document is available from the Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) by
calling: (513) 569-7562. Please cite the EPA document number (EPA/600/8-90/066A)
when requesting a copy. A revised RfC methodology document based on SAB peer-
review comments will undergo a second SAB review and will be available later this year.
The CRAVE background document is based on EPA's 1986 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992-34003). A copy of the EPA risk assessment
guidelines (EPA/600/8-87/045) is also available by calling CERI.
Public Involvement
The section in the companion FEDERAL REGISTER notice (February 25, 1993,
58 FR 11490) on Current Opportunities for Public Involvement In the IRIS Process
elaborates on opportunities for public input and dialogue.
11
-------
APPENDIX O
Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
APPENDIX P
List of 126
CWA Section 307(a)
Priority Toxic Pollutants
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
126 Priority Pollutants
A.	Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorobenzene
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
B.	Chlorinated Ethanes
Chloroethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
C.	Chlorinated Phenols
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Parametachlorocresol (4-chloro-3-methyl phenol)
D.	Other Chlorinated Organics
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
Bi s(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
1.1-dichloroethylene
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
E.	Haloethers
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
F.	Halomethanes
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
Methyl chloride (chloromethane)
1
-------
Methyl Bromide (bromomethane)
Bromoform (tribromomethane)
Dichlorobromomethane
Chiorodibromomethane
G.	Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodimethy1amine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
H.	Phenols (other than chlorinated)
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
I.	Phthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-N-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
J. Polnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Ac enaphthene
I,2-benzanthracene	(benzo(a) anthracene)
Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)
3,4-benzofluoranthene (benzo(b) fluoranthene)
II,12-benzofluoranthene	(benzo(k) fluoranthene)
Chrysene
Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
1,12-benzoperylene (bonze(ghi) perylene)
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
1,2,5,6-bibenzanthracene (dibenzo(ah) anthracene)
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
Pyrene
K. Pesticides and Metabolites
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane (technical mixture and metobolites)
Alpha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)
2
-------
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Delta-BHC
Toxaphene
L. DDT and Metabolites
4,4-DDT
4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)
4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
M. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCBr1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
N. Other Organics
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
0. Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide, total
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
3
-------
APPENDIX Q
Wetlands and 401 Certification:
Opportunities and Guidelines for
States and Eligible Indian Tribes
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------



,o\


,\\o^

o^l^Ves
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 2 8 *989
OFFICE OF
WATER
NOTE TO THE READER
I am pleased to introduce this handbook, "Wetlands and 401 Certification,"
developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection. This document examines the
Section 401 State water quality certification process and how it applies to wetlands. We
strongly encourage States to use this handbook as one reference when establishing a
wetlands protection program or improving wetlands protection tools.
Protection of wetland resources has become an important national priority as
evidenced by President Bush's 1990 Budget statement calling for "no net loss" of
wetlands. In addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum included a recommendation
in their 1988 report which says that States should "make more aggressive use of their
certification authorities under Section 401 of the Gean Water Act, to protect wetlands
from chemical and other types of alterations". This handbook is intended to help States
do just that
EPA would like to work with States who wish to delve into 401 certification for
wetlands. You will find EPA Regional contacts listed in Appendix A of the document
The Office of Wetlands Protection plans to provide additional technical support
including guidance focused on wetland-specific water quality standards.
It is very important to begin now to address the loss and degradation of this
nation's wetlands. That is why 401 certification is a perfect tool, already in place, for
States just getting started. It can also help States fill some gaps in their own statutory
authorities protecting wetlands. States can make great strides using their existing 401
certification authorities, while developing the capability and the complementary
programs to provide more comprehensive protection for wetlands in the future.
Director
Office of Wetlands Protection
-------
ENDNOTES
1.	The state water quality certification process is authorized by
Section 401 of the Glean water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341.
2.	A Tribe is eligible for treatment as a State if it meets the
following criteria: 1) it is federally recognized; 2) it carries
out substantial government duties and powers over a Federal
Indian Reservation; 3) it has appropriate regulatory authority
over surface waters of the reservation; and 4) it is reasonably
expected to be capable of administering the relevant Clean Hater
Act program. EPA is currently developing regulations to
implement Section 518(e) for programs including Section 401
certification which will provide further explanation of the
process tribes must go through to achieve state status. In
addition, the term "state" also includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
3.	The National Wetlands Policy Forum, chaired by Governor Kean
of New Jersey, represents a very diverse group of perspectives
concerned with policy issues to protect and manage the nation's
wetland resources. The goal of the Forum was to develop sound,
broadly supported recommendations to improve federal, state, and
local wetlands policy. The Forum released its recommendations in
a report, "Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda" which
can be obtained from The Conservation Foundation, 1250 24th
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037.
4.	33 U.S.C. §4.1313 (c)(2)(A).
5.	Section 301(b)(1)(c) of the Clean Water Act.
6.	If the applicant is a federal agency, however, at least one
federal court has ruled that the state's certification decision
may be reviewed by the federal courts.
7.	33 C.F.R. §328.3 (Corps regulations); 40 C.F.R. §232.2(q) (EPA
regulations).
8.	For instance, except for wetlands designated as having unusual
local importance, New York's freshwater wetlands law regulates
only those wetlands over 12.4 acres in size.
9.	Alaska Administrative Code, Title 6, Chapter 50.
i
-------
10.	Kentucky Environmental Protection Act, KRS 224.005(28).
11.	Tennessee Water Quality Control Act, §69-3-103(29).
12.	Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26.
13.	K.R.S. 224.005(28)(Kentucky enabling legislation defining
waters of the state); 401 K.A.R. 5:029(1)(bb)(Kentucky water
quality standards defining surface waters); Ohio Water Pollution
Control Act, §6111.01(H)(enabling legislation defining waters of
the state); Ohio Administrative Code, §3745-1-02(DDD) (water
quality standards defining surface waters of the state).
14.	Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26 (enabling
legislation defining waters of the state); 314 Code of Mass.
Regs. 4.01(5)(water quality standards defining surface waters).
15.	Ohio Administrative Code, 3745-32-01(N).
16.	40 C.F.R. §131.
17.	A use attainability analysis (40 C.F.R. §131.10(g)) must show
at least one of six factors in order to justify not meeting the
minimum Nfishable/swifflmablen designated uses or to remove such a
designated use. The analysis must show that attaining a use is
not feasible because of: naturally occurring pollutant
concentrations; natural flow conditions or water levels that
cannot be made up by effluent discharges without violating state
water conservation requirements; human caused pollution that
cannot be remedied or that would cause more environmental damage
if corrected; hydrologic modifications, if it is not feasible to
restore the water to its original conditions or operate the
modification to attain the use; natural non-water quality
physical conditions precluding attainment of aquatic life
protection uses; or controls more stringent than those required
by §301(b) and §306 would result in substantial and widespread
economic and social impact.
18.	Questions and Answers on Antidegradation (EPA, 1985). this
document is designated as Appendix A of Chapter 2 of EPA's Water
Quality Standards Handbook.
19.	The regulations implementing Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act are known as the n(b)(1) Guidelines" and are located at
40 C.F.R. §230.
20.	40 C.F.R. §230.1(d)
21.	40 C.F.R. §230.10(c).
22.	Code of Maryland Regulations Title 10, §10.50.01.02(B)(2)(a).
ii
-------
23.	Minnesota Rules, §7050.0170. The rule states in full:
The waters of the state nay, in a state of nature,
have some characteristics or properties approaching or
exceeding the limits specified in the water quality
standards. The standards shall be construed as
limiting the addition of pollutants of human activity
to those of natural origin, where such be present, so
that in total the specified limiting concentrations
will not be exceeded in the waters by reason of such
controllable additions. Where the background level of
the natural origin is reasonably definable and
normality is higher than the specified standards the
natural level may be used as the standard for
controlling the addition of pollutants of human
activity which are comparable in nature and
significance with those of natural origin. The natural
background level may be used instead of the specified
water quality standard as a maximum limit of the
addition of pollutants, in those instances where the
natural level is lower than the specified standard and
reasonable justification exists for preserving the
quality to that found in a state of nature.
24.	No. 83-1352-1 (Chancery Court, 7th Division, Davidson
County, 1984)(unpublished opinion).
25.	These criteria are at 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §2(4) and §4(1)(c),
respectively.
26.	Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-32-05.
27.	Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-1-05(C).
28.	Copies of Ohio's review guidelines are available from Ohio
EPA, 401 Coordinator, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149.
29.	40 CFR §131.12.
30.	48 Fed. Reg. 51,400, 51,403 (1983)(preamble).
31.	Kentucky Water Quality Standards, Title 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §7.
32.	Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 7.
33.	314 Code of Massachusetts Regulation, §4.04(4).
34.	Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 9.
35.	H.R. Rep. No. 91-127, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1969).
iii
-------
36.	115 Cong. Rec. H9030 (April 15, 1969)(House debate); 115
Cong. Rec. S28958-59 (Oct. 7, 1969)(Senate debate).
37.	C.F.R. §323.2(d). However, in Reid v. Marsh, a case
predating these regulations, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern Corps District of Ohio ruled that "even minimal
discharges of dredged material are not exempt from Section 404
review". In this district, the Corps treats all dredging
projects under Section 404.
38.	West Virginia Code, §47-5A-l (emphasis added).
39.	Clean Water Act, §401(a)(2).
40.	40 C.F.R. §230.10(a).
41.	40 C.F.R. §230.10(d).
42.	Arnold Irrigation District v. Department of Environmental
Quality. 717 Pac.Rptr.2d 1274 (Or.App. 1986).
43.	Marmac Corporation v. Department of Natural Resources of the
State of West Virginia. C.A. No. CA-81-1792 (Cir. Ct., Kanawha
County 1982).
44.	33 U.S.C. §1313(c)(2)(A).
45.	West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-9.3 (a).
46.	Unpublished paper by Dr. Paul Hill of West Virginia's
Department of Natural Resources. Prepared for EPA-sponsored
December 1987 workshop on "The Role of Section 401 Certification
in Wetlands Protection".
47.	33 C.F.R. §325.2(b)(ii).
48.	18 C.F.R. §4.38(e)(2).
49.	40 C.F.R. §124.53(C) (3) .
50.	Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 299.04.
51.	West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-4.3.
52.	Id-
53.	40 C.F.R. §121.2. EPA's regulations implementing Section 401
were issued under the 1970 Water Pollution Control Act, (not the
later Clean Water Act) and thus, may have some anomalies as a
result.
iv
-------
54.	This is a reference to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act.
55.	Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-32-05.
56.	See, e.g.. P. Adamus, Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET),
Volume II: Methodology Y-87(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987); L. Cowardin,
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). See also Lonard
and Clairain, Identification of Wetland Functions and Values, in
Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium (Chester, VT:
Association of State Wetland Managers, 1986)(list of twenty five
methodologies).
57.	See, e.g.. R. Tiner, Wetlands of the United States: Current
Status and Recent Trends (U.S. Govt. Printing Office
1984)(National Wetlands Inventory). The National Wetlands
Inventory has mapped approximately 45 percent of the lower forty
eight states and 12 percent of Alaska. A number of regional and
state reports may be obtained from the National Wetlands
Inventory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Newton Corner,
MA. Region 5 maps can also be ordered from the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Cartographic Information Center in Reston, VA.
58.	The new joint Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. can be obtained from the U.S. Government
Printing Office 1989).
59.	See, e.g.. Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission, Guidance
Paper No. 3, Guidelines for Protecting Non-Tidal Wetlands in the
Critical Area (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, April
1987).
60.	For information on the Wetlands Values Data Base contact:
Data Base Administrator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Energy Center, 2627 Redwing Road, Creekside One, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80526. Phone: (303) 226-9411.
61.	For example, Florida's Section 380 process designates "Areas
of Critical State Concern" which often include wetlands. Florida
Statutes §380.05.
62.	40 C.F.R. §230.80 (1987).
63. 16 U.S.C. §1452(3) (1980). See also. U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers, Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 10 (1986).
v
-------
64.	See D. Burke, Technical and Programmatic Support for 401
Certification in Maryland, (Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Water Resources Administration, December
1987)(unpublished); A. Lam, Geographic Information Systems for
River Corridor and Wetland Management in River Corridor Handbook
(N.Y.Department of Environmental Conservation)(J. Kusler and E.
Meyers eds., 1988).
The system described by Burke is called MIPS (Map and Image
Processing System) and is capable of translating a myriad of
information to the scale specified by the user.
65.	See, e.g.. [multiple authors], "Ecological Considerations in
Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters," (Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 1985); E. Stockdale, "The Use of Wetlands
for Stormwater Management and Nonpoint Pollution Control: A
Review of the Literature," (Dept. of Ecology, State of Washington
1986); "Viability of Freshwater Wetlands for Urban Surface Water
Management and Nonpoint Pollution: An Annotated Bibliography,"
prepared by The Resource Planning Section of King County,
Washington Department of Planning and Community Development
(July, 1986).
66.	The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, Fla.
Stat. §403.91 - 403.938, required the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation to establish specific criteria for
wetlands that receive and treat domestic wastewater treated to
secondary standards. The rule is at Fla. Admin. Code, §17-6.
67.	Maximization of sheet flow.
68.	Hydrologic loading and retention rates.
69.	Id'? See also L. Schwartz, Criteria for Wastewater Discharge
to Florida Wetlands, (Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation)(Dec. 1987)(unpublished report).
70.	Copies of the draft, "Use of Advance Identification
Authorities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Guidance
for Regional Offices", can be obtained from the Regulatory.
Actitivities Division of the Office of Wetlands Protection (A-
104F), EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
vi
-------
Acknowledgements:
This document was prepared by Katherine Ransel of the Environmental Law
Institute, and Dianne Fish of EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection, Wetlands
Strategies and State Programs Division. Many thanks to the reviewers of the
draft handbook, and to those States who gave us information on their programs.
For additional copies contact:
Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division
Office of Wetlands Protection A-104F
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C 20460
Phone: (202) 382-5043
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.	INTRODUCTION	5
II.	WHAT IS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION &
HOW DOES IT WORK?	8
in. 401 CERTIFICATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO
PROTECT WETLANDS	9
IV.	THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE
CERTIFICATION PROCESS
A Wetlands Should be Specifically Designated as
Surface Waters of the States		10
B. General Requirements of EPA's Water Quality
Standards Regulations			12
C Applying Water Quality Standards to Wetlands
- What States are Doing Now			14
1.	Using Narrative Criteria	15
2.	Highest Tier of Protection - Wetlands as
Outstanding Resource Waters		18
V.	USING 401 CERTIFICATION
A The Permits/Licenses Covered &
the Scope of Review 		20
1.	Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to
Certification			»	20
2.	Scope of Review Under Section 401	22
2
-------
B.	Conditioning 401 Certifications for
Wetland Protection	23
1.	What are Appropriate Conditions?	23
2.	The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification	25
3.	The Role of Other State Laws	25
C.	Special Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits:
Nationwide and After-the-Fact Permits			27
1.	Nationwide Permits	27
2.	After-the-Fact Permits	29
VL DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING
REGULATIONS: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS	30
A.	Review Timeframe and "Complete" Applications	31
B.	Requirements for the Applicant...		32
G	Permit Fees	.......................................... 33
D.	Basis for Certification Decisions		33
VIL EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401
CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS	35
Vm. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED		37
A.	Steps States Can Take Right Away			38
B.	Laying the Groundwork for Future Decisions	39
3
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: State and Federal Contacts for 401
Certification	42
APPENDIX B: Federal Definitions: Waters of the U.S. & Wetlands	50
APPENDIX C: Scope of Project Review: Pennsylvania Dam
Proposal Example	51
APPENDIX D: Examples of Certification Conditions from
Maryland, West Virginia, and Alaska	54
APPENDIX E: Example Conditions to Minimize Impacts from
Section 404(b)(l)Guidelines 	 			 62
ENDNOTES
4
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This handbook has been developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection
(OWP) to highlight the potential of the State water quality certification process for
protecting wetlands, and to provide information and guidance to the States.1
Throughout this document, the term "State" includes those Indian Tribes which qualify
for treatment as States under the federal Gean Water Act (CWA) Section 518(e).2 We
encourage Tribes who are interested in expanding their protection of wetlands and
other waters under this new provision of the CWA to examine water quality
certification as a readily available tool to begin their programs.
One of OWP's key mandates is to broaden EPA's wetlands protection efforts in
areas which complement our authority under the Clean Water Act Section 404
regulatory program. Thus, we are exploring and working with other laws, regulations,
and nonregulatory approaches to enhance their implementation to protect wetlands. In
addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum has recommended in its report issued in
November 1988, that States "make more aggressive use of their certification authorities
under Section 401 of the CWA, to protect their wetlands from chemical and other types
of alterations."3
In light of these directives, we have examined the role of the Section 401 State
water quality certification process and are working with States to improve its application
to wetlands. This process offers the opportunity to fulfill many goals for wetland
protection because:
*	It is a cooperative federal/State program and it increases the role of
States in decisions regarding the protection of natural resources;
*	It gives States extremely broad authority to review proposed activities in
and/or affecting State waters (including wetlands) and, in effect, to deny
or place conditions on federal permits or licenses that authorize such
activities;
*	It is an existing program which can be vastly improved to protect
wetlands without major legislative initiatives;
*	Its proper implementation for wetlands should integrate many State
programs related to wetlands, water quality, and aquatic resource
preservation and enhancement, to ensure consistency of activities with
these State requirements. Examples of such programs include coastal
zone management, floodplain management, and nonpoint source
programs.
5
-------
The issues discussed in this handbook were identified through discussions with
State 401 certification program personnel and through a workshop held in December
1987 with many of the States who actively apply 401 certification to wetlands. The
handbook includes examples of how some States have successfully approached the
issues discussed. Because the water quality certification process is continually evolving,
we do not attempt to address all the issues here. This handbook is a first step towards
clarifying how 401 certification applies to wetlands, and helping States use this tool
more effectively.
EPA would like to work with the States to ensure that their authority under
Section 401 is exercised in a manner that achieves the goals of the Gean Water Act
and reflects the State role at the forefront in administering water quality programs.
Clearly, the integrity of waters of the U.S. cannot be protected by an exclusive focus on
wastewater effluents in open waters. While the federal Section 404 program addresses
many discharges into wetlands, and other federal agencies have environmental review
programs which benefit wetlands, these do not substitute for a State's responsibilities
under Section 401. A State's authority under Section 401 includes consideration of a
broad range of chemical, physical, and biological impacts. The State's responsibility
includes acting upon the recognition that wetlands are critical components of healthy,
functioning aquatic systems.
To help States implement the guidance provided in this handbook and to foster
communication on 401 issues, you will find a list of State 401 certification contacts and
federal EPA contacts in Appendix A. In order to keep this and other wetland contact
lists current, EPA has asked the Council of State Governments to establish a
computerized database of State wetland programs and contacts (See Appendix A for
details.) EPA is also refining a list of Tribal contacts to foster communication with
interested Tribes.
6
-------
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED
The following is a summary of the activities needed to make 401 certification a
more effective tool to protect wetlands. States can undertake many of these
activities right away, while also taking other actions which lay the groundwork for
improving future 401 certification decisions. Tribes, who primarily are just
beginning to develop wetlands programs, should consider these actions (along
with developing water quality standards) as first steps to becoming more involved
in wetlands regulatory efforts. The actions below are discussed throughout the
handbook.
*	All states should begin by including wetlands in their definitions of
state waters.
*	States should develop or modify their existing 401 certification and
water quality standard regulations and guidelines to accomodate
special wetland considerations.
*	States should make more effective use of their existing narrative water
quality standards (including the antidegradation policy) to protect the
integrity of wetlands.
*	States should initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their
wetland resources.
*	States should designate uses for these wetlands based on wetland
functions associated with each wetland type. Such estimated uses
could be verified when needed for individual applications with an
assessment tool such as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique, or Habitat
Evaluation Procedure, or region-specific evaluation methods.
9 States should tap into the potential of the outstanding resource waters
idesignation of the antidegradation policy for their wetlands.
*	States should incorporate 401 certification for wetlands into their water
quality management planning process. This process can integrate
wetland resource information with different water management
programs affecting wetlands (including coastal zone management,
nonpoint source and wastewater programs).
7
-------
n. WHAT IS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND HOW DOES IT WORK?
States may grant or deny "certification" for a federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States, if it is the
State where the discharge will originate. The decision to grant or deny certification is
based on a State's determination from data submitted by an applicant (and any other
information available to the State) whether the proposed activity will comply with the
requirements of certain sections of the Gean Water Act enumerated in Section
401(a)(1). These requirements address effluent limitations for conventional and
nonconventional pollutants, water quality standards, new source performance standards,
and toxic pollutants (Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307). Also included are
requirements of State law or regulation more stringent than those sections or their
federal implementing regulations.
States adopt surface water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the Clean
Water Act and have broad authority to base those standards on the waters' use and
value for "public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes,
and .. . other purposes."4 All permits must include effluent limitations at least as
stringent as needed to maintain established beneficial uses and to attain the quality of
water designated by States for their waters.3 Thus, the States' water quality standards
are a critical concern of the 401 certification process.
If a State grants water quality certification to an applicant for a federal license
or permit, it is in effect saying that the proposed activity will comply with State water
quality standards (and the other CWA and State law provisions enumerated above).
The State may thus deny certification because the applicant has not demonstrated that
the project will comply with those requirements. Or it may place whatever limitations
or conditions on the certification it determines are necessary to assure compliance with
those provisions, and with any other "appropriate" requirements of State law.
If a State denies certification, the federal permitting or licensing agency is
prohibited from issuing a permit or license. While the procedure varies from State to
State, a State's decision to grant or deny certification is ordinarily subject to an
administrative appeal, with review in the State courts designated for appeals of agency
decisions. Court review is typically limited to the question of whether the State
agency's decision is supported by the record and is not arbitrary or capricious. The
courts generally presume regularity in agency procedures and defer to agency expertise
in their review.6
States may also waive water quality certification, either affirmatively or
involuntarily. Under Section 401(a)(1), if the State fails to act on a certification request
8
-------
"within a reasonable time (which shall not exceed one year)" after the receipt of an
application, it forfeits its authority to grant conditionally or to deny certification.
The most important regulatory tools for the implementation of 401 certification
are the States' water quality standards regulations and their 401 certification
implementing regulations and guidelines. While all of the States have some form of
water quality standards, not all States have standards which can be easily applied to
wetlands. Most Tribes do not yet have water quality standards, and developing them
would be a first step prior to having the authority to conduct water quality certification.
Also, many States have not adopted regulations implementing their authority to grant,
deny and condition water quality certification. The remainder of this handbook
discusses specific approaches, and elements of water quality standards and 401
certification regulations that OWP views as effective to implement the States' water
quality certification authority, both generally, and specifically with regard to wetlands.
IE. 401 CERTIFICATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO PROTECT
WETLANDS
In States without a wetlands regulatory program, the water quality certification
process may be the only way in which a State can exert any direct control over projects
in or affecting wetlands. It is thus critical for these States to develop a program that
fully includes wetlands in their water quality certification process.
But even in States which have their own wetlands regulatory programs, the water
quality certification process can be an extremely valuable tool to protect wetlands.
First, most State wetland regulatory laws are more limited in the wetlands that are
subject to regulation than is the Clean Water Act. The Qean Water Act covers all
interstate wetlands; wetlands adjacent to other regulated waters; and all other wetlands,
the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign
commerce.7 This definition is extremely broad and one would be hard pressed to find a
wetland for which it could be shown that its use or destruction clearly would not affect
interstate commerce. Federal jurisdiction extends beyond that of States which regulate
only coastal and/or shoreline wetlands, for instance. And in States that regulate inland
wetlands, often size limitations prevent States from regulating wetlands that are subject
to federal jurisdiction.8
Even if State jurisdiction is as encompassing or more so than federal jurisdiction,
however, water quality certification may still be a valuable and essential wetlands
protection device. In the State of Massachusetts, for instance, a 401 certification is not
simply "rubber stamped" on the permitting decisions made pursuant to the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act The State has denied certification to proposed
projects requiring a federal permit even though the State wetlands permitting authority
9
-------
(in Massachusetts, permits are granted by local "conservation commissions") has granted
authorization for a project
There may be a number of reasons that a proposed activity may receive
authorization under a State wetland regulatory program, but fail to pass muster under a
401 certification review. The most commonly cited reason, however, is that water
quality personnel have a specialized understanding of the requirements and
implementation of the State's water quality standards and the ways in which certain
activities may interfere with their attainment
It is important, however, to keep in mind the limitations of 401 certification
when considering a comprehensive approach to protecting your wetland resources. The
primary limitation is that if 401 certification is the only tool a State has to protect
wetlands, it cannot place limits on activities which do not require a federal license or
permit. Some activities such as drainage or groundwater pumping, can have severe
impacts on the viability of wetlands, but may not require a permit or license. Ideally,
401 certification should be combined with other programs in the State offering wetlands
protection opportunities (such as coastal management and floodplain management).
For example, Alaska has integrated its 401 certification and coastal management
consistency review processes so that the provisions of each program augment the other
to provide more comprehensive protection. This approach not only strengthens
protection, it reduces duplication of State efforts and coordinates permit review for
applicants.9
IV. THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE CERTIFICATION
PROCESS
A. Wetlands Should be Specifically Designated as Surface Waters of the
States
In order to bring wetlands fully into the State water quality certification process,
a first step is to include the term "wetlands" in the State water quality standards'
definition of surface waters. EPA will be working with all States through the triennial
review process of State standards to ensure that their definitions are at least as.
comprehensive as the federal definitions for waters (see Appendix B for federal
definitions of "Waters of the U.S." and the term "wetlands").
It may seem minor, but from every standpoint, it is important to have wetlands
specifically designated as surface waters in State water quality standards. First it
precludes any arguments that somehow wetlands are not covered by water quality
standards. Second, it predisposes decision makers (from 401 certification program
managers, to the head of the agency or a water quality board, all the way to the judges
10
-------
on the courts that may review these decisions) to consider the importance of wetlands
as part of the aquatic ecosystem. Third, it makes it clear that wetlands are to be
treated as waters in and of themselves for purposes of compliance with water quality
standards and not just as they relate to other surface waters.
The third point is critical and bears further explanation. When States include
wetlands in the definition of surface waters covered by their water quality standards,
they clarify that activities in or affecting wetlands are subject to the same analysis in the
certification decision as are projects affecting lakes, rivers, or streams. This is not to
say that a wetland project's effects on adjacent or downstream waters are not also part
of the water quality certification analysis. Rather, it is to say that wetlands, either
adjacent to or isolated from other waters, are waterbodies in and of themselves and an
applicant for water quality certification must show that a proposed project will not
violate water quality standards in those wetlands, as well as in other waters.
The States currently have a variety of definitions of "waters of the State" in the
legislation that enables water quality standards (e.g., multi-media environmental
protection acts, water quality acts, and the like). Only three States currently have the
term "wetlands" explicitly listed as one of the types of waters in this enabling legislation
(Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia). These States need only to repeat that
definition in their water quality standards and their 401 certification implementing
regulations.
While most States do not have the term "wetlands" in their enabling legislation,
many use the term "marshes" in a list of different types of waters to illustrate "waters of
the State" in their enabling legislation. Kentucky, for example, defines waters of the
State as:
. . . any and all rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs,
springs, wells, marshes, and all other bodies of surface or underground water,
natural or artificial, situated wholly or partly within or bordering upon the
Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction.10
When used in this way, the term "marshes" is typically understood to be generic
in nature rather than being descriptive of a type of wetland, and can therefore be
considered as the equivalent of the term "wetlands". In these States, however, in order
to ensure that the term "marshes" is interpreted as the equivalent of wetlands, the best
approach is to include the term "wetlands" in the definition of surface waters used in
the State's water quality standards and in the 401 certification implementing regulations.
There is another group of States that has neither the term "wetlands" or
"marshes" in the enabling legislation's definition of waters of the State. These
definitions typically contain language that describes in some generic manner, however,
11
-------
all waters that exist in the State. They may not specifically designate any particular
type of water body, as, for instance, Tennessee's Water Quality Control Act:
. . . any and all water, public or private, on or beneath the surface of the
ground, which [is] contained within, flow[s] through, or border[s] upon
Tennessee or any portion thereof... J1
Or they may specify some types of surface waters and then generically include all
others with a clause such as "and all other water bodies" or "without limitation", as does
Massachusetts:
All waters within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, including without
limitation, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, springs, impoundments, estuaries, and
coastal waters and groundwaters.12
In these States, as in the States with "marshes" in the enabling legislation's
definition of waters, regulators should clarify that wetlands are part of the surface
waters of the State subject to the States' water quality standards by including that term,
and any others they deem appropriate, in a definition of surface waters in their water
quality standards and in their 401 certification implementing regulations.
Both Kentucky and Ohio, for instance, which have the term "marshes," but not
the term "wetlands" in their enabling legislation, have included the term "wetlands" in
their surface water quality standards' definition of waters.13 Massachusetts, which does
not have the term "wetlands" or "marshes" in its enabling legislation, has put the term
"wetlands" into its water quality standards also.14 Additionally, Ohio's 401 certification
implementing regulations include the term "wetlands" in the definition of waters covered
by those regulations and specifically address activities affecting the integrity of
wetlands.13
B. Genera] Requirements of EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulations.16
When the States review their water quality standards for applicability to projects
affecting wetlands, it is important to have in mind the basic concepts and requirements
of water quality standards generally. Congress has given the States broad authority to
adopt water quality standards, directing only that the States designate water uses that
protect the public health and welfare and that take into account use of State waters for
drinking water, the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, and agricultural,
industrial and other purposes.
12
-------
EPA's water quality standards regulations require States to adopt water quality
standards which have three basic components: use designations, criteria to protect
those uses, and an antidegradation policy.
EPA directs that, where attainable, designated uses must include, at a minimum,
uses necessary to protect the goals of the CWA for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the waters. This
baseline is commonly referred to as the "fishable/swimmable" designation. If the State
does not designate these minimum uses, or wishes to remove such a designated use, it
must justify it through a use attainability analysis based on at least one of six factors.17
In no event, however, may a beneficial existing use (any use which is actually attained
in the water body on or after November 28, 1975) be removed from a water body or
segment
Criteria, either pollutant-specific numerical criteria or narrative criteria, must
protect the designated and existing uses. Many of the existing numeric criteria are not
specifically adapted to the characteristics of wetlands (see last section of handbook for
steps in this direction). However, almost all States have some form of the narrative
standards (commonly known as the "free froms") which say that all waters shall be free
from substances that: settle to form objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum, oil or
other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity,
injure, or are toxic,or produce adverse physiological responses in humans, animals, or
plants; or produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life. States have also used other
narrative criteria to protect wetland quality. The use of criteria to protect wetlands is
discussed in the following section.
In addition, EPA also requires that all States adopt an antidegradation policy.
Several States have used their antidegradation policy effectively to protect the quality of
their wetland resources. At a minimum, a State's antidegradation policy must be
consistent with the following provisions:
(1)	Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses in
all segments of a water body must be maintained;
(2)	if the quality of the water is higher than that necessary to support propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, that quality
shall be maintained and protected, unless the State finds that lowering the water
quality is justified by overriding economic or social needs determined after full
public involvement In no event, however, may water quality fall below that
necessary to protect the existing beneficial uses;
(3)	if the waters have been designated as outstanding resource waters (ORWs) no
degradation (except temporary) of water quality is allowed.
13
-------
In the case of wetland fills, however, EPA allows a slightly different
interpretation of the antidegradation policy.18 Because on the federal level, the
Congress has anticipated the issuance of at least some permits by virtue of Section 404,
it is EPA's policy that, except in the case of ORWs, the "existing use" requirements of
the antidegradation policy are met if the wetland fill does not cause or contribute to
"significant degradation" of the aquatic environment as defined by Section 230.10(c) of
the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.19
These Guidelines lay a substantial foundation for protecting wetlands and other
special aquatic sixes from degradation or destruction. The purpose section of the
Guidelines states that:
.. from a national perspective, the degradation or destruction of special aquatic sites,
snch as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe
environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines. The guiding principal should be
that degradation or destruction of special sites may represent an irreversible loss of
valuable aquatic resources."20
The Guidelines also state that the following effects contribute to significant
degradation, either individually or collectively:
.. significant adverse effects on (1) human health or welfare, including effects on
municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites
(e.g^ wetlands); (2) on the life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration or spread of pollutants or
their byproducts beyond the site through biological, physical, or chemical process; (3)
on ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, including loss of fish and wildlife
habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to assimilate nutrients, purity water or
reduce wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values."21
The Guidelines may be used by the States to determine "significant degradation"
for wetland fills. Of course, the States are free to adopt stricter requirements for
wetland fills in their own antidegradation policies, just as they may adopt more stringent
requirements than federal law requires for their water quality standards in general.
C Applying Water Quality Standards Regulations to Wetlands - What States
are Doing Now
Some States have taken the lead in using 401 certification as a wetlands
protection tool to protect them for their water quality and other irreplaceable functions,
such as storage places for flood waters, erosion control, foodchain support and habitat
14
-------
for a wide variety of plants and animals. These States have taken several different
approaches to wetlands protection in their water quality certification process.
1. Using Narrative Criteria
States have applied a variety of narrative criteria to projects in or affecting
wetlands in the 401 certification determination. For example, Maryland's water quality
standards contain a narrative directive, which the agency relied upon to deny
certification for a non-tidal wetland fill. The standard provides that "[a]ll waters of this
State shall be protected for the basic uses of water contact recreation, fish, other
aquatic life, wildlife, and water supply."22 In its denial, Maryland stated:
Storm waters are relieved of much of their sediment bads via overbanking
into the adjacent wetland and a resultant decrease in nutrient and sediment
loading to downstream receiving waters is occurring. To permit the fill of this
area would eliminate these benefits and in the future, would leave the
waterway susceptible to adverse increased volumes of storm waters and their
associated pollutants. It is our determination that [a specified waterway] . . .
requires protection of these wetland areas to assure that the waters of this
State are protected for the basic uses of fish, other aquatic life, wildlife and
water supply.
Because wetlands vary tremendously in background levels of certain parameters
measured by the traditional numerical/chemical criteria applied to surface waters, some
States have relied on "natural water quality" criteria to protect wetlands in the 401
certification process. Minnesota, for instance, has taken this approach in denying
certification for a flood control project because of the State's "primary concern . .. that
the project would likely change Little Diann Lake from an acid bog to a fresh-
circumneutral water chemistry type of wetland." The agency was concerned that
"introduction of lake water into the closed acid system of Little Diann Lake would
completely destroy the character of this natural resource." It relied on a provision of its
water quality standards allowing the State to limit the addition of pollutants according
to background levels instead of to the levels specified by criteria for that class of waters
generally. The denial letter pointed out that this rule "States that the natural
background level may be used instead of the specified water quality standards, where
reasonable justification exists for preserving the quality found in the State of nature."
According to the denial letter, because of the clear potential for impacts to the bog, the
State was invoking that particular provision.23
Tennessee has relied on broad prohibitory language in its water quality standards
to deny water quality certification for wetland fill projects and has been upheld in court.
Hollis v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Board24 was brought by a 401 certification
15
-------
applicant who proposed to place fill along the southeastern shoreline of a natural
swamp lake. The court upheld the denial of 401 certification, explaining:
Reelfoot Lake is classified for fish and aquatic life, recreation, and livestock
watering and wildlife uses. The [Water Quality] Board has established
various standards for the waters in each classification. Among other things,
these standards pertain to dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, toxic substances,
and other pollutants. The Permit Hearing Panel found the petitioner's
activity will violate the "other pollutants" standard in each classification.
Collectively, these ['other pollutants"] standards provide that other pollutants
shall not be added to the water that will be detrimental to fish or aquatic
life, to recreation, and to livestock watering and wildlife.
The court found that while there was no evidence that the project in and of
itself would "kill" Reelfoot Lake, there was evidence that the shoreline was important to
recreation because tourists visit Reelfoot to view its natural beauty and the lacustrine
wetlands function as a spawning ground for fish and produce food for both fish and
wildlife. It found that although the evidence in the record did not quantify the damage
to fish and aquatic life, recreation, and wildlife that would result from the proposed fill,
the opinion of the State's expert that the activity would be detrimental to these uses
was sufficient to uphold the denial of certification.
Kentucky has also relied on narrative criteria. It denied an application to place
spoil from underground mine construction in a wetland area because wetlands are
protected from pollution as "Waters of the Commonwealth" and because placing spoil
or any fill material (pollutants under KRS 224:005(28)) in a wetland specifically violated
at least two water quality criteria. One of Kentucky's criteria, applicable to all surface
waters, provides that the waters "shall not be aesthetically or otherwise degraded by
substances that. . . [ijnjure, [are] toxic to or produce adverse physiological or behavioral
responses in humans, animals, fish and other aquatic life."
The other criterion, applicable to warm water aquatic habitat, provides that
"[f]low shall not be altered to a degree which will adversely affect the aquatic
community"25 This second criterion which addresses hydrological changes is a
particularly important but often overlooked component to include in water quality
standards to help maintain wetland quality. Changes in flow can severely alter the
plant and animal species composition of a wetland, and destroy the entire wetland
system if the change is great enough.
Ohio has adopted 401 certification regulations applicable to wetlands (and other
waters) that, together with internal review guidelines, result in an approach to the 401
certification decision similar to that of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Its 401 certification
regulations first direct that no certification may be issued unless the applicant has
16
-------
demonstrated that activities permitted by Section 404 or by Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act (RHA) will not:
(1)	prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water
quality standards;
(2)	result in a violation of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 or 307 of the CWA;
additionally, the agency may deny a request notwithstanding the applicant's
demonstration of the above if it concludes that the activity "will result in adverse
long or short term impacts on water quality."26
Ohio has placed all of its wetlands as a class in the category of "State resource
waters." For these waters, Ohio has proposed amendments to its standards to say that
"[p]resent ambient water quality and uses shall be maintained and protected without
exception." 27 The proposed standards also require that point source discharges to
State resource waters be regulated according to Ohio's biological criteria for aquatic
life.
However, Ohio has not yet developed biological indices specifically for wetlands.
Thus, for projects affecting wetlands, it bases its certification decisions on internal
review guidelines that are similar to the federal Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Ohio's
guidelines are structured by type of activity. For instance, for fills, their requirements
are as follows:
(a)	if the project is not water dependent, certification is denied;
(b)	if the project is water dependent, certification is denied if there is a viable
alternative (e.g., available upland nearby is viable alternative);
(c)	if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to wetland cannot be made acceptable
through conditions on certification (e.g., fish movement criteria, creation of
floodways to bypass oxbows, flow through criteria), certification is denied.
Ohio's internal review guidelines also call for (1) an historical overview and ecological
evaluation of the site (including biota inventory and existing bioaccumulation studies);
(2) a sediment physical characterization (to predict contaminant levels) and (3) a
sediment analysis.28
Using these guidelines, Ohio frequently conditions or denies certification for
projects that eliminate wetland uses. For instance, Ohio has issued a proposed denial
of an application to fill a three acre wetland area adjacent to Lake Erie for a
17
-------
recreational and picnic area for a lakefront marina based on its classification of
wetlands as "State resource waters:11
Wetlands serve a vital ecological Junction including food chain production, provision
of spawning, nursery and resting habitats for various aquatic species, natural
filtration of surface water runoff, ground water recharge, and erosion and flood
abatement The OA.C. Section 3745-l-05(C) includes wetlands [in the] State
Resource Waters category and allows no further water quality degradation which
would interfere with or become injurious to the existing uses. The addition of fill
material to the wetland would cause severe adverse effects to the wetland. This fill
would eliminate valuable wetland habitat, thereby degrading the existing use.
The justification for this denial, according to Ohio program managers, was not
only that the project would interfere with existing uses, but in addition, the project was
not water dependent as called for in Ohio's internal guidelines. Ohio 401 certification
program personnel note that these review guidelines present the general approach to
certification, but with regard to projects that are determined to be of public necessity,
this approach may give way to other public interest concerns. For example, a highway
is not water dependent per se; if, however, safety and financial considerations point to a
certain route that necessitates filling wetlands, the agency may allow it In that event,
however, mitigation by wetland creation and/or restoration would be sought by the
agency as a condition of certification.
2. Highest Tier of Protection: Wetlands as Outstanding Resource
Waters
One extremely promising approach taken by some of the States has been to
designate wetlands as outstanding resource waters (ORW), in which water quality must
be maintained and protected according to EPA's regulations on antidegradation (i.en no
degradation for any purposes is allowed, except for short term changes which have no
long term consequences).29 This approach provides wetlands with significant protection
if the States' antidegradation policies are at least as protective as that of EPA. EPA
designed this classification not only for the highest quality waters, but also for water
bodies which are "important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but whose water quality
as measured by the traditional parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, etc.) may not be
particularly high or whose character cannot be adequately described by these
parameters."30 This description is particularly apt for many wetland systems.
The designation of wetlands as outstanding resource waters has occurred in
different ways in different States. Minnesota, for instance, has designated some of its
rare, calcareous fens as ORWs and intends to deny fills in these fens.
18
-------
Ohio has issued for comment, proposed revised water quality standards that
include a newly created "outstanding State resource waters" category. Ohio intends- to
prohibit all point source discharges to these waters. Of fourteen specific water bodies
proposed to be included in this category by the Ohio EPA at this time, ten are
wetlands: four fens; three bogs; and three marshes.
Because the designation of wetlands as ORWs is such an appropriate
classification for many wetland systems, it would behoove the States to adopt
regulations which maximize the ability of State agencies and citizens to have wetlands
and other waters placed in this category. The State of Kentucky has set out
procedures for the designation of these waters in its water quality standards. Certain
categories of waters automatically included as ORWs are: waters designated under the
Kentucky Wild Rivers Act or the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; waters within a
formally dedicated nature preserve or published in the registry of natural areas and
concurred upon by the cabinet; and waters that support federally recognized
endangered or threatened species. In addition, Kentucky's water quality standards
include a provision allowing anyone to propose waters for the ORW classification.31
Minnesota has a section in its water quality standards that could be called an
"emergency" provision for the designation of outstanding resource waters. Normally it
is necessary under Minnesota's water quality standards for the agency to provide an
opportunity for a hearing before identifying and establishing outstanding resource waters
and before prohibiting or restricting any discharges to those waters. The "emergency"
provision allows the agency to prohibit new or expanded discharges for unlisted waters
"to the extent... necessary to preserve the existing high quality, or to preserve the
wilderness, scientific, recreational, or other special characteristics that make the water an
outstanding resource value water."32 This provision allows the agency to protect the
waterbody while completing the listing process which could take several years.
Moreover, some States have improved on the formulation of the ORW
classification by spelling out the protection provided by that designation more
specifically than do EPA's regulations. For instance, Massachusetts' water quality
standards state that for "National Resource Waters:"
Waters so designated may not be degraded and are not subject to a variance
procedure. New discharges of pollutants to such waters are prohibited.
Existing discharges shall be eliminated unless the discharger is able to
demonstrate that: (a) Alternative means of disposal are not reasonably
available or feasible; and (b) The discharge will not affect the quality of the
water as a national resource.33
19
-------
This provision explicitly outlines how the State intends to maintain and protect the
water quality of ORWs. Another provision which Minnesota uses to control discharges
to waters that flow into ORWs for their effect on ORWs is that:
The agency shall require new or expanded discharges that flow into
outstanding resource value waters [to] be controlled so as to assure no
deterioration in the quality of the downstream outstanding resource value
water.34
V. USING 401 CERTIFICATION
A. The Permits/Licenses Covered and the Scope of Review
The language of Section 401(a)(1) is written very broadly with respect to the
activities it covers. n[A]ny activity, including, but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which mav result in anv discharge" requires water quality
certification.
When the Congress first enacted the water quality certification provision in 1970,
it spoke of the "wide variety of licenses and permits ... issued by various Federal
agencies," which "involve activities or operations potentially affecting water quality."33
The purpose of the water quality certification requirement, the Congress said, was to
ensure that no license or permit would be issued "for an activity that through
inadequate planning or otherwise could in fact become a source of pollution."36
L Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to Certification
The first consideration is which federal permits or licenses are subject to 401
certification. OWP has identified five federal permits and/or licenses which authorize
activities which may result in a discharge to the waters. These are: permits for point
source discharges under Section 402 and discharges of dredged and fill material under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for activities in navigable waters which
may affect navigation under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA);
and licenses required for hydroelectric projects issued under the Federal Power Act.
There are likely other federal permits and licenses, such as permits for activities
on public lands, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses, which may result in a
discharge and thus require 401 certification. Each State should work with EPA and the
federal agencies active in its State to determine whether 401 certification is in fact
applicable.
20
-------
Indeed, it is not always clear when 401 certification should apply. For instance,
there remains some confusion under Sections 9 and 10 of RHA concerning which
projects may involve or result in a discharge, and thus require State certification. In
many cases there is an overlap between Section 404 CWA and Sections 9 and 10 RHA.
Where these permits overlap, 401 certification always applies. Under the Section 404
regulations, the question of whether dredging involves a discharge and is therefore
subject to Section 404, depends on whether there is more than "de minimis, incidental
soil movement occurring during normal dredging operations".37
Where only a Section 9 or 10 permit is required, 401 certification would apply if
the activity may lead to a discharge. For example, in the case of pilings, which the
Corps sometimes considers subject to Section 10 only, a 401 certification would be
required for the Section 10 permit if structures on top of the pilings may result in a
discharge.
States should notify the regional office of federal permitting or licensing agencies
of their authority to review these permits and licenses (e.g., the Corps of Engineers for
Section 404 in nonauthorized States, and Sections 9 and 10 of the RHA; EPA for
Section 402 permits in nonauthorized States; and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) for hydropower licenses). In their 401 certification implementing
regulations, States should also give notice to applicants for these particular federal
permits and licenses, and for all other permits and licenses that may result in a
discharge to waters of the State, of their obligation to obtain 401 certification from the
State.
West Virginia's 401 certification implementing regulations, for instance, state
that:
1.1. Scope. . . . Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that any
applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity which will or
may discharge into waters of the United States (as defined in the Clean
Water Act) must present the federal authority with a certification from the
appropriate State agency. Federal permits and licenses issued by the federal
government requiring certification include permits issued by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1344 and licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C 1791 et seq.38
Because West Virginia has been authorized to administer the NPDES permitting
program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, applicants for NPDES permits do
not have to apply for water quality certification separately. In addition, West Virginia
has not specifically designated Rivers and Harbors Act permits in the above regulation.
However, because the regulation States that such permits or licenses include Section
21
-------
404 and FERC licenses, those and all other permits not specifically designated but
which may result in a discharge to the waters would be covered by the regulation's .
language. The better approach would be to enumerate all such licenses and permits
that are known to the State and include a phrase for all others generically.
2. Scope of Review Under Section 401
An additional issue is the scope of the States' review under Section 401.
Congress intended for the States to use the water quality certification process to ensure
that no federal license or permits would be issued that would violate State standards or
become a source of pollution in the future. Also, because the States' certification of a
construction permit or license also operates as certification for an operating permit
(except for in certain instances specified in Section 401(a)(3)), it is imperative for a
State review to consider all potential water quality impacts of the project, both direct
and indirect, over the life of the project
A second component of the scope of the review is when an activity requiring 401
certification in one State (i.e. the State in which the discharge originates) will have an
impact on the water quality of another State.39 The statute provides that after receiving
notice of application from a federal permitting or licensing agency, EPA will notify any
States whose water quality may be affected. Such States have the right to submit their
objections and request a hearing. EPA may also submit its evaluation and
recommendations. If the use of conditions cannot insure compliance with the affected
State's water quality requirements, the federal permitting or licensing agency shall not
issue such permit or license.
The following example of 401 certification denial by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) for a proposed FERC hydroelectric
project illustrates the breadth of the scope of review under Section 401 (see Appendix
C for full description of project and impacts addressed). The City of Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania proposed to construct a hydroelectric power project on the Susquehanna
River. The Pennsylvania DER considered a full range of potential impacts on the
aquatic system in its review. The impacts included those on State waters located at the
dam site, as well as those downstream and upstream from the site. The impacts
considered were not just from the discharge initiating the certification review, but water
quality impacts from the entire project Thus, potential impacts such as flooding,
changes in dissolved oxygen, loss of wetlands, and changes in groundwater, both from
construction and future operation of the project, were all considered in the State's
decision.
The concerns expressed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources are not necessarily all those that a State should consider in a dam
22
-------
certification review; each project will have its own specific impacts and potential water
quality problems. The point of the illustration is to show that all of the potential
effects of a proposed activity on water quality - direct and indirect, short and long
term, upstream and downstream, construction and operation - should be part of a
State's certification review.
B. Conditioning 401 Certifications for Wetland Protection
In 401(d), the Congress has given the States the authority to place any conditions
on a water quality certification that are necessary to assure that the applicant will
comply with effluent limitations, water quality standards, standards of performance or
pretreatment standards; with any State law provisions or regulations more stringent than
those sections; and with "any other appropriate requirement of State law."
The legislative history of the subsection indicates that the Congress meant for the
States to impose whatever conditions on the certification are necessary to ensure that
an applicant complies with all State requirements that are related to water quality
concerns.
1. What are Appropriate Conditions?
There are any number of possible conditions that could be placed on a
certification that have as their purpose preventing water quality deterioration.
By way of example, the State of Maryland issued a certification with conditions
for placement of fill to construct a 35-foot earthen dam located 200 feet downstream of
an existing dam. Maryland used some general conditions applicable to many of the
proposed projects it considers, along with specific conditions tailored to the proposed
project. Examples of the conditions placed on this particular certification include:
The applicant shall obtain and certify compliance with a grading and sediment
control plan which has been approved by the [countyJ Soil Conservation District.
The approved plan shall be available at the project site during all phases of
construction.
Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces shall be controlled to prevent the
washing of debris into the waterway. The natural vegetation shall be maintained
and restored when disturbed or eroded. Stormwater drainage facilities shall be
designed, implemented, operated, and maintained in accordance with the
requirements of the applicable approving authority.
23
-------
The applicant is required to provide a mixing tower release structure to achieve in-
stream compliance with Class III trout temperature (20[degrees] C) and dissolved
oxygen (5.0 mg/liter) standards prior to the Piney Run/Church Creek confluence.
The design of this structure shall be approved by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE).
The applicant is required to provide a watershed management plan to minimize
pollutant loadings into the reservoir. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by
MDE prior to operation of the new dam facility. In conjunction with this plan's
development any sources of pollutant loading identified during field surveys shaU be
eliminated or minimized to the extent possible given available technology.
The applicant is required to provide to MDE an operating and maintenance plan for
the dam assuring minimum downstream flows in accordance with the requirements
of the DNR and assuring removal of accumulated sediments with subsequent
approved disposal of the materials removed
The applicant is to provide mitigation for the wetlands lost as a result of the
construction of this project and its subsequent operation. Wetland recreation should
be located in the newly created headwaters areas to: a) assure adequate filtration of
runoff prior to its entry into the reservoir and b) replace the aquatic resource being
lost on an acre for acre basis.
See Appendix D for the full list of conditions placed on this certification. While
few of these conditions are based directly on traditional water quality standards, all are
valid and relate to the maintenance of water quality or the designated use of the waters
in some way. Some of the conditions are clearly requirements of State or local law
related to water quality other than those promulgated pursuant to the CWA sections
enumerated in Section 401(a)(1). Other conditions were designed to minimi™ the
project's adverse effects on water quality over the life of the project.
In addition, Appendix D contains a list of conditions which West Virginia and
Alaska placed on the certification of some Section 404 nationwide permits. Many of
the West Virginia conditions are typical of ones it uses on individual proposals as well.
For any particular project, West Virginia will include more specific conditions designed
to address the potential adverse effects of the project in addition to those enumerated
in Appendix D. The conditions from Alaska are used on a nationwide permit (#26)
regarding isolated waters and waters above headwaters. These conditions are discussed
in Section V. C(l).
24
-------
2. The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification
Many States are trying to determine the role that mitigation should play in 40l
certification decisions. We cannot answer this question definitively for each State, but
offer as a guide EPA's general framework for mitigation under the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines used to evaluate applications for Section 404 permits. In assuring
compliance of a project with the Guidelines, EPA's approach is to first, consider
avoidance of adverse impacts, next, determine ways to minimize the impacts, and
Anally, require appropriate and practicable compensation for unavoidable impacts.
The Guidelines provide for avoiding adverse impacts by selecting the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In addition, wetlands are "special
aquatic sites." For such sites, if the proposed activity is not "water dependent,"
practicable alternatives with less adverse environmental impacts are presumed to be
available unless the applicant clearly demonstrates otherwise.40
The Guidelines also require an applicant to take "appropriate and practicable"
steps to minimize the impacts of the least environmentally damaging alternative
selected.41 Examples in the Guidelines for minimizing impacts through project
modifications and best management practices are provided in Appendix E.
After these two steps are' complete, appropriate compensation is required for the
remaining unavoidable adverse impacts. Compensation would consist of restoration of
previously altered wetlands or creation of wetlands from upland sites. In most cases,
compensation on or adjacent to the project site is preferred over off-site locations. The
restoration or creation should be functionally equivalent to the values which are lost
Finally, compensating with the same type of wetland lost is preferred to using another
wetland type.
The States may choose to adopt mitigation policies which require additional
replacement to help account for the uncertainty in the science of wetland, creation and
restoration. What is important from EPA's perspective is that mitigation not be used as
a trade-off for avoidable losses of wetlands, and that mitigation compensate, to the
fullest extent possible, for the functional values provided to the local ecosystem by the
wetlands unavoidably lost by the project
3. The Role of Other State Laws
Another question that has been asked is what State law or other requirements
are appropriately used to condition a 401 certification. The legislative history of
Section 401(d) indicates that Congress meant for the States to condition certifications
on compliance with any State and local law requirements related to water quality
25
-------
preservation. The courts that have touched on the issue have also indicated that
conditions that relate in any way to water quality maintenance are appropriate. Each
State will have to make these determinations for itself, of course; there are any number
of State and local programs that have components related to water quality preservation
and enhancement.
One issue that has arisen in two court cases is whether a State may use State
law requirements, other than those that are more stringent than the provisions of
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the CWA(401 (a)(1)), to deny water quality
certification. An Oregon State court has ruled that a State may, and indeed must,
include conditions on certifications reflecting State law requirements "to the extent that
they have any relationship to water quality." "Only to the extent that [a State law
requirement] has absolutely no relationship to water quality," the court said, "would it
not be an 'other appropriate requirement of State law.**42 State agencies must act in
accord with State law, of course, and thus the decision to grant certification carries with
it the obligation to condition certification to ensure compliance with such State
requirements.
This State court decision struck down a State agency's denial of certification
because it was based on the applicant's failure to certify compliance with a county's
comprehensive plan and land use ordinances. The court held that such "other
appropriate requirements] of State law" could not be the basis for denying certification.
However, the court held that the agency should determine which of the provisions of
the land use ordinances had any relation to the maintenance and preservation of water
quality. Any such provisions, the court said, could and should be the basis for
conditions placed on a certification.
Another State court, however, this one in West Virginia, has upheld the State's
denial of certification on the basis of State law requirements unrelated to the
implementation of the CWA provisions enumerated in Section 401(a)(1).43 The court
simply issued an order upholding the State's denial, however, and did not write an
opinion on the subject The questions raised by these two opinions are thorny. If
States may not deny certification based on State law requirements other than those
implementing the CWA, yet want to address related requirements of State law, they
must walk a thin line between their State requirements and the limitations of their
certification authority under federal law.
One way to avoid these difficulties and to ensure that 401 certification may
properly be used to deny certification where the State has determined that the activity
cannot be conditioned in such a way as to ensure compliance with State water quality
related requirements, is to adopt water quality standards that include all State
provisions related to water quality preservation. Congress has given the States great
latitude to adopt water quality standards that take into consideration the waters' use for
26
-------
such things as "the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and . . . other
purposes."44 Because of the broad authority granted by the Congress to the States to
adopt water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the CWA, and because
compliance with Section 303 is clearly one of the bases on which a State can deny
certification, the States can avoid the difficulty of the deny/condition dilemma by
adopting water standards that include all the water quality related considerations it
wishes to include in the 401 certification review.
For example, the State of Washington has included State water right permit flow
requirements in its conditions for certification of a dam project This is one means of
helping to ensure that hydrologica] changes do not adversely affect the quality of a
waterbody. However, a more direct approach is to include a narrative criterion in the
State's water quality standards that requires maintenance of base flow necessary to
protect the wetland's (or other waterbody's) living resources. The State of Kentucky has
such a criterion in its water quality standards (see previous section IV. D(l) on 'XJsing
Narrative Criteria"). Placing the provision directly in the State standards might better
serve the State if a certification is challenged because the requirement would be an
explicit consideration of 401 certification.
C. Special Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits: Nationwide and
After-the-Fact Permits
L Nationwide Permits.
Pursuant to Section 404(e) of the CWA, the Corps may issue general permits,
after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, on a State, regional or
nationwide basis for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged or fill
material, where such activities are similar in nature and will cause only minimal adverse
environmental effects both individually and cumulatively. These permits may remain in
effect for 5 years, after which they must be reissued with notice and an opportunity for
a hearing. If the activities authorized by general permits may result in a discharge, the
permits are subject to the State water quality certification requirement when they are
first proposed and when proposed for reissuance. States may either grant certification
with appropriate conditions or deny certification of these permits.
Under the Corps' regulations, if a State has denied certification of any particular
general permit, any person proposing to do work pursuant to such a permit must first
obtain State water quality certification. If a State has conditioned the grant of
certification upon some requirement of State review prior to the activity's commencing,
such condition^] must be satisfied before work can begin.
27
-------
Some States have reported that for general permits for which they have denied
water quality certification or on which they have imposed some condition of review,,
they are having difficulties ensuring that parties performing activities pursuant to these
permits are applying to the State for water quality certification or otherwise fulfilling
the conditions placed on the certification prior to the commencement of work under
these permits.
At least one State is grappling with the problem through its 401 certification
implementing regulations. The State of West Virginia denied certification for some
nationwide permits issued by the Corps and conditioned the granting of certification for
others. One of the conditions that West Virginia has imposed on those certifications
that it granted (which thus apply to all nationwide permits in the State) is compliance
with its 401 certification implementing regulations. The regulations in turn require that
any person authorized to conduct an activity under a nationwide permit must, prior to
conducting any activity authorized by a Corps general permit, publish a Class I legal
advertisement in a qualified newspaper in the county where the activity is proposed to
take place. The notice must describe the activity, advise the public of the scope of the
conditionally granted certification, the public's right to comment on the proposed
activity and its right to request a hearing. The applicant must forward a certificate of
publication of this notice to the State agency prior to conducting any such activity.45
The regulation further provides that any person whose property, interest in
property or "other constitutionally protected interest under [the West Virginia
Constitution] [is] directly affected by the Department's certification" may request a
hearing within 15 days of the publication of the notice given by the applicant The
agency will then decide whether to "uphold, modify or withdraw certification for the
individual activity.11
West Virginia program officers have described the reasons for this procedure:
Because of a long-standing concern . . . that untracked dredge and fill
activities could prove disastrous on both individual and cumulative bases, the
regulations require an authorized permittee [under federal law] to forward
proof of publication and a copy of the newspaper advertisement. The
information on the notice is logged into a computer system and a site specific
inspection sheet is generated. Inspectors then may visit the site to determine
compliance with permit conditions and to evaluate cumulative impacts.46
Without such notice and a tracking system of activities performed under these
permits, such as that adopted by West Virginia, it will be difficult for a State to
evaluate whether or not to grant or deny water quality certification for these permits
when they come up for reissuance by the Corps or to condition them in such a way as
to avoid adverse impacts peculiar to each of these general permits. It is advisable for
28
-------
the States, regardless of whether they have granted or denied certification, to adopt as
part of their 401 certification implementing regulations, provisions addressing these
concerns for general permits.
Another way in which some States are attempting to minimize the potential
environmental impact of nationwide permits is by stringently conditioning their
certification. Alaska, for instance, placed conditions on nationwide permit 26 regarding
isolated waters and waters above the headwaters. One of the conditions Alaska used
excludes isolated or headwater wetlands of known or suspected high value. When there
is uncertainty about a particular wetland, the Corps is required to send pre-discharge
notification to designated State officials for a determination. (See Appendix D for a
full description of conditions on nationwide permit 26).
2. Section 404 After-the-Fact Permits
The Corps of Engineers' regulations implementing Section 404 provide for the
acceptance of after-the-fact permit applications for unauthorized discharges except
under certain circumstances. Several States have expressed concern with after-the-fact
permits, including the belief that once the discharges have taken place, the water
quality certification process is moot Because of that belief, many States report that
they waive certification for after-the-fact permits. Such an approach frustrates law
enforcement efforts generally and the water quality certification process in particular
because it encourages illegal activity.
The evaluation of after-the-fact permit applications should be no different than
for normal applications. Because the burden should be on the applicant to show
compliance with water quality standards and other CWA requirements, rather than
waiving certification, States could deny certification if the applicant cannot show from
baseline data prior to its activity that the activity did not violate water quality standards.
If data exist to determine compliance with water quality standards, the States' analysis
should be no different merely because the work has already been partially performed or
completed. Arkansas denied after-the-fact water quality certification of a wetland fill as
follows:
[a certain slough] is currently classified as a warmwater fishery ....
Draining and clearing of fits associated] wetlands will significantly alter the
existing use by drastically reducing or eliminating the fishery habitat and
spawning areas. This physical alteration of the lake will prevent it from being
"water which is suitable for the propagation of indigenous warmwater species
of fish" which is the definition of a warmwater fishery. Thus, the .. . project
[violates] Section 3 (A) of the Arkansas Water Quality Standards, "Existing
instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the
29
-------
existing uses shall be maintained and protected." The Department
recommends the area be restored to as near original contours as possible.
With after-the-fact permits, just as with any other permit application, if the State
denies certification, the Corps is prohibited from granting a permit. If the applicant
refuses to restore the area and does not have a permit, the applicant is subject to a
potential enforcement action for restoration and substantial penalties for the
unpermitted discharge of pollutants by the EPA, the Corps, a citizen under the citizen
suit provision of the CWA, or by the State, if the activity violates a prohibition of State
law.
If the State determines that it will get a better environmental result by
conditioning certification, it may choose to take that approach. The condition might
require mitigation for the filled area (where restoration may cause more environmental
harm than benefit, for instance) with restoration or creation of a potentially more
valuable wetland area.
In any event, a State should not waive certification of an after-the-fact permit
application simply because it is after-the-fact
VL DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS:
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A comprehensive set of 401 certification implementing regulations would have
both procedural and substantive provisions which maTrimiw the State agency's control
over the process and which make its decisions defensible in court The very fact of
having 401 certification regulations goes a long way in providing the State agency that
implements 401 certification with credibility in the courts. Currently, no State has "ideal"
401 certification implementing regulations, and many do not have them at all. When
401 certification regulations are carefully considered, they can be very effective not only
in conserving the quality of the State's waters, but in providing the regulated sectors
with some predictability of State actions, and in minimizing the State's financial and
human resource requirements as well.
Everything in this handbook relates in some way to the development of sound
water quality standards and 401 certification implementing regulations that will enhance
wetland protection. This section addresses some very basic procedural considerations of
401 certification implementing regulations which have not been treated elsewhere.
These include provisions concerning the contents of an application for certification; the
agency's timeframe for review, and the requirements placed on the applicant in the
certification process.
30
-------
A. Review Timeframe and "Complete" Applications
Under Section 401(a)(1) a State will be deemed to have waived certification if it
fails to act within "a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after
receipt of such request." Program managers should keep in mind that the federal
permitting or license agency may have regulations of its own which provide a time limit
for the State's certification decision. For instance, Corps regulations say that a waiver
"will be deemed to occur if the certifying agency fails or refuses to act on a request for
certification within sixty days after receipt. . . unless the district engineer determines a
shorter or longer period is reasonable . . . ."47 FERC rules state that a certifying
agency "is deemed to have waived the certification requirements if . . . [it] has not
denied or granted certification by one year after the date the certifying agency received
the request".48 EPA regulations for Section 402 in non-authorized States set a limit of
60 days unless the Regional Administrator finds that unusual circumstances require a
longer time.49
States should coordinate closely with the appropriate federal agency on timing
issues. For example, Alaska negotiated joint EPA/State procedures for coastal NPDES
permit review. The agreement takes into account and coordinates EPA, Coastal Zone
Management, and 401 certification time frames.
It is also advisable for the States to adopt rules which reasonably protect against
an unintended waiver due, for example, to insufficient information to make a
certification decision or because project plans have changed enough to warrant a
reevaluation of the impacts on water quality. Thus, after taking the federal agencies'
regulations into account, the State's 401 certification regulations should link the timing
for review to what is considered receipt of a complete application.
Wisconsin, for instance, requires the applicant to submit a complete application
for certification before the official agency review time begins. The State's regulations
define the major components of a complete application, including the existing physical
environment at the site, the size of the area affected, all environmental impact
assessment information provided to the licensing or permitting agency, and the like.
The rules State that the agency will review the application for completeness within 30
days of its receipt and notify the applicant of any additional materials reasonably
necessary for review. Although the application will be deemed "complete" for purposes
of review time if the agency does not request additional materials within 40 days of
receipt of the application, the agency reserves the right to request additional
information during the review process.50
31
-------
In the case of FERC projects, West Virginia has taken additional precautions
with regard to time for review:
If the project application is altered or modified during the FERC licensing
process prior to FERC's final decision, the applicant shall inform the
Department of such changes. The Department may review such alterations or
modifications and, if the changes are deemed significant by the Director, the
Department may require a new application for certification. The Department
will have ninety (90) days to review such changes or until the end of the year
review period. . ., whichever is longer, to determine whether to require a
new application or to alter its original certification decision. If the
department requires a new application because of a significant application
modification, then the Department will have six (6) months to issue its
certification decision from the date of submission of the application.51
B. Requirements for the Applicant
It is very important, in particular for conserving the agency's resources and
ensuring that there is sufficient information to determine that water quality standards
and other provisions of the CWA will not be violated by the activity, to clarify that it is
the applicant who is responsible for providing or proving particular facts or
requirements.
For instance, Section 401(a)(1) requires that a State "establish procedures for
public notice in the case of all applications for certification." West Virginia requires
applicants for FERC licenses to be responsible for this notice. In the case of Section
404 permits, West Virginia has a joint notice process with the Corps to issue public
notices for 404 applications which also notify the public of the State certification
process. Thus, there is no need for West Virginia to require the applicant to do so for
these permits.52
A second consideration is that States should require the applicant to demonstrate
the project's compliance with applicable federal and State law and regulation. EPA's
401 certification regulations name the sources of information a State should use.as that
contained in the application and other information "furnished by the applicant"
sufficient to allow the agency to make a statement that water quality standards will not
be violated.53 Of course in addition, the regulations also refer to other information the
agency may choose to examine which is not furnished by the applicant
32
-------
Ohio, for instance, has written a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate
compliance into its 401 certification implementing regulations:
(A)	The director shall not issue a Section 401 water quality certification
unless he determines that the applicant has demonstrated that the discharge
of dredged or fill material to waters of the state or the creation of any
obstruction or alteration in waters of the state willf4 (1) Not prevent or
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality
standards; (2) Not result in a violation of any applicable provision of the
following sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [301, 302, 303,
306 and 307].
(B)	Notwithstanding an applicant's demonstration of the criteria in paragraph
(A) .. . the director may deny an application for a Section 401 water quality
certification if the director concludes that the discharge of dredged or fill
material or obstructions or alterations in waters of the state will result in
adverse long or short term impact on water quality.55
C Permit Fees
A very significant concern for all States who plan to initiate or expand their 401
certification program is the availability of funding. Application fee requirements are a
potential funding source to supplement State program budgets. The State of
California's Regional Water Quality Control Boards require filing fees for 401
certification applications unless a Board determines that certification is not required.
The fee structure is spelled out in the California Water Code. The money collected
from the fees goes into the State agency's general fund. The Regional Boards may
recover some portion of the fees through the budget request process. The State of
Ohio also has a fee structure for 401 certification applicants. In Ohio, however, fees go
into the State's general fund, rather than back into the State agency. Neither State
collects fees sufficient to support the 401 certification program fully. Despite these
potential barriers, application fees could provide a much needed funding source which
States should explore.
D. Basis for Certification Decisions
The regulations should also set out the grounds on which the decision to grant or
deny certification will be based, the scope of the State's review, and the bases for
conditioning a certification. If a State has denied water quality certification for a
general permit or has conditioned such a permit on some requirement of State review,
the State's 401 certification implementing regulations might also outline the obligations
33
-------
of a person proposing to accomplish work under such a permit. The following is a
hypothetical example of regulatory language a State might use to define the grounds for
the State's decision to grant, condition, or deny certification:
In order to obtain certification of any proposed activity that may result in a
discharge to waters of the United States, an applicant must demonstrate that
the entire activity over its lifetime will not violate or interfere with the
attainment of any limitations or standards contained in Section 301, 302, 303,
306, and 307, the federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and any
provisions of state law or regulation adopted pursuant to, or which are more
stringent than, those provisions of the Gean Water Act
The agency may condition certification on any requirements consistent with
ensuring the applicant's compliance with the provisions listed above, or with
any other requirements of state law related to the maintenance, preservation,
or enhancement of water quality.
This sample regulatory language provides the grounds for the certification decision, sets
the scope of review (lifetime effects of the entire activity! and clearly States that the
applicant must demonstrate compliance. For purposes of conditioning the certification
in the event it is granted, the same standards can be applied, with the addition of any
other requirements of State law that are related to water quality.
Regulations are not project specific. They must be generally applicable to all
projects subject to 401 certification review, while at the same time providing reasonable
notice to an applicant regarding the general standards employed by the agency in the
certification process. (A State may choose to adopt license/permit-specific regulations
for 401 certification, but such regulations will still have to be applicable to all activities
that may occur pursuant to that license or permit).
There are other considerations that should be addressed in 401 certification
implementing regulations, some of which have been mentioned in other parts of this
handbook. These include provisions which require applicants for federal licenses and
permits which may result in a discharge to apply for water quality certification;
provisions which define waters of the State to include wetlands and which define other
pertinent terms; and provisions addressing general permits.
34
-------
VH. EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401
CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS
According to a number of State program managers, more data on wetland
functions, or "uses," would greatly assist the certification process. Wetland ecosystems
not only perform a wide variety of functions but do so in varying degrees. Public
agencies and private applicants currently employ a number of assessment methods such
as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique and the Habitat Evaluation Procedure to
determine what functions or uses exist in a particular wetland system.36 In many States,
however, water quality certification reviewers lack the resources to perform even a
simple assessment of a wetland's boundaries, values and functions. Information about
the location and types of wetland systems, and of the functions they may perform (such
as flood storage, habitat, pollution attenuation, nutrient uptake, and sediment fixing)
would aid standard writers in developing appropriate uses and criteria for wetlands, and
allow 401 certification officials to conduct a more thorough review.
Several States already have extensive knowledge of their wetland resources, and
data gathering efforts are also being undertaken by EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and other agencies.37 Although these efforts to inventory and classify wetlands
have not been closely tied to the 401 certification process in the past, these existing
data can be valuable sources of information for 401 certification reviewers. It is
important to remember, however, that wetland boundaries for regulatory purposes may
differ from those identified by National Wetland Inventory maps for general inventory
purposes. The EPA, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Soil
Conservation Service have adopted a joint manual for identifying and delineating
wetlands in the United States. The manual will be available in June, 1989.5*
There are several programs that offer technical support for 401 certification
decisions. For example, approximately forty States have worked with the Nature
Conservancy to establish "natural heritage programs," which identify the most critical
species, habitats, plant communities, and other natural features within a State's
territorial boundaries. Most States now have a State natural heritage office to
coordinate this identification program. Inventory efforts such as the natural heritage
program could give 401 certification managers some of the information they need to
limit or prohibit adverse water quality impacts in important wetland areas. Specifically,
the inventory process can identify existing wetland uses in order to maintain them. The
information may also be used in identifying wetlands for Outstanding Resource Waters
designation.39
The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a Wetlands Values Data Base which
may be very useful in identifying wetland functions and in designating wetland uses for
water quality standards. The data base is on computer and contains an annotated
bibliography of scientific literature on wetland functions and values.60 Several States
35
-------
have established critical area programs to identify and protect unique and highly
sensitive land and water resources. These programs can provide data to the State
water quality certification office and thereby strengthen the scientific basis for 401
certification decision making.61
Another potential source of information which might identify wetlands
appropriate for designation as Outstanding Resource Waters are the wetland plans
which each State is required to develop to comply with the 1986 Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act Beginning in fiscal year 1988, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plans (SCORP) must now contain a Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan
approved by the Department of Interior. Although these plans are primarily focused
on wetlands for acquisition, they are a potential source of data on wetland locations
and functions. The wetlands identified may also be suitable for special protection under
the Outstanding Resource Waters provisions of the antidegradation policy.
The Advance Identification program (ADID), conducted by EPA and the
permitting authority, may also furnish a considerable amount of useful information.
EPA's 404(b)(1) Guidelines contain a procedure for identifying in advance areas that
are generally suitable or unsuitable for the deposit of dredged or fill material.62 In
recent years, EPA has made greater use of this authority. AD ID is often used in
wetland areas that are experiencing significant development or other conversion
pressures. Many AD ED efforts generate substantial data on the location and functions
of wetlands within the study area such as wetland maps, and habitat, water quality, or
hydrological studies.
Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) are another planning process which
may yield useful information. SAMPs refer to a process authorized by the 1980
amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act, which provides grants
to States to develop comprehensive plans for natural resource protection and
"reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth."63 The SAMP process implicitly
recognizes the State water quality certification process, directing all relevant local, State,
and federal authorities to coordinate permit programs in carrying out the completed
SAMP. The Corps of Engineers has supported and initiated several of these processes.
In addition, other SAMPs have been completed by several States.
Much of these data can be collected, combined, and used in decision making
with the aid of geographic-based computer systems that can store, analyze, and present
data related to wetlands in graphic and written forms.64 A reviewing official can quickly
access and overlay a range of different existing information bases such as flora and
fauna inventories, soil surveys, remote sensing data, watershed and wetland maps,
existing uses and criteria, and project proposal information.
36
-------
Finally, data is presently emerging on the use of wetlands as treatment areas for
wastewater, stormwater, and non-point discharges.65 Florida, for instance, has adopted
a rule on wastewater releases into wetlands.66 Florida prohibits wastewater discharges
into the following kinds of wetlands: those designated as outstanding waters of the
State; wetlands within potable water supplies; shellfish propagation or harvesting waters;
wetlands in areas of critical State concern; wetlands where herbaceous ground cover
constitutes more than thirty percent of the uppermost stratum (unless seventy-five
percent is cattail); and others. Wastewater discharges are permitted in certain wetlands
dominated by woody vegetation, certain hydrologically altered wetlands, and artificially
created wetlands; however, the State applies special effluent limitations to take account
of a wetland's ability to assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus. It also applies qualitative67
and quantitative68 design criteria.
The rule establishes four "wetland biological quality" standards. First, the flora
and fauna of the wetland cannot be changed so as to impair the wetland's ability to
function in the propagation and maintenance of fish and wildlife populations or
substantially reduce its effectiveness in wastewater treatment Second, the Shannon-
Weaver diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrates cannot be reduced below fifty
percent of background levels. Third, fish populations must be monitored and
maintained, and an annual survey of each species must be conducted. Fourth, the
"importance value" of any dominant plant species in the canopy and subcanopy at any
monitoring station cannot be reduced by more than fifty percent, and the average
"importance value" of any dominant plant species cannot be reduced by more than
twenty-five percent69
These types of efforts, constantly being adjusted to take account of new
information in a field where knowledge is rapidly expanding, are fertile sources of
information for wetland standard writers and 401 certification decision makers.
VIIL SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED
This handbook has only scratched the surface of issues surrounding effective use
of 401 certification to protect wetlands. The preceding discussion and examples from
active States have highlighted possible approaches for all States to incorporate into their
401 certification programs. The handbook shows that there are many things that a
State can act on right away to improve the effectiveness of 401 certification to protect
the integrity of its wetlands. At the same time, there are improvements to water quality
standards for wetlands which will have to take place within a longer timeframe.
37
-------
A. Steps States Can Take Right Away
*	All states should begin by explicitly incorporating wetlands into their
definitions of state waters in both state water quality standards regulations,
and in state 401 certifications regulations.
*	States should develop or modify their regulations and guidelines for 401
certification and wafer quality standards to clarify their programs, codify
their decision process, and to incorporate special wetlands considerations into
the more traditional water qualify approaches.
*	States should make more effective use of their existing narrative water quality
standards (including the antidegradation policy) to protect wetlands.
*	States should initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their wetland
resources.
*	States should designate uses for their wetlands based on estimates of wetland
functions typically associated with given wetland types. Such potential uses
could be verified for individual applications with an assessment tool such as
the Wetlands Evaluation Technique or Habitat Evaluation Procedure.
*	States should tap into the potential of the outstanding resource waters tier of
the antidegradation policy for wetlands. It may not be an appropriate
designation for all of a state's wetlands, but it can provide excellent
protection to particularly valuable or ecologically sensitive wetlands from both
physical and chemical degradation.
*	States should incorporate wetlands and 401 certification into their other water
quality management processes. Integrating this tool with other mechanisms
such as coastal zone management programs, point and nonpoint source
programs, and water quality management plans will help fill the gaps of each
individual tool and allow better protection of wetlands systems from the
whole host of physical, chemical, and biological impacts.
Time and the courts may be needed to resolve some of the more complicated
and contentious issues surrounding 401 certification such as which federal permits and
licenses require 401 certification. EPA intends to support States in resolving such
issues.
38
-------
OWP, in cooperation with the Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(OWRS), will build on this 401 certification handbook by developing guidance in FY
89-90 on water quality standards for wetlands. The guidance will provide the
framework for States to incorporate wetlands into their water quality standards. The
guidance will: require States to include wetlands as "waters of the State;" provide
methods to designate wetland uses that recognize differences in wetland types and
functions; address some chemical-specific and narrative biological criteria for wetlands;
and discuss implementation of State antidegradation policies.
B: Laying the Groundwork for Future Decisions
Many States are successfully applying their existing narrative and, to a lesser
extent, numeric water quality criteria to their wetland resources. Nevertheless, more
work is needed to test the overall adequacy and applicability of these standards for
wetlands, and to develop additional criteria where needed.
For example, existing criteria related to pH do not account for the extreme
natural acidity of many peat bogs nor the extreme alkalinity of certain fens. Also, many
existing criteria focus too extensively on the chemical quality of the water column
without adequately protecting the other physical and biological components which are
an integral part of wetland aquatic systems. Some numeric criteria for chemicals may
not be protective enough of species (particularly bird species) which feed, breed, and/or
spend a portion of their life cycle in wetlands. Hydrological changes can have severe
impacts on wetland quality, but these changes are rarely addressed in traditional water
quality standards.
Research of interest to State programs is being sponsored by the Wetlands
Research Program of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Research
covers three areas: Cumulative Effects, Water Quality, and Mitigation. Although these
efforts will be developed over several years, interim products will be distributed to the
States. States may find these products of use when developing criteria and standards,
when identifying and designating wetlands as outstanding resource waters, and when
making 401 certification decisions.
Cumulative Effects:
EPA's research on cumulative effects of wetlands takes a regional perspective.
Through a series of regional pilot studies involving landscape analyses, ORD is
correlating water quality conditions at the outlets of major watersheds with the
percentage of wetlands in these watersheds. The types of wetlands, their position, and
39
-------
non-wetland factors are also being analyzed. The results will allow water quality
managers in these regions to specify the optimal percentage and combination of various
types of wetlands needed to maintain water quality of lakes and rivers. Such watershed
criteria could be used to guide efforts to create or restore wetlands for the purpose of
intercepting and improving the quality of nonpoint runoff.
The pilot studies will also determine which wetland features can be used to
predict wetland functions. Once differences among wetlands can be identified based on
their functions, it will be possible to classify particular wetlands with regard to specific
designated uses.
The cumulative effects program is using the results of the pilot studies as
technical support for developing a "Synoptic Assessment Method". This method has
already been used to rank watersheds within certain regions, according to the likely
cumulative benefits of their wetlands. Also, sources of information useful for
designating uses of individual wetlands were described by ORD in EPA's draft guidance
for Advance Identification Appendix D.70 Information on regionally rare or declining
wetland wildlife, which could be used as one basis for establishing "special aquatic
areas" in selected wetlands, is also available from the ORD Wetlands Research Team
at the Corvallis EPA Lab.
Water Quality:
Another ORD study, being implemented through the Duluth Lab, is examining
impacts to the water quality and biota of 30 wetlands, before and after regional
development. This study will be useful, as part of 401 certification, for developing
performance standards for activities which may affect wetland water quality.
Several research projects being proposed by the Wetland Research Program
could produce information very useful to water quality managers. These are described
in ORD's publication, "Wetlands and Water Quality: A Research and Monitoring
Implementation Plan for the Years 1989-1994". Many of these proposals are planned,
but will hinge upon funding decisions in future budget years. Those which drew the
most support from a 1988 EPA workshop of scientists and State program administrators
were as follows:
o Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wetland Function. Existing quality criteria for
surface waters would be reviewed for applicability to wetlands. Methods for
biological and chemical monitoring of wetlands would be refined, and a field
manual produced.
40
-------
o Ecological Status and Trends of the Wetland Resource. A nationwide network
would be established to monitor the wetland resource. Field surveys would
define the expected range of numerical values within each region for particular
chemicals and especially, for biological community metrics, across a gradient of
sites ranging from nearly-pristine to severely disturbed.
o Waste Assimilative Limits of Wetlands. Observable features which determine
the long-term ability of wetlands to retain contaminants and nutrients would be
tested. "Safe" loading limits for various substances would be proposed for
specific wetland types or regions. Similar kinds of information would also
become available from a research effort focused specifically on artificial wetlands
and coordinated by EPA-Cincinnati, in cooperation with the Corvallis and Duluth
Labs. That study would recommend engineering design factors essential in
wetlands constructed by municipalities for tertiary wastewater treatment
Mitigation:
Information useful to 401 certification will also originate from ORD'S mitigation
research. This research aims to determine if created and restored wetlands replace
functions lost by wetland destruction permitted under Section 404. The research is
organized to (1) synthesize current knowledge on wetland creation and restoration, (2)
compile 404 permit information on created and restored wetlands, and (3) compare
created and naturally occurring wetlands. Research results will be incorporated into a
"Mitigation Handbook" useful for designing and evaluating mitigation projects. A
literature synthesis being developed as a Provisional Guidance Document will be
available in 1989. A provisional version of the handbook will be produced in 1990.
This will assist States in identifying areas at greatest risk due to 404 permit activities
and thus help target 401 certification and water quality standards activities.
41
-------
APPENDIX A
Provided below are State 401 certifictation contacts and EPA wetlands contacts
who can provide assistance in applying 401 to wetlands.
EPA has asked the Council of State Governments (CSG) to maintain a database
of State wetland contacts and programs. In order to help keep the database up to
date, please contact CSG when you have changes in your program or staff contacts, or
if you come across inaccuracies in other State programs. You can access this database
using virtually any computer with a modem. In order to obtain your free username
and password contact:
The Council of State Governments
P.O. Box 11910, Iron Works Pike
Lexington, Kentucky 40578
phone: (606) 252-2291
FEDERAL 401 CERTIFICATION CONTACTS FOR WETLANDS
EPA Headouarters:
Dianne Fish
Wetlands Strategies Team
(A-104F)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C 20460
Phone: (202) 382-7071
Jeanne Melanson
Outreach and State Programs Staff
(A-104F)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C 20460
Phone: (202) 475-6745
EPA Region Contacts:
EPA Region I
Doug Thompson, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section (WPP-
1900)
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617) 565-4421
EPA Region II
Mario del Vicario, Chief
Marine/Wetlands Prot Branch (2WM-
MWP)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-5170
42
-------
EPA Region III
Barbara De Angelo, Chief
Marine & Wetlands Policy Sect. (3ES42)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 597-1181
EPA Region IV
Tom Welborn, Acting Chief
Wetlands Section (4WM-MEB)
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2126
EPA Region V
Doug Ehorn, Deputy Chief
Water Quality Branch (5WQ-TUB8)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-0139
EPA Region VI
Jerry Saunders, Chief
Technical Assistance Sect (6E-FT)
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 655-2260
EPA Region VII
B. Katherine Biggs, Chief
Environmental Review Branch (ENVR)
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 236-2823
EPA Region VIII
Gene Reetz, Chief
Water Quality Requirements Sect.
One Denver Place
Suite 1300
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 293-1568
EPA Region IX
Phil Oshida, Chief
Wetlands Section (W-7)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 974-7429
EPA Region X
Bill Riley, Chief
Water Resources Assessment (WD-138)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 442-1412
CD. Robison, Jr.
Alaska Operations Office, Region X
Federal Building Room E551
701 C Street, Box 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
EPA Wetlands Research
Eric Preston
Environmental Research Lab
Corvallis/ORD
200 S.W. 35 Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 757-4666
Bill Sanville
Environmental Research
Laboratory/ORD
6201 Congdon Blvd
Duluth, MN 55804
(218) 720-5723
43
-------
State 401 CERTIFICATION CONTACTS
Brad Gane
Field Operation Division
Dept. of Enviromental Management
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile, Alabama 36615
(205)479-2236
Walter Tatum
Field Operation Division
Dept. of Enviromental Management
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile, Alabama 36615
(205) 968-7576
Doug Redburn
Dept. of Enviromental Conservation
3220 Hospital Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99811
(907) 465-2653
Mr. Dick Stokes
Southeast Office
Department of Environmental
Conservation
P.O. Box 2420
9000 Old Glacier Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99803
(907) 789-3151
Mr. Tim Rumfelt
Southcentral Office
Department of Environmental
Conservation
437 E Street, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 274-2533
Mr. Paul Bateman
Northern Office (Arctic)
Department of Environmental
Conservation
1001 Noble Street, Suite 350
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 452-1714
Ms. Joyce Beelman
Northern Office (Interior)
Department of Environmental
Conservation
1001 Noble Street, Suite 350
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 452-1714
Steve Drown
Dept of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72207
(501) 652-7444
Jack Hodges
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, California 95801-0100
(916) 322-0207
Jon Scherschligt
Water Quality Control Division
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333
Douglas E. Cooper
Wetlands Management Section
Dept of Env. Prot Water Resources
Room 203, State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 566-7280
44
-------
William F. Moyer
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 King's Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
(302) 736-4691
Richmond Williams
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Legal Office
89 King's Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
(302) 736-4691
Randall L. Armstrong
Division of Environmental Permitting
Dept. of Env. Regulation
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(904) 488-0130
Mike Creason
Environmental Protection Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street S.E.
Floyd Towers East
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-4887
James K. Ikeda
Environmental Protection & Health
Services Division
Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801-9984
(808) 548-6455
John Winters
Water Quality and Standards Branch
Dept. of Env. Management
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
(317) 243-5028
A1 Keller
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-0610
Bruce Yurdin
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-0610
Jerry Yoder
Bureau of Water Quality
Division of Environmental Quality
450 West State Street
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 334-5860
Ralph Turkle
Department of Natural Resources
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-7025
Lavoy Haage
Department of Natural Resources
900 East Grand Avenue
Henry A. Wallace Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-8877
45
-------
Larry Hess
Dept. of Health and Environment
Building 740
Forbes Field
Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 862-9360
Paul Beckley
Division of Water
Dept. of Natural Resources
Fort Boone Plaza
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-310, ext. 495
Dale Givens
Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
(504) 342-6363
Donald T. Witherill
Dept of Env. Protection
Division of Licensing
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2111
Mary Jo Garries
Division of Standards
Department of the Environment
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 225-6293
Jo Ann Watson
Division of Standards
Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 225-6293
Ken Chrest
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59620
(406) 444-2406
Bill Gaughan
Div. of Water Pollution
Dept. of Env. Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5658
Judy Peny
Regulatory Branch Div. of Water
Pollution
Dept of Env. Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5655
Les Thomas
Land and Water Management Div.
Dept of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-9244
Robert Seyfarth
Bureau of Pollution Control
Dept of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
(601) 961-5171
Charles Chisolm
Bureau of Pollution control
Dept of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
(601) 961-5171
46
-------
Jim Morris
Water Quality Management Section
Dept. of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
(601) 961-5151
Louis Flynn
MP LA
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
(612) 296-7355
Laurie K. Collerot
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-2358
Fred Elkind
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Dept. of Env. Services
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-2358
Ray Carter
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-2358
George Dans kin
Div. of Regulatory Affairs
Dept. of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
(518) 457-2224
William Qarke
Div. of Regulatory Affairs
Dept. of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
(518) 457-2224
U. Gale Hutton
Water Quality Division
Dept. of Env. Control
P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4877
(402) 471-2186
George Horzepa
Division of Water Resources
Dept. of Env. Protection
CN 029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 633-7021
Barry Chalofsky
Division of Water Resources
Dept. of Env. Protection
CN 029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 633-7021
Robert Piel
Div. of Coastal Resources
Dept. of Env. Protection
CN 401
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 633-7021
David Tague
Env. Improvement Division
P.O. Box 968
Sante Fe, New Mexico 87504-0968
(505) 827-2822
47
-------
Michael T. Sauer
State Dept of Health
1200 Missouri avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
(701) 224-2354
Paul Wilms
Div. of Env. Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 733-7015
Bill Mills
Water Quality Section
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 733-5083
Colleen Crook
Div. of Water Quality and
Ohio EPA
1800 Watermark Drive
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149
(614) 981-7130
Brooks Kirlin
Water Resource Board
P.O. Box 53585
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
(405) 271-2541
Glen Carter
Dept of Env. Quality
P.O. Box 1760
Portland, Oregon 97207
(503) 229-5358
Louis W. Bercheni
Bureau of Water Quality
Dept. of Env. Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-2666
Peter Slack
Bureau of Water Quality
Dept. of Env. Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-2666
Edward S. Szymanski
Dept of Env. Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5767
(401) 277-3961
Carolyn Weymouth
Office of Environmental Coordination
Department of Environmental
Management
83 Park Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
(401) 277-3434
Chester E. Sansbuiy
Division of Water Quality
Dept of Health and Env. Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 758-5496
Larry Bowers
Div. of Water Pollution Control
Dept. of Health and Env.
150 Ninth North Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(615) 741-7883
48
-------
Robert Sileus
Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-8202
Dr. Donald Hilden
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145
(801)	533-6146
Carl Pagel
Agency of Natural Resources
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05676
(802)	244-6951
Steve Syz
Agency of Natural Resources
Dept. of Env. Conservation
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05676
(802) 244-6951
Jean Gregory
Office of Water Resources Management
Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(804) 367-6985
Mike Carnavale
Water Quality Division
State Dept. of Env. Quality
Herschler Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82202
(307) 777-7781
Mike Palko
Dept. of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 459-6289
John Schmidt
Water Resources Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
(304) 348-2108
Jim Rawson
Wildlife Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 67
Elkins, West Virginia 26241
(304) 636-1767
Scott Hausmann
Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning
Dept of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
(608) 266-7360
49
-------
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL DEFINITIONS
The federal definition of "waters of the United States" is (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)):
(1)	All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible
to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject
to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2)	All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3)	All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which would
or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(i)	Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes; or
(ii)	From which fish or shellfish could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce;
(iii)	Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in
interstate commerce;*
(4)	All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States
under this definition;
(5)	Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1-4.
(6)	The territorial sea;
(7)	Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
identified in 1-6; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons
designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined
in 40 CFR § 423.11(m) which also meet criteria in this definition) are not waters
of the United States.
(* Note: EPA has clarified that waters of the U.S. under the commerce connection
in (3) above also include, for example, waters:
Which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory
Bird Treaties or migratory birds which cross State lines;
Which are or would be used as habitat for endangered species;
Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce.)
The federal definition of "wetlands" (40 CFR § 232.2(r)). Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
50
-------
APPENDIX C
SCOPE OF PROJECT REVIEW: PENNSYLVANIA DAM PROPOSAL EXAMPLE
The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was to be 3,000 feet long and 17
feet high. The dam was to consist of 32 bottom hinged flap gates. The dam would
have created an impoundment with a surface area of 3,800 acres, a total storage
capacity of 35,000 acre feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet The backwater would
have extended approximately eight miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
approximately three miles upstream on the Conodoguinet Creek.
The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility, using the head difference
created by the dam to create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have been
10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12J) and minimum flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under
normal conditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed through the turbines.
The public notice denying 401 certification for this project stated as follows:
1. The construction and operation of the project will result in the significant loss of
wetlands and related aquatic habitat and acreage. More specifically:
a.	The destruction of the wetlands will have an adverse impact on the local
river ecosystem because of the integral role wetlands play in maintaining
that ecosystem.
b.	The destruction of the wetlands will cause the loss of beds of emergent
aquatic vegetation that serve as habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this
habitat will adversely affect the relative abundance of juvenile and adult
fish (especially smallmouth bass).
c.	The wetlands which will be lost are critical habitat for, among other
species, the yellow crowned night heron, black crowned night heron,
marsh wren and great egret In addition, the yellow crowned night heron
is a proposed State threatened species, and the marsh wren and great
egret are candidate species of special concern.
d.	All affected wetlands areas are important and, to the extent that the loss
of these wetlands can be mitigated, the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that the mitigation proposed is adequate. To the extent that
adequate mitigation is possible, mitigation must include replacement in the
river system.
51
-------
e.	Proposed riprapping of the shoreline could further reduce wetland
acreage. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an
adverse water quality and related habitat impact resulting from riprapping.
f.	Based upon information received by the Department, the applicant has
underestimated the total wetland acreage affected.
2.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water
quality impacts from increased groundwater levels resulting from the project.
The ground water model used by the applicant is not acceptable due to
erroneous assumptions and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The applicant has
not provided sufficient information concerning the impact of increased
groundwater levels on existing sites of subsurface contamination, adequacy of
subsurface sewage system replacement areas and the impact of potential
increased surface flooding. Additionally, information was not provided to
adequately assess the effect of raised groundwater on sewer system laterals,
effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation measures and potential for increased flows at
the Harrisburg wastewater plant
3.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be a dissolved oxygen
problem as a result of the impoundment Present information indicates the
existing river system in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved oxygen
fluctuation. Sufficient information was not provided to allow the Department to
conclude that dissolved oxygen standards will be met in the pool area.
Additionally, the applicant foiled to adequately address the issue of anticipated
dissolved oxygen levels below the dam.
4.	The proposed impoundment will create a backwater on the lower three miles of
the Conodoguinet Creek. Water quality in the Creek is currently adversely
affected by nutrient problems. The applicant has foiled to demonstrate that
there will not be water qualitv degradation as a result of the impoundment
5.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water
quality impact resulting from combined sewer overflows.
6.	The applicant has foiled to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water
quality impact to the ISO acre area downstream of the proposed dam and
upstream from the existing Dock Street dam.
7.	The applicant has foiled to demonstrate that the construction and operation of
the proposed Ham will not have an adverse impact on the aquatic resources
upstream from the proposed impoundment For example, the suitability of the
impoundment for smallmouth bass spawning relative to the frequency of turbid
52
-------
conditions during spawning was not adequately addressed and construction of the
dam and impoundment will result in a decrease in the diversity and density of
the macroinvertebrate community in the impoundment area.
8.	Construction of the dam will have an adverse impact on upstream and
downstream migration of migratory fish (especially shad). Even with the
construction of fish passageways for upstream and downstream migration,
significant declines in the numbers of fish successfully negotiating the obstruction
are anticipated.
9.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water
quality impact related to sedimentation within the pool area.
53
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLES OF CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS
~•MARYLAND4*
Maryland certified with conditions the fill/alteration of 6.66 acres of non-tidal
wetlands as part of the construction of an 18 hole golf course and a residential
subdivision. Approximately three-fourths of the entire site of 200 acres had been
cleared for cattle grazing and agricultural activities in the past. As a result, a stream on
the east side of the property with no buffer had been severely degraded. An
unbuffered tractor crossing had also degraded the stream. A pal us trine forested
wetland area on the southeast side of the property received stormwater runoff from a
highway bordering the property and served as a flood storage and ground water
recharge area. Filling this area for construction of a fairway would eliminate some 4.5
acres of wetlands. Additionally, other smaller wetland areas on the property, principally
around an old farm pond that was to be fashioned into four separate ponds for water
traps, were proposed to be altered or lost as a result of the development
The Corps did not exercise its discretionary authority to require an individual
permit and thus the project was permitted under a nationwide permit (26). The State
decided to grant certification, conditioned on a number of things that it believed would
improve the water quality of the stream in the long run.
The filled wetland areas had to be replaced on an acre-for-acre basis on the
property and in particular, the 4.5 acre forested pal us trine wetland had to be replaced
onsite with a wetland area serving the same functions regarding stormwater runoff from
the highway.
Some of the other conditions placed on the certification were as follows:
1.	The applicant must obtain and certify compliance with a grading and
sediment control plan approved by the [name of county] Soil Conservation
District;
2.	Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces shall be controlled to prevent
the washing of debris into the waterway. Stormwater drainage facilities
shall be designed, implemented, operated and maintained in accordance
with the requirements of the [applicable county authority];
54
-------
3.	The applicant shall ensure that fish species are stocked in the ponds upon
completion of the construction phase in accordance with the requirements
of the [fisheries division of the natural resources department of the State];
4.	The applicant shall ensure that all mitigation areas are inspected annually
by a wetlands scientist to ensure that all wetlands are functioning
properly;
5.	A vegetated buffer shall be established around the existing stream and
proposed ponds;
6.	Biological control methods for weed, insects and other undesirable species
are to be employed whenever possible on the greens, tees, and fairways
located within or in close proximity to the wetland or waterways;
7.	Fertilizers are to be used on greens, tees, and fairways only. From the
second year of operation, all applications of fertilizers at the golf course
shall be in the lower range dosage rates [specified]. The use of slow
release compounds such as sulfur-coated urea is required. There shall be
no application of fertilizers within two weeks of verticutting, coring or
spiking operations.
55
-------
*» WEST VIRGINIA **
THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS APPLY TO ALL NATIONWIDE
PERMITS IN WEST VIRGINIA:
1.	Permittee will investigate for water supply intakes or other activities immediately
downstream which may be affected by suspended solids and turbidity increases
caused by work in the watercourse. He will give notice to operators of any such
water supply intakes before beginning work in the watercourse in sufficient time
to allow preparation for any change in water quality.
2.	When no feasible alternative is available, excavation, dredging or filling in the
watercourse will be done to the minimum extent practicable.
3.	Spoil materials from the watercourse or onshore operations, including sludge
deposits, will not be dumped into the water course or deposited in wetlands.
4.	Permittee will employ measures to prevent or control spills from fuels, lubricants,
or any other materials used in construction from entering the watercourse.
5.	Upon completion of earthwork operations, all fills in the watercourse or onshore
and other areas disturbed during construction, will be seeded, riprapped, or given
some other type of protection from subsequent soil erosion. If riprap is utilized,
it is to be of such weight and size that bank stress or slump conditions will not
be created due to its placement Fill is to be clean and of such composition that
it will not adversely effect the biological, chemical or physical properties of the
receiving waters.
6.	Runoff from any storage areas or spills will not be allowed to enter storm sewers
without acceptable removal of solids, oils and toxic compounds. All spills will
promptly be reported to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources
office.
7.	Best Management Practices for sediment and erosion control as described in the
208 Construction Water Quality Management Plan are to be implemented.
8.	Green concrete will not be permitted to enter the watercourse unless contained
by tightly sealed forms or cells. Concrete handling equipment will not discharge
waste washwater into the watercourse or wetlands without adequate wastewater
treatment.
56
-------
9.	No instream work is permissible during the fish spawning season April through
June.
10.	Removal of mature riparian vegetation not directly associated with project
construction is prohibited.
11.	Instream equipment operation is to be minimized and should be accomplished
during low flow periods.
12.	Nationwide permits are not applicable for activities on Wild and Scenic Rivers or
study streams, streams on the Natural Streams Preservation List or the New
River Gorge National River. These streams include New River (confluence with
Gauley to mouth of Greenbrier); Greenbrier River (mouth to Knapps Creek),
Birch River (mouth to Cora Brown Barge in Nicholas County), Anthony Creek,
Cranberry Run, Bluestone River, Gauley River, and Meadow River.
13.	Each permittee shall follow the notice requirements contained in Section 9 of the
Department of Natural Resources Regulations for State Certification of
Activities Requiring Federal Licenses and Permits. Chapter 20-1, Series XIX
(1984).
14.	Each permittee shall, if he does not understand or is not aware of applicable
Nationwide Permit conditions, contact the Corps of Engineers prior to
conducting any activity authorized by a nationwide permit in order to be advised
of applicable conditions.
57
-------
•• ALASKA ••
EXAMPLES OF CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26 FROM ALASKA
(26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters listed in subparagraph
(i) and (ii) of this paragraph which do not cause the loss or substantial adverse
modification of 10 acres or more of waters of the United States, including wetlands.
For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 1 to 10 acres
of such waters, including wetlands, notification of the District Engineer is required in
accordance with 330.7 of this part (see Section 2 of this Public Notice).
(i)	Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including
adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters.
(ii)	Other non-tidal waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, that
are not part of the surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of
the United States (i.e., isolated waters).
REGIONAL CONDITION H: Work in a designated anadromous fish stream is subject
to authorization from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (No change from
REGIONAL CONDITION H previously published in SPN 84-7.)
REGIONAL CONDITION J:
a. If, during review of the pre-discharge notification, the Corps of Engineers or the
designated State of Alaska reviewing officials determine that the proposed activity
would occur in any of the following areas, the applicant will be advised that an
individual 404 permit will be required. Where uncertainty exists, the Corps will send
pre-discharge notification to the designated State officials for a determination.
1.	National Wildlife Refuges
2.	National Parks and Preserves
3.	National Conservation Areas
4.	National Wild and Scenic Rivers
5.	National Experimental Areas
6.	State Critical Habitat AReas
7.	State Sanctuaries
8.	State Ranges and Refuges
9.	State Eagle Preserves
10.	State Ecological Reserves and Experimental Areas
11.	State Recreation Areas
58
-------
12.	Wetlands contiguous with designated anadromous fish
streams
13.	Headwaters and isolated wetlands in designated public
water supply watersheds of Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg,
Anchorage, Cordova, Seldovia and Kodiak
14.	Sitka Area: Wetlands in the Swan Lake Area Meriting
Special Attention (AMSA) in the district Coastal
Management Plan
15.	Anchorage area: Designated Preservation and
Conservation Wetlands in the Wetlands Management Plan
16.	Bethel area: Designated Significant Wetlands in the
district Coastal Management Plan not covered under
General Permit 83-4
17.	Hydaburg area: The six AMSA's of the district Coastal
Management Plan
18.	Bering Strait area: All designated conservation AMSA's
of the district Coastal Management Plan
19.	Juneau area: Designated Sensitive Wetlands of the
district Coastal Management Plan
20.	NANA: Designated Special Use Areas and Restricted/
Sensitive areas in the district Coastal Management
Plan
21.	Tanana Basin Area Plan: type A-l wetlands in the
Alaska Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study
22.	Susitna Area Plan: type A-l wetlands in the Alaska
Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study
23.	High value headwaters and isolated wetlands identified
once the ongoing Wetlands Management Plans or Guides
listed in b-5 (below) are completed
24.	Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor designated type A
and B wetlands
25.	Headwaters and isolated waters which include identified
bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and trumpeter swan nesting
areas
26.	ADF&G identified waterfowl use areas of statewide
significance
27.	Designated caribou calving areas.
Any individual permit issued in locations covered by district coastal management plans,
State or Federal regional wetlands plans or local wetlands plans (numbers 14 through
23 above) will be consistent with the plan provisions for the specific wetland type and
may require adding stipulations.
59
-------
Oil and gas activities in the North Slope Borough which involve the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters including wetlands are not covered by the previous
nationwide permit under 33 CFR 330.4(a) and (b) and are not covered under the
nationwide permit 26. These activities require individual 404 permits or other general
permits. These activities were previously excluded by the Corps of Engineers Special
Public Notice 84-3 dated March 9, 1984.
b. Pre-discharge notification received by the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material in the following areas will be provided to designated State
agencies which include (1) the appropriate ADEC Regional Environmental Supervisor,
(2) the appropriate ADF&G Regional Habitat Supervisor, (3) the appropriate DGC
regional contact point, and (4) the appropriate DNR regional contact (should DNR
indicate interest in receiving notices).
1.	Headwater tributaries of designated anadromous fish
streams and their adjacent contiguous wetlands
2.	Open water areas of isolated wetlands greater than 10
acres and lakes greater than 10 acres above the
headwaters
3.	North Slope Borough wet and moist tundra areas not
already covered by APP process
4.	Wet and moist tundra areas outside the North Slope
Borough
5.	High value headwaters and isolated wetlands identified
in the following ongoing State or Federal wetland
management guides or plans: Mat-Su, Kenai Borough,
Valdez, North Star Borough Yukon Delta and Copper
River Basin
6.	Headwater or isolated wetlands within local CZM district
boundaries or the identified coastal zone boundary,
whichever is geographically smaller (not withstanding
the requirements under "a." 14.20 (above))
7.	Anchorage Area: designated Special Study areas in the
Wetlands Management Plan
8.	Tanana Basin Area Plan: areas designated A-2, B-l, B-2
in the Alaska River Cooperative State/Federal Study
9.	Susitna Area Plan: areas designated A-2, A-3, A-4 in
the Alaska River Cooperative State/Federal Study
The designated officials of the State of Alaska, and the Corps will evaluate the
notifications received for the areas listed "b." above under the provisions set forth in 33
CFR 330.7 (see Section 2 of this Public Notice) which includes an evaluation of the
60
-------
environmental effects using the guidelines set forth in Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act Notices shall be screened against the nationwide conditions under 330.5(b)
(See Section 4 of the Public Notice) using available resource information. Conditions
330.5(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) and (9) will be focused on during the State
review.
The State's review of these areas under "b." above will encompass the following:
1.	After receiving pre-discharge notification from the Corps, the State of Alaska
shall comment verbally, and/or if time permits, in writing to the Corps District Engineer
through a single State agency concerning the need for an individual permit review.
2.	Existing fish and wildlife atlases and field knowledge shall be used to evaluate
notices. If significant resource values are not identified for the area in question or if
insufficient resource information exists, State agencies will not request an individual
permit unless:
(a)	An on-site field evaluation will be conducted, weather
permitting, during the extended review provided under the individual permit, or,
(b)	Federal resource agencies plan a similar field evaluation that could provide
identical information to State resource agencies.
Should either the State review or the Corps review determine that the nationwide
permit is not applicable, an individual 404 permit will be required.
New categories may be added at a later date should either the Corps or the State of
Alaska recognize a need. These changes will be made available for public review
through a public notice and comment period at the appropriate time.
This REGIONAL CONDITION shall be effective for the period of time that
nationwide permit 26 is in effect unless the REGIONAL CONDITION is sooner
revoked by the Department of the Army with prior coordination with the State of
Alaska.
61
-------
APPENDIX E
Federal Rijiitn / Vol. 45. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24. 1980 / Rules and Regulation! 83333
Subpart H—Actlona To MnMn
Advene Kffocto
N—»¦ Thwi are many acttaos which cu
he oadartakaa la lespoue to | mtOW) to
mwnnlw tha arfvm* iflacta of dltdtaryn of
dradgwi or flU materUL 8mm ot that*,
groopad by type of activity. am listed to ftis
mbpan
uiyLsr **"
The effects of tha discharge can ba
minimized br tba choice of the diiposal
site. Soma of tha way* to accomplish
this are by:
(a)	Loci tins and confining tha
discharge to minimise sowtberingof
(b)	Daatgning the dlachaige to avoid a
disruption of periodic water inundation
patterns;
(c)	Selecting a disposal site that has
been oaed previously for dredged
material discharge
(deselecting a disposal site at which
tha tubatnta Is composed of malarial
similar to that being discharged, such as
discharging sand on sand or mud on
mud:
62
-------
'cuiiciuaj Lieuemuer >4. imu / nuies ana Regulations
|<-J Solecting th« disposal (it*, the
discharge point and tha method of
discharge to minimise tha extent of any
plume
(0 Designing tha discharge of dredged
or fill material to minimisa or prevent
the creation of standing bodiea of water
in .treat of normally fluctuating water
levels, and minimize or prevent the
drainage of areas subject to such
fluctuations.
) 230.71 Action* concerning the material
to m dtacttarved.
The effects of a discharge can be
minimurd by treatment of. or
limitations on the material itaelf. such
as:
(a)	Disposal of Jredged material in
such a manner that physiochemtcel
conditions are maintained and the
potency end availability of pollutanta
are reduced.
(b)	Limiting the solid, liquid, and
gaseoua components of material to be
discharged at a particular site;
(c)	Adding treatment subatancee to
the discharge material:
(d)	Utilizing chemical flocculants to
enhance the deposition of impended
particulates in diked disposal areas.
1130.71
The effect* of the dredged or (ID
material after diacharge may be
controlled by:
(a)	Selecting diacharge methods and
disposal sites where the potential for
eroeion. slumping or leaching of
materials into the surrounding aquatic
ccoeyetem will be reduced. Theee sites
or methods include, but are not limited
to;
(11 Using containment levees, sediment
Hasina, and cover crap* to reduce
eroeion:
(2) Using lined containment ami to
reduce leaching where leaching of
chemical coaatituants from tha
discharged material is expected to bo •
problem:
(b)	Capping ia-ptece contaminated
material with dean material or
selectively discharging the moat
contaminated maMH first lo be cappod
with the remaining materlih
(c)	Maintaining and containing
discharged material property lo prevent
point and acupoint aotes of pollution;
(d)	Timing tne diecharge to mtnlmtn
impact, for insunce during periods of
unusual high water flows, wind. wave,
and tidal actiona.
1230.73
(a)	Where anvironmantally desirable,
distributing the dredged malarial wtdtiy
in a thin layer at tha disposal me to
maintain natural substrate contours and
elevstiun:
(b)	Orienting a dredged or Till material
mound lo minimize undesirable
obstruction to the wator current or
circulation pattern, and utilizing natural
bottom contours to minimize tha size of
the mound:
(c)	Using silt screens or other
appropriate methods to confine
suspended perticuiate/turbidity to e
small area where settling or removal can
occur
(d)	Making usa of currents and
circulation patterns to mix. disperse snd
dilute the discharge
(e)	Minimizing watpr column turbidity
by using a submerged diffuser system. A
similar effect can be accomplished by
submerging pipeline dischargee or
otherwise releasing materials neer the
bottom:
(f)	Selecting sites or —¦¦g^g
discharges to confine and minimisa the
release of suspended particulates to give
decreaoed turbidity levels and to
maintain light penetration for organisms:
(t) Setting limitations on the amount
of material to bo discharged per unit of
time or volume of receiving water.
Diacharge technology should bo
adapted to tha needs of each site. In
determining whether the diecharge
operation sufficiently ¦»<««>¦»*»— adverse
environmental Impacts, the applicant
should i
(a)	Using appropriate equipment or
machinery, including protective devices,
and tha use of such equipment or
machinery in acthriUaa related to the
discharge of drodged at BO material;
(b)	Employing appropriate
meintenance and operation on
equipment or machinery, fry totting
adequate training, staffing, and working
(a) Employing appropriate machinery
and methods of transport of the materiel
for discherge.
I 230.7S Actione affecenf plant and
animal pooutettono.
Minimization of adverse effects on
populations of plants and animals can
be achieved by:
(*l Avoiding chenges in water current
and circulation patterns which would
interfere with the movement of animals;
(b| Selecting sites or managing
discharges to prevent or avoid creating
habitat conducive to the development of
undeaireble predator* or species which
hsve e competitive edge ecologically
over indigenous plants or animals:
(c)	Avoiding sites heving unique
hebitel or other velue. including hebitet
of threatened or endangered species:
(d)	Using planning and construction
practices to institute habitat
development and restoration to produce
e new or modified environmental state
of higher ecological velue by
displacement of some or all of the
existing environments! characteristics.
Habitat development and restoration
techniques can be ueed to minimise
advene impacta and to compensate for
destroyed habitat Use techniques that
have been demonstrated to bo effective
in drramstancos eimllar to thoee under
consideration wherever possible. Where
proposed development end reetoration
techniques have not yet advenced to the
pilot demonstration stage, initiate their
uee on e small scale to allow corrective
ection if unanticipated advene impacts
The effects of a diacharge can be
minimised by the manner In which it is
dispersed, such es:
(c)	Using machinery and techniques
that are especially designed to reduce
damage lo wetlenda. This may indtdo
me chines equipped with devices that
ecetter rather than mound excavated
materiala. machinee with specially
designed wheels or tracks, and the use
of mats under heevy me chines to reduce
wetland surface compaction and rutting
(d)	Deeigning acceee roads and
channel spanning structures using
culverts, open channels, and diversions
thet will pess both low end high water
flows, sccommodste fluctuating water
leveUt end maintain circulation and
faunal movement:
(e) Timing diecharge to avoid
spawning or migration seasons and
other biologically critical time periods:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 43. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24. 19S0 / Rules and Regulation! B53S7
(el Selecting sitas that will not be
detrimental or incraaee incompatible
human activity, or require tha need for
frequent dredge or fill maintenance
activity in remote fish and wildlife
areas:
(f) Locating the disposal site outside
of the vicinity of a public water supply
intake.
<330.77 Other eettsna.
(a)	In the case of nils, controlling
runoff and other discharges from
activities to ha conducted on tha fill:
(b)	In the case of dams, designing
water releases to accommodate the
needs of Ash and wildlife.
(c)	In dredfing projects funded by
Federal agendas other than the Corps of
Engineers, maintain deeirad water
quality of the re turn dischoroe through
agreement with the Federal funding
authority oa scientifically defensible
pollutant concantrotioQ levels ta
addition to any applicable water quality
standards.
(d)	Whan a significant ecsleglc&l
change in tho aquatic environment is
proposed by tha discharge of dredged or
80 material, the permitting authority
should coooider tha ecosystem that will
be test as well eo tha cavireamantal
beaoflts of the new system.
64
-------
APPENDIX R
Policy on the Use of
Biological Assessments and Criteria in
the Water Quality Program
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-w. 19 m
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
WATER
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Tudor T. Davies, Director /«****** '
Office of Science and Technology (WH-551)
TO:
Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached is EPA's "Policy on the Use of Biological
Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program"
(Attachment A). This policy is a significant step toward
addressing all pollution problems within a watershed. It is a
natural outgrowth of our greater understanding of the range of
problems affecting watersheds from toxic chemicals to physical
habitat alteration, and reflects the need to consider the whole
picture in developing watershed pollution control strategies.
This policy is the product of a broad-"based workgroup chaired
by .Jim Flafkin and Chris Faulkner of the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds. The workgroup was composed of
representatives from seven EPA Headquarters offices, four EPA
Research Laboratories, all 10 EPA Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the States of New York and
North Carolina (see Attachment B). This policy also reflects
review comments to the draft policy statement issued in March of
1990. Comments were received from three EPA Headquarters
offices, three EPA Research Laboratories, five EPA Regions and
two States. The following sections of this memorandum provide a
brief history of the policy development and additional
information on relevant guidance.
Background
The Ecopolicy Workgroup was formed in response to several
converging initiatives in EPA's national water program. In
September 1987, a major management study entitled "Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework for Change" strongly emphasized the need
to "accelerate development and application c-f promising
biological monitoring techniques" in Stat® and ITPA monitoring
programs. Soon thereafter, in December 1907. n National Workshop
on Instream Biological iMonitorinu and Criteria reiterated this

-------
.-eccmmenaarion cur a.so poir.~sa cut; ~.~e ...T.Dorrance c: :r.tearaf ng
"he biological criteria ana assessment methoas with traditional
chemical/physical methods (see Final Proceedings, EPA-9C5/9-
89/003). Finally, at the June 1988 National Symposium on Water
Quality Assessment, a workgroup of State and Federal
representatives unanimously recommended the development of a
national bioassessment policy that encouraged the expanded use of
the new biological tools and directed their implementation across
the water quality program.
Guided by these recommendations, the workgroup held three
workshop-style meetings between July and December 1988. Two
major questions emerged from the lengthy discussions as issues of
general concern:
ISSUE 1 - How hard should EPA push for formal adoption of
biological criteria (biocriteria) in State
water quality standards?
ISSUE 2 - Despite the many beneficial uses of
biomonitoring information, how do we guard
against potentially inappropriate uses of such
data in the permitting process?
Issue 1 turns on the means and relative priority of having
biological criteria formally incorporated in State water quality
standards. Because biological criteria must be related to local
conditions, the development of quantitative national biological
criteria is not ecologically appropriate. Therefore, the primary
concern is how biological criteria should be promoted and
integrated into State water quality standards.
Issue,.2 addresses the question of how to reconcile potential
apparent conflicts in the results obtained from different
assessment methods (i.e., chemical-specific analyses, toxicity
testing, and biosurveys) in a permitting situation. Should the
relevance of each be judged strictly on a case-by-case basis?
Should each method be applied independently?
These issues were discussed at the policy workgroup's last
meeting in November 1988, and consensus recommendations were then
presented to the Acting Assistant Administrator of Water on
December 16, 1988. For Issue 1, it was determined that adapting
biological criteria to State standards has significant
advantages, and adoption of biological criteria should be
strongly encouraged. Therefore, the current Agency Operating
Guidance establishes the State adaptation of basic narrative
biological criteria as a program priority.
With respect to Issue 2, the policy reflects a position of
"independent application." Independent application means that
any one of the three types of assessment information (i.e.,
chemistry, toxicity testing results, and ecological assessment)
provides conclusive evidence of nonattainment cf water quality
-------
standards regardless of the results from other types of
assessment information. Each type of assessment is sensitive to
different types of water quality impact. Although rare, apparent
conflicts in the results from different approaches can occur.
These apparent conflicts occur when one assessment approach
detects a problem to which the other approaches are not
sensitive. This policy establishes that a demonstration of water
quality standards nonattainment using one assessment method does
not require confirmation with a second method and that the
failure of a second method to confirm impact does not negate the
results of the initial assessment.
Review of Draft Policy
The draft was circulated to the Regions and States on
March 23, 1990. The comments were mostly supportive and most of
the suggested changes have been incorporated. Objections were
raised by one State that using ecological measures would increase
the magnitude of the pollution control workload. We expect that
this will be one result of this policy but that our mandate under
the Clean Water Act to ensure physical, chemical, and biological"
integrity requires that we adopt this policy. Another State
objected to the independent application policy. EPA has
carefully considered the merits of various approaches to
integrating data in light of the available data, and we have
concluded that independent application is the most appropriate
policy at this time. Where there are concerns that the results
from one approach are inaccurate, there may be opportunities to
develop more refined information that would provide a more
accurate conclusion (e.g., better monitoring or more
sophisticated wasteload allocation modelling).
Additional discussion on this policy occurred at the Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century Symposium in December,
1990.
What Actlona Should States Take
This policy does not require specific actions on the part of
the States or the regulated community. As indicated under the
Fiscal Year 1991 Agency Operating Guidance, States are required
to adopt narrative biocriteria at a minimum during the 1991 to
1993 triennial review. More specific program guidance on
developing biological criteria is scheduled to be issued within
the next few months. Technical guidance documents on developing
narrative and numerical biological criteria for different types
of aquatic systems are also under development.
Relevant Guidance
There are several existing EPA documents which pertain to
biological assessments and several others that are currently
under development. Selected references that are likely to be
important in implementing this policy are listed in Attachment C.
-------
Please share this policy statement with your States and work
with them to institute its provisions. If you have any
questions, please call me at (FTS) 382-5400 or have your staff
contact Geoffrey Grubbs of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds at (FTS) 382-7040 or Bill Diamond of the Office of
Science and Technology at (FTS) 475-7301.
Attachments
cc: OW Office Directors
Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment A
Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria
in the Water Quality Program
May 1991
-------
Contents
Statement of Policy
Definitions
Background
Context of Policy
Rationale for Conducting Biological Assessments
Conduct of Biological Surveys
Integration of Methods and Regulatory Application
Site-spccific Considerations
Independent Application
Biological Criteria
Statutory Basis
Section 303(c)
Section 304(a)
State/EPA Roles in Policy Implementation
State Implementation
EPA Guidance and Technical Support
-------
Statement of Policy
To help restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation's
waters, it is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that
biological surveys shall be fully integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific
assessment methods in State water quality programs. EPA recognizes that
biological surveys should be used together with wholc-cfflucnt and ambient
toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analyses to assess attainmcnt/nonattainment
of designated aquatic life uses in State water quality standards. EPA also
recognizes that each of these three methods can provide a valid assessment of
designated aquatic life use impairment. Thus, if any one of the three assessment
methods demonstrate that water quality standards arc not attained, it is EPA's
policy that appropriate action should be taken to achieve attainment, including
use of regulatory authority.
It is also EPA's policy that States should designate aquatic life uses that
appropriately address biological integrity and adopt biological criteria necessary to
protect those uses. Information concerning attainmcnt/nonattainment of standards
should be used to establish priorities, evaluate the effectiveness of controls, and
make regulatory decisions.
Close cooperation among the States and EPA will be needed to carry out
this policy. EPA will provide national guidance and technical assistance to the
States; however, specific assessment methods and biological criteria should be
adopted on a State-by-State basis. EPA, in its oversight role, will work with the
States to ensure that assessment procedures and biological criteria reflect
important ecological and geographical differences among the Nation's waters yet
retain national consistency with the Clean Water Act.
-------
Definitions
Ambient Toxicity: Is measured by a toxicity test on a snmplc collected from a
waterbody.
Aquatic Community: An association of interacting populations of aquatic
organisms in a given waterbody or habitat.
Aquatic Life Use: Is the water quality objective assigned to a waterbody to
ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous aquatic
community.
Biological Assessment: An evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody
using biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in
surface waters.
Biological Criteria (or Biocriteria): Numerical values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters
of a given designated aquatic life use.
Biological Integrity: Functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic
community inhabiting unimpaired waterbodics of a specified habitat as measured
by community structure and function.
Biological Monitoring: Use of a biological entity as a detector and its response
as a measure to determine environmental conditions. Toxicity tests and
biosurveys are common biomonitoring methods.
Biological Survey (or Biosurvcy): Consists of collecting, processing, and analyzing
a representative portion of the resident aquatic community to determine the
community structure and function.
Community Component: Any portion of a biological community. The
community component may pertain to the taxonomic group (fish, invertebrates,
algae), the taxonomic category (phylum, order, family, genus, species), the feeding
strategy (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), or organizational level (individual,
population, community association) of a biological entity within the aquatic
community.
Habitat Assessment: An evaluation of the physical characteristics and condition
of a waterbody (example parameters include the variety and quality of substrate,
hydrological regime, key environmental parameters and surrounding land use.)
Toxicity Test: Is a procedure to determine the toxicity of a chemical or an
effluent using living organisms. A toxicity test measures the degree of response
of exposed test organisms to a specific chemical or effluent.
-------
Whole-effluent Toxicity: Is the total toxic effect of an effluent measured directly
with a toxicity test.
Background
Policy context
Monitoring data arc applied toward water quality program needs such as
identifying water quality problems, assessing their severity, and setting planning
and management priorities for remediation. Monitoring data should also be used
to help make regulatory decisions, develop appropriate controls, and evaluate the
effectiveness of controls once they are implemented. This policy focuses on the
use of a particular type of monitoring information that is derived from ambient
biosurveys, and its proper integration with chcmical-spccific analyses, toxicity
testing methods, and biological criteria in State water quality programs.
The distinction between biological surveys, assessments and criteria is an
important one. Biological surveys, as stated in the section above, consist of the
collection and analysis of the resident aquatic community data and the
subsequent determination of the aquatic community's structure and function. A
biological assessment is an evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody
using data gathered from biological surveys or other direct measures of the biota.
Finally, biological criteria arc the numerical values or narrative expressions used
to describe the expected structure and function of the aquatic community.
Rationale for Conducting Biological Assessments
To more fully protect aquatic habitats and provide more comprehensive
assessments of aquatic life use attainment/nonattainmcnt, EPA expects States to
fully integrate chemical-specific techniques, toxicity testing, biological surveys and
biological criteria into their water quality programs. To date, EPA's activities
have focused on the interim goal of the Clean Water Act (the Act), stated in
Section 101(a)(2): To achieve; "...wherever attainable, an interim goal of water
quality which provides for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water...." However, the
ultimate objective of the Act, stated in Section 101(a), goes further. Section
101(a) states: "The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Taken together,
chemical, physical, and biological integrity define the overall ecological integrity of
an aquatic ecosystem. Because biological integrity is a strong indicator of overall
ecological integrity, it can serve as both a meaningful goal and a useful measure
of environmental status that relates directly to the comprehensive objective of the
Act.
-------
Deviations from, and threats to, biological integrity can be estimated
indirectly or directly. Traditional measures, such as chcmical-spccific analyses
and toxicity tests, are indirect estimators of biological conditions. They assess
the suitability of the waters to support a healthy community, but they do not
directly assess the community itself. Biosurveys arc used to directly evaluate the
overall structural and/or functional characteristics of the aquatic community.
Water quality programs should use both direct and indirect methods to assess
biological conditions and to determine attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt of designated
aquatic life uses.
Adopting an integrated approach to assessing aquatic life use
attainmcnt/nonattainment represents the next logical step in the evolution of the
water quality program. Historically, water quality programs have focused on
evaluating the impacts of specific chemicals discharged from discreet point
sources. In 1984, the program scope was significantly broadened to include a
combination of chemical-specific and whole-effluent toxicity testing methods to
evaluate and predict the biological impacts of potentially toxic mixtures in
wastewater and surface waters. Integration of these two indirect measures of
biological impact into a unified assessment approach has been discussed in detail
in national policy (49 FR 9016) and guidance (EPA-440/4-85-032). This
approach has proven to be an effective means of assessing and controlling toxic
pollutants and whole-effluent toxicity originating from point sources.
Additionally, direct measures of biological impacts, such as biosurvey and
bioassessment techniques, can be useful for regulating point sources. However,
where pollutants and pollutant sources are difficult to characterize or aggregate
impacts are difficult to assess (e.g., where discharges arc multiple, complex, and
variable; where point and nonpoint sources arc both potentially important; where
physical habitat is potentially limiting), direct measures of ambient biological
conditions are also needed.
Biosurveys and biological criteria add this needed dimension to assessment
programs because they focus on the resident community. The effects of multiple
stresses and pollution sources on the numerous biological components of resident
communities are integrated over a relatively long period of time. The community
thus provides a useful indicator of both aggregate ecological impact and overall
temporal trends in the condition of an aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore,
biosurveys can detect aquatic life impacts that other available assessment methods
may miss. Biosurveys detect impacts caused by: (1) pollutants that are difficult
to identify chemically or characterize toxicologically (e.g., rare or unusual toxics
[although biosurveys cannot themselves identify specific toxicants causing toxic
impact], 'clean* sediment, or nutrients); (2) complex or unanticipated exposures
(e.g.i combined point and non-point source loadings, storm events, spills); and
perhaps most importantly, (3) habitat degradation (e.g., channelization,
sedimentation, historical contamination), which disrupt the interactive balance
among community components.
-------
Biosurveys and biological criteria provide important information for a wide
variety of water quality program needs. This data could he used to:
o Refine use classifications among different types of aquatic ecosystems
(e.g., rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, estuaries, coastal and marine
waters) and within a given type of use category such as warmwater
fisheries;
o Define and protect existing aquatic life uses and classify Outstanding
National Resource Waters under State antidegradation policies as
required by the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.12);
o Identify where site-specific criteria modifications may be needed to
effectively protect a waterbody;
o Improve use-attainability studies;
o Fulfill requirements under Clean Water Acf Sections 303(c), 303(d),
304(1), 305(b), 314, and 319;
o Assess impacts of certain nonpoint sources and, together with
chemical-specific and toxicity methods, evaluate the effectiveness of
nonpoint source controls;
o Develop management plans and conduct moniioring in estuaries of
national significance under Section 320;
o Monitor the overall ecological effects of regulatory actions under
Sections 401, 402, and 301(h);
o Identify acceptable sites for disposal of dredge and fill material
under Section 404 and determine the effects of that disposal;
o Conduct assessments mandated by other statutes (e.g.,
CERCLA/RCRA) that pertain to the integrity of surface waters;
and
o Evaluate the effectiveness and document the instrcam biological
benefits of pollution controls.
Conduct of Biological Surveys
As is the case with all types of water quality monitoring programs,
biosurveys should have clear data quality objectives, use standardized, validated
-------
laboratory and field methods, and include appropriate quality assurance and
quality control practices. Biosurvcys should be tailored to the particular type of
watcrbody being assessed (e.g., wetland, lake, stream, river, estuary, coastal or
marine water) and should focus on community components and attributes that
are both representative of the larger community and arc practical to measure.
Biosurveys should be routinely coupled with basic physicochemical measurements
and an objective assessment of habitat quality. Due to the importance of the
monitoring design and the intricate relationship between the biosurvey and the
habitat assessment, well-trained and experienced biologists are essential to
conducting an effective biosurvey program.
Integration of Assessment Methods and Regulatory Application
Site-specific Considerations
Although biosurveys provide direct information for assessing biological
integrity, they may not always provide the most accurate or practical measure of
water quality standards attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt. For example, biosurvcys and
measures of biological integrity do not directly assess nonaquatic life uses, such
as agricultural, industrial, or drinking water uses, and may not predict potential
impacts from pollutants that accumulate in sediments or tissues. These
pollutants may pose a significant long-term threat to aquatic organisms or to
humans and wildlife that consume these organisms, but may only minimally alter
the structure and function of the ambient community. Furthermore, biosurvcys
can only indicate the presence of an impact; they cannot directly identify the
stress agents causing that impact. Because chemical-spccific and toxicity methods
are designed to detect specific stressors, they arc particularly useful for diagnosing
the causes of impact and for developing source controls. Where a specific
chemical or toxicity is likely to impact standards attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt,
assessment methods that measure these stresses directly arc often needed.
Independent Application
Because biosurvey, chemical-spccific, and toxicity testing methods have
unique as well as overlapping attributes, sensitivities, and program applications,
no single approach for detecting impact should be considered uniformly superior
to any other approach. EPA recognizes that each method can provide valid and
independently sufficient evidence of aquatic life use impairment, irrespective of
any evidence, or lack of it, derived from the other two approaches. The failure
of one method to confirm an impact identified by another method would not
negate the results of the initial assessment. This policy, therefore, states that
appropriate action should be taken when any one of the three types of
assessment determines that the standard is not attained. States arc encouraged
to implement and integrate all three approaches into their water quality programs
and apply them in combination or independently as site-specific conditions and
-------
assessment objectives dictate.
In cases where an assessment result is suspected to be inaccurate, the
assessment may be repeated using more intensive and/or accurate methods.
Examples of more intensive assessment methods arc dynamic modelling instead of
steady state modelling, site specific criteria, dissolved metals analysis, and a more
complete biosurvey protocol.
Biological Criteria
To better protect the integrity of aquatic communities, it is EPA's policy
that States should develop and implement biological criteria in their water quality
standards.
Biological criteria are numerical measures or narrative descriptions of
biological integrity. Designated aquatic life use classifications can also function
as narrative biological criteria. When formally adopted into State standards,
biological criteria and aquatic life use designations serve as direct, legal endpoints
for determining aquatic life use attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt. Per Section
131.11(b)(2) of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR Part 131),
biological criteria can supplement existing chcmical-spccific criteria and provide an
alternative to chemical-specific criteria where such criteria cannot be established.
Biological criteria can be quantitatively developed by identifying unimpaired
or least-impacted reference waters that operationally represent best attainable
conditions. EPA recommends States use the ccoregion concept when establishing
a list of reference waters. Once candidate references arc identified, integrated
assessments are conducted to substantiate the unimpaired nature of the reference
and to characterize the resident community. Biosurvcys cannot fully characterize
the entire aquatic community and all its attributes. Therefore, State standards
should contain biological criteria that consider various components (e.g., algae,
invertebrates, fish) and attributes (measures of structure and/or function) of the
larger aquatic community. In order to provide maximum protection of surface
water quality, States should continue to develop water quality standards
integrating all three assessment methods.
Statutory Basis
Section 303(c)
The primary statutory basis for this policy derives from Section 303 of the
Clean Water Act. Section 303 requires that States adopt standards for their
waters and review and revise these standards as appropriate, or at least once
every three years. The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131)
-------
requires that such standards consist of the designated uses of the waters
involved, criteria based upon such uses, and an antidegradation policy.
Each State develops its own use classification system based on the generic
uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife). States may also subcategorize types of uses within the Act's general
use categories. For example, aquatic life uses may be subcategorized on the
basis of attainable habitat (e.g., cold- versus warm-water habitat), innate
differences in community structure and function (e.g., high versus low species
richness or productivity), or fundamental differences in important community
components (e.g., warm-water fish communities naturally dominated by bass
versus catfish). Special uses may also be designated to protect particularly
unique, sensitive or valuable aquatic species, communities, or habitats.
Each State is required to "specify appropriate water uses to be achieved
and protected" (40 CFR 131.10). If an aquatic life use is formally adopted for
a waterbody, that designation becomes a formal component of the water quality
standards. Furthermore, nonattainment of the use, as determined with either
biomonitoring or chemical-specific assessment methods, legally constitutes
nonattainment of the standard. Therefore, the more refined the use designation,
the more precise the biological criteria (i.e., the more detailed the description of
desired biological attributes), and the more complete the chemical-specific criteria
for aquatic life, the more objective the assessment of standards
attainment/nonattainment.
Section 304(a)
Section 304(a) requires EPA to develop and publish criteria and other
scientific information regarding a number of water-quality-related matters,
including:
o Effects of pollutants on aquatic community components ("Plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life...") and community attributes
("diversity, productivity, and stability...");
o Factors necessary "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
biological integrity of all navigable waters...", and "for protection and
propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for classes and categories
of receiving waters...";
o Appropriate "methods for establishing and measuring water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants on other bases than pollutant-by-pollutant
criteria, including biological monitoring and assessment methods."
This section of the Act has been historically cited as the basis for
-------
publishing national guidance on chcmical-spccific criteria for aquatic life, but is
equally applicable to the development and use of biological monitoring and
assessment methods and biological criteria.
State/EPA Roles in Policy Implementation
State Implementation
Because there are important qualitative differences among aquatic
ecosystems (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal and marine waters),
and there is significant geographical variation even among systems of a given
type, no single set of assessment methods or numeric biological criteria is fully
applicable nationwide. Therefore, States must take the primary responsibility for
adopting their own standard biosurvey methods, integrating them with other
techniques at the program level, and applying them in appropriate combinations
on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, States should develop their own biological^
criteria and implement them appropriately in their water quality standards.
EPA Guidance and Technical Support
EPA will provide the States with national guidance on performing
technically sound biosurveys, and developing and integrating biological criteria
into a comprehensive water quality program. EPA will also supply guidance to
the States on how to apply ecorcgional concepts to reference site selection. In
addition, EPA Regional Administrators will ensure that each Region has the
capability to conduct fully integrated assessments and to provide technical
assistance to the States.
-------
Workgroup Members
Al I nrlinii'iil II
NAME
LAST
Rick
Albright
Ed
Bender
David W
Charters
Nora
Crisp
Philip
Crocker
Wayne
Davis
Steve
Dressing
Roland
Dubois
Bruce
Elliott
Steve
Glonb
Warren
Harper
Margarete
Heber
Del
Hicks
John
Houlihan
Bob
Hughes
Jin
Kurtenbach
Jacques
Landy
Jin
Lasorchak
Peter
Mack
Suzanne
Marcy
John
Masted
Pete
Nolan
Bill
Painter
Ronald
Preston
Jackie
Roatney
Mark
Sprenger
Steve
Tedder
Nelson A
Thonas
Randal 1
Wai te
Bi 11
Wuerthele
OFFICE
USEPA Reg. 10 WMD WD-139
USEPA OWEP/ED (EN-338)
Env. Roep. Team MS 101
USEPA BSD Reg. 7
USEPA Reg. 6 (6W-QT) WMD
USEPA ESD Reg. 5 (5-SMQA)
USEPA OWRS/AWPD WH-S53
USEPA OGC (LE-132W)
USEPA Reg. 6 WMD
USEPA OWEP (EN-336)
USDA Forest Serv. OPPE
USEPA OWEP/PD (EN-336)
USEPA Reg. 4 ESD
USEPA WMD Reg. 7
USEPA ERL-Corvallis
USEPA ESD/Reg. 2
USEPA WMD Reg. 9 W-3-2
USEPA EMSL-Clnn ABBranch
NY State DEC Dlv. of Water
USEPA OWRS/CSD (WH-585)
USEPA OWP (A-104)
USEPA Reg. I ESD
USEPA OPA/ERED PM-221
USEPA Reg. 3 ESD
USEPA OWEP/PD (EN-336)
USEPA Reg. 2 ESD
NC Dept. of Envir. Mgmt.
USEPA ERL-Duluth
USEPA Reg. 3 (3 WM 12)
USEPA Reg. 8 WMD (8WM-SP)
ADDRESS
1200 6th Avenue
401 M. St. SW
Woodbridge Avenue
25 Funston Road
1445 Robs Avenue
536 S. Clark St.
401 M. St. SW
401 M. St. SW
1445 Rose Avenue
401 M. St. SW
P.O. Box 96090 Rm. 121
401 M. St. SW
College Station Road
726 Minnesota Avenue
200 SW 35th Street
Bldg. 209 Woodbridge Ave
215 Fremont Street
3411 Church Street
5b Wolf Road
401 M. St. SW
401 M. St. SW
60 Westview Street
401 M. St. SW
303 Meth. Bldg. 11th & Chapl.
401 M. St. SW
Woodbridge Avenue
P.O. Box 27687
6201 Condgon Blvd.
841 Chestnut Blvd.
999 18th Street. #500
CITY
Seattle, WA 98101
Washington, DC 204t>o
Edison. NJ 08837
Kansas City, KS 66101
Dallas. T>- 75202-273 I
Chicago. .1. 60605
Washington, DC 20460
Washington. DC 20460
Dallas. TX 75202
Washington. DC 20460
Washington, DC 2009O-6Oyo
Washington. DC 20460
Athens. CA 30613-779'J
Kansas City, KS 66101
Corvallis, OR 97333
Edison. NJ 07828
San Francisco, CA 94IOS
Newtown. Oil 45244
Albany. NY 12233
Washington, DC 20460
Washington, DC 20460
Lexington. HA 02173
Washington. DC 20460
Wheeling. WV 26003
Washington. DC 20460
Edison. NJ 08837
Raleigh. NC 27611
Duluth. MN 55804
Philadelphia. PA
Denver, CO 80202
-------
Attachment c
Relevant Guidance
Existing documents
o Chemical-specific evaluations
Guidance for Deriving National Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses (45 FR 79342, November 28, 1990, as
amended at 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985)
Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (EPA 440/5-86-001,
May 1, 1987)
o Toxicity testing
Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms, Second Edition (EPA/600-4-
89-001) , March 1989)
Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Marine and Estuarine Organisms (EPA/600-4-87/028,
May 1988)
Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents
to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA/600-4-85-
013, March 1985)
o Biosurveys and integrated assessments
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses: Volumes I-III (Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, November 1983-1984)
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90/001, March 1991)
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Streams and
Rivers: Benthic Macro-invertebrates and Fish
(EPA/444-4-89-001, May 1989)
Hughes, Robert M. and David P. Larsen. 1988.
Ecoregions: An Approach to Surface Water
Protection. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation 60, No. 4: 486-93.
Omerik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Coterminous
United States. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 77, No. 1: 118-25.
-------
Regionalization as a Tool for Managing
Environmental Resources (EPA/600-3-89-060, July
1989)
EPA Biological Criteria - National Program
Guidance for Surface Waters (EPA/440-5-90-004,
April 1990)
Doeumepta being developed
Technical Guidance on the Development of
Biological Criteria
State Development of Biological Criteria (case
studies of State implementation)
Monitoring Program Guidance
Sediment Classification Methods Compendium
Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Manual for
Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
Waters
Fish Field and Laboratory Manual for Determining
the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters
-------
APPENDIX S
Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
APPENDIX T
Use Attainability Analysis
Case Studies
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
CASE STUDIES
Introduction
The Water Body Survey and Assessment Guidance for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses provides guidance on the factors that may be
examined to determine if an aquatic life protection use is attainable
in a given stream or river system. The guidance proposed that States
perform physical, chemical and biological evaluations in order to
determine the existing and potential uses of a water body. The
analyses suggested within this guidance represent the type of analyses
EPA believes are sufficient for States to justify changes in uses
designated in a water quality standard and to show in Advanced
Treatment Project Justifications that the uses are attainable. States
are also encouraged to use alternative analyses as long as they are
scientifically and technically supportable. Furthermore, the guidance
also encourages the use of existing data to perform the physical,
chemical and biological evaluations and whenever possible States should
consider grouping water bodies having simiTar physical and chemical
characteristics to treat several water bodies or segments as a single
unit.
Using the framework provided by this guidance, studies were
conducted to (1) test the applicability of the guidance, (2)
familiarize State and Regional personnel with the procedures and (3)
identify situations where additional guidance is needed. The results
of these case studies, which are summarized in this Handbook, pointed
out the following:
(1)	The Water Body Surveys and Assessment guidance can be applied and
provides a good framework for conducting use attainability
analyses;
(2)	The guidance provides sufficient flexibility to the States in
conducting such analyses; and,
(3)	The case studies show that EPA and States can cooperatively agree
to the data and analyses needed to evaluate the existing and
potential uses.
Upon completion of the case studies, several States requested that
EPA provide additional technical guidance on the techniques mentioned
in the guidance document. In order to fulfill these requests, EPA has
developed a technical support manual on conducting attainability
analyses and is continuing research to develop new cost effective tools
for conducting such analyses. EPA is striving to develop a partnership
with States to improve the scientific and technical bases of the water
quality standards decision-making process and will continue to provide
technical assistance.
The summaries of the case studies provided in this Handbook
illustrate the different methods States used in determining the
existing and potential uses. As can be seen, the specific analyses
used were dictated by (1) the characteristics of the site, (2) the
D-l
-------
States capabilities and technical expertise using certain methods and
(3) the availability of data. EPA is providing these summaries to show
how use attainability analyses can be conducted. States will find
these case studies informative on the technical aspects of use
attainability analyses and will provide them with alternate views on
how such analyses may be conducted.
D-2
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Assabet River, Massachusetts
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The drainage basin of the Assabet River comprises 175 square miles
located in twenty towns in East-Central Massachusetts. The Assabet
River begins as the outflow from a small wildlife preservation
impoundment in the Town of Westborough and flows northeast through the
urban centers of Northborough, Hudson, Maynard and Concord to its
confluence with the Sudbury River, forming the Concord River. Between
these urbanized centers, the river is bordered by stretches of rural
and undeveloped land. Similarly, the vast majority of the drainage
basin is characterized by rural development. Figure 1 presents a
schematic diagram of the drainage basin.
The Assabet River provides the opportunity to study a repeating
sequence of water quality degradation and recovery. One industrial and
six domestic wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) discharge their
effluents into this 31-mile long river. All of the treatment plants
presently provide secondary or advanced secondary treatment, although
many of them are not performing to their design specifications. Most
of the treatment plants are scheduled to be upgraded in the near
future.
Interspersed among the WWTP discharges are six low dams, all but
one of which were built at least a half century ago. All are
"run-of-the-river" structures varying in height from three to eleven
feet. The last dam built on the river was a flood control structure
completed in 1980.
The headwaters of the Assabet River are formed by the discharge
from a wildlife preservation impoundment, and are relatively "clean"
except for low dissolved oxygen (DO) and high biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) during winter and summer. Water is discharged from the preserve
through the foot of the dam that forms the impoundment, and therefore,
tends to be low in DO. DO and BOD problems in the impoundment are
attributed to winter ice cover and peak algal growth in summer. After
the discharge of effluents from the Westborough and Shrewsbury
municipal wastewater treatment plants, the river enters its first
degradation/recovery cycle. The cycle is repeated as the river
receives effluent from the four remaining domestic treatment plants.
Water quality problems in the river are magnified when the effluents
are discharged into the head of an impoundment. However, the flow of
water over the dams also serves as a primary means of reaeration in the
river, and thus, the dams also become a major factor in the recovery
segment of the cycle. Water quality surveys performed in 1979 showed
violations of the fecal coliform, phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen
criteria throughout the river.
D-3
-------
Figure I ASSAACT KIVU DRAIHACE SYSTEM
-------
At present, the entire length of the Assabet River is classified
B, which is designated for the protection and propagation of fish,
other aquatic life and wildlife, and for primary and secondary
recreation. Two different uses have been designated for the Assabet
River--from river mile 31.8 to 12.4 the designated use is "aquatic
life" and from river mile 12.4 to the confluence with the Sudbury River
the designated use is a "warm water fishery". The difference in these
designated uses is that maintenance of a warm water fishery has a
maximum temperature criterion of 83 degrees F, and a minimum DO of 5
mg/1. There are no temperature or DO criteria associated with the
aquatic life use. These designations seem contrary to the existing
data, which document violations of both criteria in the lower reaches
of the river where warm water fishery is the designated use.
B.	Problem Definition
The Assabet River was managed as a put and take trout fishery
prior to the early 1970s when the practice was stopped on advisement of
the MDWPC because of poor water quality conditions in the river. While
the majority of the water quality problems are attributable to the
wastewater treatment plant discharges, the naturally low velocities in
the river, compounded by its impoundment in several places, led to the
examination of both factors as contributors to the impairment of
aquatic life uses. This combination of irreversible physical factors
and wastewater treatment plant-induced water quality problems led to
the selection of the Assabet River for this water body survey.
C.	Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
Assessment of the Assabet River is based on the previously
mentioned site visits and discussions among representatives of the
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC); the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the Massachusetts Fish and
Wildlife Division. This assessment is also based in part upon findings
reported in the field and laboratory analyses on the Assabet River in
early June, 1979, and again in early August, 1979. These surveys are
part of the on-going MDWPC monitoring program, which included similar
water quality assessments of the Assabet in 1969 and 1974. The water
quality monitoring includes extensive information on the chemical
characteristics of the Assabet River.
Analyses Conducted
A review of physical, chemical and biological information was
conducted to determine which aquatic life use designations would be
appropriate.
A. Physical Factors
The low flow condition of the river during the summer months may
have an impact on the ability of certain fish species to survive.
Various percentages of average annual flow (AAF) have been used to
describe stream regimens for critical fisheries flow. As reported in
D-5
-------
Cortell (1977), studies conducted by Tennant indicate that 10%, 30%,
and fi0% of AAF describe the range of fisheries flows from absolute
minimum (10% AAF) to optimum (60% of AAF). The average annual flow of
the Assabet River, as calculated from 39 years of record at the USGS
gauge at river mile 7.7, is 183 cfs. Flow measurements taken at the
USGS gauge on four consecutive days in early August, 1979, were 43, 34,
27, and 33 cfs. These flows average about 19 percent of the AAF
indicating that some impairment of the protection of fish species may
occur due to low flow in the river. The 7-day 10-year low flow for
this reach of the river is approximately 18 to 20 cfs.
The outstanding physical features of the Assabet River are the
dams, which have a significant influence on the aquatic life of the
river. Most fish are incapable of migrating upstream of the dams, thus
limiting their ability to find suitable (sufficient) habitats when
critical water quality conditions occur. The low flow conditions
downstream of the dams during dry periods also result in high water
temperatures, further limiting fish survival in the river.
B.	Biological Factors
As with data on the physical parameters for the Assabet River,
biological data are sparse. The last fish survey of the Assabet River
was conducted by the Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Division in 1952.
Yellow perch, bluegills, pickerel, sunfish, and bass were all observed.
The Assabet River was sampled by the MDWPC for macroinvertebrates at
five locations in June, 1979, as part of an intensive water quality
survey.
The data were reviewed and analyses performed to determine whether
conditions preclude macroinvertebrate habitats. The results were
inconcl usive.
C.	Chemical Factors
Of all the chemical constituents measured in the June and August,
1979, water quality surveys, dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrogen, and
temperature have the greatest potential to limit the survival of
aquatic life. Ammonia toxicity was investigated using the criteria
outlined in Water Quality Criteria 1972. The results of this analysis
indicate that the concentration of un-ionized ammonia would need to be
increased approximately three times before acute mortality in the
species of fish listed would occur. Therefore, ammonia is not a
problem.
Temperatures in the lower reaches of the Assabet frequently exceed
the maximum temperature criteria (83 degrees F) for maintenance of a
warm water fishery. However, temperature readings were taken in early
and late afternoon and are believed to be surface water measurements.
They are short-term localized observations and should not preclude the
maintenance of a warm water fishery in those reaches. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations above Maynard are unsuitable for supporting cold or warm
water fisheries, but are sufficient to support a fishery below this
point.
-------
The impoundments may exhibit water quality problems in the form of
high surface temperatures and low bottom DO. Surface temperatures have
been found to be similar to those in the remainder of the river. The
only depth sample was at 13 feet in the wildlife impoundment, where the
temperature was 63 degrees F, while 83 degrees F at the surface. While
such bottom temperatures are likely to be sufficient to support a cold
water fishery, it is likely that the DO at the bottom of the
impoundments will be near zero due to benthic demands and lack of
surface aeration, which would preclude the survival of any fish.
Fi ndi ngs
The data, observations, and analyses as presented herein lead to
the conclusion that there are four possible uses for the Assabet:
aquatic life, warm water fishery, cold water fishery, and seasonal cold
water fishery. The seasonal fishery would be managed by stocking the
river during the spring.
These uses were analyzed under three water quality conditions:
existing, existing without the wastewater discharges, and inclusion of
the wastewater effluent discharges with treatment at the levels
stipulated in the 1981 Suasco Basin Water Quality Management Plan. The
no discharge condition is included as a baseline that represents the
quality under "natural" conditions.
A. Existing Uses
A limited number of warm water fish species predominate in the
Assabet River under existing conditions. The species should not be
different from those observed during the 1952 survey. The combination
of numerous low-level dams and wastewater treatment plants with low
flow conditions in the summer results in dissolved oxygen
concentrations and temperatures which place severe stress on the
metabolism of the fish.
The observed temperatures are most conducive to support the growth
of coarse fish, including pike, perch, walleye, smallmouth and
largemouth bass, sauger, bluegill and crappie.
The minimum observed DO concentrations are unacceptable for the
protection of any fish. Water Quality Criteria establishes the values
6.8, 5.6, and 4.2 mg/1 of DO for high, moderate, and low levels of
protection of fish for rivers with the temperature characteristics of
the Assabet. The Draft National Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen in
Freshwater establishes criteria as 3.0 mg/1 for survival, 4.0 mg/1 for
moderate production impairment, 5.0 mg/1 for slight impairment, and 6.0
for no production impairment. The upper reaches will not even support
a warm water fishery at the survival level, except in the uppermost
reach. On the other hand, the lower reaches can support a warm water
fishery under existing conditions.
D-7
-------
B. Potential Uses
The potential aquatic life uses of the Assabet River would be
restricted by temperature and low flow, and by physical barriers that
would exist even if water quality (measured in terms of DO and
bacteria) is significantly improved. Despite an overall improvement in
treated effluent quality, the river would be suitable for aquatic life,
as it is currently, and would continue to be too warm to support a cold
water fishery in the summertime. The possibility of maintaining the
cold water species in tributaries during the summer was investigated,
but there are no data on which to draw conclusions. Water quality
observations in the only tributary indicate temperatures similar to
those in the mainstem. Therefore, the maintenance of a cold water
fishery in the Assabet is considered unfeasible.
The attainable uses in the river without discharges or at planned
levels of treatment are warm water fishery and seasonal cold water
fishery. These uses are both attainable throughout the basin, but may
be impaired in Reach 1, as the water naturally entering Reach 1 from
the wildlife preservation impoundment is low in DO. The seasonal cold
water fishery is attainable because the discharge limits are
established to maintain a DO of 5 mg/1 under 7Q10 conditions. If the
DO is 5 mg/1 under summer low flow conditions, it will certainly be 6
mg/1 or greater during the colder, higher flow spring stocking period,
and a seasonal cold water fishery would be attainable.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Division, the impoundments of
the Assabet River have the potential to be a valuable warm water
fishery. The reaches of the river that have a non-vegetated gravel
bottom also have a high potential to support a significant fishery
because these habitats allow the benthic invertebrates that comprise
the food supply for the fish to flourish. It was further suggested
that if the dissolved oxygen concentration could be maintained above 5
mg/1, the river could again be stocked as a put and take trout fishery
in the spring.
Summary and Conclusions
The low flow conditions of the Assabet River have been
exacerbated by the low dams which span its course. In the summer
months, the flow in the river is slowed as the river passes through its
impoundments and flow below the dams is often reduced to a relative
trickle. When flow is reduced, temperatures in the shallow river
(easily waivable in many places) can exceed the maximum temperature
criterion for protection and propagation of a warm water fishery.
Additionally, the dams limit the mobility of fish. At present, most of
the river reaches also undergo extensive degradation due to the
discharge of wastewater treatment plant effluent which is manifest in
low dissolved oxygen concentrations. All of these factors impair the
aquatic life potential of the Assabet River.
D-8
-------
Three use levels corresponding with three alternative actions
related to the wastewater discharges are possible in the Assabet. The
no action alternative would result in very low dissolved oxygen
concentrations in many reaches which are appropriate only for the use
designation of aquatic life and warm water fishery. In this scenario,
fish would only survive in the lowest river reaches, and aquatic life
would be limited to sludge worms and similar invertebrates in the upper
reaches. The remaining two alternatives are related to upgrading
treatment plants in the basin. If the discharges are improved
sufficiently to raise the instream DO to 5 mg/1 throughout, as
stipulated in the 1981 Water Quality Management Plan, it will be
suitable as a warm water or seasonal cold water fishery. Should the
discharge be eliminted altogether, the same uses would be attainable.
The treatment plant discharges inhibit the protection and
propagation of aquatic life. Most of the treatment plants are
scheduled to be upgraded in the near future, which would relieve the
existing dissolved oxygen problems. Even if the river is returned to
relatively pristine conditions, the type of fish that would be able to
propagate there would not change, due to the existing physical
conditions. However, the extent of their distribution, their
abundance, and the health of the biota would be likely to increase.
The present use designations of the Assabet River are sufficient
to characterize the aquatic life use it is capable of supporting, while
physical barriers prevent the year-round attainment of a "higher"
aquatic life use. The potential aquatic life uses could include
extension of the warm water and seasonal cold water fishery
classifications to the entire length of the river, should the planned
improvements to the wastewater treatment plants be implemented.
D-9
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Blackwater River
Franklin , Virginia
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The area of the Blackwater River which was chosen for this study extends
from Joyner's Bridge (Southampton County, Route 611) to Cobb's Wharf near
its confluence with the Nottoway River (Table 1 and Figure 1). In addition,
data from the USGS gaging station near Burdette (river mile 24.57) provided
information on some physical characteristics of the system.
TABLE 1
Sampling Locations for Blackwater River Use Attainability Survey
Station	River
No. 	Location		Mi le
1	Vicinity Joyner's Bridge, Route 611	20.90
2	Below Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant Discharge	13.77
3	Vicinity Cobb's Wharf, Route 687	2.59
The mean annual rainfall is 48 inches, much of which occurs in the summer
in the form of thunderstorms. The SCS has concluded that approximately
41 ,000 tons of soil are transported to streams in the watershed due to
rainfall induced erosion. Seventy (70) percent of this originates from
croplands, causing a potential pollution problem from pesticides and from
fertilizer based nutrients. In addition, 114,000 pounds of animal waste are
produced annually, constituting the only other major source of non-point
pollution.
There are two primary point source discharges on the Blackwater River. The
Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant at Station 2 discharges an average of 1.9
mgd of municipal effluent. The discharge volume exceeds NPDES permit levels
due to inflow and infiltration problems. The plant has applied for a
federal grant to upgrade treatment. The second discharge is from Union Camp
Corporation, an integrated kraft mill that produces bleached paper and
bleached board products. The primary by-products are crude tall oil and
crude sulfate turpentine. Union Camp operates at 36.6 mgd but retains its
treated waste in lagoons until the winter months when it is discharged. The
D-10
-------
D-ll
-------
Union Camp discharge point is downstream from Station 3 just above the
North Carolina State line at river mile 0.70.
The topography surrounding the Blackwater River is essentially flat and the
riparian zone is primarily hardwood wetlands. There is a good surface water
supply from several swamps. At the USGS gaging station near Burdette,
Virginia, the discharge for calendar year 1980 averaged 430 cfs.
The Blackwater River from Joyner's Bridge (Station 1) to Franklin is clas-
sified by the State Water Control Board (SWCB) as a Class III free flowing
stream. This classification requires a minimum dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion of 4.0 mg/1 and a daily average of 5.0 mg/1. Other applicable stan-
dards are maintenance of pH from 6.0 to 8.5 and a maximum temperature of
32°C. The riparian zone is heavily wooded wetlands with numerous channel
obstructions. Near Franklin the canopy begins to open and there is an in-
creasing presence of lily pads and other macrophytes. The water is dark, as
is characteristic of tannic acid water found in swamplands.
Below Franklin the Blackwater River is dredged and channelized to permit
barge traffic to reach Union Camp. The channel is approximately 40m wide
and from 5m to 8m in depth. This reach of stream is classified by the SWCB
as a Class II estuarine system requiring the same dissolved oxygen and pH
limitation as in Class III but without a temperature requirement.
B. Problem Definition
The study area on the Blackwater River
stream and a Class II estuarine river,
freshwater cypress swamp. The water
slightly acidic due to tannins.
includes a Class III free-flowing
Part of the Class III section is a
is turbid, nutrient enriched and
In response to the EPA request for Virginia's involvement in the pilot Use
Attainability studies, the State Water Control Board chose to examine the
Blackwater River in the vicinity of Franklin, Virginia. There were several
reasons for this choice. First, the major stress to the system is low dis-
solved oxygen (DO) concentrations which occur from May through November.
Surveys conducted by SWCB staff, and officials from Union Camp in Franklin,
found that during certain periods "natural" background concentrations of
dissolved oxygen fell below the water quality standard of 4.0 mg/1. This
has raised questions as to whether the current standard is appropriate.
Virginia's water quality standards contain a swamp water designation which
recognizes that DO and pH may be substantially different in some swamp
waters and provides for specific standards to be set on a case by case
basis. However, no site specific standards have been developed in Virginia
to date. One of the goals of this project was to gather information which
could lead to possible development of a site specific standard for the
Blackwater River. Second, the Franklin STP has applied for a federal grant
to provide for improved BOD removals from its effluent.
D-12
-------
C. Approach to Use Attainability
On 20 April, 1982, staff of the SWCB met with several EPA officials and
their consultant. After visiting the study area on the Blackwater River and
reviewing the available information, it was determined that further data
should be collected, primarily a description of the aquatic community. The
SWCB staff has scheduled four quarterly surveys from June 1982, through
March 1983, to collect physical, chemical, and biological information. In-
terim results are reported herein to summarize data from the first collec-
tion. Final conclusions will not be drawn until the data has been compiled
for all four quarters.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A.	Physical Analysis
Data on the physical characteristics of the Blackwater River were derived
primarily from existing information and from general observations. The en-
tire reach of the Blackwater River from Joyner's Bridge to Cobb's Wharf was
traveled by boat to observe channel and riparian characteristics. A sedi-
ment sample was collected at each station for partical size analysis.
B.	Chemical Analysis
Water samples were collected at Stations 1-3 for analysis of pH, alkalini-
ty, solids, hardness, nutrients, five-day BOD, chemical oxygen demand,
total organic carbon, phenols, pesticides, and heavy metals. In addition,
previous data on dissolved oxygen concentrations collected by the SWCB and
Union Camp were used to examine oxygen profiles in the river. The USGS
Water Resources Data for Virginia (1981) provided some chemical data for
the Blackwater River near Burdette.
C.	Biological Analysis
Periphyton sampling for chlorophyl1-a, biomass, and autotrophic index de-
termination was conducted using floating plexiglass samplers anchored by a
cement weight. The samplers were placed in the field in triplicate and re-
mained in the river for 14 days. They were located in run areas in the
stream. At the end of this two-week period, the samplers were retrieved and
the slides removed for biomass determinations and chlorophyll analysis.
Both a cursory and a quantitative survey of macroinvertebrates were con-
ducted at each station. The purpose of the cursory study was to rapidly
identify the general water quality of each station by surveying the pres-
ence of aquatic insects, molluscs, crustaceans and worms and classifying
them according to their pollution tolerance. A record was kept of all
organisms found and these were classified to the family level as dominant,
abundant, common, few or present. The cursory survey was completed with a
qualitative evaluation of the density and diversity of aquatic organisms.
n-13
-------
General knowledge of the pollution tolerance of various genera was used to
classify the water quality at each station. The benthic macroinvertebrate
samples were collected with Hester-Dendy multiplate artificial substrates.
The substrates were attached to metal fence posts and held vertically at
least 15 cm above the stream bottom. The substrates were left in place for
six weeks to allow for colonization by macroinvertebrate organisms. In the
laboratory the organisms were identified to the generic level whenever pos-
sible. Counts were made of the number of taxa identified and the number of
individuals within each taxon.
Fish populations were surveyed at each station by electrofishing. Each sta-
tion was shocked for 1,000 seconds: 800 seconds at the shoreline and 200
seconds at midstream. Fish collected were identified to species and the
total length of each fish was recorded. In addition, general observations
were made about the health status of the fish by observing lesions, hemor-
rhaging, and the presence of external parasites.
Diversity of species was calculated using the Shannon-Weaver index. Addi-
tionally, the fish communities were evaluated using an index proposed by
Karr (1981) which classifies biotic integrity based on 12 parameters of the
fish community.
III. FINDINGS
There are few physical factors which limit aquatic life uses. The habitat
is characteristic of a hardwood wetland with few alterations. The major
alteration is dredging and channelization below Franklin which eliminates
much of the macrophyte community and the habitat it provides for other
organisms. The substrate at each station was composed mostly of sand with a
high moisture content. This is characteristic of a swamp but is not ideal
habitat for colonization by periphyton and macroinvertebrates.
DO concentrations are typically below the Virginia water quality standards
during the months of May through November. This is true upstream as well as
downstream from the Franklin STP and appears to occur even without the im-
pact of BOD loadings from Franklin. This phenomenon may be typical of en-
riched freshwater wetlands. However, during the winter months, DO concen-
trations may exceed 10 mg/1. Another survey conducted by SWCB showed that
there were only small changes in DO concentration with depth.
Representatives from 17 families of macroinvertebrates were observed during
a cursory investigation. These included mayflies, scuds, midges, operculate
and non-operculate snails, crayfish, flatworms, and a freshwater sponge.
The majority of these organisms were facultative at Stations 1 and 2. How-
ever, there were a few pollution sensitive forms at Station 1, and Station
3 was dominated by pollution sensitive varieties.
Twelve (12) species from seven families of fish were observed during the
June 1982 study. Several top predators were present including the bowfin,
D-14
-------
chain pickerel, largemouth bass and longnose gar. Other fish collected were
the American eel, shiners, pirate perch, yellow perch, and five species of
sunfish. None of the species are especially pollution sensitive. Results of
the fish population survey are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Results of Fish Population Survey in Blackwater River, 9 June 1982
Number	No. of	Diversity	Proportion of
	Station	 Collected	Species	d	Omnivores Carnivores
1.	Joyner's Bridge 19	7	2.30	.000 .157
2.	Franklin STP 51	6	2.35	.000 .098
3.	Cobb's Wharf 44	6	2.35	.000 .114
Based on the EPA 304(a) criteria, low seasonal 00 concentrations measured
in the river should present a significant stress to the biotic community.
Large fish tend to be less resistant to low DO yet large species such as
the largemouth bass, American eel and some sunfishes were present in an
apparently healthy condition. The explanation for this is unclear. The low
dissolved oxygen concentrations are near the physiological limit for many
species. Fish may be able to acclimate to low DO to a limited extent if the
change in oxygen concentration occurs gradually. The fact that fish are
present in a healthy condition suggests that there is a lack of other sig-
nificant stressors in the system which might interact with low DO stress.
It is worth noting that spawning probably occurs in most species before the
summer months when dissolved oxygen concentration become critically low.
The autotrophic index determinations show the Joyner's Bridge and Franklin
STP stations as having relatively healthy periphyton communities. In each
case over 80 percent of the periphytic community was autotrophic in nature.
Based on the autotrophic index , both of these stations were in better bio-
logical health than the most downstream station, Cobb's Wharf. At Cobb's
Wharf the autotrophic index characterized an autotrophic community which
was experiencing a slight decline in biological integrity (74 percent auto-
trophic as compared to greater than 80 percent upstream).
Chemical analyses conducted on water from the Blackwater River did not
reveal any alarming concentration of toxicants when compared to EPA Water
Quality Criteria Documents, although the zinc concentration at Station 1
was slightly above the 24-hour average recommended by EPA. One sample col-
lected by the USGS had a zinc concentration which was twice this number.
The source of this zinc is unknown. Any impact which exists from this pro-
blem should be sublethal, affecting growth and reproduction of primarily
D-15
-------
the most sensitive species. The actual impact of zinc concentrations at
Joyner's Bridge is unknown.
Analyses of the periphyton data as well as the water chemistry data indi-
cate that the Blackwater River is nutrient enriched. Some of this nutrient
load comes from inadequately protected crop lands and from domestic animal
wastes. The Franklin STP also contributes to higher nutrient concentra-
tions. Additionally, an SWCB report estimated that between river mile 20.0
and 6.0, 1,600 lb per day of non-point source carbonaceous BOD (ultimate)
are added to the river. Consequently, these point and non-point sources
appear to be contributing to both organic enrichment and lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Blackwater River from river mile 2.59 to 20.90 has been characterized
as a nutrient enriched coastal river much of which is bordered by hardwood
wetlands. Periphytic, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities are healthy
with fair to good abundance and diversity. The major limitation to aquatic
life appears to be low DO concentrations which are enhanced by point and
non-point sources of nutrients and BOD. A secondary limitation may be ele-
vated zinc concentrations at Joyner's Bridge.
The primary difficulty in assessing the attainability of aquatic life uses
is locating a suitable reference reach to serve as an example of an unaf-
fected aquatic community. Originally, Joyner's Bridge (Station 1) was
selected for this purpose, but few major differences occur between popula-
tions at all three stations. However, the widespread non-point pollution in
Southeastern Virginia makes the location of an undisturbed reference reach
impossible. The only alternative, then, is to make the best possible judg-
ment as to what organisms might reasonably be expected to inhabit the
Blackwater.
In reference to the Blackwater River, it is probable that most fish species
are present that should reasonably be expected to inhabit the river, al-
though possibly in lower numbers. (No attempt has yet been made to assess
this with regard to algal and invertebrate communities.) However, based on
the 304(a) criteria, the low DO concentrations represent a significant
stress of the ecosystem and the introduction of additional stressors could
be destructive. It is also probable that higher oxygen concentrations dur-
ing winter months play a major role in reducing the impact of this stress.
Removal of point and non-point source inputs may alleviate some problems.
However, DO concentrations may still remain low. The increased effect of
oxygen concentrations should be an increase in fish abundance and increased
size of individuals. Diversity would probably be unaffected. Nevertheless,
no attempt has been made to estimate the magnitude of these changes.
Cairns (1977) has suggested a method for estimating the potential of a body
of water to recover from pollutional stress. Although this analysis is only
D-16
-------
semi-quantitative and subjective, it suggests that the chances of rapid
recovery following a disturbance in the Blackwater River are poor.
The absence of an undisturbed reference reach and the difficulty in quan-
tifying changes in dissolved oxygen, population structure, and population
abundance make a definite statement regarding attainability of aquatic life
uses difficult. However, to summarize, several points stand out. First, the
aquatic communities iri the Blackwater River are generally healthy with fair
to good abundance and distribution. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are low
for about half of the year which causes a significant stress to aquatic
organisms. Oxygen concentrations are higher during the reproductive periods
of many fishes. Because of these stresses and the physical characteristics
of the river, the system does not have much resiliency or capacity to with-
stand additional stress. Although a quantitative statement of changes in
the aquatic community with the amelioration of DO stress has not been made,
it is probable that additional stresses would degrade the present aquatic
community.
The occurrence of low dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout much of
the Blackwater is, in part, a "natural" phenomenon and could argue for a
reduction in the DO standard. However, if this standard were reduced on a
year round basis it is probable that the aquatic community would steadily
degrade. This may result in a contravention of the General Standard of
Virginia State Law which requires that all waters support the propagation
and growth of all aquatic life which can reasonably be expected to inhabit
these waters. Because of the lack of resiliency in the system, a year round
standards change could irreversibly alter the aquatic community.
D-17
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Cuckels Brook
Bridgewater Township, New Jersey
I. INTRODUCTION
A.	Site Description
Cuckels Brook, a small tributary of the Raritan River, is located entirely
within Bridgewater Township in Somerset County, New Jersey. It is a peren-
nial stream approximately four miles long, having a watershed area of ap-
proximately three square miles. The entire brook is classified as FW-2 Non-
trout in current New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Surface Water Quality Standards.
Decades ago, the downstream section of Cuckels Brook (below the Raritan
Valley Line Railroad, Figure 1), was relocated into an artificial channel.
This channelized section of Cuckels Brook consists of an upstream subsec-
tion approximately 2,000 feet in length and a downstream subsection approx-
imately 6,000 feet in length, with the Somerset-Raritan Valley Sewerage
Authority (SRVSA) municipal discharge being the point of demarcation be-
tween the two. The downstream channelized subsection (hereinafter referred
to as "Lower Cuckels Brook") is used primarily to convey wastewater to the
Raritan River from SRVSA and the American Cyanamid Company, which dis-
charges approximately 200 feet downstream of SRVSA. At its confluence with
the Raritan River, flow in Lower Cuckels Brook is conveyed into Calco Dam,
a dispersion dam which distributes the flow across the Raritan River. Ex-
cept for railroad and pipeline rights-of-way, all the land along Lower
Cuckels Brook is owned by the American Cyanamid Company. Land use in the
Cuckels Brook watershed above the SRVSA discharge is primarily suburban but
includes major highways.
B.	Problem Definition
Lower Cuckels Brook receives two of the major discharges in the Raritan
River Basin. SRVSA is a municipal secondary wastewater treatment plant
which had an average flow in 1982 of 8.8 mgd (design capacity = 10 mgd).
The American Cyanamid wastewater discharge is a mixture of process water
from organic chemical manufacturing, cooling water, storm water, and sani-
tary wastes. This mixed waste receives secondary treatment followed by
activated carbon treatment. In 1982 American Cyanamid's average flow was
7.0 mgd (design capacity 20 mgd). These two discharges totally dominate the
character of Lower Cuckels Brook.
Over 90 percent of the flow in Cuckels Brook is wastewater (except after
heavy rainfall). The mean depth is estimated to be between 1 and 2 feet,
and the channel bottom at observed locations is covered with deposits of
D-18
-------
0
1
10
t>if\y.^rS5-s • A\ millstone
1
-------
black sludge, apparently derived from solids in the SRVSA and Cyanamid dis-
charges (primarily the SRVSA discharge). In contrast, the channelized sub-
section of Cuckels Brook above the SRVSA discharge is often only inches
deep with a bottom of bedrock, rubble, gravel and silt.
Cuckels Brook (including Lower Cuckels Brook) is classified as FW-2 Non-
trout in the NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards. The FW-2 classification
provides for the following uses:
1.	Potable water supply after such treatment as shall be required by
law or regulation;
2.	Maintenance, migration, and propagation of natural and established
biota (not including trout);
3.	Primary contact recreation;
4.	Industrial and agricultural water supply; and
5.	Any other reasonable uses.
The attainment of these uses is currently prevented by the strength and
volume of wastewaters currently discharged to Cuckels Brook. The size of
the stream also limits primary contact recreation and other water uses, and
physical barriers currently prevent the migration of fish between Cuckels
Brook and the Raritan River.
C. Approach to Use Attainability
In response to an inquiry from EPA, Criteria and Standards Division, the
State of New Jersey offered to participate in a demonstration Water Body
Survey and Assessment. The water body survey of Cuckels Brook was conducted
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Systems
Analysis and Wasteload Allocation; with assistance from the EPA Region II
Edison Laboratory.
The assessment is based primarily on the results of a field sampling pro-
gram designed and conducted jointly by NJDEP and EPA-Edison in October
1982. Additional sources of information include self-monitoring reports
furnished by the dischargers, and earlier studies conducted by the NJDEP on
Cuckels Brook and the Raritan River. Based on this assessment, NJDEP deve-
loped a report entitled "Lower Cuckels Brook Water Body Survey and Use
Attainability Analysis, 1983."
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Chemical Analysis
The major impact of the SRVSA discharge is attributed to un-ionized ammonia
and TRC levels, whose concentrations at Station 4, 100 feet below the dis-
charge point were 0.173 and 1.8 mg/1 respectively, which are 3.5 and 600
D-20
-------
times higher than the State criteria. The un-ionized ammonia concentration
of the Cyanamid effluent was low, but stream concentrations at Stations 6
and 7 were relatively high (though below the State criterion of 0.05 mg/1).
The Cyanamid discharge contained 0.8 mg/1 TRC. Concentrations at both Sta-
tions 6 and 7 were 0.3 mg/1 TRC, lower than at Station 4 but still 100
times the State criterion of 0.003 mg/1. The other major impact of the Cy-
anamid effluent was on instream filterable residue levels. Concentrations
at Stations 6 and 7 exceeded 1,100 mg/1, over three times the State crite-
rion (133 percent of background).
The effluents apparently buffered the pH of Lower Cuckels Brook which was
approximately pH 7 at Stations 4, 6 and 7, and the pH of the upstream
reference stations was markedly alkaline. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
decreased in the downstream direction despite low B0D5 concentrations both
in the effluents and instream. This suggests an appreciable sediment oxygen
demand in Lower Cuckels Brook. Dissolved oxygen levels were greater in the
two effluents than in the stream at Stations 6 and 7. The dissolved oxygen
concentration at Station 7 of 4.1 mg/1 nearly violated the State criterion
of 4.0 mg/1; this suggests the potential for unsatisfactory dissolved oxy-
gen conditions during the summer.
The results of the water body survey are generally in good agreement with
other available data sources. Recent self-monitoring data for both American
Cyanamid and SRVSA agree well with the data collected in this survey. In
particular they show consistantly high TRC concentrations in both efflu-
ents. High average dissolved solids (filterable residue) concentrations are
reported for the Cyanamid effluent. Total ammonia levels as high as 33.5
mg/1 NH3 (27.6 mg/1 N) were reported for the SRVSA effluent. The pH of the
Cyanamid and SRVSA effluents is sometimes more alkaline than the water body
survey values indicating that toxic un-ionized ammonia concentrations may
sometimes be higher than measured during the water body survey.
B. Biological Analysis
Fish and macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted in the channelized sub-
section of Cuckels Brook above the SRVSA discharge. Only three fish species
were found: the banded killifish, the creek chub and the blacknose dace.
One hundred and eighty-six (186) out of the total 194 specimens collected
were banded killifish. Killifish are very hardy and are common in both es-
tuarine and freshwater systems. The largest fish found, a creek chub, was
146 mm long.
The results of the macroinvertebrate survey are discussed in detail in a
separate report (NJDEP, 1982). Four replicate surber samples were collected
at Stations 1 and 2 above the SRVSA discharge. Diversity indices indicate
the presence of similar well-balanced communities at both stations. Species
diversity and equitability were 3.9 and 0.7 respectively at Station 1, and
4.3 and 0.7 respectively at Station 2. Productivity at Stations 1 and 2 was
D-21
-------
low, with mean densities of 59 and 89 individuals per square foot, respec-
tively. The majority of species found at both stations have organic pollu-
tion tolerance classifications of tolerant (dominant at Station 1) or fac-
ultative (dominant at Station 2).
Overall, the biological data indicate that the upstream channelized subsec-
tion of Cuckels Brook supports a limited fish community and a limited mac-
roinvertebrate community of generally tolerant species. The water quality
data indicates nothing that would limit the community. One possible limi-
ting factor is that, as a result of channelization, the substrate consists
of unconsolidated gravel and rubble on bedrock, which might easily be dis-
turbed by high flow conditions.
Both the chemical data and visual observations at various locations suggest
that virtually no aquatic life exists along Lower Cuckels Brook: not even
algae were seen. The discharges have seriously degraded water quality. Un-
ionized ammonia concentrations at Station 4 were close to acute lethal
levels, while concentrations of TRC were above acute levels at Stations 4,
6 and 7 (EPA, 1976). The sludge deposits which apparently cover most of the
bottom of lower Cuckels Brook could exert negative physical (i.e. smother-
ing) and chemical (i.e. possible toxics) effects on any benthic organisms.
No biological survey of the lower brook was made because of concern about
potential hazards to sampling personnel. Supplemental sampling of the sedi-
ments is planned to ascertain levels of toxics accumulation.
As part of their self-monitoring requirements, American Cyanamid performs
weekly 96-hour modified flow-through bioassays with fathead minnows using
unchlorinated effluent. Of 63 bioassays conducted between 1 May, 1981 and
31 August, 1982, results from eight bioassays had 96-hour LC50 values at
concentrations of effluent less than 100 percent (i.e. 26 percent, 58 per-
cent, 77 percent, 83.5 percent, 88 percent, 92 percent, and 95.5 percent).
These results suggest that the American Cyanamid effluent would not be ex-
tremely toxic if it were reasonably diluted by its receiving waters. Within
Lower Cuckels Brook, however, the effluent receives only approximately 50
percent dilution and the potential exists for toxic effects on any aquatic
life that may be present. These effects would be in addition to the toxici-
ty anticipated from the TRC concentrations which result from the chlorina-
tion of the effluent.
III. FINDINGS
Practically none of the currently designated uses are now being achieved in
Lower Cuckels Brook. The principal current use of Lower Cuckels Brook is
the conveyance of treated wastewater and upstream runoff to the Raritan
River. Judging from the indirect evidence of chemical data and visual ob-
servations, virtually no aquatic life is maintained or propagated in Lower
Cuckels Brook. It has been well documented that fish avoid chlorinated
waters (Cherry and Cairns, 1982; Fava and Tsai , 1976). Any aquatic life
that does reside in Lower Cuckels Brook would be sparse and stressed. Mig-
ration of aquatic life through Lower Cuckels Brook would probably only oc-
cur during periods of high storm water flow when some flow occurs over the
D-22
-------
un-named dam (Figure 1) which is designed to direct the flow of Cuckels
Brook toward Calco Dam. Calco Dam and its associated structures, including
the un-named dam, normally prevent the migration of fish between Cuckels
Brook and the Raritan River.
Lower Cuckels Brook currently does not support any primary or secondary
contact recreation. No water is currently diverted from Lower Cuckels Brook
for potable water supply, industrial or agricultural water supply, or any
other purpose.
Because Lower Cuckels Brook receives large volumes of wastewater and be-
cause there is practically no dilution, water quality in Lower Cuckels
Brook has been degraded to the quality of wastewater. Moreover, the bottom
of Lower Cuckels Brook has been covered at observed locations with waste-
water solids. As a result, Lower Cuckels Brook is currently unfit for aqua-
tic life, recreation, and most other water uses. The technology-based ef-
fluent limits required by the Clean Water Act are not adequate to protect
the currently designated water uses in Lower Cuckels Brook. SRVSA already
provides secondary treatment (except for bypassed flows in wet weather),
and American Cyanamid already provides advanced treatment with activated
carbon. Because the Raritan River provides far more dilution than does
Cuckels Brook, effluent limits which may be developed to protect the Rari-
tan River would not be adequate to protect the currently designated water
uses in Lower Cuckels Brook. The only practical way to restore water qua-
lity in Lower Cuckels Brook would be to remove the wastewater discharges.
However, there are several factors that would limit the achievement of cur-
rently designated uses even if the wastewater discharges were completely
separated from natural flow.
If it were assumed that the wastewater discharges and sludge were absent,
and that the seepage of contaminated groundwater from the American Cyanamid
property was insignificant or absent, then the following statements could
be made about attainable uses in Lower Cuckels Brook:
Aquatic Life - The restoration of aquatic life in Lower Cuckels Brook
would be limited to some extent by the small size and lower flow of the
stream, by channelization, and by contaminants in suburban and highway
runoff from the upstream watershed. Lower Cuckels Brook could support a
limited macroinvertebrate community of generally tolerant species, and
some small fish as were found in the reference channelized subsection
above the SRVSA discharge (Stations 1 and 2). Unless it were altered or
removed, the Calco Dam complex would continue to prevent fish migra-
tion.
Wildlife typical of narrow stream corridors could inhabit the generally
narrow strips of land between Lower Cuckels Brook and nearby railroad
tracks and waste lagoons. Restoration of aquatic life in Lower Cuckels
Brook would be expected to have little impact on aquatic life in the
Raritan River.
D-23
-------
Recreation - Lower Cuckels Brook would be too shallow for swindling
or boating, and its small fish could not support sport fishing.
The industrial surroundings of Lower Cuckels Brook, including
waste lagoons and active manufacturing facilities and railroads,
severely reduces the potential for other recreational activities
such as streamside trails and picnic areas, wading, and nature
appreciation. As Lower Cuckels Brook is on private industrial
property, trespassing along this brook and in the surrounding area
is discouraged.
It would appear unlikely that any of the landowners, or any
government agency, would develop recreational facilities along
lower Cuckels Brook or even remove some of the brush which impairs
access to most of the Brook. Recreation along Lower Cuckels Brook
would be limited, occasional, and informal.
Other Mater Uses - Although water quality in Lower Cuckels Brook
would generally meet FW-2 Nontrout criteria, the volume of natural
flow in Lower Cuckels Brook would be insufficient for potable
water supply or for industrial or agricultural water use.
In general, Lower Cuckels Brook would become a small channelized
tributary segment flowing through a heavily industrialized area, free
of gross pollution and capable of supporting a modest aquatic community
and very limited recreational use.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This use-attainability analysis has discussed the present impairment of
the currently designated uses of Lower Cuckels Brook, the role of
wastewater discharges in such impairment, and the extent to which
currently designated water uses might be achieved if the wastewater
discharges were removed. Further analysis, outside the scope of this
survey, will be required: to document the costs of removing SRVSA and
American Cyanamid effluent from Lower Cuckels Brook, and to evaluate
the impact of the SRVSA and American Cyanamid discharges on the Raritan
River. These analyses may lead to the development of site-specific
water quality standards for Lower Cuckels Brook (designated uses
limited to the conveyance of wastewater and the prevention of
nuisances), or to the removal of the wastewater discharges from Lower
Cuckels Brook. In either case, effluent limits would be established to
protect water quality in the Raritan River.
D-24
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Deep Creek And Canal Creek
Scotland Neck, North Carolina
I. INTRODUCTION
A.	Site Description
The Town of Scotland Neck is located in Halifax County in the lower coastal
plain of North Carolina. The Town's wastewater, made up mostly of domestic
waste with a small amount of textile waste, is treated in an oxidation
ditch of 0.6 mgd design capacity. The treatment plant is located two-tenths
of a mile southwest of Scotland Neck off U.S. Highway 258, as seen in Fig-
ure 1. The effluent (0.323 mgd average) is discharged to Canal Creek which
is a tributary to Deep Creek.
Canal Creek is a channelized stream which passes through an agricultural
watershed, but also receives some urban runoff from the western sections of
Scotland Neck. It is a Class C stream with a drainage area of 2.4 square
miles, an average stream flow of 3.3 cfs, and a 7Q10 of 0.0 cfs. The Creek
retains definite banks for about 900 feet below the outfall at which point
it splits into numerous shifting channels and flows 800 to 1400 feet
through a cypress swamp before reaching Deep Creek. During dry periods the
braided channels of Canal Creek can be visually traced to Deep Creek. Dur-
ing wet periods Canal Creek overflows into the surrounding wetland and flow
is no longer restricted to the channels.
Deep Creek is a typical tannin colored Inner Coastal Plain stream that has
a heavily wooded paludal flood plain. The main channel is not deeply en-
trenched. In some sections streamflow passes through braided channels, or
may be conveyed through the wetland by sheetflow. During dry weather flow
periods the main channel is fairly distinct and the adjacent wetland is
saturated, but not inundated. During wet weather periods the main channel
is less distinct, adjacent areas become flooded and previously dry areas
become saturated.
B.	Problem Definition
The Town of Scotland Neck is unable to. meet its final NPDES Permit limits
and is operating with a Special Order by Consent which specifies interim
limits. The Town is requesting a 201 Step III grant to upgrade treatment by
increasing hydraulic capacity to 0.675 mgd with an additional clarifier, an
aerobic digestor, tertiary filters, a chlorine contact chamber, post aera-
tion and additional sludge drying beds. The treated effluent from Scotland
Neck is discharged into Canal Creek. The lower reaches of Canal Creek are
part of the swamp through which Deep Creek passes.
D-25
-------
Figure 1. Study Area, Deep Creek
and Canal Creek
D-26
-------
Deep Creek carries a "C" classification, but due to naturally low dissolved
oxygen and other conditions imposed by the surrounding swamp, it is felt
that reclassification to "C-Swamp" should be considered. Deep Creek should
be classified C-Swamp because its physical characteristics meet the C-Swamp
classification of the North Carolina Administrative Code for Classifica-
tions and Water Quality Standards. The Code states: Swamp waters shall mean
those waters which are so designated by the Environmental Management Com-
mission and which are topographically located so as to generally have very
low velocities and certain other characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams draining steeper topograpy. The C-Swamp classification
provides for a minimum pH of 4.3 (compared to a range of pH 6.0 to pH 8.5
for C waters), and allows for low (unspecified) DO values if caused by nat-
ural conditions. DO concentrations in Deep Creek are usually below 4.0
mg/1.
C. Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
1.	Data Avai lable
1.	Self Monitoring Reports from Scotland Neck.
2.	Plant inspections by the Field Office.
3.	Intensive Water Quality Survey of Canal Creek and Deep Creek at
Scotland Neck in September, 1979. Study consisted of time-of-
travel dye work and water quality sampling.
2.	Additional Routine Data Collected
Water quality survey of Canal Creek and Deep Creek at Scotland Neck
in June 1982. Water quality data was collected to support a biologi-
cal survey of these creeks. The study included grab samples and flow
measurements.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from sites on Canal Creek
and Deep Creek. Qualitative collection methods were used. A two-
member team spent one hour per site collecting from as many habitats
as possible. It is felt that this collection method is more reliable
than quantitative collection methods (kicks, Surbers , ponars , etc.)
in this type of habitat. Taxa are recorded as rare, common, and
abundant.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Physical Factors
Sampling sites were chosen to correspond with sites previously sampled in a
water quality survey of Canal and Deep Creeks. Three stations were selected
on Canal Creek. SN-1 is located 40 feet above the Town of Scotland Neck
Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall. This site serves as a reference sta-
tion. The width at SN-1 is 7.0 feet and the average discharge (two flows
were recorded in the September 1979 survey and one flow in the June 1982
D-27
-------
survey) is 0.65 cubic feet per second. Canal Creek at SN-1 has been chan-
nelized and has a substrate composed of sand and silt. SN-4 is located on
Canal Creek 900 feet below the discharge point. This section of Canal Creek
has an average cross-sectional area of 11.8 feet and an average flow of
1.33 cubic feet per second. The stream in this section is also channelized
and also has a substrate composed of sand and silt. There is a canopy of
large cypress at SN-4 below the plant, while the canopy above SN-1 is re-
duced to a narrow buffer zone. The potential uses of Deep Creek are limited
by its inaccessabi lity in these areas.
A third station (SN-5) was selected on one of the lower channels of Canal
Creek at the confluence with Deep Creek 3200 feet upstream of the U.S.
Highway 258 bridge. Discharge measurements could not be accomplished at
this site during this survey because of the swampy nature of the stream
with many ill-defined, shallow, slow moving courses. Benthic macroinverte-
brates were collected from this site.
Three stations were chosen on Deep Creek. SN-6 is approximately 300 feet
upstream of SN-5 on Canal Creek at its confluence with Deep Creek and is a
reference site. SN-7 is located at the U.S. Highway 258 bridge and SN-8 is
located further downstream at the SR 1100 bridge. SN-7 and SN-8 are below
Canal Creek. There are some differences in habitat variability among these
three sites. The substrate at both SN-6 and SN-7 is composed mostly of a
deep layer of fine particulate matter. Usable and productive benthic hab-
itats in this area are reduced because of the fine particulate layer. It is
possible that the source of this sediment is from frequent overbank flows
and from upstream sources. Productive benthic habitats include areas of
macrophyte growth, snags, and submerged tree trunks. Discharge measurements
were not taken at any of these three sites during this survey.
B.	Chemical Factors
Chemical data from two water quality surveys show that the dissolved oxygen
in Canal Creek is depressed while BOD solids and nutrient levels are ele-
vated. The 1982 study indicates, however, that the water quality is better
than it was during the 1979 survey. Such water quality improvements may be
due to the addition of chlorination equipment and other physical improve-
ments as well as to the efforts of a new plant operator.
Both above and below its confluence with Canal Creek, Deep Creek shows poor
water quality which may be attributed to natural conditions, but not to any
influence from the waste load carried by Canal Creek. Canal Creek exhibited
higher DO levels than Deep Creek.
C.	Biological Factors
The impact of the effluent on the fauna of Canal Creek is clear. A 63 per-
cent reduction in taxa richness from 35 at SN-1 to only 13 at SN-4 indi-
cates severe stress as measured against criteria developed by biologists of
the Water Quality Section. The overwhelming dominance of Chironomus at SN-4
D-28
-------
is indicative of a low DO level and high concentrations of organic matter.
To what extent this condition is attributable to the effluent or to natural
swamp conditions is not clear. No impact to the benthos of Deep Creek was
discerned which could be attributed to the effluent.
III.	FINDINGS
Deep Creek is currently designated as a class C warm water fishery but due
to naturally low dissolved oxygen concentrations may not be able to satisfy
the class C dissolved oxygen criteria. The DO criterion for class C waters
stipulates a minimum value of 4 ppm, yet the DO in Deep Creek, in both the
1979 and the 1982 studies , was less than 4 ppm. Thus from the standpoint of
aquatic life uses, Deep Creek may not be able to support the forms of aqua-
tic life which are intended for protection under the class C standards.
Because of prevailing natural conditions, there are no higher potential
uses of Deep Creek than now exist; yet because of prevailing natural condi-
tions and in light of the results of this water body assessment, the C-
swamp use designation appears to be a more appropriate designation under
existing North Carolina Water Quality Standards.
Canal Creek is degraded by the effluent from the Scotland Neck wastewater
treatment plant. The BOD fecal coliform, solids and nutrient levels are
elevated while the DO concentration is depressed. The reach immediately
below the outfall is affected by an accumulation of organic solids, by dis-
coloration and by odors associated with the wastewater.
IV.	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The water body survey of Deep Creek and Canal Creek included a considera-
tion of physical, chemical and biological factors. The focus of interest
was those factors responsible for water quality in Deep Creek, including
possible deliterious effects of the Scotland Neck wastewater on this water
body. The analyses indicate that the effluent does not appear to affect
Deep Creek. Instead, the water quality of Deep Creek reflects natural con-
ditions imposed by seasonal low flow and high temperature, and reflects the
nutrient and organic contribution of the surrounding farmland and wetland.
It is concluded that the C-Swamp designation more correctly reflects the
uses of Deep Creek than does the C designation.
In contrast to Deep Creek, Canal Creek is clearly affected by the treated
effluent. Further examination would be required to determine the extent of
recovery that might be expected in Canal Creek if the plant were to meet
current permit requirements or if the proposed changes to the plant were
incorporated into the treatment process.
D-29
-------
WATER RODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Malheur River
Malheur County, Oregon
I INTRODUCTION
A.	Site Description
The Malheur River, in southeastern Oregon, flows eastward to
the Snake River which separates Oregon from Idaho. Most of
Malheur County is under some form of agricultural production.
With an average annual precipitation of less than 10 inches,
the delivery of irrigation water is essential to maintain the
high agricultural productivity of the area.
The Malheur River system serves as a major source of water for
the area's irrigation requirements (out of basin transfer of
water from Owyhee Reservoir augments the Malheur supply).
Reservoirs, dams, and diversions have been built on the
Malheur and its tributaries to supply the irrigation network.
The first major withdrawal occurs at the Namorf Dam and
Diversion, at Malheur River Mile 69. Figure 1 presents a
schematic of the study area.
Irrigation water is delivered to individual farms by a
complicated system of canals and laterals. Additional water
is obtained from drainage canals and groundwater sources. An
integral part of the water distribution system is the use and
reuse of irrigation return flows five or six times before it
is finally discharged to the Snake River.
B.	Problem Definition
The Malheur River above Namorf Dam and Diversion is managed
primarily as a trout fishery, and from Namorf to the mouth as
a warm-water fishery. The upper portion of the river system
is appropriately classified. Below Namorf Dam, however, the
river is inappropriately classified as supporting a cold-water
fishery, and therefore was selected for review. This review
was conducted as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's field test of the draft "Water Body Survey and
Assessment Guidance" for conducting a use attainability
analysis. The guidance document supports the proposed rule to
revise and consolidate the existing regulation governing the
development, review, and approval of water quality standards
under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
C.	Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
Assessment of the Malheur River is based on a site visit which
included meetings with representatives of the Malheur County
Citizen's Water Resources Committee, the USDA-Soil
Conservation Service, the Oregon Department of Environmental
D-30
-------
MIDDLE FORK OF
MALHEUR RIVER
SNAKE RIVER
SIMPLIFIED FLOW SCHEMATIC
MALHEUR RIVER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
- FIGURE I -
0-31
-------
Duality (ODEQ), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
and upon the findings reported in two studies:
Final Report, Two Year Sampling Program, Malheur County
Water Quality Management Plan, Malheur County Planning
Office, Vale, Oregon, 1981.
Bowers, Hosford and Moore, Stream Surveys of the Lower
Owyhee and Malheur Rivers, A Report to the Malheur County
Water Resources Committee, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, January, 1979.
The first report, prepared under amendments to Section 208 of
the Clean Water Act, contains extensive information on the
quantity, quality and disposition of the areas' water
resources. The second document gives the fish populations
found in the lower 69 miles of the Malheur River during June
and July, 1978. Information in the ODFW report is
incorporated in the 208 report. Additional fisheries
information supplied by ODFW was also considered.
A representative of ODEO, Portland, and the Water Quality
Standards Coordinator, EPA Region X, Seattle, Washington,
agreed that the data and analyses contained in these two
reports were sufficient to re-examine existing designated uses
of the Malheur River.
II ANALYSES CONDUCTED
Physical, chemical, and biological data were reviewed to
determine: (1) whether the attainment of a salmonid fishery was
feasible in the lower Malheur; and (2) whether some other
designated use would be more appropriate to this reach. The
elements of this review follow:
A. Physical Factors
Historically, salmonid fish probably used the lower Malheur
(lower 50 miles) mainly as a migration route, because of the
warm water and poor habitat. The first barrier to upstream
fish migration was the Nevada Dam near Vale, constructed in
1880. Construction of the Warm Springs Dam in 1918, ended the
anadromous fish runs in the Middle Fork Malheur. The
construction of Beulah Dam in 1931, befell the remainder of
anadromous fish runs on the North Fork Malheur. Finally, the
construction of Brownlee Reservoir in 1958 completely blocked
salmonid migrants destined for the upper Snake River System.
D-32
-------
With the construction of the major irrigation reservoirs on
the Malheur River and its tributaries, the natural flow
characteristics in the lower river have changed. Instead of
high early summer flows, low summer and fall flows and steady
winter flow, the peak flows may occur in spring, if and when
the upstream reservoirs spill. Also, a high sustained flow
exists all summer as water is released from the dams for
irrigation. A significant change limiting fish production in
the Malheur River below Namorf is the extreme low flow that
occurs when the reservoirs store water during the fall and
winter for the next irrigation season.
Two other physical conditions affect the maintenance of
salmonids in the lower Malheur. One is the high suspended
solids load carried to the river by irrigation return flows.
High suspended solids also occur during wet weather when high
flows erode the stream bank and re-suspend bottom sediments.
The seasonal range of suspended solids content is pronounced,
with the highest concentrations occurring during irrigation
season and during periods of wet weather. Observed peaks in
lower reaches of the river, measured during the two-year 208
Program, reached 13D0 mg/1, while background levels rarely
dropped below 50 mg/1. A high suspended solids load in the
river adversely affects the ability of sight-feeding salmonids
to forage, and may limit the size of macroinvertebrate
populations and algae production which are important to the
salmonid food chain. A second factor is high summer water
temperature which severely stresses salmonids. The high
temperatures result from the suspended particles absorbing
solar radiation.
B. Biological Factors
The biological profile of the river is mainly based on
fisheries information, with some macroinvertebrate samples
gathered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
in 1978. During the site visit, the participants agreed
additional information on macroinvertebrates and periphyton
would not be needed because the aquatic insect numbers and
diversity were significantly greater in the intensively
irrigated reach of the river than for the upper river where
agricultural activity is sparse.
Although the Malheur River from Namorf to the mouth is managed
as a warm water fishery, ODFW has expended little time and few
resources on this stretch of the river because it is not a
productive fish habitat. Survey results in summer of 1978
showed a low ratio of game fish to rough fish over the lower
69 miles of the Malheur River.
D-33
-------
In the section between Namorf and the Gellerman-Froman
Diversion Dam there was little change in water quality
although water temperatures were elevated. Only three game
fish were captured but non-game fish sight-feeders were
common. Low winter flows over a streambed having few deep
pools for overwinter survival appears to limit fish production
in this reach of river.
In the stretch from the Gellerman-Froman Diversion to the
mouth, the river flows through a region of intensive
cultivation. The river carries a high silt load which affects
sight-feeding fish. Low flows immediately below the
Gellerman-Froman Dam also limit fish production in this area.
C. Chemical Factors
A considerable amount of chemical data exist on the Malheur
River. However, since the existing and potential uses of the
river are dictated largely by physical constraints, dissolved
oxygen was the only chemical parameter considered in the
assessment.
The Dissolved Oxygen Standard established for the Malheur
River Basin calls for a minimum of 75 percent of saturation at
the seasonal low and 95 percent of saturation in spawning
areas or during spawning, hatching, and fry stages of salmonid
fishes. One sample collected at Namorf fell below the
standard to 73 percent of saturation or 8.3 mg/1 in November,
197ft. All other samples were above this content, reaching as
high as 170 percent of saturation during the summer due to
algae. Data collected by the ODEO from Malheur River near the
mouth between 1976 and 1979 showed the dissolved oxygen
content ranged from 78 to 174 percent saturation. The
dissolved oxygen content in the lower Malheur River is
adequate to support a warm-water fishery.
FINDINGS
A. Existing Uses
The lower Malheur River is currently designated as a salmonid
fishery, but it is managed as a warm water fishery. Due to a
number of physical constraints on the lower river, conditions
are generally unfavorable for game fish, so rough fish
predominate. In practice, the lower Malheur River serves as a
source and a sink for irrigation water. This type of use
contributes to water quality conditions which are unfavorable
to salmonids.
D-34
-------
B. Potential Uses
Salmonid spawning and rearing areas generally require the
highest criteria of all the established beneficial uses. It
would be impractical, if not impossible in some areas, to
improve water quality to the level required by salmonids.
However, even if this could be accomplished, high summer
temperatures and seasonal low flows would still prevail.
While salmonids historically moved through the Malheur River
to spawn in the headwater areas, year-round resident fish
populations probably did not exist in some of these areas at
the time.
The Malheur River basin can be divided into areas, based upon
differing major uses. Suggested divisions are: (1) headwater
areas above the reservoirs; (2) reservoirs; (3) reaches below
the reservoirs and above the intensively irrigated areas; (4)
intensively irrigated areas; and (5) the Snake River.
In intensively irrigated areas, criteria should reflect the
primary use of the water. Higher levels of certain parameters
(i.e., suspended solids, nutrients, temperature, etc.) should
be allowed in these areas since intensively irrigated
agriculture, even under ideal conditions, will unavoidably
contribute higher levels of these parameters. Criteria,
therefore, should be based on the conditions that exist after
Rest Management Practices have been implemented.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Malheur River flows have been extensively altered through the
construction of several dams and diversion structures designed to
store and distribute water for agricultural uses. These dams, as
well as others on the Snake River, to which the Malheur is
tributary, block natural fish migrations in the river and, thus,
have permanently altered the river's fisheries. In addition,
water quality below Namorf Dam has been affected, primarily
through agricultural practices, in a way which severely restricts
the type of fish that can successfully inhabit the water. One
important factor which affects fish populations below Namorf is
the high suspended solids loading which effectively selects
against sight-feeding species. Other conditions which could
affect the types and survival of fish species below Namorf include
low flow during the fall and winter when reservoirs are being
filled in preparation for the coming irrigation season, as well
as high suspended solids, and high temperatures during the summer
irrigation season.
Realistically, the Malheur River could not be returned to its
natural state unless a large number of hydraulic structures were
removed. Removal of these structures would result in the demise
of agriculture in the region, which is the mainstay of the
D-35
-------
county's economy. Furthermore, removal of these structures is out
of the question due to the legal water rights which have been
established in the region. These water rights can only be
satisfied through the system of dams, reservoirs, and diversions
which have been constructed in the river system. Thus, the
changes in the Malheur River Basin are irrevocable.
Physical barriers to fish migration coupled with the effects of
high sediment loads and the hydraulics of the system have for
years established the uses of the river. Given the existing
conditions and uses of the Malheur River below the Namorf
Diversion, classification of this river each should be changed
from a salmonid fishery, a use that cannot be achieved, to
achievable uses which are based on the existing resident fish
populations and aquatic life to reflect the present and highest
future uses of the river. Such a change in designated beneficial
uses would not further jeopardize existing aquatic life in the
river, nor would it result in any degradation in water quality.
D-36
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Pecan Bayou
Brownwood, Texas
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
Segment 1417 of the Colorado River Basin (Pecan Bayou) originates
below the Lake Brownwood Dam and extends approximately 57.0 miles to
the Colorado River (Figure 1). The Lake Brownwood Dam was completed in
1933. Malfunction of the dam's outlet apparatus led to its permanent
closure in 1934. Since that time, discharges from the reservoir occur
only infrequently during periods of prolonged high runoff conditions in
the watershed. Dam seepage provides the base flow to Pecan Bayou
(Segment 1417). The reservoir is operated for flood control and water
supply. The Brown County WID transports water from the reservoir via
aqueduct to Brownwood for industrial distribution, domestic treated
water distribution to the Cities of Brownwood and Bangs and the
Brookesmith Water System, and irrigation distribution. Some irrigation
water is diverted from the aqueduct before reaching Brownwood.
Pecan Bayou meanders about nine miles from Lake Brownwood to the
City of Brownwood. Two small dams impound water within this reach, and
Brown County WID operates an auxilliary pumping station in this area to
supply their system during periods of high demand.
Two tributaries normally provide inflow to Pecan Bayou. Adams
Branch enters Pecan Bayou in Brownwood. The base flow consists of
leaks and overflow in the Brown County WID storage reservoir and
distribution system. Willis Creek enters Pecan Bayou below Brownwood.
The base flow in Willis Creek is usually provided by seepage through a
soil conservation dam.
The main Brownwood sewage treatment plant discharges effluent to
Willis Creek one mile above its confluence with Pecan Bayou. Sulfur
Draw, which carries brine from an artesian salt water well and
wastewater from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Co., enters
Willis Creek about 1,700 feet below the Brownwood sewage treatment
plant. Below the Willis Creek confluence, Pecan Bayou meanders about
42.6 miles to the Colorado River, and receives no additional inflow
during dry weather conditions. Agricultural water withdrawals for
irrigation may significantly reduce the streamflow during the growing
season.
The Pecan Bayou drainage basin is composed primarily of range and
croplands. The stream banks, however, are densely vegetated with
trees, shrubs and grasses. The bayou is typically 10-65 feet wide, 2-3
feet deep, and 1s generally sluggish in nature with soft organic
sediments.
D-37
-------
D-37A
-------
B. Problem Definition
The designated water uses for Pecan Bayou include noncontact
recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, and domestic raw water
supply. Criteria for dissolved oxygen (minimum of 5.0 mg/1),
chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids (annual averages not to
exeed 250, 200, and 1000 mg/1, respectively), pH (range of 6.5 to 9.0)
fecal coliform (log mean not to exceed 1000/100 ml), and temperature
(maximum of 90°F) have been established for the segment.
Historically, Pecan Bayou is in generally poor condition during
summer periods of low flow, when the Brownwood STP contributes a
sizeable portion of the total stream flow. During low flow conditions,
the stream is in a highly enriched state below the sewage outfall.
Existing data indicate that instream dissolved oxygen
concentrations are frequently less than the criterion, and chloride
and total dissolved solids annual average concentrations occasionally
exceed the established criteria. The carbonaceous and nitrogenous
oxygen deficencies in Pecan Bayou. The major cause of elevated
chlorides in Pecan Bayou is the artesian brine discharge in to Sulfur
Draw.
Toxic compounds (PCB, DDT, DDD, DDE, Lindane, Heptachlor epoxide,
Dieldrin, Endrin, Chlordane, Pentachlorophenol , cadmium, lead, silver,
and mercury) have been observed in water, sediment and fish tissues in
Pecan Bayou (mainly below the confluence with Willis Creek). It has
been determined that the major source .was the Brownwood STP, but
attempts to specifiy the points of origin further have been
unsuccessful. However, recent levels show a declining trend.
C. Approach to Use Attainability
Assessment of Pecan Bayou is based on a site visit which included
meetings with representatives of the State of Texas, EPA (Region VI and
Headquarters) and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., and upon information
contained in a number of reports, memos and other related materials.
It was agreed by those present during the site visit that the data
and analyses contained in these documents were sufficient for an
examination of the existing designated uses of Pecan Bayou.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
An extensive amount of physical, chemical, and biological data has
been collected on Pecan Bayou since 1973. Most of the information was
gathered to assess the impact of the Brownwood STP on the receiving
stream. In order to simplify the presentation of these data, Pecan
Bayou was divided into three zones (Figure 1): Zone 1 is the control
area and extends from the Lake Brownwood Dam (river mile 57.0) to the
Willis Creek confluence (river mile 42.6); Zone 2 is the impacted area
and extends 9.0 miles below the Willis Creek confluence.
D-38
-------
A. Physical Evaluation
With the exception of stream discharge, the physical
characteristics of Pecan Bayou are relatively homogeneous by zone.
Average width of the stream is about 44-50 feet, and average depth
ranges from 2.1 to 3.25 feet. The low gradient (2.8 to 3.9 ft/mile)
causes the bayou to be sluggish (average velocity of about 0.1 ft/sec),
reaeration rates to be low («2 of 0.7 per day at 20°C), and pools to
predominate over riffles (96% to 4%). Stream temperature averages
about 18°C and ranges from 1-32°C. The substrate is composed primarily
of mud (sludge deposits dominate in Zone 2), with small amounts of
bedrock, gravel and sand being exposed in riffle areas.
Rase flow in Pecan Bayou is provided by dam seepage (Zone 1) and
the treated sewage discharge from the City of Brownwood (Zones 2 and
3). Median flow increases in a downstream direction from 2.5 cfs in
Zone 1 to 17.4 cfs in Zone 3. Significantly higher mean flows (118 cfs
in Zone 1 and 125 cfs in Zone 3) are the result of periodic high
rainfall runoff conditions in the watershed.
B. Chemical Evaluation
Existing chemical data of Pecan Bayou characterize the degree of
water quality degradation in Zone 2. Average dissolved oxygen levels
are about 2.0 mg/1 lower in the impact zone, and approximately 50% of
the observations have been less than 5.0 mg/1. BOD5, ammonia,
nitrite, nitrate, and phosphorus levels are much higher in the impact
zone as compared to the control and recovered zones. Iln-ionized
ammonia levels are also higher in Zone 2, but most of the
concentrations were below the reported chronic levels allowable for
warm water fishes. None of the levels exceeded the reported acute
levels allowable for warm water fishes, and less than 4% of the levels
were between the acute and chronic levels reported. Total dissolved
solids, chlorides and sulfates were higher in Zones 2 and 3, mainly as
a result of the brine and sewage discharges into Sulfur Draw and Willis
Creek.
PCB, DDT, ODD, ODE and Lindane in water, and PCB, DDD, and DDE,
Heptachlor epoxide, Dieldrin, Endrin, Chlordane, and Pentachlorophenol
in sediment have been detected in Zone 2. PCB, DDT, DDD, and DDE
concentrations in water have exceeded the criteria to protect
freshwater aquatic life. The Rrownwood STP was the suspected major
source of these pesticides. Most of the recent levels, however, show a
declining trend. PCB was detected also in Zones 1 and 3.
Heavy metals have not been detected in the water. Heavy metals in
the sediment have shown the highest levels in Zone 2 for arsenic (3.7
mg/kg), cadmium (1.1 mg/kg), chromium (17.4mg/kg), copper (9.5 mg/kg),
lead (25.1 mg/kg), silver (1.5 mg/kg), zinc (90 mg/kg), and mercury
(0.18 mg/kg).
D-39
-------
C. Biological Evaluation
Fish samples collected from Zone 1 are representative of a fairly
healthy population of game fish, rough fish and forage species. Zone 2
supported a smaller total number of fish which were composed primarily
of rough fish and forage species. A relatively healthy balance of game
fish, rough fish and forage species reappeared in the recovered zone.
Macrophytes were sparse in Zones 1 and 3. They were most abundant
in Zone 2 below the Willis Creek confluence and were composed of
vascular plants (pondweed, coontail, false loosestrife and duckweed)
and filamentous algae (CJadophora and Hydrodictyon). Macrophyte
abundance below Willis Creek is most likely due to nutrient enrichment
of the area from the Brownwood STP.
Zone 1 is represented by a fairly diverse macrobenthic community
characteristic of a clean-water mesotrophic stream. Nutrient and
organic enrichment in Zone 2 has a distinct adverse effect as
clean-water organisms are replaced by pollution-tolerant forms. Some
clean-water organisms reappeared in Zone 3 and pollution-tolerant forms
were not as prevalent; however, recovery to baseline conditions (Zone
1) was not complete.
Net phytoplankton desnities are lowest in Zone 1. Nutrient and
organic enrichment in Zone 2 promotes a marked increase in abundance.
Peak abundance was observed in the upper, part of Zone 3. The decline
below this area was probably caused by biotic grazing and/or nutrient
deficiencies.
Fish samples for pesticides analyses have revealed detectable
levels of PCB, DDE and DDD in Zone 1. Fish collected from zone 2
contained markedly higher amounts of DDE, DDD, DDT, Lindane and
Chlordane than Zones 1 or 3. PCB in fish tissue was highest in ZOne 3,
and measureable concentrations of DDE and DDD have also been observed.
Concentrations of total DDT in whole fish tissues from Zone 2 have
exceeded the USFDA Action Level of 5.0 mg/kg for edible fish tissues.
Species representing the highest concentrations.
Computer modeling simulation were made to predict the dissolved
oxygen profile in the impact zone during the fish spawning season. The
results indicate that about three miles of Pecan Bayou in April and May
and about 4 1/2 miles in June will be unsuitable for propogation,
considering a minimum requirement of 4.0 mg/1. The model predicts a
minimum D.O.' of 0.8 mg/1 in April, 1.2 mg/1 in May, and 0 mg/1 in
June.
0-40
-------
D. Institutional Evaluation
Two institutional factors exist which constrain the situation that
exists in Pecan Bayou. These are the irrigation water rights and the
Brownwood sewage treatment plant discharge permits. Although the
sewage treatment plant discharge permits will expire and the problems
created by the effluent could be eliminated in the future, there is a
need for the flow provided by the discharge to satisfy the downstream
water rights used for irrigation. Currently, there are eight water
users on Pecan Bayou downstream of the Brownwood STP discharge with
water rights permits totaling 2,957 acre-feet/year. Obviously, the 0.1
cfs base flow which exists in Pecan Bayou upstream of the STP discharge
is not sufficient to fulfill these downstream demands. Therefore, it
appears that the STP flow may be required to supplement the base flow
in Pecan Bayou to meet the downstream demands for water unless it could
be arranged that water from Lake Brownwood could be released by the
Brown Co. WID #1 to meet the actual downstream water needs.
Modeling studies show tha't although there would be some
improvement in water quality as a result of the sewage treatment plant
going to advanced waste treatment (AWT), there would still be n.0.
violations in a portion of Pecan Bayou in Zone 2. The studies also
show that there is minimal additional water quality improvement between
secondary and advanced waste treatment, although the costs associated
with AWT were significantly higher than the cost for secondary
treatment. In this case, the secondary treatment alternative would be
the recommended course of action.
III. FINDINGS
A.	Existing Uses
Pecan Bayou is currently being used in the following ways:
0 Domestic Raw Water Supply
° Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
° Noncontact Recreation
° Irrigation
° City of Brownwood STP discharge (not an acceptable or approved
use designation)
Use as a discharge route for the City of Brownwood's sewage treatment
plant effluent has contributed to water quality conditions which are
unfavorable to the propagation of fish and wildlife in a portion of
Pecan Bayou.
B.	Potential Uses
The Texas Department of Water Resources has established water uses
which are deemed desirable for Pecan Bayou. These uses include:
noncontact recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, and domestic
raw water supply.
n-41
-------
Of these uses, propagation of fish and wildlife is unattainable in
a portion of Pecan Bayou due to the effects of low dissolved oxygen
levels in the bayou primarily during the spawning season. If the
Brownwood sewage treatment plant effluent could be removed from Pecan
Bayou, the persistently low dissolved oxygen conditions which exist and
are unfavorable to fish spawning could be alleviated and the
propagation of fish and wildlife could be partially restored to Pecan
Bayou.
Public hearings held on the proposed expansion of the sewage
treatment plant indicate a reluctance from the public and the City to
pay for higher treatment levels, since modeling studies show minimal
water quality improvement in Pecan Bayou between secondary and advanced
waste treatment. In addition, an affordabi1ity analysis performed by
the Texas Department of Water Resources (Construction Grants) indicates
excessive treatment costs per month would result at the AWT level.
It appears that the elimination of the waste discharge from Pecan
Bayou is not presently a feasible alternative, since the Brownwood STP
currently holds a discharge permit and the water rights issue seems to
be the overriding factor. Therefore, in the future, the uses which are
most likely to exist are those which exist at present.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the findings from the use attainability analysis are
listed below:
° The designated use "propagation of fish and wildlife" is
impaired in Zone 2 of Pecan Bayou.
0 Advanced Treatment will not attain the designated use in Zone
2, partially because of	low dilution, naturally sluggish
characteristics (X velocity	0.1 ft/sec) and as a result, low
assimlitive capacity of the	bayou (l<2 reaeration rate 0.7 per
day at 20°C).
° Downstream water rights	for agricultural irrigation are
significant.
° Dissolved oxygen levels are	frequently less than the criterion
of 5.0 mg/1 in Pecan Bayou.
0 Total DDT in whole fish from Zone 2 exceeded the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's action level of 5.0 mg/kg for edible fish
tissues.
° Annual average chloride concentrations in Pecan Bayou are
occasionally not in compliance with the numerical criteria.
D-42
-------
Dissolved oxygen levels less than 5.0 mg/1 (about 50% of the
measurements) observed in Zone 2 of Pecan Bayou result from the organic
and nutrient loading contributed by the Brownwood STP and the
corresponding low waste assimilative capacity of the bayou. As
previously mentioned, the major source of toxics found in the water,
sediment and fish tissues was also determined to be the Brownwood STP.
PCB and DDT in water have exceeded the criteria to protect freshwater
aquatic life in Zone 2. Although the toxics appear to be declining in
the water and sediment, the levels of total DDT found in whole fish
exceed the U. S. Food and Drug Administration's action level (5.0 mg/k)
for DDT in edible fish tissue. Investigations are underway by the
Texas Department of Water Resources to further evaluate the magnitude
of this potential problem.
Primarily as a result of the oxygen deficiencies and possibly be
cause of the presence of toxic substances, the designated use
"propagation of fish and wildlife" is not currently attained in Zone 2
of Pecan Bayou. These problems could be eliminated only if the
Brownwood STP ceased to discharges into Pecan Bayou because even with
advanced waste treatment the water quality of the receiving stream is
not likely to improve sufficiently to support this designated use.
Other treatment alternatives such as land treatment or overland flow
are not feasible because of the current discharge is necessary to
satisfy downstream water rights for agricultural irrigation. If the
flow required to meet the water rights could be augmented from other
sources, then the sewage treatment plant discharge could be eliminated
in the future.
The annual average chloride level in Pecan Bayou are occasionally
not in compliance with the established criterion. The primary source
has been determined to be a privately owned salt water artesian well.
Since efforts to control this discharge have proved futile, some
consideration should be given to changing the numerical criterion for
chlorides in Pecan Bayou.
In conclusion, it appears that either the Brownwood STP discharge
into Pecan Bayou should be eliminated (if an alternative water source
could be found to satisy the downstream water rights) or the numerical
criterion for dissolved oxygen and the propogation of fish and wildlife
use designation should be changed to reflect attainable conditions.
D-43
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Salt Creek
Lincoln, Nebraska
I. INTRODUCTION
A.	Site Description
The Salt Creek drainage basin is located in east central Nebraska.
The mainstem of Salt Creek originates in southern Lancaster County and
flows northeast to the Platte River (Figure 1). Ninety percent of the
1,621 square mile basin is devoted to agricultural production with the
remaining ten percent primarily urban. The basin is characterized by
moderately to steeply rolling uplands and nearly level to slightly
undulating alluvial lands adjacent to major streams, primarily Salt
Creek. Drainage in the area is usually quite good with the exception
of minor problems sometimes associated with alluvial lands adjacent to
the larger tributaries. Soi.ls of the basin are of three general
categories. Loessial soils are estimated to make up approximately 60
percent of the basin, glacial till soils 20 percent, and terrace and
bottomland soils 20 percent.
Frequent high intensity rainfalls and increased runoff from land
used for crop production has, in past years, contributed to flood
damage in Lincoln and smaller urbanized areas downstream. To help
alleviate these problems, flood control practices have been installed
in the watershed. These practices, including several impoundments and
channel modifications to the mainstream of Salt Creek, were completed
during the late 1960's. Channel realignment of the lower two-thirds of
Salt Creek has decreased the overall length of Salt Creek by nearly 34
percent (from 66.9 to 44.3 miles) and increased the gradient of the
stream from 1.7 feet/mile to 2.7 feet/mile.
Salt Creek is currently divided into three classified segments:
(upper reach) LP-4, (middle reach) LP-3a, and (lower reach) LP-3b.
(Figure 1). Segments LP-4 and LP-3b are designated as Warmwater
Habitats whereas segment LP-3a is designated as a Limited Warmwater
Habitat.
B.	Problem Definition
"Warmwater Habitat" and "Limited Warmwater Habitat" are two sub-
categories of the Fish and Wildlife Protection use designation in the
Nebraska Water Quality Standards. The only distinction between these
two use classes is that for Limited Warmwater Habitat waters,
reproducing populations of fish are "...limited by irretrievable man-
induced or natural background conditions." Although segment LP-3a
is classified Limited Warmwater Habitat and segment LP-3b as Warmwater
Habitat, they share similar physical characteristics. Since the
existing fisheries of both segments were not thoroughly evaluated when
the standard was revised, it is possible that the use designation for
one or other segments is incorrect. This study was initiated to
determine (1) if the Warmwater Habitat use is attainable for segment
LP-3a and (2) what, if any, physical habitat or water quality
constraints preclude the attainment of this use.
D-44
-------
SCalC
Figure 1 . Monitoring sites from which data were used for Salt Creek
attainability study.	-
D-45
-------
C. Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
The analytical approach used in this study was a comparison of
physical, chemical and biological parameters between the upper, middle,
and lower Salt Creek segments with emphasis was on identifying limiting
factors in the creek. The uppermost segment (LP-4) was used as the
standard for comparison.
The data base used for this study included United States
Geological Survey (USGS) and Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control (NDEC) water quality data outlined in the US EPA STORET system,
two Master of Science theses by Tom Pesek and Terry Maret, publications
from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and USGS and personal
observations by NDEC staff. No new data was collected in the study.
II.	ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A review of physical, chemical and biological information was
conducted to determine which aquatic life use designations would be
appropriate. Physical characteristics for each of the three segments
were evaluated and then compared to the physical habitat requirements
of important warm water fish species. Characteristics limiting the
fishery population were identified and the suitability of the physical
habitat for maintaining a valued fishery was evaluated. General water
quality comparisons were made between the upper reach of Salt Creek,
and the lower reaches to establish water quality differences. A water
quality index developed by the NDEC was used in this analysis to
compare the relative quality of water in the segments. In addition,
some critical chemical constituents required to maintain the important
species were reviewed and compared to actual instream data to determine
if water quality was stressing or precluding their populations.
The fish data collected by Maret was used to define the existing
fishery population and composition of Salt Creek. This data was in
turn used to determine the quality of the aquatic biota through the use
of six biotic integrity classes of fish communities and the Karr Index
tentative numerical index for defining class boundaries.
Macroinvertebrate data based on the study conducted by Pesek was
also evaluated for density and diversity.
III.	FINDINGS
Chemical data evaluated using the Water Quality Index indicated
good water quality above Lincoln and degraded water quality at and
below Lincoln. Non-point source contributions were identified as a
causs of water quality degradation and have been Implicated in fish
kills in the stream. Dissolved solids in Salt Creek were found to be
considerably higher than in other streams 1n the State. Natural
background contributions are the major source of dissolved solids load
to the stream. Water quality criteria violations monitored in Salt
Creek during 1980 and 1981 were restricted to unionized ammonia and may
D-46
-------
have adversely impacted the existing downstream fishery. Toxics which
occasionally approach or exceed the EPA criteria are chromium and
lindane. Since EPA criteria for both parameters are based on some
highly sensitive organisms which are not representative of indigenous
populations typically found in Nebraska, the actual impact of these
toxics is believed to be minimal.
Channelization was found to be a limiting factor in establishing a
fishery in middle and lower Salt Creek. Terry Maret, in his 1977
study, found that substrate changes from silt and clay in the upper
non-channelized area to primarily sand in the channelized area causing
substantial changes in fish communities. The Habitat Suitability Index
(HSI) developed by the Western Energy and Land Use Team of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service was used to evaluate physical habitat impacts
on one important species (Channel Catfish) of fish in Salt Creek. The
results indicated that upper Salt Creek had the best habitat for the
fish investigated and middle Salt Creek had the worst. These results
support the conclusion that middle Salt Creek lacks the physical
habitat to sustain a valued warm water fishery. The Karr numerical
index used to evaluate the fish data revealed that none of the stations
rated above fair, further indicating the fish community is
significantly impacted by surrounding rural and urban land uses.
Analysis of the abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates
indicated that the water quality in Salt Creek became progressively
more degraded going downstream. Stations in the upper reaches were
relatively unpolluted as characterized by the highest number of
taxa, the greatest diversity and the presence of "clean-water"
organisms.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evaluation of the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of Salt Creek, the following conclusions were drawn by
the State for the potential uses of the various segments:
1)	Current classifications adequately define the attainable uses for
upper and middle Salt Creek.
2)	The Warmwater Habitat designated use may be unattainable for lower
Salt Creek.
3)	Channelization has limited existing instream habitat for middle Salt
Creek. Instream habitat improvement in middle Salt Creek could
increase the fishery but would lessen the effectiveness of flood
control measures. Since flood control benefits are greater than any
benefits that could be realized by enhancing the fishery, instream
physical habitat remained the limiting factor for the fishery.
4)	Existing water quality does not affect the limited Warmwater Habitat
classification of middle Salt Creek.
D-47
-------
5) Uncontrollable background source impacts on existing water quality
and the effects of channelization on habitat may preclude attainment
of the classified use.
The recommendations of the State drawn from these conclusions are
as follows:
1)	Keep upper section classification of Warmwater Habitat and middle
section classification of Limited Warmwater Habitat.
2)	Consider changing the lower section to a Limited Warmwater Habitat
because of limited physical habitat and existing water quality.
D-48
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
South Fork Crow River
Hutchinson, Minnesota
I. INTRODUCTION
A.	Site Description
The South Fork Crow River, located in south-central Minnesota,
drains a watershed that covers approximately 1250 square miles. This
river joins with the North Fork Crow to form the mainstem Crow River
which flows to its confluence with the Mississippi River (Figure 1).
Within the drainage basin, the predominant land uses are agricultural
production and pasture land. The major soil types in the watershed are
comprised of dark-colored, medium-to-fine textured silty loams, most of
which are medium to well drained in character.
The physical characteristics of the South Fork Crow River are
typical of many Minnesota streams flowing through agricultural lands.
The upper portions of the river have been extensively channelized and
at Hutchinson a forty foot wide, 12 foot high dam forms a reservoir
west of the city. Downstream of the dam the river freely meanders
through areas with light to moderately wooded banks to its confluence
with the North Fork River Crow River. The average stream gradient for
this section of the river is approximately two feet per mile and the
substrate varies from sand, gravel and rubble in areas with steeper
gradients to a silt-sand mixture in areas of slower velocities.
The average annual precipitation in the watershed is 27.6 inches.
The runoff is greatest during the spring and early summer, after
snowmelt, when the soils are generally saturated. Stream flow
decreases during late summer and fall and is lowest in late winter.
Small tributary streams in the watershed often go dry in the fall and
winter because they have little natural storage and receive little
ground water contribution. The seven-day ten year low flow condition
for the South Fork below the dam at Hutchinson is approximately 0.7
cubic feet per second.
B.	Problem Definition
The study on the South Fork Crow River was conducted in order to
evaluate the existing fish community and to determine if the use
designations are appropriate. At issue is the 2B fisheries and
recreational use classification at Hutchinson. Is the water use
classification appropriate for this segment?
C.	Approach to Use Attainability
The analysis utilized an extensive data base compiled from data
collected by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and United States Geological
Survey (USGS). No new data was collected as part of the study. The
USGS maintains partial or continuous flow record stations on both forks
D-49
-------
S^Brootcn
FIGURE 1. STATION LOCATIONS FOR THE SOUTH FORK
CROW RIVER USE ATTAINABILITY STUDY
— Electrofishing Station
A USGS Continuous Recording
Gouging Stotion
A USGS Portiol Record Stotion
f~l MPCA Water Quality
Monitoring Stotion
TO MlltS
-»
-------
and the mainstem Crow River with a data base of physical and chemical
parameters available on STORET. The USGS data was used in the physical
evaluation of the river. MPCA has a water quality monitoring data base
on STORET for five stations in the Crow River watershed. The MPCA data
plus analytical data from a waste load allocation study on the South
Fork below Hutchinson was used in the chemical evaluation of the river.
MDNR fisheries and stream survey data, a MDNR report on the analysis of
the composition of fish populations in Minnesota rivers, and personal
observations of MDNR personnel was used to evaluate the biological
characteristics of the river.
The analytical approach used by the MPCA sought to 1) compare
instream fish community health of the South Fork to that of the North
Fork, the mainstem Crow River, and other warm water rivers in the State
and 2) evaluate physical and chemical factors affecting fisheries and
recreational uses. The North Fork of the Crow River was used for
comparison because of sufficient fisheries data, similar land uses and
morphologies, similar non-point source impacts and the lack of any
significant point source dischargers.
II.	ANALYSES CONDUCTED
Physical, chemical and biological factors were considered in this
use attainability analysis to determine the biological health of the
South Fork and to define the physical and chemical factors which may be
limiting. A general assessment of the habitat potentials of the South
Fork Crow River was performed using a habitat evaluation rating system
developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. In
addition, the Tennant method for determining instream flow requirements
was also employed in this study.
Fish species diversity, equitability and composition were used to
define the biological health of the South Fork relative to that of the
North Fork, the mainstem Crow and other warmwater rivers in Minnesota.
Water quality monitoring data from stations above and below the point
source discharges at Hutchinson were used to compare beneficial use
impairment values pertaining to the designated fisheries and
recreational uses of the South Fork Crow River. A computer data
analysis program developed by EPA Region VIII was used to compute these
values.
III.	FINDINGS
The comparison of species diversity values for the North Fork and
mainstem Crow River to the South Fork showed higher values for the
North Fork and mainstem Crow. On the other hand, the South Fork had
higher species equitability values. The percent species composition
compared favorably to Peterson's (1975) estimates for median species
diversity for a larger Minnesota river. Recruitment from tributaries,
marshes, lakes and downstream rivers has given the South Fork a
relatively balanced community which compares well to other warmwater
rivers in the State. The calculated species diversity and equitability
indices coupled with the analysis of species composition indicated that
the South Fork of the Crow River does support a warmwater fishery with
evidence of some degree of environmental stress.
D-51
-------
The MPCA employed the Wisconsin habitat rating system and the Tennant
method designated to quantify minimum instream fisheries flow
requirements to identify any physical limiting factors. Based on the
Wisconsin habitat evaluation assessment, habitat rating score were
fair. The limiting factors identified via this assessment were: 1)
lack of diverse streambed habitat suitable for reproduction, food
production and cover and 2) instream water fluctuations (low flow may
be a major controlling factor).
The State utilized EPA Region VIII's data analysis program to
express stream water quality as a function of beneficial use. The
closest downstream station to Hutchinson had the highest warmwater
aquatic life use impairment values. Warmwater aquatic life use
impairment values declined further downstream indicating that the point
source dischargers were major contributors to this use impairment.
However, primary contact recreational use impairment values were high
throughout the stream. This led the State to believe that the
impairment of primary contact recreational use is attributable to
non-point sources.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The State concluded from the study that: 1) the South Fork of the
Crow River has a definite fisheries value although the use impairment
values indicate some stress at Hutchinson on an already limited
resource and 2) although the South Fork of the Crow River has a
dominant rough fish population, game and sport fish present are
important component species of this rivers' overall community
structure.
From these conclusions the State recommended that the South Fork
of the Crow River retain its present 2B fisheries and recreational use
classification. Furthermore, efforts should continue to mitigate
controllable factors that contribute to impairment of use. The effort
should entail a reduction of marsh tilling and drainage, acceptance and
implementation of agricultural BMP's and an upgrade of point source
dischargers in Hutchinson.
0-52
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
South Platte Ri ver
Denver, Colorado
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
Segment 14 of the South Platte River originates north of the Chatfield Lake at
Bowles Avenue in Arapahoe County and extends approximately 16 miles, through
metro Denver, in a northerly direction to the Burlington ditch diversion near the
Denver County-Adams County line. A map of the study area is presented in Figure
1. Chatfield Lake was originally constructed for the purposes of Flood control
and recreation. The reservoir is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
is essentially operated such that outflow equals inflow, up to a maximum of 5,000
cfs. In addition, water is released to satisfy irrigation demands as authorized
by the State Engineers Office. There is also an informal agreement between the
State Engineers Office and the Platte River Greenway Foundation for timing
releases of water to increase flows during periods of high recreational use. The
Greenway Foundation has played an important role in the significant improvement
of water quality in the South Platte River.
There are several obstructions throughout Segment 14 including low head dams,
kayak chutes (at Confluence Park and 13th Avenue), docking platforms, and weir
diversion structures which alter the flow in the South Platte River. There are
four major weir diversion structures in this area which divert flows for
irrigation; one is located adjacent to the Columbine Country Club, a second near
Union Avenue, a third upstream from Oxford Avenue, and a fourth at the Burlington
Ditch near Franklin Street.
Significant dewatering of the South Platte River can occur due to instream
diversions for irrigation and water supply and pumping from the numerous ground
water dwells along the river.
Eight tributaries normally provide inflow to the South Platte River in Segment
14. These include Big Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek, Bear Creek, Harvard Gulch,
Sanderson Gulch, Weir Gulch, Lakewood Gulch, and Cherry Creek.
There are several municipal and industrial facilities which discharge either
directly to or into tributaries of the South Platte River in this reach. The
major active discharges into the segment are the Littleton-Englewood wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP), the Glendale WWTP, the City Ice Company, two Public
Service company power plants (Zuni and Arapahoe), and Gates Rubber.
The South Platte River drainage basin in this area (approximately 120,000 acres)
is composed primarily of extensively developed urban area (residential,
industrial, commercial, services, roads), parks and recreational areas, gravel
mining areas, and rural areas south of the urban centers for farming and
grazing.
D-53
-------
Figure 1
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER CTUDY AREA MAP
0-S4
-------
In the study area, the South Platte River is typically 50-150 feet wide and 1-16
feet deep (typically 1-2 feet) and has an average channel bed slope of 12.67 feet
per mile, with alternating riffle and pool reaches. The channel banks are
composed essentially of sandy-gravelly materials that erode easily when exposed
to high-flow conditions. The stream banks are generally sparsely vegetated with
trees, shrubs, and grasses (or paving in the urban centers.)
B.	Problem Definition
The following use classifications have been designated for Segment 14 of the
South Platte River:
°	Recreation - Class 2 - secondary contact
0	Aquatic Life - Class 1 - warm water aquatic life
0	Agriculture
0	Domestic Water Supply
Following a review of the water quality studies and data available for Segment 14
of the South Platte River, several observations and trends in the data have been
noted, including:
° Fecal coliform values exceeded the recommended limits for recreational
uses in the lower portion of Segment 14.
° Un-ionized ammonia levels exceeded the water quality criterion for the
protection of aquatic life in the lower portion of the segment.
° Levels of total recoverable metals (lead, zinc, cadmium, total iron,
total manganese, and total copper) have been measured which exceed the
water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life.
Although the exact points of origin have not been specified, it is generally felt
that the source of the ammonia is municipal point sources, and the sources of the
metals are industrial point sources.
In addition, the cities of Littleton and Englewood have challenged the Class I
warm water aquatic life use on the basis that the flow and habitat are unsuitable
to warrant the Class I designation, and they have also challenged the
apporopriateness of the 0.06 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia criteria on the basis of new
toxicity data. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in November, 1982
approved the Class I aquatic life classification and the 0.06 mg/1 un-ionized
ammonia criteria.
C.	Approach to Use Attainability
Assessment of Segment 14 of the South Platte River was based on a site visit (May
3-4, 1982) which included meetings with representatives of the Colorado
Department of Health, EPA (Region VIII and Headquarters) and Camp Dresser & McKee
Inc., and upon information contained in a number of reports, hearing transcripts
and the other related materials. Most of the physical, chemical and biological
data was' obtained from the USGS, EPA (ST0RET), DRURP, and from
D-55
-------
studies. It was agreed that there was sufficient chemical, physical and
biological data to proceed with the assessment, even though physical data on the
aquatic habitat was limited.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Physical Factors
Streamflow in the South Platte River (Segment 14) is affected by several factors
including releases from Chatfield Dam, diversions for irrigation and domestic
water supply, irrigation return flows, wastewater discharges, tributary inflows,
pumping from ground water wells in the river basin, evaporation from once-through
cooling at the two power plants in Segment 14, and natural surface water
evaporation. Since some of these factors (particularly ground water pumping,
evaporation and irrigation diversions) are variable, flow in the South Platte
River is used extensively for irrigation and during the irrigation season
diversions and return flows may cause major changes in streamflow within
relatively short reaches. During the summer, low-water conditions prevail
because of increased evaporation, lack of rainfall, and the various uses made of
the river water (e.g. irrigation diversions). Municipal, industrial, and
storm-water discharges also contributes to the streamflow in the South Platte
Ri ver.
Natural pools in the South Platte River are scarce and the shifting nature of the
channel bed results in temporary pools, a feature which has a tendency to greatly
limit the capacity for bottom food production. There are approximately 3-4 pools
per river mile with the majority being backwater pools upstream of diversion
structures, bridge crossings, low head dams, docking platforms, drop-off
structures usually downstream of wastewater treatment plant outfalls, kayak
chutes, and debris. The hydraulic effect of each obstruction is generally to
cause a backwater condition immediately upstream from the structure, scouring
immediately downstream, and sandbar development below that. These pools act as
settling basins for silt and debris which no longer get flushed during the high
springs flows once Chatfield Lake was completed.
In the plains, channels of the South Platte River and lower reaches of
tributaries cut through deep alluvial gravel and soil deposits. Sparse
vegetation does not hold the soils, so stream bank erosion and channel bed
degredation is common during periods of high flow, particularly during the spring
snowmelt season. The high intensity - low duration rainstorms which occur during
the summer (May, June, and July) also temporarily muddy the streams.
An evaluation of the physical streambed characteristics of Segment 14 to
determine the potential of the Segment to maintain and attract warm water aquatic
life was conducted by Keeton Fisheries Consultants, Inc. The study concluded
that the sediment loads in this reach of the South Platte River could pose a
severe problem to the aquatic life forms present, however, further study needs to
be conducted to substantiate this conclusion. Furthermore, some gravel mining
operations have recently been discontinued thus the sediment problem may have
been reduced.
The temperature in the South Platte River is primarily a function of releases
from the bottom of Chatfield Lake, the degree of warming that takes place in the
shallow mainstream and isolated pools, and the warming that occurs through the
mixing of power plant cooling water with the South Platte River.
D-5b
-------
B. Chemical Factors
Water quality conditions in the South Platte River are substantially affected by
municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, irrigation return flows and other
agricultural activities, and non-point sources of pollution (primarily during
rainfal 1-runoff events). Irrigation and water supply diversions also exert a
major influence on water quality by reducing the stream flow, and thereby
reducing the dilution assimilative capacity of the river.
0 Dissolved oxygen levels were above the 5.0 mg/1 criteria acceptable for
the maintenance of aquatic life.
° Average concentrations of un-ionized ammonia exceeded the State water
quality criteria of 0.06 mg/1 NH3-N only in the lower portion of
Segment 14 (north of Speer Blvd.)
0 Average total lead concentrations exceeded the water quality criteria of
25 ug/1 in Big Dry Creek, Cherry Creek, and the South Platte River
north of Cherry Creek, ranging from 30-72 ug/1.
0 Average total zinc concentrations exceeded the criteria of 11 ug/1 at all
the DRURP sampling stations, ranging from 19-179 ug/1.
0 Average total cadmium concentrations exceeded the criteria of 1 ug/1 in
Beer Creek, Cherry Creek and several sites in the South Platte, ranging
from 2.2-3.6 ug/1.
0 Average total iron concentrations exceeded the criteria of 1,000 ug/1 in
Cherry Creek and several locations on the South Platte River, ranging
from 1129-9820 ug/1.
0 Average soluble manganese concentrations exceeded the criteria of 50
ug/1 in the South Platte River north of (and including) 19th Street and
in Cherry Creek, ranging from 51-166 ug/1.
0 Average total copper concentrations equalled or exceeded the criteria of
25 ug/1 at all but two of the DRURP sampling sites, ranging from 25-83
ug/1.
C. Biological Factors
Several electrofishing studies have been conducted on the South Platte River in
recent years. Most of the sampling took place in the fall with the exception of
the study in the spring (1979). The data was reviewed by Colorado Department of
Health personnel and it was generally agreed that the overall health of the
existing warm water fishery is restricted by temperature extremes (very cold and
shallow during the winter and low flow and high temperatures during the summer),
p-57
-------
the lack of sufficient physical habitat (i.e. structures for cover including
rocks and dams, and deep pools) and the potentially stressful conditions created
by the wastewater discharges (i.e. silt and organic and inorganic enrichment).
Following a review of the physical, chemical, and biological data available on
the South Platte River, it was concluded that a fair warm water fishery could
exist with only modest habitat improvements and maintenance of the existing
ambient water quality and strict regulation prevent overfishing. With large
habitat and water quality improvements, brown trout could potentially become a
part of the fishery in Segment 14 of the South Platte River.
III. FINDINGS
A.	Existing Uses
Segment 14 of the South Platte River is currently being used in the following
ways:
0 Irrigation Diversions and Return Flows
° Municipal and Industrial Water Supply
0 Ground Water Recharge
° Once-through Cooling
0 Municipal, Industrial, and Stormwater Discharges
° Recreation
° Warm Water Fishery
The irrigation diversions, water supply, ground water recharge, and cooling uses
have primarily affected the flow in the South Platte River, resulting in
significant dewatering at times. Irrigation return flows and wastewater
dishcharges, on the other hand, exert their effects on the ambient and storm
water quality in the River. These previous uses ultimately affect the existing
warm water fishery and how the public perceives the river for recreation
purposes.
B.	Potential Uses
With the exception of a potential for increased recreation and the improvement of
a limited warm water fishery, it is anticipated that the existing uses are likely
to exist in the future. The increased recreational use will result from future
Platte River Greenway Foundation projects. The improvement of a limited warm
water fishery may come about in the future as the result of habitat improvements
(pools, cover) control of toxic materials (un-ionized ammonia, heavy metals,
cynanide), and the prevention of extensive sedimentation. However, the success
of the fishery would rely on strict fishery regulations to prevent overfishing.
D-58
-------
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the findings from the use attainability analysis are listed below:
° There is evidence to indicate that a warm water aquatic life community
does exist and the potential for an improved fishery could be attained
with slight habitat modifications (i.e. cover, pool).
0 Elevated un-ionized ammonia levels were exhibited in the lower portion of
Segment 14, although this cannot be attributed to the Littleton-Englewood
WWTP discharge upstream. However, at the present time there is no basis
for a change in the existing un-ionized ammonia criterion, particularly
if EPA's methodology for determining site specific criteria becomes
widely accepted.
0 Increased turbidity exists in the South Platte River during a good
portion of the fish spawning season, which represents a potential for
problems associated with fish spawning.
0 Increased sedimentation and siltation in the South Platte River could
pose a potential threat to the aquatic life present; however, this
condition might be reduced if Chatfield Lake could be operated to provide
periodic flushing of the river.
° Elevated levels of heavy metals were observed in water and sediment
samples, which could potentially affect the existing aquatic life.
° Insufficient data existed to determine the possible effects of chlorine
and cyanide on the aquatic life present.
° Fecal coliform levels were extremely high in the lower portion of the
South Platte River and Cherry Creek during periods of both low and high
flow. The source in the South Platte River is apparently Cherry Creek,
but the origin in Cherry Creek is unknown at this time.
On the basis of the preceding conclusions and recommendations, the warmwater
fishery use classification and the un-ionized ammonia criterion (0.06 mg/1)
recommended for Segment 14 of the South Platte should remain unchanged until
there is further evidence to support making those changes.
D-59
-------
APPENDIX U
List of EPA Regional
Water Quality Standards Coordinators
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS COORDINATORS
Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 1
Water Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3533
Wayne Jackson, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 2
Water Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5685
Helene Drago, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 3
Water Division
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-9911
-or~
Evelyn MacKnight, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 3
Water Division
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-4491
Fritz Wagener, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 4
Water Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3396
David Pfiefer, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 5
Water Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-9024
Cheryl Overstreet, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 6
Water Division
1445 Ross Avenue
First Interstate Bank Tower
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-7145
Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 7
Water Compliance Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7441
Jim Luey, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 8
Water Division
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303-293-1455
Phil Woods, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 9
Water Division
75 Hawthorne Street .
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-744-1997
Sally Marquis, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 10
Water Division (WS-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-442-2116
--or~
Marcia Lagerloef
EPA Region 10
Water Division (WS-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-0176
-------
APPENDIX V
Water Quality Standards Program
Document Request Forms
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
REV 01/25/93
OST RESOURCE CENTER
202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROFILE
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
Date request made
Date submitted to EPA
NAME
POSITION/TITLE
ORGANIZATION
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (1) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
1. Water Quality Standards Regulation, Part n, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register,
November 8, 1983
Regulations that govern the development, review, revision and approval of water quality standards under
Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.

2. Water Quality Standards Handbook, December 1983
Contains the guidance prepared by EPA to assist States in implementing the revised water quality
standards regulation (48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). The handbook provides a general description of
the overall standards setting process followed by information on general program administrative policies
and procedures and a description of the analyses used in determining appropriate uses and criteria. The
handbook contains updated policies issued since 1983. These include the following three documents:

• Questions and Answers on Antidegradation, August 1985

• Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards, August 19, 1987

• Variances in Water Quality Standards, March 1985

3. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 1989
Summary of the proceedings from the first National Conference on water quality standards held in Dallas,
Texas, March 1-3, 1989.

4. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 1991
Summary of the proceedings from the second National Conference on water quality standards held in
Arlington, Virginia, December 10-12, 1990.

-------
REV 01/25/93
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
5. Compilation of Water Quality Standards for Marine Waters, November 1982
Consists of marine water quality standards required by Section 304(a)(6) of the Clean Water Act. The
document identifies marine water quality standards, the specific pollutants associated with such water
quality standards and the particular waters to which such water quality standards apply. The compilation
should not in any way be construed as Agency opinion as to whether the waters listed are marine waters
within the meaning of Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act or whether discharges to such waters are
qualified for a Section 301(h) modification.

6. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, November 1983
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards regulation
(48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). The guidance assists States in answering three key questions:
a.	What are the aquatic protection uses currently being achieved in the waterbody?
b.	What are the potential uses that can be attained based on the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the waterbody?
c.	"What are the causes of any impairment of the uses?

7. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume II: Estuarine Systems
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards regulation
(48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). This document addresses the unique characteristics of estuarine
systems and supplements the Technical Support Manual: Waterbodv Summary and Assessments for
Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (EPA. November 1983).

8. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume ID: Lake Systems, November 1984
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards regulation
(48 FR 51400 November 8, 1983). The document addresses the unique characteristics of lake systems
and supplements two additional guidance documents: Technical Support Manual: Waterbodv Survey and

Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses EPA. (November 1983i and Technical Support
Manual: Waterbodv Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. Vol II:
Estuarine Systems.
9. Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters, EPA 600/1-80-031, August 1983
This report presents health effects quality criteria for marine recreational waters and a recommendation
for a specific criterion. The criteria were among those developed using data collected from an extensive
in-house extramural microbiological research program conducted by the U.S. EPA over the years 1972-
1979.

10. Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters, EPA 660/1-84-004, August 1984
This report presents health effects criteria for fresh recreational waters and a criterion for the quality of
the bathing water based upon swimming - associated gastrointestinal illness. The criterion was developed
from data obtained during a multi-year freshwater epidemiological-microbiological research program
conducted at bathing beaches near Erie, Pennsylvania and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Three bacterial indications
of fecal pollution were used to measure the water quality: E. Coli, enterococci and fecal coliforms.

11. Introduction to Water Quality Standards, EPA 440/5-88-089, September 1988
A primer on the water quality standards program written in question and answer format. The publication
provides general information about various elements of the water quality standards program.

12. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986 EPA 440/5-84-002
This document contains bacteriological water quality criteria. The recommended criteria are based on an
estimate of bacterial indicator counts and gastro-intestinal illness rates.

-------
REV 01/25/93
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
13. Test Methods for Escherichia Coil and Enterococci; In Water by the Membrane Filter Procedure,
EPA 600/4-85/076, 1985
Contains methods used to measure the bacteriological densities of E. coli and enterococci in ambient
waters. A direct relationship between the density of enterococci and E. coli in water and the occurrence
of swimming - associated gastroenteritis has been established through epidemiological studies of marine
and fresh water bathing beaches. These studies have led to the development of criteria which can be used
to establish recreational water standards based on recognized health effects-water quality relationships.

14. Twenty-Six Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries, September 1988
These documents contain summaries of State/Federal criteria. Twenty-six summaries have been compiled
which contain information extracted from State water quality standards. Titles of the twenty-six
documents are: Acidity-Alkalinity, Antidegradation, Arsenic, Bacteria, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper,
Cyanide, Definitions, Designated Uses, Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Solids, General Provisions,
Intermittent Streams, Iron, Lead, Mercury, Mixing Zones, Nitrogen-Ammonia/Nitrate/Nitrite, Organics,
Other Elements, Pesticides, Phosphorus, Temperature, Turbidity, and Zinc.

15. Fifty-Seven State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September 1988
Contains fifty-seven individual summaries of State water quality standards. Included in each summary is
the name of a contact person, use classifications of water bodies, mixing zones, antidegradation policies
and other pertinent information.

16. State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September 1988 (Composite document)
This document contains composite summaries of State water quality standards. The document contains
information about use classifications, antidegradation policies and other information applicable to a
States' water quality standards.

17. Transmittal of Final "Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B)", December 12, 1988
Guidance on State adoption of criteria for priority toxic pollutants. The guidance is designed to help
States comply with the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act which requires States to control toxics in
water quality standards.

18. Chronological Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards Promulgation Actions, January 1993
This document contains the date. type of action and Federal Register citation for State water quality
standards promulgated by EPA. The publication also contains information on Federally promulgated
water quality standards which have been withdrawn and replaced with State approved standards.

19. Status Report: State Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(b) as of February 4, 1990
Contains information on State efforts to comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act which
requires adoption of water quality standards for priority pollutants. The report identifies the States that
are compliant as of February 4, 1990, summarizes the status of State actions to adopt priority pollutants
and briefly outlines EPA's plan to federally promulgate standards for noncompliant States.

20. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance, July 1990
Provides guidance for meeting the priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to
develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-1993 triennium. By the end of FY 1993,
States are required as a minimum to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters," establish
beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt narrative
biological criteria for wetlands and apply antidegradation policies to wetlands.

21. Reference Guide for Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes, January 1990
Booklet provides an overview of the water quality standards program. Publication is designed primarily
for Indian Tribes that wish to qualify as States for the water quality standards program. The booklet
contains program requirements and a list of reference sources.

-------
REV 01/25/93
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
22. Developing Criteria to Protect Our Nation's Waters, EPA, September 1990 (Pamphlet)
Pamphlet which briefly describes the water quality standards program and its relationship to water quality
criteria, sediment criteria and biological criteria.

23. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, EPA 823-R-92-009, December 1992
Summary of the proceedings from the Third National Conference on Water Quality Standards held in Las
Vegas, Nevada, August 31-September 3, 1992

24. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, EPA-440/5-90-004, April 1990
This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological criteria.

25. Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations - Final Rule. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December 12, 1991
This final rule amends the water quality standards regulation by adding: 1) procedures by which an
Indian Tribe may qualify for treatment as a State for purposes of the water quality standards and 401
certification programs and 2) a mechanism to resolve unreasonable consequences that may arise when an
Indian Tribe and a State adopt different water quality standards on a common body of water.

26. Guidance on Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification Programs Administered by Indian
Tribes, December 31, 1991
This guidance provides procedures for determining Tribal eligibility and supplements the final rule
"Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations

27. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; State's
Compliance - Final Rule, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December 22, 1992
This regulation promulgates for 14 States, the chemical specific, numeric criteria for priority toxic
pollutants necessary to bring all States into compliance with the requirements of Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the
Clean Water Act. Staates determined by EPA to fully comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements are
not affected by this rule.


AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY	rev 10/1/92
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION (OST)
Date Received
NAME
TEL. NO.
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE
ORGANIZATION CATEGORY: (Select the two digit code at the bottom of this form which best describes your
organization). Place two digit code in this space	
please check REQUESTED TITLES
I ]
1.
Introduction to Water Quality Standards
I J
2.
Antidegradation Policy: A Means to Maintain and Protect Existing Uses and Water Quality
[ J
3.
Development of Water Quality Criteria and Its Relationship to Water Quality Standards
I J
4.
Enumeration Methods for E. Coli and Enterococci
I 1
5.
Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
[ J
6.
Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification
I 1
7.
Economic Considerations in Water Quality Standards
[ 1
8.
Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands
[ J
9.
Development of Biological Criteria for Use in Water Quality Standards
How will the videos be used?
How did you hear about the videos?
DATE VIDEO (S) MAILED
VIDEO(S) DUE
VIDEO(S) RETURNED
Date Late Notice Sent



Date Late Notice Call



ORGANIZATION CATEGORIES |
01
Indian Tribes
08 State Governments 1
02
Public Interest Groups
09 Local Governments (County/Municipalities)
03
Environmental Organizations/Conservations Groups
10 Industrial Organizations/Trade Groups 1
04
Educational (local school systems, colleges, universities)
11 Foreign Governments ®
05
Contracting Firms
12 Engineering
06
Law Firms
13 Agricultural I
07
Other Federal Agencies
14 Other |
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(WH-585)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
REV 01/25/93
OST RESOURCE CENTER
202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:	
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROFILE
Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
Date request made
Date submitted to EPA
NAME
POSITION/TITLE
ORGANIZATION
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (1) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
1. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process, EPA 440/4-91-001, April 1991
This document defines and clarifies the requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Its
purpose is to help State water quality program managers understand the application of total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) through an integrated, basin-wide approach to controlling point and nonpoint source
pollution. The document describes the steps that are involved in identifying and prioritizing impaired
waters and developing and implementing TMDLs for waters listed under Section 303(d).
Contact: Don Brady (202) 260-5368

2. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and Rivers -
Chapter 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen, EPA 440/4-84-020, September 1983
This chapter presents the underlying technical basis for performing WLA and analysis of BOD/DO
impacts. Mathematical models to calculate water quality impacts are discussed, along with data needs
and data quality.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

3. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and Rivers -
Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-021, November 1983
This chapter emphasizes the effect of photosynthetic activity stimulated by nutrient discharges on the DO
of a stream or river. It is principally directed at calculating DO concentrations using simplified
estimating techniques.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

4. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and Rivers -
Chapter 3 Toxic Substances, EPA 440/4-84-022, June 1984
This chapter describes mathematical models for predicting toxicant concentrations in rivers. It covers a
range of complexities, from dilution calculations to complex, multi-dimensional, time-varying computer
models. The guidance includes discussion of background information and assumptions for specifying
values.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 01/25/93
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
5. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Simplified Analytical Method
for Determining NPDES Effluent Limitations for POTWs Discharging into Low-Flow Streams
This document describes methods primarily intended for "desk top" WLA investigations or screening
studies that use available data for streamflow, effluent flow, and water quality. It is intended for
circumstances where resources for analysis and data acquisition are relatively limited.
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013

6. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes and
Impoundments - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-019, August 1983
This chapter discusses lake eutrophication processes and some factors that influence the performance of
WLA analysis and the interpretation of results. Three classes of models are discussed, along with the
application of models and interpretation of resulting calculations. Finally, the document provides
guidance on monitoring programs and simple statistical procedures.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

7. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes, Reservoirs
and Impoundments - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances Impact, EPA 440/4-87-002, December 1986
This chapter reviews the basic principles of chemical water quality modeling frameworks. The guidance
includes discussion of assumptions and limitations of such modeling frameworks, as well as the type of
information required for model application. Different levels of model complexity are illustrated in step-
by-step examples.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

8. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VI Design Conditions -
Chapter 1 Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling, EPA 440/4-87-004, September 1986
Many state water quality standards (WQS) specify specific design flows. Where such design flows are not
specified in WQS, this document provides a method to assist in establishing a maximum design flow for
the final chronic value (FCV) of any pollutant.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

9. Final Technical Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions for Steady State Modeling,
December 1988
WQS for many pollutants are written as a function of ambient environmental conditions, such as
temperature, pH or hardness. This document provides guidance on selecting values for these parameters
when performing steady-state WLAs.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

10. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VII: Permit Averaging,
EPA 440/4-84-023, July 1984
This document provides an innovative approach to determining which types of permit limits (daily
maximum, weekly, or monthly averages) should be specified for the steady-state model output, based on
the frequency of acute criteria violations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

11. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
Surface and Ground Water - Part I - EPA 600/6-85-022a, September 1985
This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment. Chapters include
consideration of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances, waste loading calculations, rivers and streams,
impoundments, estuaries, and groundwater.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 01/25/93
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
12. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
Surface and Ground Water - Part II - EPA 600/6-85-022b, September 1985
This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment. Chapters include
consideration of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances, waste loading calculations, rivers and streams,
impoundments, estuaries, and ground water.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

13. Handbook - Stream Sampling for Waste Load Allocation Applications, EPA 625/6-86/013,
September 1986
This handbook provides guidance in designing stream surveys to support modeling applications for waste
load allocations. It describes the data collection process for model support, and it shows how models can
be used to help design stream surveys. In general, the handbook is intended to educate field personnel on
the relationship between sampling and modeling requirements.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

14. EPA's Review and Approval Procedure for State Submitted TMDLs/WLAs, March 1986
The step-by-step procedure outlined in this guidance addresses the administrative (i.e., non-technical)
aspects of developing TMDLs/WLAs and submitting them to EPA for review and approval. It includes
questions and answers to focus on key issues, pertinent sections ofWQM regulations and the CWA, and
examples of correspondence.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

15. Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs, EPA 440/4-85-031,
October 1985
This guidance is for use by States and EPA Regions in developing annual section 106 and 205(j) work
programs. The first part of the document outlines the objectives of the water monitoring program to
conduct assessments and make necessary control decisions. The second part describes the process of
identifying and calculating total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations for point and nonpoint
sources of pollution.
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013

16. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book HI Estuaries - Part 1 -
Estuaries and Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-002, May 1990
This document provides technical information and policy guidance for preparing estuarine WLA. It
summarizes the important water quality problems, estuarine characteristics, and the simulation models
available for addressing these problems.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

17. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book III Estuaries • Part 2 -
Application of Estuarine Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-003, May 1990
This document provides a guide to monitoring and model calibration and testing, and a case study tutorial
on simulation of WLA problems in simplified estuarine systems.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 01/25/93
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
18. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book HI: Estuaries - Part 3:
Use of Mixing Zone Models in Estuarine Waste Load Allocations, EPA 823-R-92-004, U.S. EPA,
August 1992
This document summarizes initial dilution and mixing zone processes and their application in WLA. It
provides a basis for understanding the concept of mixing zones and the base modeling framework for
computing mixing zone boundaries.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

19. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations Book III: Estuaries - Part 4:
Critical Review of Coastal Embayment and Estuarine Wasteload Allocation Modeling, EPA 823-R-
92-005, U.S. EPA, August 1992
This document summarizes several historical case studies, with critical review by noted experts.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

20. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA 505/2-90-001,
March, 1991
This document discusses assessment approaches, water quality standards, derivation of ambient criteria,
effluent characterization, human health hazard assessment, exposure assessment, permit requirements,
and compliance monitoring. An example is used to illustrate the recommended procedures.
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013

21. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling (Second Edition),
U.S. EPA 600/3-85/040, June 1985
This manual serves as a reference on modeling formulations, constants and rates commonly used in
surface water quality simulations. This manual abo provides a range of coefficient values that can be
used to perform sensitivity analyses.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

22. Dynamic Toxics Waste Load Allocation Model (DYNTOX), User's Manual, September 13, 1985
A user's manual which explains how to use the DYNTOX model. It is designed for use in wasteload
allocation of toxic substances.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

23. De Minimis Discharges Study: Report to Congress, U.S. EPA 440/4-91-002, November 1991
This report to Congress addresses the requirements of Section 516 by identifying potential de minimis
discharges and recommends effective and appropriate methods of regulating those discharges.
Contact: Rich Healy (202) 260-7812

24. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Book III - Estuaries - Part 4 -
Critical Review of Coastal Embayment and Estuarine Wasteload Allocation Modeling, EPA 823-R-
92-002, August 1992
This document summarizes several historical case studies of model use in one freshwater coastal
embayment and a number of estuarine discharge situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

25. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations-Book HI: Estuaries - Part 3 - Use
of Mixing Zone Models in Estuarine Wasteload Allocations, EPA 823-R-92-004
This technical guidance manual describes the initial mixing wastewater in estuarine and coastal
environments and mixing zone requirements. The important physical processes that govern the
hydrodynamic mixing of aqueous discharges are described, followed by application of available EPA
supported mixing zone models to four case study situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 01/25/93
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
26. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume I, U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 a, September 1992
This report contains results of a screening study of chemiocal residues in fish taken from polluted
waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 260-7812

27. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume n. U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 b, September 1992
This report contains results of a screening Study of Chemical residues in fish taken from polluted
waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 260-7812

AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.
-------
U.S. EPA
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(WH-585)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
REV 01/25/93
OST RESOURCE CENTER
202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
Ecological Risk Assessment Branch
REQUESTOR PROFILE

NAME
POSITION /TITLE

ORGANIZATION
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIPCODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (1) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
1. Biological Criteria - National Program Guidance for Surface Water. EPA-440/5-90-004. April 1990
Contact: George Gibson (202) 260-7580 / Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

2. Biological Criteria - State Development and Implementation Efforts. EPA-440/5-91-003.
Contact: George Gibson (202) 260-7580 / Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

3. Biological Criteria - Guide to Technical Literature. EPA-440/5-91-004. April 1991
Contact: George Gibson (202) 260-7580 / Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

4. Biological Criteria - Research and Regulation, Proceedings of a Symposium. EPA-440/5-91-005.
April 1991.
Contact: George Gibson (202) 260-7580 / Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

5. Biological Criteria - Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria. EPA-882-B92-002.
Contact: George Gibson (202) 260-7580 / Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

6. Interim Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals.
May 1992.
Contact: Maria Gomez-Taylor (202)260-1639

7. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses. July 19SS.
Contact: Charles Delos (202) 260-7039

8. Technical Basis for Establishing Sediment Quality Criteria for Non-ionic Chemicals using
Equilibrium Partitioning. (Draft) April 1993.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260-9456

9. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Acenaphthene. (Draft)
November 1991.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260-9456

-------
REV 01/25/93
Ecological Risk Assessment Branch
10. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. (Draft)
November 1991.
Contact: Maiy Reiley (202) 260-9456

11. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Bcnthic Organisms: Endrin. (Draft)
November 1991.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260-9456

12. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene. (Draft)
November 1991.
Contact: Maiy Reiley (202) 260-9456

13. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrcnc. (Draft)
November 1991.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260-9456

14. Analytical Method for Determination of Acid Volatile Sulfide in Sediment. (Pinal Draft).
Contact: Maiy Reiley (202) 260-9456

15. An SAB Report: Review of Sediment Criteria Development Methodology for Non-Ionic Organic
Contaminants. (September 1992).
contact: Mary Reilly (202) 260-9456

16. Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wildlife Resources - December 1989. EPA 600/3-89-067.
Topic areas include legislative authority for wildlife criteria development, strategy to incorporate
into current regulatory framework, strategy for choosing chemicals, research strategies, summary of
research efforts,
Contact: Cynthia Nolt (202) 260-1940.

17. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Criteria Documents for the Protection of Wildlife DDT,
Mercury, 2T3,7^-'1XX)D and PCB's. April 1993. EPA-822-R-93-007.
This document presents the derivation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative wildlife criteria
for four chemicals: DDT, Mercury, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCB's.
Contact: Cynthia Nolt (202) 260-1940.

18. Wildlife Criteria Portions of the Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.
July 1993. EPA-822-R-93-006.
Excerpts from the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance specific to the derivation of wildlife
criteria. This document will facilitate review of and comment on the proposed wildlife criteria
arm roach bv oersons who mav not keen abreast of Federal Register notices.
Contact: Cynthia Nolt (202) 260-1940.

19. Interim Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. May
1992.
This guidance addresses the use of EPA metals criteria in water quality standards intended to
protect aquatic life. This guidance also addresses the derivation of NPDES permit limits from such
criteria.
Contact: Charles Delos (202) 260-7039.

20. Six DRAFT Ambient Water Oualitv Criteria documents for, Antimony m, Phenanthrcnc, Silver,
Hexadilorobenzene, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, Di-2-Ethylliezylphtblatc.
These proposed 304fa~i criteria were orieinallv noticed in the Federal Reeister on Mav 14. 1990,
(FR 55 19986).
Contact: Amy Leaberry (202) 260-6324.



•US CiOVERNVfNf PRINTING OFICE 11^-517-7 £ 3-n 17Q
-------
REV 01/25/93
Ecological Risk Assessment Branch
21. DRAFT Ambient Water Oualitv Criteria for Tributvltin. (TBTV
This draft 304(a) criteria was originally noticed on June 6, 1989 (54 FR 23529).
Contact: Kennard Potts (202) 260-7893.

22. Water Quality Criteria Summary. May 1, 1991.
This summary is in the form of a wall poster. This poster summarizes all criteria released up to
May 1, 1991.
Contact: Kennard Potts (202) 260-7893.







AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.
-------
U.S. EPA
Water Resource Center
(RC-4100) Room G099
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
APPENDIX W
Update Request Form for
Water Quality Standards Handbook
Second Edition
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
-------
READER RESPONSE CARD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is trying hard to be responsive to the needs of our customers. We would
appreciate knowing if this document has been helpful to you. Please take a minute to complete and return this postage-paid evaluation
form to us so that we can better serve you.
1.	How helpful was the information contained in this publication? Circle one number: 1	2	3	4	5
Somewhat	Quite	Very
2.	Does the publication discuss the subject to your satisfaction? ( ) Yes ( ) No
3.	Is the level of detail appropriate for your use? ( ) Yes ( ) No
4.	How clearly is the publication written or the material presented? Circle one number: 1	2	3	4	5
Unclear	About right	Very
5.	How effective are the graphics and illustrations? Circle one number:	1	2	3	4	5
Ineffective	Quite	Very
6.	What is your affiliation? Check one:
) Local government representative	(	) Attorney or legal representative	() Academia: Circle one: Student * Instructor
) State government representative	(	) Environmental group	Level: 	Elementary School
) Federal government representative (	) Private citizen		Junior High or Middle School
) Consultant	(	) Trade or industrial association		High School
) Other:		University
7. Do you have any suggestions for improving this publication?
8.	UPDATES. If you would like to be added to the mailing list to receive updates of this publication, please check here |	| and
tell us who you are by completing box #10 below.
9.	CATALOG OF DOCUMENTS. The Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, is responsible for developing
standards, criteria, and advisories that relate to water quality and public drinking water supplies, and for developing effluent
guidelines, limitations and standards for industries discharging directly to surface water or indirectly to publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants. If you would like to receive a copy of the Catalog of OST Publications which lists all documents related to these
topics and includes information on how you may obtain copies of them, please check here |	| and complete box #10 below.
10.	Your Name:	
Address:		 	 	
Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and mail it to us. Thanks for your assistance.
THIS RESPONSE CARD IS FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER: EPA-823-B-93-002
-------
AFFIX
POSTAGE
HERE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Resource Center (RC-4100)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
pa
ft
f?
3
s
n
re
1/1
-------
Thursday
December 12, 1991
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 131
Amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Regulation That Pertain to
Standards on Indian Reservations; Final
Rule
Printed on Recycled P
-------
64876 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 131
[ WH-FRL-4038-8 ]
Amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Regulation That Pertain to
Standards on Indian Reservations
agency: Environmental Protection
Agency.
action: Final rule.
summary: This rule amends the water
quality standards regulation by adding:
(l) The procedures by which an Indian
Tribe may qualify for treatment as a
State for purposes of the Clean Water
Act section 303 water quality standards
and section 401 certification programs,
and (2) a mechanism to resolve
unreasonable consequences that may
anse from Indian Tribes and States
adopting differing water quality
standards on common bodies of water.
effective date The rule shall be
effective January 13.1992.
ADDRESSES: The public may inspect the
administrative record for this
rulemaking and all comments received
on the proposed regulation at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Standards and Applied Science
Division. Office of Science and
Technology, room 919 East Tower. 401
M Street. SW.. Washington. DC,
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. on business days. A reasonable fee
will be charged for copying. Inquiries
can be made by calling 202-260-1315.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
~avid K. Sabock, Environmental
Protection Agency, Standards and
Applied Science Division. (WH-585). 401
M Street. SW., Washington. DC, 20460.
(202) 260-1318.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
A. Background
B Changes to the Proposed Rule
C. Response to Public Comments
Treatment of Tribes as States
2. Dispute Resolution Mechanism
3 Establishing Water Quality Standards on
Reservations
4. Other Comments
D Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Background
Section 303(c) of the Clean W«ter Act
[33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) requires the States to
develop, review, and revise water
quality standards for ail surface waters
of the United States. The Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
implementing regulations (40 CFR part
131) require that, at a minimum, such
standards include designated water
uses, m-stream criteria to protect such
uses, and an antidegradation policy.
EPA's roie in the water quality
standards program is to review and
approve or disapprove the State-
adopted water quality standards and.
where necessary, to promulgate Federal
water quality standards.
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
States may grant or deny "certification'1
for Federally permitted or licensed
activities that may result in a discharge
to the waters of the United States. The
decision to grant or deny certification is
based on the State's determination
regarding whether the proposed activity
will comply with the requirements of
certain sections of the CWA enumerated
in section 401(a)(1). These sections
include those requiring water quality
standards and effluent limitations. If a
State denies certification, the Federal
permitting or licensing agency is
prohibited from issuing a permit or
license. Certifications are subject to
objection from downstream States
where the downstream State determines
that the proposed activity would violate
its water quality requirements.
Certifications are normally issued by the
State in which the discharge onginates.
but may be issued in certain
circumstances by an interstate agency
or the Administrator.
The February 4.1987 Amendments to
the Act added a new section S18. which
requires EPA to promulgate regulations
specifying how the Agency will treat
qualified Indian Tribes as States for the
purposes of. among others, the section
303 (water quality standards) and
section 401 (certification) programs
described above. Section 518 also
requires EPA. in promulgating these
regulations, to establish a mechanism to
resolve unreasonable consequences that
may result from an Indian Tribe and a
State adopting differing water quality
standards on common bodies of water.
On September 22.1989. the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed amendments to the water
quality standards regulations in
response to CWA section 518
requirements (see 54 FR 39098). The
proposal included amendments that
would: (1) Add procedures by which an
Indian Tribe could qualify for treatment
as a State for purposes of the section 303
water quality standards and section 401
certification programs of the Clean
Water Act. and (2) establish a
mechanism to resolve unreasonable
consequences that may result from an
Indian Tribe and a State adopting
differing water quality standards on
common bodies of water. Pursuant to
CWA section 518. the proposal had been
prepared in consultation with States and
Indian Tribes. The proposal was
developed with the assistance of an
informal work group composed of
representatives from Indian Tribes.
States, and EPA. In addition, a national
consultation meeting involving States
and Tribes was held in Denver.
Colorado in june of 1988 for the purpose
of obtaining additional comments.
Finally. EPA distributed a number of
drafts of the proposal to all States and
Tribes (following a mailing list of
Federally recognized Tribes obtained by
the Office of Water) for review and
comment prior to issuing the proposed
rule.
Public hearings on the September 22.
1989 proposal were held in Phoenix.
Arizona on November 14.1989. Rapid
City. South Dakota on NovemDer 16.
1989. and Washington. DC on December
5.1989. A total of 25 people registered at
the three hearings. The public comment
penod closed on December 22.1989.
EPA received a total of 34 wntten
comments on the proposed rule.
EPA notes that more comments were
received on the various drafts of the
proposed rule than on the proposed rule
which was ultimately published. EPA
believes that many of the difficult issues
were resolved during the consultation
period prior to proposal, and that this
explains why relatively few comments
were received on the proposal and why
relatively few changes to the proposal
were required in preparing today's final
rule. Another reason is that EPA had
previously published similar procedures
under CWA section 518 for the section
108 water quality management and
planning program (54 FR 14354; April 11.
1989).
Additional background information
was included in the preamble to the
proposed rulemaking.
B. Changes to the Proposed Rule
Two changes were made to the rule as
a result of the public comments.
EPA received several comments on
the provision of the dispute resolution
mechanism which specifies how
arbitrators should be selected (see
§ 131.7(f)(2)). These various comments
suggested that such persons should be
acceptable to all parties, knowledgeable
about water quality standards,
knowledgeable about Indian law and
Tribal governments, and impartial.
The rule was amended to provide that
the Regional Administrator select as
arbitrators and panel members
individuals who:"(l) Are agreeable to all
S-310999 003S<02N1I-DEC-91-09:38:06)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64877
affected parties. (2) are knowledgeable
concerning the requirements of the
water quality standards program. (3)
have a basic understanding of the
political and economic interests of
affected Tnbes and States, and (4) are
-expected to fulfill the duties fairly and
impartially. The regulation provides
wide latitude as to who a Regional
Administrator may appoint including
EPA employees, employees of other
Federal agencies, or "other individuals
with appropriate qualifications." EPA
believes that this regulatory provision
should be broad enough to encompass
all possibilities.
Section 131.7 (f)(l)(ii) requires that
"mediators shall act as neutral
facilitators • ' *". Implicit in the
regulation is the sense that mediators
and arbitrators will act fairly and
impartially. EPA knows of no regulatory
provision that will guarantee
impartiality. It should be noted,
however, that there is an appeals
process included in the regulation (see
$ 101.7(f)(2)(v)) for those instances
where a party believes the arbitrator's
recommendation is an action contrary to
or inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
The second suggested change was
that EPA should define the terms
"promptly" and "reasonable efforts"
used in one provision of the dispute
resolution mechanism (5 131.7(d)). The
referenced section requires EPA. upon a
determination by EPA that a dispute
resolution action is required, to
"promptly" notify affected parties that
EPA is initiating an action and to make
"reasonable efforts" to ensure that all
interested groups also have notice that
EPA is initiating a dispute resolution
action.
EPA revised } 131.7(d) to replace the
term "promptly" with "within 30 days."
and specified that "reasonable efforts"
shall include but not be limited to: (1)
Written notice to responsible Indian and
State agencies, and other affected
Federal agencies. (Z) notice to the
specific individuals or entity that is
alleging that an unreasonable
consequence is resulting from differing
standards having been adopted on a
common body of water. (3) public notice
in local newspapers, radio, and
television, as appropriate, and (4)
publication in trade journal newsletters,
and (5) other means as appropriate.
Many of the comments received on
the proposed rulemaking were
suggestions for clarification which are
responded to affirmatively in the
Response to Public Comment Section
below. Where appropriate. EPA has
attempted to provide responses which
will also serve as guidance for
implementation of today's rule. The
substance of these responses and any
additional guidance needed will be
added to the Water Quality Standards
Handbook which contains the program
guidance supplementing the
requirements of the water quality
standards regulation. The Agency's
rationale for addressing the few
suggestions for revising the regulatory
language is also included in the
Response to Public Comments Section.
C. Response to Public Comments
The response to public comments is
organized into four sections: (1)
Treatment of Tribes as States. (2)
dispute resolution mechanism. (3)
establishing water quality standards on
Indian reservations, and (4) other
comments. Comments discussed within
each of these sections have been further
categorized by topic.
1. Treatment of Tribes as States
Comments on the Authority
Requirements
a. The Scope of Inherent Tribal
Authority
Comment: The issue of whether and
how EPA should require Tribes to
demonstrate that they meet the
requirements of section 518(e)(2) of the
CWA, i.e.. that they can demonstrate
authority to regulate water quality
within the boundaries of their
reservations, attracted significant
comment. Numerous commenters
remarked on the significance of the
Supreme Court's decision in Brendale v.
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the
Yakima Nation, 492 U.S. 408, (1989) for
EPA's programs and today's regulations,
although there were widely differing
views of how to read the decision.
Several commenters asserted that
Brendale clearly indicates that an
Indian Tribe may not enforce its water
quality standards against non-members
of the Tribe on non-Indian-owned fee
lands within the boundaries of the
reservation or that, at the very least the
Tribe must include detailed factual
information that describes the non-
Indian lands the Tribe proposes to
regulate and the reasons supporting its
jurisdictional assertions.
By contrast, other commenters
asserted that Tribes invariably possess
inherent authority to regulate all
reservation waters, and that EPA should
presume the existence of such authority
and not require Tribes to make any
specific factual showing. These
commenters asserted that such authority
over environmental matters was
recognized in Montana v. United States.
450 U.S. 544 (1981), and not diminished
by Brendale.
Response: EPA does not read the
holding in Brendale as preventing EPA
from recognizing Tribes as States for
purposes of regulating water quality on
fee lands within the reservation, even if
section 518 is not an express delegation
of authority (an issue discussed in detail
below). In Brendale. both the State of
Washington and the Yakima Nation
asserted authority to zone non-Indian
real estate developments on two parcels
within the Yakima reservation, one in an
area that was primarily Tribal, the other
in an area where much of the land was
owned in fee by nonmembers. Although
the Court analyzed the issues and the
appropriate interpretation of Montana at
considerable length, the nine members
split 4:2:3 in reaching the decision that
the Tribe should have exclusive zoning
authority over property in the Tribal
area and the State should have
exclusive zoning authority over non-
Indian owned property in the fee area.
The decision reflects some difficult
issues in this area of the law and. as the
comments indicated, has generated
considerable controversy over the
extent of Tribal authority.
Given the lack of a majority rationale,
the primary significance of Brendale is
in its result which was fully consistent
with Montana v. United States; which—
previously had held that:
To be sure. Indian tribes retain inherent
sovereign power to exercise some forms of
civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their
reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands. A
tribe may regulate ' * ' the activities of non-
members who enter consensual relationships
with the tribe or its members, through
commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or
other arrangements * * *. A tribe may slso
retain' inherent power to exercise civil
authority over the conduct of non-Indians on
fee lands within its reservation when that
conduct threatens or has some direct effect
on the political integrity, the economic
security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.
Montana. 450 U.S. at 565-88 (citations
omitted).
In Brendale. the Court applied this
test, finding Tribal authority over
activities that would threaten the health
and welfare of the Tribe, 492 U.S. at
443-444 (Stevens. J„ writing for the
Court); id. at 449-450 (Blackmun, J.
concurring). Conversely, the Court found
no Tribal jurisdiction where the
proposed activities "would not threaten
the Tribe's " * * health or welfare." Id.
at 432 (White.J.. writing for the Court).
The Agency therefore disagrees with
commenters who argue that Brendale
somehow overrules Montana.
As further discussed below. EPA
agrees with certain commenters that
pending further-judicial or
S-310999 0036(02X1 l-DEC-9l-09:38:10)
-------
64878 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Congressional guidance on the extent to
which section 518 delegates additional
authority to Tribes, the ultimate decision
regarding Tribal authonty must be made
on a Tribe-by-Tribe basis and has
finalized the proposed process for
making those determinations. Thus. EPA
rejects the suggestion of other
commenters that EPA make a conclusive
statement regarding the extent of Tribal
jurisdiction over fee lands for all Tribes
and all waters or even a statement
regarding any particular reservation,
except in the context of an actual
treatment as a State application. This is
consistent with the approach the
Agency adopted under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, when it determined that it
would not "automatically assume." or
adopt, in the first instance, a rebuttable
presumption of tribal authority over all
water within a reservation that would
operate even in the absence of any
factual evidence. See S3 FR 37396. 37399
(September 26.1988). Nonetheless. EPA
sees no reason in light of Brendale to
assume that Tribes would be perse
unable to demonstrate authonty over
water quality management on fee lands
within reservation borders. Rather, as
discussed below, EPA believes that as a
general matter there are substantial
legal and factual reasons to assume that
Tribes ordinanly have the legal
authority to regulate surface water
quality within a reservation.
In evaluating whether a tribe has
authority to regulate a particular activity
on iand owned in fee by nonmembers
but located within a reservation. EPA
will examine the Tribe's authority in
light of the evolving case law as
reflected in Montana and Brendale. The
extent of such tribal authority depends
on the effect of that activity on the tribe.
As discussed above, in the absence of a
contrary statutory policy, a tribe may
regulate the activities of non-Indians on
fee lands within its reservation when
those activities threaten or have a direct
effect on the political integrity, the
economic security, or the health or
welfare of the tribe. Montana. 450 U.S.
at 565-66. However, in Brendale several
justices argued that for a tribe to have
"a protectable interest" in an activity,
the activity's effect should be
"demonstrably serious." Brendale. 1492
U.S. at 431 (White. J.). In addition, in a
more recent case involving tribal
criminal jurisdiction, a majority of the
Court indicated in dicta that a tribe may
exercise civil authority "where the
exercise of tribal authority is vital to the
maintenance of tribal integrity and self-
determination." Duro v. Reina. 110 S.Ct.
2053. 2061 (1990). See also Brendale, 492
U.S. at 450 (Blackmun.).) (test for
inherent tribal authonty whether
activities "implicate a significant tribal
interest"): id. at 462 (Blackmun. |.) (test
for inherent tribal authonty whether
exercise of authonty "fundamental to
the political and economic secunty of
the tribe").
As discussed above, the Supreme
Court, in recent cases, has explored
several options to assure that the
impacts upon tribes of the activities of
non-Indians on fee land, under the
Montana test, are more than de minimis,
although to date the Court has not
agreed, in a case on point, on any one
reformulation of the test. In response to
this uncertainty, the Agency will apply,
as an interim operating rule, a
formulation of the standard that will
require a showing that the potential
impacts of regulated activities on the
tnbe are serious and substantial.
The choice of an Agency operating
rule containing this standard is taken
solely as a matter of prudence in light of
judicial uncertainty and does not reflect
an Agency endorsement of this standard
per se. Moreover, as discussed below,
the Agency believes that the activities
regulated under the various
environmental statutes generally have
senous and subtantial impacts on
human health and welfare. As a result
the Agency believes that tribes will
usually be able to meet the Agency's
operating rule, and that use of such a
rule by the Agency should not create an
improper burden of proof on tribes or
create the administratively undesirable
result of checkerboarding reservations.
Whether a tribe has jurisdiction over
activities by nonmembers will be
determined case-by-case, based on
factual findings. The determination as to
whether the required effect is present in
a particular case depends on the
circumstances.
Nonetheless, the Agency may also
take into account the provisions of
environmental statutes, and any
legislative findings that the effects of the
activity are serious in making a
generalized finding that Tribes are likely
to possess sufficient inherent authority
to control reservation environmental
quality. See. e.g.. Keystone Bituminous
Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis. 480 U.S.
470,476-77 and notes 6. 7 (1987). As a
result, in making the required factual
findings as to the impact of a water-
related activity on a particular tribe, it
may not be necessary to develop an
extensive and detailed record in each
case. The Agency may also rely on its
special expertise and practical
experience regarding the importance of
water management, recognizing that
clean water, including critical habitat
(i.e.. wetlands, bottom sediments,
spawning beds. etc.). is absolutely
crucial to he survival of many Indian
reservations.
The Agency believes that
Congressional enactment of the Clean
Water Act establishes a strong federal
interest in effective management of
water quality. Indeed, the primary
objective of the CWA "is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (section 101(a)) and. to achieve
that objective, the Act establishes the
goal of eliminating all discharges of
pollutants into the navigable waters of
the U.S. and attaining a level of water
quality which is fishable and
swimmable (section 101(a)(l)-(2)). Thus
the statute itself constitutes, in effect a
legislative determination that activities
which affect surface water and critical
habitat quality may have serious and
substantial impacts.
EPA also notes that, because of the
mobile nature of pollutants in surface
waters and the relatively small length/
size of stream segments or other water
bodies on reservations, it would be
practically very difficult to separate out
the effects of water quality impairment
on non-Indian fee land within a
reservation with those on tribal
portions. In other words, any
impairment that occurs on. or as a result
of. activities on non-Indian fee lands are
very likely to impair the water and
critical habitat quality of the tribal
lands. This also suggests that the serious
and substantial effects of water quality
impairment within the non-Indian
portions of a reservation are very likely
to affect the tribal interest in water
quality. EPA believes that a
"checkerboard" system of regulation,
whereby the Tribe and State split up
regulation of surface water quality on
the reservation, would ignore the
difficulties of assuring compliance with
water quality standards when two
different sovereign entities are
establishing standards for the same
small stream segments.
EPA also believes that Congress has
expressed a preference for Tribal
regulation of surface water quality to
assure compliance with the goals of the
CWA. This is confirmed by the text and
legislative history of section 518 itself.
The CWA establishes a policy of
"recogniz(ing). preserv(ing). and
protect(ing) the primary responsibilities
and rights of States to prevent reduce,
and eliminate pollution. |and| to plan
the development and use (including
restoration, preservation, and
enhancement) of land and water
resources" section 101(b). By extension.
S-310S99 0037(02X1 l-DEC-91-09 38:13)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64879
the treatment of Indian Tribes as States
means that Tribes arc to be primarily
esponsible for the protection of
reservation water resources. As Senator
Burdick. floor manager of the 1987 CWA
'Amendments, explained, the purpose of
section 518 was to "provide clean water
for the people of this Nation." 133 Cong.
Pec. S1018 (daily ed. )an 21.1987). This
goal was to be accomplished, he
asserted, by giving "tribes " * * the
primary authority to set water quality
standards to assure fishable and
swimmable water and to satisfy all
beneficial uses." Id.
In light of the Agency's statutory
responsibility for implementing the
environmental statutes, its
interpretations of the intent of Congress
in allowing for tribal management of
water quality within the reservation are
entitled to substantial deference.
Washington Dept of Ecology v. EPA.
752 F. 2d 1465.1460 (9th Cir. 1985); see
generally Chevron. USA v. NRDC, 487.
U.S. 837. 843-45 (1984).
The Agency also believes that the
effects on tribal health and welfare
necessary to support Tribal regulation of
non-Indian activities on the reservation
may be easier to establish in the context
of water quality management than with
regard to zoning, which was at issue in
Brendale. There is a significant
distinction between land use planning
and water quality management. The
Supreme Court has explicitly recognized
such a distinction: "Land use planning in
essence chooses particular uses for the
land; environmental regulation * * *
does not mandate particular uses of the
land but requires only that however the
land is used damage to the environment
is kept within prescribed limits."
California Coastal Commission v.
Granite Rock Co.. 480 U.S. 572. 587
(1987). The Court has relied on this
distinction to support s finding that
states retain authority to carry out
environmental regulation even in cases
where their ability to carry out general
land use regulation is preempted by
federal law. Id. at 587-69.
Further, water quality management
serves the purpose of protecting public
health and safety, which is a core
governmental function, whose exercise
is critical to self-government. The
special status of governmental actions
to protect public health and safety is
well established.1 By contrast.Jhe
1 Thii special atatua has been reaffirmed by all
nine luaticea in the context of Filth Amendment
taking* law. See Keystone Bituminous Coal
Association vjOeBenedictis. 480 U.S. 470.491 n. 20
11887); U. at 512. (RehnqtuaL C.J. diaaenting).
power to zone can be exercised to
achieve purposes which have little or no
direct nexus to public health and safety.
See e.g. Brendale. see. e.g.. Brendale. 492
U.S. at 420 n.5 (White.).) (listing broad
range of consequences of state zoning
decision). Moreover, water pollution is
by nature highly mobile, freely migrating
from one local jurisdiction to another,
sometimes over large distances. By
contrast, zoning regulates the uses of
particular properties with impacts that
are much more likely to be contained
within a given local jurisdiction.
Operationally. EPA's generalized
findings regarding the relationship of
water quality to tribal health and
welfare will affect the legal analysis of a
tribal submission by, in effect,
supplementing the factual showing a
tribe makes in applying for treatment as
a State. Thus, a tribal submission
meeting the requirements of i 131.8 of
this regulation will need to make a
relatively simple showing of facts that
there are waters within the reservation
used by the Tribe or tribal members,
(and thus that the Tribe or tribal
members could be subject to exposure
to pollutants present in. or introduced
into, those waters) and that the waters
and critical habitat are subject to
protection under the Clean Water Act.
The Tribe must also explicitly assert
that impairment of such waters by the
activities of non-Indians, would have a
serious and substantial effect on the
health and welfare of the Tribe. Once
the Tribe meets this initial burden, EPA
will, in light of the facts presented by
the tribe and the generalized statutory
and factual findings regarding the
importance of reservation water quality
discussed above, presume that there has
been an adequate showing of tribal
jurisdiction of fee lands, unless an
appropriate governmental entity (e.g.. an
adjacent Tribe or State) demonstrates a
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
Tribe.
The Agency recognizes that
jurisdictional disputes between tribes
and states can be complex and difficult
and that it will, in some circumstances,
be forced to address such disputes.
However, EPA's ultimate responsibility
is protection of the environment. In view
of the mobility of environmental
problems, and the interdependence of
various jurisdictions, it is imperative
that all affected sovereigns work
cooperatively for environmental
protection, rather than engage in
confrontations over jurisdiction.
b. The Effect of Section 518 on Tribal
Authority over Non-Indian Activities
Comment*. EPA has received letters
from three members of Congress.
Senator Simpson. Senator Baucus. and
Representative Mornson. regarding the
impact of Brendale on EPA's Indian
Policy and the development of
"treatment as a State" regulations for
EPA water programs in light of the
legislative history of section 518. All
three commenters asserted that
Congress did not intend to expand the
scope of Tribal authority over non-
Indians on the reservation by the
passage of section 518.
Rep. Mornson asserted that he
inserted into the Congressional Record a
memorandum written by staff on the
House Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs regarding section 518
(also inserted into the Congressional
Record by Senator Adams at 133 Cong.
Rec. S753-54 (daily ed. )anuary 14.
1987)) solely to demonstrate that section
518 was not intended to expand Tribal
water quantity rights. 133 Cong. Rec
H184-65 (daily ed. jan 8.1967). Rep.
Mornson disavowed other statements
from that memorandum which might
support the proposition that Congress
intended to authorize Tribal jurisdiction
over non-members on reservations.
("Indian tribes have the right to regulate
lands and other natural resources within
the reservation, including non-Indian
owned fee lands or resources." Id.
(emphasis added)). Rep. Motrison stated
his belief that Congress did not. by the
passage of section 516, expand the scope
of Tribal authority over non-Indians. In
light of this legislative history. Rep.
Morrison asserted that, consistent with
Brendale, EPA should not allow Tribal
regulation of non-members on so-called
"open" reservations.
Senators Baucus and Simpson also
recommended that EPA consider the
legislative history of section 518(e) and
the Brendale decision and determine not
to allow Tribal regulation over non-
members on the reservation.
Finally, all three of these
Congressional commenters asserted that
the legislative history of section 518
clearly shows that it was not intended
to affect rights to water quantity under
State law. The concerns raised by these
Members of Congress echo other
comments discussed elsewhere in
today's notice. Several commenters
asserted that section 518(e)(2) should
not be read as an express grant of
Congressional authority to Indian Tribes
to regulBte such fee lands, despite
indications in Brendale to the contrary.
By contrast. Senators McCain.
Burdick. and Inouye expressed a view
that section 518(e) delegates Tribes
authority to regulate all waters within
reservation boundaries including those
on non-Indian fee lands. Some
S-3IWW 0038(02X11-DEC-9I-09:38:17)
-------
64880 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
commenters cited Brendale for this
proposition. The latter argument of these
commenters is based upon the opinion
oi Justice White in Brendale. Justice
White indicates that certain statutes
may delegate Federal authority to
Tribes, thereby providing a basis for
authority over all lands within a
reservation. As Justice White explained,
on the record in Brendale there could be
no contention * * * that Congress has
expressly delegated to the Yakima Nation the
power to zone fee lands of nonraembers of
the Tnbe. Compare 18 U.S.C. 1151. 1161 (1982
ed.. and Supp. V): 33 U.S.C. 1377(e) and (h)(1)
(1982 ed.. Supp. V) (i.e.. sections 518(e) and
518(h)(1) of the CWA).
492 U.S. at 428 (1989) (White. |.)
(emphasis added). This language clearly
categorizes the two cited statutory
schemes as express delegations of
Federal authority. Thus, justice White.
inter alia, cites the Clean Water Act as
an example of an explicit delegation of
authority over non-indian activities to
Indian Tribes. Response: EPA has fully
considered the Congressional comments
and their interpretation of the legislative
history of section 518. EPA must, of
course, consider contemporaneous
legislative history as it is written, and
has been cautioned not to rely on
subsequent statements by Members of
Congress. Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council v. EPA. 888 F.Zd 355 (DC Cir.
1989). cert, denied. Ill S.Cl 139 (1990).
EPA differs with the Congressional
commenters to the extent that they
suggest the legislative history of section
518 is clear and expresses an intent to
limit the scope of Tribal authority. EPA
notes that other legislative history might
be interpreted as evincing Congressional
intent to confer expanded Tribal
authority over non-Indians within the
reservation.
In particular, the following colloquy
between Senators Inouye and Burdick
on this issue is very relevant
Mr. Inouye:' ' * I am concerned about
section 518(e)(2). As I read that provision, it
enablei qualified Indian tribe* to exercise the
same water quality regulatory jurisdiction
with respect to water that traverses, borders,
or is otherwise located within their
reservations (paraphrasing section 518(h)(1)
and 18 U.S.C. 1151(a)) that States have for
regulation of water outside Indian
reservations. Is my understanding of Section
5lB(e) correct?
Mr. Burdick: Yes. The intent of the
conferees was to assure that Indian tribes
would be able to exercise the same
regulatory )urisdiction over water quality
matters with regard to waters within Indian
jurisdiction that States have been exercising
over their water.
133 Cong. Rec. S1018 (daily ed. Jan. 21.
1987) (emphasis added). Senator
Inouye's statement could arguably
support a reading that Congress
intended to recognize Tribal authority
over all waters within the reservation,
including those managed by non-
Indians. Mr. Burdick. a member of the
Conference Committee, agrees with
Senator Inouye's statement.
However, in EPA's view this colloquy
is ambiguous and inconclusive. Senator
Burdick. in responding to Senator
Inouye. agrees that under section 518
Tribes may regulate waters only if they
are already "within Indian jurisdiction."
However. Senator Burdick was only
recognizing the status quo. i.e., whatever
is within Indian jurisdiction may be
regulated via section 518. Senator
Burdick's statement does not clearly
show that he—or the Congress as a
whole—intended to legislate that all
waters within the reservation are in fact
"within Indian jurisdiction." Thus, the
colloquy is circular. Indians have
jurisdiction if. but only if, they have
jurisdiction from some source other than
section 518. It does not clearly indicate
whether Congress intended to expand
what lies "within Indian jurisdiction."
Further, if this colloquy were to be
construed as supporting an expansion of
tribal authority, it would arguably
conflict with a statement Senator
Burdick had made earlier in response to
an inquiry from Senator Baucus. In that
discussion. Senator Burdick reiterated
that section 518 was not intended to
affect existing water quantity rights, and
added that "fpjrivate lands and water
rights owners within boundaries of
Indian reservations are not to be
additionally affected by this act." 133
Cong. Rec. S753 (daily ed. January 14,
1987) (emphasis added). This could
suggest that the Act was not intended to
alter the status quo regarding regulatory
authority over fee lands.
The legislative history in the House is
also unclear as to whether Congress
intended to expand tribal power over
non-Indians. The statement in the House
staff memorandum cited above supports
a view that under current case law
Tribes already possess regulatory
authority over non-Indians within
reservation boundaries; thus it would be
unnecessary to delegate such authority
to tribes, insertion of this memorandum
into the Congressional Record could
suggest that the House agreed with that
view; however, this aspect of the
memorandum was never the subject of
House discussions, which focused
almost exclusively on issues relating to
water rights.
EPA believes that if Congress had
intended to make a change as important
as an expansion of Indian authority to
regulate nonmembers. it probably would
have done so through statutory language
and discussed the change in the
committee reports. Given that the
legislative history ultimately is
ambiguous and inconclusive. EPA
believes that it should not find that the
statute expands or limits the scope of
Tribal authonty beyond that inherent in
the Tribe absent an express indication
of Congressional intent to do so. See
Montana. 450 U.S. at 564. Therefore.
EPA has decided that it will, as
discussed above, continue to recognize
inherent Tribal civil regulatory authority
to the full extent permitted under
Federal Indian law. in light of Montana.
Brendale. and other applicable case law.
EPA believes that Congress only
manifested an explicit intent to
authorize EPA to treat Indian Tribes as
States over any activities within the
scope of Tribal authority in light of the
relevant principles of Federal Indian
law. EPA believes that this approach
will best effectuate the overall purposes
of the statute.
EPA agrees with those commenters
who stated that Justice White's opinion
in Brendale can be read to suggest a
contrary conclusion, and to indicate that
at least four justices of the Supreme
Court would apparently interpret
section 518(e) as expressly delegating to
Tribes the authority to regulate water
quality on reservations, including those
affected by activities on non-Indian fee
lands. Nonetheless. EPA recognizes that
Justice White's opinion was not a
majority opinion of the Court and was
not necessary to the decision even of the
plurality that joined it, since the issue
was not before the Court in Brendale.
Nor is there any discussion in the
opinion about the somewhat confusing
legislative history of section 518. The
passing reference in that opinion does
not finally resolve the question of
whether section 518(e) is a delegation of
authority, and, as discussed above, EPA
does not believe that it can make an
absolute determination that Congress in
fact expressed a clear intent on the
issue.
EPA agrees with the Congressional
commenters that section 518 does not
affect existing water quantity rights.
This has been the Agency's consistent
position, based on the language of
sections 101(g) and 518(a).
c. Procedural Requirements for
Demonstrating Inherent Tribal
Authority
Comment: Numerous comments
submitted before and after the proposed
rule was published have suggested that
the provision (see S 131.8(b)(3)(iii))
requiring that Tribes submit a copy of
all documents which support the Tribe's
assertion of authority is unnecessary.
S- 310999
0039(02X11-DEC-9I-09:38.20)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 648f
inappropriate, and flows from a
misunderstanding of Indian law. These
commenters argued that Tribes have
•nherent authority uniess Congress
rescinds that authority. In addition.
Ihese commenters stated, since section
518 specifically authorizes Tribal
authority, no such demonstration and
supporting documentation is needed.
Response: As di«cussed in detail
above, the Agency presumes that, in
general, Tribes are likely to possess the
authority to regulate activities affecting
water quality on the reservation. The
Agency does not believe, however, that
it would be appropriate to recognize
Tribal authority and approve treatment
as a State requests in the absence of
verifying documentation. In addition, in
light of the legislative history of section
518, the question of whether section
518(e) is an explicit delegation of
authority over non-Indians is not
resolved. Therefore. EPA does not
believe it is currently appropriate to
eliminate the requirement that Tribes
make an affirmative demonstration of
their regulatory authority. EPA will
authorize Tribes to exercise
responsibility for the water quality
standards program once the Tribe
shows that in light of the factual
circumstances and the generalized
findings EPA has made regarding
reservation water quality, it possesses
the requisite authority.
EPA would advise Tribes, in their
Attorney-General statements, to outline
all bases for concluding that the Tribe
has adequate authority. This can only
help EPA to make a proper
determination to treat the Tribe as a
State.
As stated in the preamble to the
proposal, where the Regional
Administrator concludes that a Tribe
has not adequately demonstrated its
authority with respect to an area in
dispute, then Tribal assumption of the
standards program would be restricted
accordingly. If the authority in dispute
were focused on a limited area, this
would not necessarily delay the
Agency's decision to treat the Tribe as a
State for the non-disputed areas.
Comment- Numerous commenters
suggested that 5 13l.8(b)(3)(i). which
requires the Tribe to submit a map of
legal description of the area over which
the Indian Tribe asserts authority to
regulate water, should be amended to
require that fee lands and lands owned
by non-members and non-Indians be
shown on the map.
Response: No such amendment was
made to the regulations. EPA believes
that, in some cases, both States and
Tribes may want to identify the location
of fee lands on reservations. However.
EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
specifically require Tribes to submit
such information in all cases. EPA also
believes that in some cases States are
more likely to have ready access to such
information than are Tribes. EPA further
believes that the regulation clearly
requires Tribes to identify the area over
which the Tribe asserts authority to
regulate water quality, and that
requiring an identification of fee lands
and lands owned by non-Indians in all
cases is unnecessary and unduly
burdensome. Finally. EPA notes that
§ 131.8(b)(5) gives the Regional
Administrator the discretion to require
whatever additional information is
necessary to support a Tribal
application on a case-by-case basis.
d. Treatment as a State for Off-
Reservation Waters Within Inherent
Tribal Authority
Comment: Several comments were
received regarding the geographic scope
of programs authorized under section
518(e)(2). The provision authorizes EPA
to treat a Tribe as a State for water
resources which are:
held by an Indian Tribe, held in trust for
Indians, held by a member of an Indian Tribe
if such property interest is subject tc a trust
restriction on alienaUon. or otherwise within
the borders of an Indian reservation.
(emphasis added)
EPA has consistently read the phrase
"or otherwise within	as a
separate category of water resources
and also as a modifier of the preceding
three categones of water resources, thus
limiting the Tribe to acquiring treatment
as a State status for the four specified
categories of water resources within the
borders of the reservation.
Comments received suggested that
EPA should alter its reading of this
provision to allow Tribes to qualify for
treatment as a State over all water
resources within its jurisdiction. These
comments asserted that limiting Tribes
to water resources within the
reservation would prevent a Tribe from
obtaining treatment as a State status
over water resources outside the
reservation to which it has legitimate
jurisdictional claim. Examples cited
included traditional resource areas
(known as "usual and accustomed"
areas) outside reservation borders, and
all lands held in trust for Tribes by the
U.S. Government or held by individual
Indians that lie outside reservation
borders, lands in "Ihdian Country" (as
defined in IB U.S.C. 1151) that lie outside
reservation borders and. in general, all
water resources within the territorial
junsdiction of the Tribe that lie outside
reservation borders.
One commenter pointed out that ofte
such lands are sub|ect to Tribal or
Federal jurisdiction and are thus bevor
the police power and regulatory
authority of the State in which they art
located. This comment concluded that
failure to provide Tribes with an
opportunity to obtain treatment as a
State status over such lands would
create "regulatory voids" in which
neither States nor Tribes have clear
authority. Several comments suggestec
that resolving this issue could be
accomplished simply by revising the
definition of Federal Indian Reservatic
included in § 131.3(k).
In contrast, other commenters
asserted that EPA is correct in reading
the phrase "or otherwise within the
borders	as a modifier of the
preceding three categories of water
resources. These commenters pointed
out that failure to do so would render
the statute nonsensical and contradict
congressional intent However, these
commenters also asserted that EPA is
not correct in reading the phrase "or
otherwise within the borders	;
a fourth category of water resources,
because to do so would render the thr
previous clauses superfluous. These
commenters therefore conclude that
section 518(e)(2) should not be read a;
authorizing Tribes to regulate non-
Indian owned lands within the
boundaries of the reservation.
Response: Under today's rule. Tribe
are limited to obtaining treatment as <
State status for only water resources
within the borders of the reservation
over which they possess authority to
regulate water quality. The meaning c
the term "reservation" must, of coursi
be determined in light of statutory lav
and with reference to relevant case le
EPA considers trust lands formally se
apart for the use of Indians to be "wit
a reservation" for purposes section 51
(e)(2). even if they have not been
formally designated as "reservations.
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citize.
Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of
Oklahoma. Ill S. Ct. 905. 910 (1991).
This means it is the status and use of
land that determines if it is to be
considered "within a reservation" rat
than the label attached to it. EPA
believes that it was the intent of
Congress to limit Tribes to obtaining
treatment as a State status to lands
within the reservation. EPA bases thi
conclusion, in part, on the definition (
"Indian Tribe" found in CWA section
518(h)(2). As discussed above. EPA a
does not believe that section 518(e)(2
prevents EPA from recognizing Triba
authority over non-Indian water
resources located within the reservat
S-3I0W
0040<02X I' -DEC-">1 -09.38 25)
-------
64882 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
if the Tribe can demonstrate the
requisite authority over such water
resources.
Comments on the Capability
Requirements
Comment: A variety of comments
were received concerning the general
issue ot'Tribal capability (§ 131.8(a)(4)
and (b)(4)). Comments on this question
ranged from suggesting that EPA should
require no demonstration of capability
at all to making the capability
requirements stronger. Several
comments asserted that rejecting Tnbes
iased on capability will only heighten
he unevenness of experience between
States and Tribes.
Response: EPA made no change in the
regulation. The provision is not unduly
burdensome and EPA intends to apply
similar procedures for Tribes qualifying
as States in all CWA programs. The
Clean Water Act establishes basic
requirements for a Tribe to meet in
order to qualify for treatment as a State.
Eliminating the requirement to
demonstrate capability would fail to
meet these statutory requirements. On
the other, hand. EPA does recognize the
fact that for many Tribes the assumption
of various Clean Water Act programs is
new. Information necessary for EPA to
make determinations of capability must
be balanced against the need to allow
Tribes to gain expenence in CWA
programs. EPA believes that today's rule
provides that balance.
Comment: A comment was received
suggesting that since States are required
to provide judicial review of section 401
certification rulings. Tribal section 401
certifications should also be subject to
judicial review. Related comments
asserted that the rule should require, as
part of the demonstration of capability,
a demonstration of separation of powers
for executive, legislative, and judicial
functions, or at least describe how
bifurcation of Tribal regulatory and
proprietary roles will occur.
Response: EPA disagrees that States
are required to provide judicial reviews
of section 401 certifications. Judicial
reviews of section 401 certifications are
conducted based on the requirements of
State laws, not the Clean Water Act.
Therefore. EPA has not required Tribes
to provide such judicial review, as it is a
matter of Tribal law. Similarly. EPA has
not required Tribes to demonstrate
separation of powers because such a
demonstration is not required by the
Clean Water Act. EPA will, however, in
the context of deciding to authorize
Tribal NPDES programs or 404 permit
programs, consider potential conflicts of
interest where the Tribe would be in the
position ot issuing a permit to a Tribal
entity.
Comment: Several comments were
received requesting that EPA should
clarify how the Agency will evaluate
whether the Tribe has a history of
successful managerial peformance of
public health or environmental
programs, and clarify how much detail
is required in describing a Tribe's
history of managerial experience (see
section 131.8(b)(4)(i)).
Response: In evaluating Tribal
expenence in public health and
environmental programs. EPA will look
for indications that the Tribe has
participated in such programs, whether
the programs be those administered by
EPA. other Federal Agencies, or of
Tnbal ongin. For example, several
Tribes are known to have participated
in developing areas-wide water
management plans or Tribal water
quality standards. EPA will also look for
evidence of historical budget allocations
dealing with public health or
environmental programs along with any
expenence in monitoring in related
programs. In general. EPA will look
favorably on Tribes which have
expenence in managing environmental
programs, because such experience is an
indicator of existing capability and
commitment to environmental
protection. In most cases. EPA
anticipates that submission of a brief
narrative statement on this topic will be
sufficient.
Comment- EPA specifically invited
comment on several options pertaining
to the proposed demonstration of
capability requirement. The proposed
requirement (in § 131.8(b)(4)(v))
provided that the Tribe may either
demonstrate existing capability, or
submit a plan on how it proposes to
acquire the capability to administer the
program if such capability does not now
exist. The alternative options EPA
requested comments on were: (1)
Exclude the provision to submit a plan
detailing steps of acquinng the
necessary management and technical
skills. (2) include a provision which
would allow EPA to withdraw a
treatment as a State determination
where the Tribe fails to demonstrate
adequate capability (e.g.. by failing to
submit water quality standards for EPA
review within 3 years from the date of
qualifying for treatment as a State), and
(3) include a provision for Tribes to
submit draft water quality standards as
part of the demonstration of capability.
Comments on the option to delete the
provision allowing Tribes to submit a
plan to acquire capability were mixed.
Several comments supported deletion of
this provision. One comment asserted
that treatment as a State should not be
granted until capability is achieved: a
plan to acquire capability whould have
little meaning if the Tribe receives
authority prior to actually achieving that
capability. Other comments supported
inclusion of this provision because the
plan would provide information on the
management and technical skills of
Tribes. A related comment was received
that EPA should retain the provision but
delete the requirement to indicate where
Tribal funding would be acquired.
Comments on the option to allow EPA
to withdraw a treatment as a State
determination were also mixed. Several
comments supported some provision
allowing EPA to withdraw a treatment
as a State determination, for example
where the Tribe fails to demonstrate
acceptable performance or use of the
authonty. Other comments opposed
such a provision (e.g.. because it is
counter to the Congressional mandate of
section 518). One comment opposed
such a provision because it would be
unfair to withdraw treatment as a State
for failure to develop a Tribal program
in the absence of adequate Federal
financial and technical assistance.
Conflicting comments on the option to
require Tribes to submit draft water
quality standards as part of the
demonstration of capability were
received. A number of comments
indicated that such a provision would be
burdensome, unproductive, and of little
practical purpose. Other comments,
however, supported such a provision
because draft standards would provide
evidence of technical skills and would
allow review of Tribal water quality
standards early in the process.
Response: EPA made no change in the
proposed regulation. EPA believes that
any Tribe demonstrating sufficient
interest in applying for the program and
able either to: (1) Demonstrate existing
capability, or (2) submit a reasonable
plan for acquiring such capability,
should not be excluded from
consideration. The proposed
requirement was therefore retained.
EPA notes, however that such plans will
be carefuly reviewed: EPA will not
approve Tribal capability
demonstrations where such plans do not
include reasonable provisions for
acquisition of needed personnel as well
as reliable funding sources. This
decision will also provide consistency
with other Clean Water Act programs.
Although submission of draft water
quality standards was not added as a
requirement. EPA notes that where
Tribes have developed water quality
standards programs, submission of the
S-31CWJ
0041(02)11 l-DEC-91 -09 38 28)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64883
completed standards with the
application will normally be sufficient to
satisfy the capability requirements, but
only where the Tribe can also
demonstrate a continuing commitment
(i.e.. resources and/or technical
expertise) for reviewing and revising
their completed standards.
EPA believes that the comment
regarding Tribal funding sources raises
an important point. Prior to applying for
the standards program Tribes should
become familiar with and give serious
consideration to the requirements and
associated resource impacts of assuming
the burden of the water quality
standards program. This was also
mentioned in the preamble to the
proposed rule. The water quality
standrds program, because it requires
standards to be reviewed on a triennial
basis, can require substantial annual
resource commitments.
For example. EPA is currently
developing additional proposed
amendments to the water quality
standards regulation to require triennial
review and adoption of necessary
numeric water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants and. ultimately criteria based
on biological measures of water body
health. Tribes that qualify for treatment
as States will be subject to the existing
requirements as well as these new
requirements which will be added to
section 131 in the near future.
EPA did not therefore, remove from
the rule the requirement for a Tribe to
address how it will obtain the funds
necessary to acquire the administrative
and technical expertise if not currently
available. EPA believes this to be a
necessary and important showing in
support of the overall capability
demonstration. EPA notes that Tribes
may wish to apply for CWA section 106
funds to support their water quality
standards programs and include this
source in any discussion of funding
sources under $ 131.8<4)(v).
Comment: The discussion of
capability requirements included in the -
preamble to the proposed regulation
included a statement that qualifying for
the standards program has no bearing
on the ability of the Tribe to receive a
section 106 grant. A comment was
received that a Tribe was told by EPA
that it had to apply for treatment as a
Stale in order to be eligible for the
section 106 program grants.
Response: The commenter
misunderstood the discussion. To
receive a CWA section 106 program
grant, a Tribe must qualify for treatment
as a State for purposes of the section 106
program. Interim Final rules specifying
how tribes may qualify for the section
106 program were promulgated by EPA
on April 11.1989 (54 FR 14357) and are
now codified in 40 CFR parts 35 and 130.
The preamble discussion simply
indicated that a Tnbe does not have to
also qualify for the standards program
in order to receive a section 106 program
grant and noted that, in fact, prior
acquisition of such grants may be quite
useful to Tribes in developing the
capabilities needed to qualify for the
standards program.
Comments on the Complexity of the
Process
Comment: A variety of comments
were received concerning the process
EPA has established by which a Tribe
may qualify for treatment as a State
under both the Clean Water Act and the
Safe Drinking Water Act. This process is
described in $ 131.8 of the rule and
covers the requirements for Indian
Tribes to be treated as States for
purposes of water quality standards.
Various comments indicated that the
process was too lengthy, cumbersome,
and expensive for the Tribes. Some
commenters suggested that EPA should
separate the legal and programmatic
requirements to allow Tribes to meet the
legal requirements for all CWA
programs with one application. In
general, commentere suggested that the
process be streamlined to pose less of a
burden to Tribes wishing to qualify.
Response: No changes were made in
the regulation to streamline or otherwise
alter the § 131.8 requirements (with the
exception of those previously discussed
in section B—Changes to the Proposed
Rule).
EPA has developed one procedure
applicable to all water programs. To
have a different procedure for the
standards program would not in the
Agency's view simplify the process:
rather it would confuse matters.
Experience with the initial applications
in other programs indicate some delay
in the process but EPA believe that is
more because the process is new to both
EPA and the Tribes rather than because
of any inherent fault in the procedure. It
is expected that as both parties gain
more expenence. such delays will be
minimal. If a Tribe has already
submitted an application for treatment
as a State for another program, very
little if any new information beyond the
request for consideration in the
standards program needs to be
provided.
Because some programs that
potentially may be assumed by Tribes
under the Clean Water Act may require
specialized information relating to
Tribal authorities or capability to
administer an effective program, the
Agency decided previously to today's
rule not to allow Tribes to qualify for
treatment as a State for all CWA
programs in a single application.
However, as stated above, the Agency
intends to minimize the impact on a
Tribe for qualifying for treatment as a
State for various programs by having
Tribes submit the basic application once
and only submit any additional
information that might be required for
treatment as a State for another
program. In the case of this rule. 5 131.8
(b)(iv) and (v) are the provisions which
EPA believes are most likely to require
information in addition to what is
typically submitted with applications for
other programs. The two items are the
name of the agency of the Indian Tribe
charged with establishing, reviewing,
implementing and revising water quality
standards and a description of the
Tribe's technical expertise to administer
and manage the program or a plan on
how the Tribe intends to acquire such
expertise. Section 131.8 (b)(6) of the rule
clearly establishes that in seeking
qualification as a State.	the
Tribe need only provide the required
information which has not been
submitted in a previous treatment as a
State application."
The procedure adopted in today's rule
was publicly debated in a rule made
final under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Comments on the proposal and changes
made may be seen at 53 FR 37408,
September 26.1988. and now codified in
40 CFR part 142. This regulation reflects
the procedures established as a result of
that rulemaking.
Comment: Several comments asserted
that the regulation has redundant and
unnecessary requirements, for example
that 5 131.8(b)(2)(iii) duplicates
131.8(b)(3)(iii) and 131.8(b)(4)(iii). that
131.8(b)(3)(ii) duplicates 131.8(b)(iii). and
finally that I3l.8(b)(iv) duplicates
131.B(b)(3)(l).
Response: While the Agency concurs
that the information in 131.8(b)(2)(iii) is
related to that in parts 131.8(b)(3)(iii)
and 131.8(b)(4)(iii). it is not necessarily
redundant or duplicative. Experience
with the standards program with the
States has shown that often the
administrative and management
functions of the standards program are
split among various State offices and
branches of government. Since this may
also hold true for Tribal governments.
EPA has maintained the requirements as
proposed. However, if the Tribe can
cover the requested information in a
single response to the Agency. EPA
encourages the Tribe to do so. The
independent regulatory requirements
were maintained not to force Tribes to
duplicate information but to ensure that
S-3I0W
0042(02*1 l-DEC-fll-OS 38 32)
-------
64884 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
all information necessary is submitted.
In response to a specific comment. EPA
notes that submittal of the required
"sources of authority" under
§ 13l.8(b)(2)(iu) does not require the
same level of detail as the
demonstration of authority required
under § 131.8(b)(3) and. in general, a
brief statement and reference to the
assertion of authonty under § 131.8(b)(3)
will be sufficient.
The Agency reviewed all the
referenced paragraphs and does not see
that the requirements are either
redundant or unnecessary. While they
may be related, each requests a different
piece of information EPA believes is
necessary to make an informed
judgment on the Tribal application.
Again, however, if the Tribe covers
more than one item in a portion of its
application. EPA does not see any need
for the Tribe to repeat the information—
a reference to where EPA may find the
information elsewhere in the Tribal
application is acceptable.
Comments on the Procedure for
Reviewing Tribal Applications
Comment• Several comments were
received on the opportunity provided to
States to review Tribal assertions of
authority (see { 131.8(c)). Various
commenters believed this provision to
be inappropriate because, for example.
Tribes do not review State applications
for primacy. States have already
established their authority in their
primacy applications, and the review is
inconsistent with EPA's Indian policy.
Other comments suggested that States
comment along with everyone else
during a general public comment period.
Response: The comments which
suggested that States should not be
allowed to review Tribal assertions of
authority because Tribes do not review
State applications for primacy appear to
mix primacy requirements under the
Safe Drinking Water Act or other CWA
programs (such as section 402 NPDES or
section 404 dredge and fill) with those
established under Clean Water Act
section 303. CWA section 303, under
which this rule is promulgated, directs
States to adopt water quality standards.
There is no application process
involved, nor is participation by the
States optional. However. Indian Tribes,
under CWA section 518. must go through
a process to qualify for treatment as
States.
The provision allowing participation
by other governmental entities in EPA's
review of Tribal authority does not
imply that States or Federal agencies
(other than EPA) have veto power over
Tribal applications for treatment as a
State. Rather, the procedure is simply
intended to identify any competing
jursidictional claim and thereby ensure
that the Tribe has the necessary
authority to administer the standards
program. The Agency will not rely solely
on the assertions of a commenter who
challenges the Tnbe's assertion of
authority: EPA will make an
independent evaluation of the Tribal
showing and all available information.
In addition, the provision allowing
appropriate governmental entities to
comment on Tribal assertions of
authority is not intended as a barrier to
Tribal program assumption. As stated in
the preamble to the proposed
rulemaking, where disputes regarding
Tribal authonty are focused on a limited
area, this will not necessanly delay the
Agency's decision for to treat the Tribe
as a State of the non-disputed areas.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that EPA should provide more
definition regarding the "governmental
entities" which will be provided notice
and an opportunity to comment on the
Tribe s assertion of authority (see
1131.8(c)(2)).
Response: EPA defines the phrase
"governmental entities'' as States.
Tribes, and other Federal entities
located contiguous to the reservation of
the Tribe which is applying for
treatment as a State. Such
"governmental entities" will provide up
to 30 days to comment on Tribal
assertions of authority. Neighboring
Tribes will be treated as "governmental
entities" regardless of whether the
neighboring Tribe is treated as a State
for purposes of section 303. Where such
governmental entities are States. EPA
intends to provide notice and an
opportunity to comment to the most
appropriate State contacts which may
include, for example, the Governor.
Attorney GeneraL or the appropriate
environmental agency head. The rule
limits the Agency to only considering
comments from such "governmental
entities." Local governments such as
cities and counties or other local
governments are not included in the
definition of "governmental entities."
and EPA will not consider comments
received from such governments in
reviewing Tribal assertions of authority.
EPA recognizes that city and county
governments which may be subject to or
affected by Tribal standards may also
want to comment on the Tribe's
assertion of authority. Although EPA
believes that the responsibility to
coordinate with local governments falls
primarily upon the State, the Agency
will make an effort to provide notice to
local governments by placing an
announcement in appropriate
newspapers. Since the rule limits EPA to
considering comments from
governmental entities, such newspaper
announcements will advise interested
parties to direct comments on Tribal
authority to appropriate State
governments.
The process of notifying States and
Tribes and consulting with the
Department of Interior, as delineated in
this and other EPA regulations
implementing the Clean Water Act and
the Safe Drinking Water Act. was and is
intended merely to assist the Agency in
making its determination whether a
Tribe has adequate authonty to justify
treatment as a State by EPA. Such
notification and consultation procedures
were not and are not intended to
establish any form of adjudication or
arbitration process to resolve
differences between State and Tribal
governments. Rather. EPA has a duty to
determine whether a Tribe has adequate
authonty. as defined by federal law and
EPA policy, to carry out the grant or
program under consideration. The
notification and consultation procedures
assist EPA in making this determination
by providing information and
perspectives from the points of view of
neighboring Tribal and State
governments and the federal agency
having extensive expertise in federal
Indian law.
Comment: It is unlawful to limit public
comment to just the Tribal
demonstration of authority. Section
131.8 should allow public review of all
four statutory criteria.
Response: CWA section 518 provides
EPA with the authority to determine
whether Indian Tribes are qualified to
be treated as States. The CWA does not
require EPA to provide for public
comment on Tribal applications. For
three of the critena which Tribes must
meet EPA believes that the Agency will
be able to make appropriate
determinations absent any public
comment. EPA believes that providing
for public comment on these three
criteria would unnecessarily complicate
and potentially delay the process. For
the authority criterion. EPA has
provided for a 30 day comment period
by appropriate governmental entities
because the Agency believes that it will
be important to gather all available
information regarding Tribal authority
prior to making a determination. EPA
believes that providing for comment on
the authority criterion is appropriate
because this is the only criterion which
outside comments might help to address.
Comment: Several comments pointed
out that the proposal did not specify in
any detail the procedure by which EPA
will consult with the Secretary of the
S-310999
0043(02X11-DEC-91-09.38:33)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64885
Interior in making a determination
concerning challenges to a Tribe s
assertion of authority (see § 131.8(c)(4)).
It was suggested that the consultation
process should provide for notice and
opportunities for input (e.g., a hearing)
to affected Tribes and States.
Response: EPA did not make changes
to the proposed rule in response to these
comments. However, subsequent to
publishing the proposed rule EPA did
reach agreement with the Department of
the Interior regarding the procedures for
conducting such consultations. The
procedure established as the Secretary
of the interior's designees the Associate
Solicitor. Division of Indian Affairs and
the Deputy to the Assistant Secretary—
Indian Affairs (Trust and Economic
Development). EPA will forward a copy
of the application and any documents
asserting a competing or conflicting
claim of authority to such designees as
soon as possible. For most applications,
an EPA-DOI conference will be
scheduled from one to three weeks after
the date the Associate Solicitor receives
the application. Comments from the
Interior Department will be primarily a
discussion of the law applicable to the
issue to assist EPA in its own
deliberations. Responsibility for legal
advice to the EPA Administrator or the
other EPA decision makers will remain
with the EPA General Counsel. EPA
does not believe that the consultation
process with the Department of Interior
should involve notice and opportunities
for input by States and Tribes because
such parties are elsewhere provided
appropriate opportunties to participate
in EPA's review of Tribal authority.
Comment: Several comments
suggested that once EPA makes a
determination regarding a Tribal
application. EPA should provide notice
of its decision to State. Tribal, and local
governments and all commenters on the
Tribal assertion of authority, and should
publish a lists of Tribe* treated as States
in the Federal Regitfr.
Response: EPA wtil.iake all
reasonable means to advise interested
parties of the decision reached regarding
challenges to Tribal assertions of
authority. At least written notice will be
provided to State(s) and other
governmental entities sent notice of the
Tribal application. In addition, the
current water quality standards
regulation (40 CFR part 131) requires
that EPA annually publish a list of
standards approval actions taken within
the preceding year. EPA will expand
that listing to include Indian Tribes
qualifying for treatment as States in the
preceding year.
Comment-. EPA should clarify what
happens if a Tribe is denied treatment
as a State (§ 131.8 (c)(5)). Related
comments indicated that it would be
unfair to withdraw treatment as a State
for failure to develop standards (or for
any other reason) because States
received unlimited assistance, both
technical and dollars, and that
withdrawal of recognition is counter to
the Congressional mandate. Opposing
views were offered that there should be
a provision to withdraw recognition as a
State from a Tribe.
Response: Rather than formally deny
the Tribe's request. EPA will continue to
work cooperatively with the Tribe in a
continuing effort to resolve deficiencies
in the application or the Tribal program
so that Tribal recognition as a State may
occur. EPA also concurs with the view
that the intent of Congress and the EPA
Indian Policy is to support Tribal
governments in assuming authority to
manage various water programs. As
previously discussed in the response to
comments on the capability criterion, no
provision allowing EPA to withdraw a
treatment as a State determination was
added to the regulation. Authority
already exists for EPA to re-assert
control over certain water programs due
to the failure of the State or Tribe to
properly execute the programs.
Specifically, m the water quality
standards program, the Administrator
has authority to promulgate Federal
standards. Therefore, no change was
needed in the regulation.
Comment: A number of comments
suggested that EPA specify a timeframe
or change the timeframe associated with
the various steps in the application
review procedure ((131.8(c)).
With regard to the review of the
Tribe's assertion of authority (see
5 131.8(c)(3)). various comments
supported shortening the review period,
lengthening the review period, and also
adding a provision allowing an
extension to the review period.
With regard to final determinations
(see } 131.8(c)(5)), several comments
suggested that EPA should complete its
review and respond to Tribes within 60
days after receipt of an application.
Other comments suggested that EPA
should conduct a completeness review
within 30 days of receipt of a Tribal
application. In general, a number of
comments advocated some time limit
within which EPA would be required to
complete the review process.
Response: No timeframes in the
review procedure were changed in the
regulation in response to comments. The
time frames assigned are consistent with
regulations promulgated for other EPA
Water programs. Because EPA has no
reasonable way to predetermine how
complete initial applications for
treatment as a State might be. what
challenges might arise or how numerous
or complex the issues might be. the
Agency deems it inappropriate to
attempt to establish timeframes that
may not allow sufficient time for
resolution. Also, several of the
comments appear to be based on early
experience with the "treatment as a
State" process. EPA believes that as
both Tribes. States, and EPA become
more familiar with working together that
the delays associated with approval of
early applications will cease. Thus. EPA
believes it unnecessary to establish
additional deadlines in the regulation.
Other Comments on Treatment of Tribes
as States
Comment Several commenters
suggested that as part of the treatment
as a State process, EPA require Indian
Tribes to protect constitutional rights of
non-Tribal members, that Tribes waive
their sovereign immunity, and provide
for voting rights for non-members.
Response: EPA notes that
constitutional rights of both Indians and
non-Indians exist without explicit
recognition in a Federal regulation. The
regulation provider a mechanism for a
Tribe to demonstrate that it meets the
criteria of CWA section 518(e). EPA
believes it is inappropriate to consider
any other factors. The issues raised by
these comments are far beyond the
purview of EPA. Such issues must be
properly dealt with in the Courts or by
Congress.
Comment: EPA should make clear that
qualification for treatment as a State
under one program is not dispositive for
applications under other programs.
Response: That is the correct
interpretation of this rule. As discussed
previously, however, EPA expects that
once a Tribe has qualified for one
program, the key step toward
assumption of other programs, in most
cases, will be demonstrating appropriate
capability.
2. Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Comments on CWA Section 510/EPA
Authority
Comment: In the proposed rule. EPA
announced its tentative determination
that the provisions of section 510 of the
CWA apply with equal force to water
quality standards adopted by both
States and Tribes, that is, nothing in the
Act precludes either a State or a Tribe
from adopting water quality standards
more stringent than required by the Act.
EPA expressed its view that, because of
section 510, it may not disapprove either
Tribal or State standards solely on the
S-310W 00*4102X1 l-DEC-91-09 38:39)
-------
64886 Federal Reyater / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
grounds that the standard is too
stnngent. nor may it resolve a standards
"dispute" by disapproving either a
Tribal or State standard and Federally
promulgating a less stringent standard.
Tribal commenters supported EPA s
interpretation of the effect of section 510
on standards adopted by Tribes treated
as States. State commenters disagreed
with EPA's reading. In essence, these
commenters argue that because section
510 is not one of those mentioned in
section 518(e)(2) (which lists the
sections of the CWA for which EPA is
authorized to treat Tribes as States),
EPA is precluded from reading section
510 as applying to standards set by
Tribes. Therefore, Tribes may not set
standards more stringent than required
by section 303.
Response: EPA disagrees that the
statute should be read in such a crabbed
manner. A careful examination of the
CWA sections referenced in section
518(e)(2) reveals that all of these
provisions are CWA regulatory program
elements or grant authorizations that are
implemented by/funded for States. The
sections of the CWA not mentioned in
518(e)(2). with very few exceptions,
either do not involve States or are grant
programs which have expired long ago.2
Indeed, section 510 is virtually the only
provision of the CWA that discusses a
role for State governments that is not a
regulatory program provision or grant.
Section 510 is instead a savings
provision that indicates that existing
State authority to regulate effluent
discharges and/or set water quality
standards is not preempted by the
CWA. as long as the State standards/
regulations are at least as stringent as
required by the CWA. Thus. EPA does
not believe that the failure of section
518(e)(2) to reference section 510 is
conclusive.
Indeed. EPA believes that section
518(e) and its accompanying legislative
history suggests that Congress intended
for section 510 to apply to Tribes treated
as States. For instance. Senator Burdick.
a member of the Conference Committee
on the Water Quality Act of 1987, stated
that:
The intent of the conferees was to assure that
Indian tribes would be able to exercise the
some regulatory jurisdiction over water
quality matters with regard to waters within
Indian lunsdiction that States have over their
water. The conferees believe that tribes
should have the primary authority to set
water quality standards to assure fishable
' One notable exception it section 405. which
establishes a Federal/Stale permit program for the
disposal of sewage sludge. EPA has already
determined that it is appropriate to treat Tribes as
States for purposes of sludge programs, despite Ihe
omission of section 405 from section 51S( e|(2).
and swimmable water and to satisy all
beneficial uses. The act also provides a
mechanism for resolving any conflict
between tnbai standards and upstream uses
or activities.
133 Cong. Reg. S 1018 (daily ed. jan 21.
1987) (emphasis added). Were Tribes
prohibited from establishing standards
more stnngent than minimally
approvable by EPA. there would be little
need for the dispute resolution
mechanism required by section 518(e)(2)
and established by today's regulation.
EPA also believes there are strong
policy reasons to allow Tribes to set any
water quality standards consistent with
40 CFR 131.10. First of all. it puts Tribes
and States on an equal footing with
respect to standard setting. There is no
indication that Congress intended to
treat Tnbes as "second class" States
under the CWA. Furthermore, treating
Tribes as essentially equivalent to
States is consistent with EPA's 1984
Indian Policy. Third. EPA believes it
would be unfeasible to require Tribes to
adopt the "minimum" standards allowed
under Federal law. EPA has developed
water quality criteria under the
authonty of section 304(a) of the CWA;
these criteria, however, are only
guidance for use by States in developing
their own standards. The Federal
recommendations are not enforceable
absent State or Federal water quality
standards implementing them under
section 303. EPA has no procedures in
place for defining a "minimum'' level of
standards beyond which a Tribe would
not be allowed to go.
For all these reasons. EPA believes its
interpretation of section 510 is
reasonable and fully consistent with the
legislative intent of Section 518.
Comment: EPA specifically invited
comments regarding whether the
Agency should attempt to establish
scientific factors by which overly-
stringent water quality criteria may be
identified. EPA requested comments on
this issue to address a pre-proposal
comment that. CWA section 510
notwithstanding, EPA has the authority
to disapprove overly stringent water
quality criteria as a means of resolving a
dispute between a State and a Tribe.
Numerous comments were received
on this topic. Various commenters
suggested that proposed water quality
standards/criteria should not be
considered scientifically defensible and
thus should be disapproved when: (1)
The controls necessary to meet the
specified levels are not cost-effective. (2)
the resulting effluent limits are beyond
existing technology to measure or treat,
(3) the criteria are based on inadequate
data. (4) the criteria are more stringent
than necessary to meet designated uses.
and (5) the criteria are more stnngent
than natural background water quality.
Other commenters were vigorously
opposed to any effort by EPA to restnet
Tribal adoption of numenc cntena more
stnngent than required to meet the
CWA's fishable and swimmable goals.
A number of these comments asserted
that Indian Tribes have legitimate needs
to set cnteria more stnngent than State
criteria and/or cntena required by the
CWA (e.g., because of cultural/religious
needs, because some Tribal members
have high fish consumption rates, etc.).
Several commenters pointed out that
Tribes do not use cultural and religious
needs to obtain political or economic
ends and that, in fact. Tribes tend to be
reluctant to deal in public arenas
regarding cultural and religious needs.
EPA notes that most comments which
opposed setting limits on the stringency
of Tribal criteria nevertheless also
asserted that ail criteria must be
scientifically defensible and not more
stringent than natural background water
quality.
Response: EPA has made no changes
to the proposal. As discussed in the
preamble discussion to the proposal.
EPA's water quality standards
regulation already requires that criteria
be developed based on scientifically
defensible methods. EPA also does not
advocate the adoption of water quality
criteria more stringent than natural
background water quality. However.
EPA believes that criteria sufficiently
stringent to meet the fishable and
swimmable goals may not be
disapproved under the CWA. on the
grounds that such criteria are more
stringent than natural background water
quality. This belief is premised on the
Agency's legal interpretation of CWA
section 510 (discussed above). Thus.
EPA does not require justification or
other evaluation of the scientific merit of
criteria which, based on a comparison
with EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria
recommendations, meet or exceed levels
of water quality necessary to support
the fishable and swimmable goals.
In response to the comments
suggesting that EPA may disapprove
criteria based on economic and/or
technological achievability factors. EPA
notes that CWA section 303 explicitly
requires that criteria be developed to
support designated uses. Consideration
of cost-effectiveness and achievability
cannot override this requirement Under
the CWA. economic factors may be
considered in con|unction with
designating appropriate water uses.
In reviewing water quality standards
submitted by States and Tribes. EPA
will continue to_evaluate the adequacy
S-3IOJW 0045<02XII-DEC-'>l-09:38:«3)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64887
of numeric criteria. Where EPA
determines that such criteria are
substantially more stringent than
necessary to meet the fishable and
swimmable goals of the CWA and are
more stringent than presently existing
water quality conditions. EPA will
Idvise the State or Tribe, and affected
adjacent States or Tribes of this finding.
EPA will use best professional )udgment
to make such determinations. Such
determinations will not be grounds for
disapproval because, as explained
above. EPA does not believe the Agency
has the legal authority to disapprove a
State or Tribal water quality criterion
solely on the basis that EPA considers
the standard to be more stringent than
required by the Act.
Comment• EPA should set a time limit
(e.g.. 12 months. 18 months) after receipt
of the request for dispute resolution
within which a mutually acceptable
agreement must be reached via either
mediation or arbitration ({ 131.7(f) (1)
and (2)). If after IB months the parties do
not seem close to an agreement the
Agency should act to resolve the
dispute. EPA has the authority to act in
some situations (e.g., where an upstream
discharger is violating the water quality
standards in a downstream jurisdiction).
Lack of time tables may allow disputes
to continue for indefinite periods of time
and to be intentionally prolonged by
uncooperative parties.
Response: No time limit was added to
the rule. While EPA intends to proceed
as quickly as possible and to encourage
the parties to the dispute to resolve it
quickly and to establish informal time
frames, the variety of potential disputes
to be resolved would appear to preclude
EPA specifying a single regulatory time
limit. It is expected that some disputes
will be resolved very quickly while
others may take longer than the
suggested 18 months. EPA believes it is
better to obtain a reasonable
agreement/decision than to arbitrarily
establish a time frame within which an
agreement/decision nottbe made.
EPA notes that the (fapnte resolution
mechanism included in today's rule
provides the Regional Administrator
with several alternative courses of
action. EPA believes that having a
variety of alternative options may help
to prevent delays because the Regional
Administrator will be able to select the
option most appropriate to the task and.
where necessary, proceed from one
option to another to conclude a dispute
resolution action in a timely manner. An
example would be where an arbitration
panel is unable to reach a unanimous
finding. In such a situation the Regional
Administrator may. after a reasonable
period of time, direct the panel to issue a
nonbinding decision by majority vote.
EPA also believes that specifying such
a time limit would be ineffective in
those cases where at the end of the time
limit the Agency would have insufficient
authority to "act to resolve that
dispute." because of CWA section 510
which, as discussed above, would
prohibit EPA from disapproving
standards solely on the basis that EPA
considers the standard to be more
stringent than required by the Act.
In some cases. EPA recognizes that
the Agency will have authority to "act to
resolve the dispute." An example would
be a situation where a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for an upstream
discharger does not provide for the
attainment of the water quality
standards for a downstream jurisdiction.
EPA notes that the existing NPDES
permitting and certification processes
under the CWA may be utilized by the
downstream jurisdiction to address such
situations, and that today's rule does not
alter or minimize the role of these
processes in establishing appropriate
permit limits that ensure attainment of
water quality standards. States and
Tribes are encouraged to participate in
these permitting and certification
processes rather than to wait for
unreasonable consequences to occur.
In such cases, as was asserted in the
proposal. EPA believes that the Agency
has the authority to object to the
upstream NPDES permit and. if
necessary, to assume permitting
authority. This authority was upheld in
a case in which EPA assumed authority
to issue a permit for a North Carolina
discharge that among other factors, did
not meet Tennessee's downstream
water quality standards (Champion
InternationaI Corp. v. EPA. 850 F.2d 182
(4th Cir. 1988)).
EPA also anticipates that many of the
disputes which will require EPA dispute
resolution under 131.7 of today's rule
will arise over such situations (i.e., in
which an upstream discharge is creating
alleged unreasonable consequences in a
downstream jurisdiction). EPA
recognizes that such situations are likely
to occur, and that not all such situations
are likely to be resolved to the
satisfaction of all parties during the
permit issuance and certification
processes.
Where such cases proceed to dispute
resolution, the Agency's first course of
action will be to conduct a dispute
resolution action as provided in 131.7 of
today's rule and required by CWA
section 518. In situations where the
dispute resolution action does not result
in a satisfactory agreement or other
resolution (e.g.. the upstream jurisdiction
agrees to revise the limits of the permit).
EPA would then give due consideration
to any possible further Agency actions,
where authonzed by the CWA.
Comment: Several commenters
supported EPA's statement that the
Agency does not have the authority to
compel parties to enter binding
arbitration.
Response: EPA agrees with these
comments and has retained the
proposed language making entry into
binding arbitration strictly a voluntary
act.
Comments on the Selection of
Mediators/Arbitrators
Comment: Both Tribes and States
should have the opportunity to approve
a mediator/arbitrator and to remove
anyone showing bias.
Response: Section 131.7(f)(2) was
modified (as discussed in section B—
Changes to the Proposed Rule) to
provide that arbitrators and arbitration
panel members shall be selected to only
include individuals that: (1) Are
agreeable to all affected parties, (2) are
knowledgeable concerning the-
requirements of the water quality
standards program. (3) have a basic
understanding of the political and
economic interests of Tribes, and (4) is
expected to fulfill the duties fairly and
impartially. No such provision is
included in S 131.7(f)(1) dealing with
mediation. EPA did not provide for
Tribal approval of mediators because:
(1) EPA believes that such an approval
process would provide too great an
opportunity to delay the initiation of the
mediation process, and (2) the role of
the mediator is limited to acting as a
neutral facilitator. That is significantly
less of a role than being an arbitrator or
member of an arbitration paneL
There is no prohibition against the
Regional Administrator consulting with
the parties regarding a mediator there is
just no requirement to do so. Although
not specifically covered in the rule. EPA
believes it is well within the powers of
the Regional Administrator to remove
any mediator or arbitrator for any
reason including showing bias or
unfairness, or taking illegal/unethical
actions.
Comment¦ EPA should clarify how its
Indian Policy, which is to give special
consideration to Tribal interests, will
affect its role in dispute resolution
actions (see § 131.7(f)(ii)).
Response: EPA believes that its role in
dispute resolution is to work with all
parties to the dispute in an effort to
reach an agreement that resolves the
S-JIOW 004«a2XH-DEC-'»l-09 38:46)
-------
64888 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 I Rules and Regulations
dispute. The Agency shall not have a
predisposition to support any party's
position in disputes over water quality
standards. Rather. EPA employees
serving as mediators or arbitrators will
serve outside the normal Agency chain
of command and are expected to act in a
neutral fashion. EPA notes that
§ 13l.7(f)(l)(i) specifies that:
Where the State and Tribe agree to
participate in the dispute resolution process,
mediation with the intent to establish Tribal-
State agreements, consistent with the Clean
Water Action section 518(d). shall normally
be pursued as a first effort.
Although EPA believes that Tribes
should be provided every opportunity to
regulate water quality and to participate
in environmental control programs,
dunng dispute resolution actions the
appointed mediator/arbitrator will act
first and foremost as a neutral facilitator
of discussions between parties.
Comments on the Default Procedure
Comment: Several comments were
received recommending that EPA should
clarify the default procedure in
§ 137.7(f)(3). For example, comments
were received suggesting that EPA
explain: (1) When it will be used. (2)
how the procedure will help resolve
disputes. (3) who will receive the
Agency's recommendation, and (4) that
the Agency will first encourage
participation by all parties and use the
default procedure only as a last resort.
One comment suggested that the default
procedure should be deleted because it
would provide a means for any party to
exclude itself from the resolution
process.
Response: EPA intends that the
default procedure come into play only
as a last resort, after all other avenues
of resolving the dispute have been
exhausted. EPA believes that no change
to the regulation is needed to reflect this
intent. Section 131.7(f)(l)(i) already
indicates that where the State and Tribe
agree to participate, mediation shall be
pursued as a first course of action. EPA
also notes that $ 131.7(f)(3) provides that
the default procedure may only be used
where one or more parties refuse to
participate in either mediation or
arbitration.
Since EPA believes it does not have
the authority to force a Tribe or State
into arbitration or mediation, or to
overrule either a State or Tribe which
adopts standards that are more stringent
than necessary to meet the requirements
of the Act. EPA developed this default
procedure as a means to place before
the public an Agency position/
recommendation regarding resolution.
The default procedure is simply the
Agency reviewing available information
and issuing a recommendation for
resolving the dispute. EPA's
recommenaation in this situation would
have no enforceable impact. It is hoped
that by publicly presenting an Agency
position that either through public
pressure or reconsideration by either of
the affected parties that negotiations to
resolve the dispute may continue. The
provision as written clearly articulates
that the default procedure is a last
resort. Any written recommendation
emanating from this process would be
provided, at least, to all parties to the
dispute. EPA sees no need to alter the
rule or to delete the default procedure.
Comments on Definitions Used in the
Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Comment: With regard to the question
of who should be parties to the dispute
resolution process (§ 131.7(g)(2)) EPA
received diametrically opposed
comments. Some comments suggested
that EPA clarify that any person with a
vested property interest must be a
required party to the dispute resolution
process while others suggested that EPA
should limit the definition of parties to
gust the State and Tribe. Also, a
comment was made that EPA should
segregate the role of government
regulators from that of permittees in the
dispute resolution process.
Response: EPA does not concur with
either view and retained the provision
that the Regional Administrator may
include other parties besides Tribes and
States in the process. As stated in the
preamble to the proposal, EPA believes
that in some cases, inclusion of
permittees or landowners subject to
non-point source restrictions may be
needed in order to resolve certain
disputes. EPA notes that, in many cases,
nonpoint source control actions (which
may be necessary to implement a
resolution to a dispute) are voluntary on
the part of landowners. However, EPA
believes that the Regional Administrator
should retain discretion to decide when
to include parties other than the Tribe
and State. Only the Tribe and State are
in a position to implement a change to
water quality standards, and are thus
the only parties which must be included
in all dispute resolution actions.
However, other parties may be included
in certain cases upon a determination by
the Regional Administrator. EPA notes
that formal requests for a dispute
resolution action may only be made by a
State or Tribe (see § 131.7(c)).
Comment: EPA should define
"unreasonable consequences" as it is a
required condition for initiating a
dispute resolution action (see
§ 131.7(b)(1)).
Response: EPA has not defined this
term in the regulatory language. There
are several reasons for this including: (1)
It would be a presumptuous and
unjustified Federal intrusion into local
and State concerns for EPA to define
what an unreasonable consequence
might be as a basis for a national rule.
(2) EPA does not want to unnecessarily
narrow the scope of problems to be
addressed by the dispute resolution
mechanism, and (3) the possibilities of
what might constitute an unreasonable
consequence are so numerous as to defy
a logical regulatory requirement. As
stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule, what might be viewed as an
unreasonable consequence on a stream
segment in a large, relatively
unpopulated, water poor area with a
single discharge would likely be viewed
quite differently in or near an area
charactenzed by numerous discharges
and/or large water resources. EPA
believes the Regional Administrator
should retain discretion to decide when
the consequences warrant initiating a
dispute resolution action.
Comments on the Conditions Requiring
EPA Dispute Resolution
Comment: A statement is needed on
the criteria a Regional Administrator
can use in denying a request for EPA
dispute resolution.
Response: Section 131.7 (b). (c). and
(d) describe the basis upon which a
dispute may be initiated, the procedure
for filing a request to initiate EPA
action, and notice of the EPA decision to
initiate a resolution action. The basis for
denying a request would be that the
requesting party is not able to fulfill any
or all of the requirements established in
§ 131.7 (b) or (c). This was clear in the
proposed rule and EPA has made no
change.
Other Comments on the Dispute
Resolution Mechanism
Comment: Section 131.7(b)(2) limits
the dispute resolution mechanism to a
dispute between Tribes and States. A
comment was received that this should
be expanded to cover disputes between
two Tribes (or. by extension) between
two States.
Response: The rule was written in this
manner because section 518 of the Clean
Water Act specified that a dispute
resolution mechanism be developed to
resolve disputes arising between a Tribe
and a State. EPA believes that the
requirement that State standards
provide for the protection of
downstream standards in $ 131.10(b) of
S-310999 0047(02X11-DEC-91-09 38:50)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64889
the water quality standards regulation,
supported by a 25 year history of
informal negotiation of issues between
States, provides sui&cient basis for
resolving disputes between two States
or two Tribes. That informal process
was described in the response to pubiic
comments on the basic standards
regulation (46 FR 51400 and 51412.
November 8.1983).
Comment: What is the basis for
requiring EPA approval of any State-
Tribal agreement to resolve disputes
under § 131.7(e)?
Response: EPA is charged with the
responsibility of reviewing and either
approving or disapproving State or
Tribal-adopted standards as being
consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act. Since EPA
recommends that such agreements be
entered into as a basic means of
resolving disputes, that such agreements
must comport with the requirements of
the Act. and that the result of such
agreements likely will influence
standards, it appears necessary that the
Agency approve such State-Tribal
agreements. Also, the Act provides in
section 518(d) that Tribal/State
agreements in general for water quality
management are to be approved by
EPA. The water quality standards
program is. in the view of EPA. part of a
Tribe or State's overall water quality
management plan.
Comment: it is not clear how two EPA
Regions will work together when a
reservation overlays more than one EPA
Region.
Response: No regulatory change was
made nor suggested Often in the
standards program issues cross Regional
and State boundaries. The lead EPA
region (determined via OMB circular A-
95) is expected to routinely enlist the aid
of other affected regions in resolving the
dispute. EPA Headquarters will also
oversee the process to ensure that the
interests of both Regions are
represented. Being designated as the
lead Region for retqftftfcft dispute or
programmatic issuMtttQiK EPA does not
carry the license forttjfcttad Region to
act unilaterally. Ratitaen&ssigns the
responsibility to ensure tnat the process
leading to a decision is fair to all parties.
3. Establishing Water Quality
Standards on Reservations
Comments on Tribal Options for
Establishing Standards
Comment: In the preamble to the
proposal. EPA discussed three
acceptable options by which a~Tribe
may develop and adopt standards.
These options are: (1) Negotiation of
cooperative agreements with an
adjoining State to apply the State's
standards to the Indian lands. (2)
incorporation of the standards from an
adjacent State as the Tribe's own. with
or without revision, or (3) independent
Tribal adoption of water quality
standards that may account for unique
site-specific conditions and water body
uses. These three options represent a
range of resource commitments, with
option 1 being the least resource
intensive and option 3 the most
intensive. One comment was received
that the first option described (i.e..
negotiating a cooperative agreement
with an adjoining State to apply the
State's standards to the Indian lands) is
illegal.
Response: There is nothing inherently
illegal about the option. If a Tribe, as a
sovereign government, negotiates a
cooperative agreement with the State to
apply the State's standards to waters on
the reservation, that is a legal and
acceptable option for establishing CWA
water quality standards on Indian lands.
It is also legal if a Tribe uses standards
of a State as a basis for Tribal standards
(i.e.. option 2). Nothing in option 1
suggests that the Tribe relinquish its
sovereign powers or enforcement
authority, or that the State can
unilaterally apply its standards. The
option is a legitimate means for an
Indian Tribe to make use of the
resources and experience of an adjacent
State to quickly establish, at minimal
cost. Tribal standards for the
reservation.
Comment: In the preamble to the
proposal. EPA indicated that where
Tribes qualify to be treated as States for
purposes of water quality standards, the
Agency would expect Tribal standards
to be adopted and submitted to EPA
within 180 days. Several comments were
received on this deadline indicating that
EPA should allow a longer period of
time (e.g.. because Tribes will be
working to establish programs in other
media besides water).
Response: The rationale for the
deadline included in the proposal was
that the 180 days was the same period of
time provided to States to adopt
standards under the 1972 Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments.
However, the proposal also discussed a
difference between the situation in 1972
for States versus the current situation
for Tribes. In 1972. most States already
had interstate water quality standards
in place. By contrast, many Tribes have
not yet developed any standards for
reservation waters. EPA also believed
180 days to be an appropriate period of
time because of the importance of
establishing Tribal standards quickly in
order to address any NPDES permit
issues, section 401 certifications or
nonpoint source management decisions.
Without standards. Tribes are unable to
influence such decisions. EPA notes that
the proposal indicated that the Agency
would be willing to grant extensions to
the 180 day deadline if the Tribe could
submit a reasonable rationale to the
Regional Administrator.
The comments submitted on this issue
have persuaded EPA that Tribes should
be allowed longer than 160 days to
adopt and submit standards to the
Agency for review and approval. EPA
believes that Tribes should be allowed a
full three year review cycle to adopt and
submit standards, similar to what States
were originally provided when the
standards program was created in 1965.
The three year period will be measured
from the date that EPA notifies the Tribe
that the Tribe has qualified to be treated
as a State for purposes of the standards
program. EPA believes that this is an
equitable arrangement and that Tribes
should be allowed sufficient time to
develop their programs and adopt
appropriate standards for reservation
waters. EPA reiterates that a^Tribe is
not required by sections 303 and 518 to
seek treatment as a State and to
establish Tribal standards: today's rule
asserts only that Tribes who elect to do
so will be expected to have such
standards in place within three years.
EPA continues to believe that the
development of Tribal standards can be
an iterative process and that the option
initially selected by the Tribe can
change in subsequent triennial reviews.
Initially, a Tribe may choose option 1 or
2. This initial decision does not preclude
the Tribe from developing their own
standards for subsequent triennial
review cycles. Tribal standards may
evolve from essentially a codification of
existing State standards to a rule
entirely of Tribal design.
Comments on Federal Assistance to
Indian Tribes
Comment Several comments were
received concerning EPA's commitment
to funding Tribal programs and
providing technical assistance.
Commenters suggested that the
allocation of funds to implement
standards programs must be
apportioned equitably between States
and Tribes and that EPA make a
stronger commitment to technical and
financial assistance to the Tribes. One
suggestion was that EPA should be
required to provide technical assistance
necessary to bring Tribal programs into
compliance with the regulations.
Response: The water quality
standards program is not a grant
S-J10999
00*8(02X1 l-DEC-91-09:38:54)
-------
64890 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
program, therefore no Federal funds are
available directly from the standards
program. Tribes are eligible to receive
funds from other Agency grant programs
and are encouraged to apply,
particularly for section 106 program
grants. EPA will provide as much
technical assistance as the Agency's
resources will allow. However, under
the 1987 CWA Amendments the Agency
received no additional resources to
support Indian programs. Program
grants can only be made available by
reallocating resources from within
current budget allocations. EPA set
aside 3% of the total FY 1990 section 106
funds for Indian programs, and is
planning a similar set-aside for FY 1991.
In a continuing effort to provide
assistance to Tribes on the standards
program. EPA issued a Reference Guide
to Water Quality Standards for Indian
Tribes, in january 1990. This document
summarizes the standards review and
adoption process including program
requirements and the EPA review
procedure. The document also identifies
available information and contacts to
assist Tribes in becoming familiar with
the requirements of the water quality
standards program.
The Agency also held a national
meeting/seminar at which Tribes
received information on the regulatory
requirements, technical elements and
procedures, and resource needs for
developing water quality standards and
implementing a standards program. The
meeting was held on August 2S-30.1990
in Denver. Colorado. Further
information about this workshop and
plans for additional meetings may be
obtained from the contact listed at the
beginning of today's rule.
Comments on Extraterritorial Effects
Comment: A number of comments
were received on this topic. One
comment pointed out that the
extraterritorial effects of discharges
upstream of a State or Indian
reservation should be considered during
the standards review and adoption
process to ensure that water quality
standards provide for the attainment of
standards in downstream jurisdictions.
This comment also suggested that EPA
needs to place more emphasis on the
importance of such considerations.
Suggestions for how such effects could
be considered included requiring
upstream jurisdictions to meet with
downstream jurisdictions to discuss
potential conflicts or. alternatively, that
if EPA is to decide such issues, that the
affected jurisdictions should be allowed
to have input. Related comments were
received (as discussed previously in the
response to comments on CWA section
510/EPA Authority) asserting that EPA
must, where needed, assume permitting
authority for upstream discharges that
violate the water quality standards of
downstream |urisdictions. One comment
was received advocating that the
regulation be revised to prevent any
extraterritorial effect of any Tribal
regulatory action taken pursuant to
CWA section 518.
Response: The existing standards
program regulation, to which this rule is
simply an amendment, includes the
following requirement:
In designating uses of a water body and the
appropriate cntena for those uses, the State
shall take into consideration the water
quality standards of downstream waters and
shall ensure that its water quality standards
provide for the attainment and maintenance
of the water quality standards of downstream
waters.
(see 5131.10(b)).
EPA agrees with the comment which
pointed out that, pursuant to the above
regulatory requirement, extraterritorial
effects of water quality standards
should be considered during the
standards review and adoption process.
Once Tribes qualify for treatment as
States and adopt standards pursuant to
the requirements of today's rule,
upstream jurisdictions would be
required, when revising their standards,
to provide for the attainment and
maintenance of the downstream Tribal
standards. Likewise. Tribes qualifying
for treatment as States would be
required to develop their standards to
provide for the attainment and
maintenance of the standards for
downstream jurisdictions.
EPA recognizes that some
extraterritorial effects of Tribal
participation in the standards program
are likely to occur, but the Agency
believes that the number of such
incidences will be small and the effects
relatively minor. EPA believes that
Congress also recognized the likelihood
of such effects in passing CWA section
518. and that such effects were the
driving force behind including in section
518 the requirement for EPA to establish
a mechanism for resolution of disputes
over water quality standards.
EPA emphasizes, however, that under
the CWA there are a number of
opportunities for such problems to be
considered and resolved prior to being a
subject for the dispute resolution
mechanism included in today s rule.
First, as discussed above. States and
Tribes qualifying for treatment as States
are required under 40 CFR 131.10(b) to
develop their standards to ensure the
attainment and maintenance of
downstream water quality standards.
One opportunity to prevent such
problems is thus to consider any
potential extraterritorial effects during
the water quality review process and to
adopt standards consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 131.10(b). EPA
notes that the water quality standards
review process includes opportunities
for public participation (see the
response to comments on public
participation elsewhere in this section).
Second, permit limits under the
National Pollutant-Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program
(see CWA section 402) are required to
be developed such that applicable water
quality standards are achieved. The
permit issuance process, which also
includes public participation, thus
presents a second opportunity to
consider and resolve potential problems
regarding extraterritorial effects of
water quality standards.
Third, all permits are subject to
certification under the requirements of
CWA section 401. Section 401 requires
that States and Tribes qualifying for
treatment as States grant or deny
"certification" for Federally permitted or
licensed activities that may result in a
discharge to waters of the United States.
The decision to grant or deny
certification is based on a State
determination regarding whether the
proposed activity will comply with,
among other things, applicable water
quality standards. States and Tribes
qualifying for treatment as States may
thus deny certification and prohibit the
federal permitting or licensing agency
from issuing a permit or license for
activities that will violate water quality
standards. Section 401 also allows a
State or Tribe to participate in
extraterritorial actions that will affect
its waters if a Federal license or permit
is involved (see section 401(a)(2)).
EPA has included the above
discussion to indicate that there are a
number of opportunities for resolving/
preventing problems resulting from
extraterritorial effects of water quality
standards besides the dispute resolution
mechanism included in today's rule.
EPA believes that the dispute resolution
mechanism will be most appropriately
used as a final course of action after the
other available courses of action have
been exhausted.
Comments on EPA's Policy Regarding
Applicable Standards Prior to Tribal
Qualification for Treatment as a State
Comment: EPA received several
comments regarding the policy wherein
EPA stated that until a Tribe is treated
as a State and establishes its own
standards, or EPA otherwise decides in
S-310W9 0049<02X 11-DEC-9I-09 38 58)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64881
consultation with the Tribe and State
that a State lacks jurisdiction, that EPA
will assume that existing State
standards are applicable to reservation
waters (see 54 FR 39104). State
commenters generally supported CPA's
.statements, while Tribal commenters
objected to the policy on a variety of
grounds. First, certain Tribes noted that
they may want to apply standards more
stringent that State standards.
Commenters also asserted that to be
consistent with EPA's Indian Policy.
Federal, not State standards should
apply on reservation waters; and that
assuming State standards apply is at
odds with the Agency's duty to
promulgate. One commenter urged EPA
to consider developing a program to
promulgate Federal standards for
reservation waters where the Tribe is
unable or chooses not to adopt its own
standards.
Response: In response to these
comments. EPA wishes to further clarify
the interim statements made in former
General Counsel Jensen's September 9.
1988 letter. EPA agrees that, as a legal
matter, there may be some question as
to whether State standards apply to
reservation waters. (See the discussion
of the BrendaJe case above). The policy
in question is not an assertion that State
standards do necessarily apply as a
matter of law. Rather it is a mere
recognition that fully implementing a
role for Tribes under the CWA will
require a transition period. As explained
earlier, there are no enforceable Federal
standards that apply generally. EPA
develops non-binding water quality
criteria for use by States and Tribes in
developing their standards. However,
Federal standards do not apply unless
EPA promulgates them upon a finding,
pursuant to CWA section 303(c). that
State/Tribal standards are inadequate
or that new standards are otherwise
necessary (see EPA's response to
comments on Federal promulgation
below).
Were EPA to siuffljlliuon previously
developed State standards in the interim
period before Tribet|Oe*elop their own
standards, there woutibe a regulatory
void which EPA believes would not be
beneficial to reservation water quality.
Thus. EPA believes that the Agency's
policy is the best approach to an
intractable problem, and one that best
protects reservation environments in the
intenm period. Thus, it is fully
consistent with EPA's Indian Policy. To
the extent that the interim guidance
given in the Jensen letter implies a
different intent behind EPA's policy,
today s response supersedes it. EPA will
give serious consideration to Federal
promulgation of water quality standards
on Indian lands where it finds a
particular need. Finally, in response to
one specific comment. EPA agrees that
where the Tribe endorses applying State
standards in the interim, that EPA
should ensure enforcement of those
standards in permits issued to
reservation dischargers.
Comments on EPA Promulgation of
Water Quality Standards
Comment¦ Reflecting CWA section
303(c)(4). the water quality standards
regulation specifies that the EPA
Administrator may promulgate Federal
water quality standards in any case: (1)
Where the State standards do not meet
the requirements of the Act or (2) where
the Administrator determines that new
or revised standards are necessary (see
40 CFR 131.22). A number of comments
were received regarding thia authority,
which will apply to Indian Tribes
qualifying for treatment as a State, and
potentially where a Tribe does not seek
to assume the program and it is
determined that State standards do not
apply. Federal promulgation was
discussed in the preamble to the
proposal. It is not mentioned in the rule.
Comments on the preamble diacussion
generally expressed concern with EPA
promulgation of standards. Included
were suggestions that the Agency should
clarify how it intends to determine that
a Tribe has declined to seek
qualification as a State. One comment
suggested that such a clarification
should include specific requirements/
criteria and that such requirements/
criteria should include lengthy
discussions with the Tribe and a formal
statement of declination from the Tribal
government. In general, these comments
cautioned EPA not to make the decision
for Tribes. Several comments were
received asserting that Federal
promulgation should only be pursued as
a last resort. One comment asserted that
EPA promulgation is: (1) Contrary to the
legal status of Indian lands being
exempt from State laws, (2) unilaterally
discretionary, and (3) contrary to EPA's
Indian policy.
Other comments asserted that where
EPA promulgates Federal standards the
Agency should devote adequate
resources to the task and not simply use
adjacent State standards. One comment
was received supporting EPA's
acknowledgment of responsibility to
promulgate standards.
Response: EPA's entire policy with
respect to Federal promulgation is
straightforward. EPA much prefers to
work with the States and have them
adopt standards which comply with
CWA requirements. Where Federal
promulgation is necessary to achieve
CWA compliance, however. EPA will
act. This same philosophy will apply to
Indian Tribes qualifying for treatment as
a Slate.
EPA did not add criteria to the rule to
help determine when a Tribe has
declined to seek treatment as a State.
There is no required time frame for a
Tribe to make that decision and there
may be no pressing need for a Tribe to
decide quickly.
Should EPA find it necessary to
promulgate Federal standards for a
Tribe or more than one Tribe (e.g..
where necessary to address needed
water quality based permit actions),
EPA re-asserts its belief that the
standards of the adjacent State will he a
logical beginning step for EPA if for no
other reason than the consistency
required by 40 CFR 131.10(b). Practical
considerations of available resources
dictate that the Agency cannot and
would not attempt to use attainability
analyses or attempt to develop site-
specific criteria, Tliat is to say. a Federal
proposed rulemaking would likely be
very straightforward, all streams would
be classified fishable/swimnuble and
the criteria to protect the use* would be
those guidance values established by
EPA under section 304(a) of the Act.
Any changes in a final rule would
depend on information submitted during
the public comment period.
EPA concurs with the view that
Federal promulgation should be a last
resort. The Agency much prefers that
Indian Tribes qualify for the standards
program and adopt standards that
comply with CWA requirements.
However. Federal promulgation of water
quality standards on Indian lands is
authorized by the CWA (see CWA
section 303(c)(4)). The question of
Federal promulgation of standards for
Indian Tribes has no relationship to
Indian lands being exempt from State
laws. A Federal promulgation results in
establishing Federal standards—
standards that cannot be amended by
the jurisdiction to which they apply
(although EPA generally withdraws such
Federal standards upon adoption of fully
acceptable State standards). We agree
that the EPA Indian Policy dictates that
Federal promulgation should only be
pursued as a final course of action, as
the Agency indicated in the preamble to
the proposed rule. However, it does
remain an option, where necessary, for
setting standards for water resources
located in Tribal lands.
Comments on Public Participation
Comment: Several comments were
received regarding the processes for
S-JIOT99 0030(02X1 l-DEC-9l-09:39OI)
-------
64892 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
public participation in water quality
standards development. Commenters
questioned whether public participation
in the adoption of standards by Indian
Tribes would be limited to ]ust Indians,
gust residents of the reservation, or
whether the hearing process would be
open to interested parties in the areas
surrounding the reservation. In general,
these commenters requested additional
clarification of public participation
requirements.
Response: Public participation is not
limited in any way to only residents of
the area or |ust Indians. EPA expects
that Tribes and States will make every
reasonable effort to ensure that possible
interested parties are made aware of the
hearings on standards. This may require
a direct written notice to State or Indian
agencies or other Federal agencies. One
of the responsibilities of EPA in
reviewing State or Indian adopted
standards is to assure that a full range
of public participation occurred. EPA
expects that State representatives will
participate in public hearings on the
reservation concerning water quality
standards and that Tribal
representatives will do the same in State
hearings.
Standards adopted by either States or
Indian Tribes that appear to be based on
improper or unduly limited public
participation may be disapproved by
EPA solely on that basis since the Clean
Water Act requires that standards may
only be revised or adopted with public
participation (see section 303(c)(1) of the
Clean Water Act and S§ 131.6(e) and
131.20 (a) and (b) of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation in 40 CFR part
131).
Comments on Enforcement of Standards
Comment- Several comments were
received on enforcement of Tribal water
quality standards. These commenters
generally asserted that additional
clarification should be provided by EPA.
Several commenters noted that EPA
should enforce Tribal standards. One
commenter assumed that, baaed on the
limited scope of CWA section 518.
Tribal standards would be enforced by
either EPA or the State.
Response: Enforcement of standards
is not directly a component of the
standards program regulation.
Enforcement is the responsibility of the
permitting agency or. in some cases, the
agency which adopted the standards,
which may be the Tribe, if it qualifies for
treatment as a State for administering
the NPDES permit program, or EPA or
the State if the Tribe does not Tsee 40
CFR 123.1(h)). Where Tribes lack the
requisite criminal enforcement
authority. EPA may exercise certain
criminal enforcement powers on behalf
of Indian Tribes that seek to operate
NPDES or State Sludge Management
Programs.
4 Other Comments
Comments on Trust Responsibility
Comment: EPA received several
comments regarding its assertion that
the "Federal trust responsibility" owed
to Indian Tribes, as it applies to EPA
actions under the CWA. is defined by
the terms of the CWA. EPA went on to
explain that "the Agency's
responsibility is clearly to attempt to
resolve " * * disputes [between States
and Tribes over standards) consistent
with the provision of the (CWA)." 54 FR
39101.
Certain commenters asserted that
EPA should explicitly clarify whether
the CWA defines any trust obligations
to tribes and. if so. where and how that
obligation will be expressed. In
particular. EPA should explicitly define
how the trust responsibility will affect
its role in the dispute resolution process.
Other commenters not only asked for
clarification, but asserted that EPA must
state that the Federal-Tribal trust
relationship "exists independently of
and informs EPA decision making"
concerning the CWA and State-Tribal
disputes. Still another commenter asked
EPA to clarify that the proposed
regulations are not to be read as
modifying or abrogating EPA's trust
responsibility.
Response: EPA believes that the
preamble to the proposed rule stated the
applicable principles clearly and that no
further clarification is needed. EPA
recognizes the responsibility owed by
the Federal government as trustee for
the affairs of Indian Tribes. However,
the Agency does not believe the trust
responsibility precludes EPA from
playing an impartial role in the dispute
resolution process.
Furthermore. EPA believes that the
concerns of both Tribal and State
commenters regarding the trust
responsibility's impact on the dispute
resolution process and EPA's other
activities under today's regulation are
likely unfounded. If so appointed by the
Regional Administrator. EPA employees
will be acting solely as mediators or
non-binding arbitrators in the process.
Thus, they will not have the power to
impose a binding decision on either the
Tribe or the State absent prior consent
from both sides. Furthermore, if both the
Tribe and the State have adopted valid
water quality standards approved by
EPA, the dispute resolution process
would not be able to supersede those
standards. Thus, the "trust
responsibility" would not affect the
outcome of the dispute resolution
process and any EPA statements
regarding its overall scope would be
strictly hypothetical. By the same token.
EPA recognizes its duty to work with
Tribes who wish to develop and adopt
standards and to eliminate all potential
barriers to Tribes accomplishing this
goal.
Comments on Definitions Proposed for
Section 131.3
Comment: EPA should change the
proposed definition of a Tribe in section
131.3 to mean any Indian Tribe, band,
group, or community recognized by the
Secretary of the Interior and exercising
governmental powers and functions
over a Federal Indian Reservation.
Response: No change was made. The
rule reflects the statutory definition.
Comment: What role do standards
play in subsurface flows emanating from
one jurisdiction that flow into and
impact the surface waters of another
jurisdiction?
Response: Notwithstanding the strong
language in the legislative history of the
Clean Water Act to the effect that the
Act does not grant EPA authority to -
regulate pollution of groundwaters. EPA
and most courts addressing the issues
have recognized two limited instances
where, for the purpose of protecting
surface waters and their uses. EPA may
exercise authorities that may affect
underground waters. First the Act
requires NPDES permits for discharges
to groundwater where there is a direct
hydrological connection between
groundwaters and surface waters. In
these situations, the affected
groundwaters are not considered
"waters of the United States" but
discharges to them are regulated
because such discharges are effectively
discharges to the directly connected
surface waters. Second, it is EPA's long-
established position that water quality
standards are required for certain
underground segments of surface
waters. See Kentucky v. Train, 9 ERC
1280 (E.D. Kentucky 1972). In such
streams, the subterranean component
must be sufficiently stream-like so as to
possibly allow the passage of fish and
other aquatic organisms from a surface
segment of the stream into the
underground segment.
Comments on Water Quantity Rights
Comment- Several comments were
received regarding water quantity
issues. These comments generally
asserted that the statement in the
preamble to the proposal (54 FR 39101)
which indicates that all section 518
S-310999 0051(03X1 I-DEC-91-09:39:46)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64893
programs shall be carried out in
accordance with CWA section 101(g)
should be added to the final regulation.
CWA section 101(g) asserts that nothing
in the CWA shall supersede or abrogate
ngnts to quantities of water which have
been established by any State.
Response: Since sections 101(g) and
518(a) are clear in the Clean Water Act.
EPA believes it unnecessary to restate
such language in the regulation.
Nevertheless, a brief reference is made
to them in 5 131.4 of these regulations.
Comments on Applicability of Standards
to Federal Projects
Comment: EPA should clarify that
Tribal water quality standards cannot
be applied to Federal projects.
Response: EPA disagrees with that
view. Federal agencies are required to
comply to the same extent as other
persons or entities with duly adopted
State standards (see CWA section 313).
This will apply likewise to any
standards duly adopted by Indian
Tribes that EPA determines qualify for
treatment as a State for the standards
program.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
For the reasons stated in the preamble
to the proposed rule. 54 FR 39105.
September 22.1989. EPA concludes that
this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and thus a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.
Comments on EPA's Determination
Regarding Regulatory Flexibility Act
Requirements
Comment; Within one reservation in
Utah a substantial number of small
businesses may be required to provide
additional treatment of wastewaters to
meet Tribal water quality standards.
EPA should investigate and
acknowledge this result before asserting
a lack of substantial impact on small
entities.
Response: As stated In the proposal.
EPA recognizes that aalndian Tribe
which qualifies for treatment as a State
could adopt water quality standards
that might impose additional treatment
requirements on discharges with NPDES
permits. However. EPA continues to
believe that such situations will be rare
and that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
While it is entirely possible that some
small entities in Utah may be affected
by a Tribe adopting water quality
standards, it is difficult for EPA to make
conclusive findings when the Agency
does not know if any Tribe in Utah will
attempt to qualify for treatment as a
State or what standards may be
adopted. EPA also has no evidence to
support a conclusion that Tribal
standards will necessarily require more
stringent NPDES permit limits than
contained in existing permits.
In adopting standards. EPA notes that
economic consequences are
appropriately considered in setting the
use classifications on a water body. For
example, economics may be used as a
basis for not designating uses in support
of the fishable-swimmable goal cited in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act (see
§§ 131.10 (a) and (j) of the Water
Quality Standards Regulation. 40 CFR
part 131). In addition, the water quality
standards regulation provides for the
allowance of variances to standards
based on substantial and widespread
economic and social impact (see
§5131.10(6) and 131.13).
E.	Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule were approved
by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction
Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, on October 17.
1989. approval number 2040-0049, with
an expiration date of October 31.1992.
A copy of the Information Collection
Request document may be obtained
from the Information Policy Branch
(PM-223Y). Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street. SW.. Washington.
DC. 20460. or by calling (202H75-048&
F.	Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. It should be noted that the
basic water quality standards regulation
published at 48 FR 51400 on November
S. 1983 contains a finding that the
regulation is not a major rule under
Executive Order 12291. It is difficult for
EPA to assess the net cost of this
amendment to the basic regulation
because of the offsetting character of the
basic provisions of the standards
program and the fact that there is no
good means of estimating how many
Tribes may seek to qualify for treatment
as a State. While qualifying for
treatment as a State will place burdens
on the Tribes, the basic regulation also
provides the ability of the Tribes to
determine the attainability of stream
uses, to set site-specific criteria
sufficient to protect those uses, and to
focus limited Tribal resources on
reviewing or adopting standards on
priority water bodies. For these reasons,
the Agency judges this amendment to
the basic standards regulation not to be
a major rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Indian reservation water quality
standards. Water pollution control,
Water quality standards.
Dated: November 22.1991.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasonB set out in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section,
part 131. subpart A. of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1.	The authority citation for part 131
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act Pub. L 92-500.
as amended: 33 U.S.G 12S1 et seq.
2.	Section 131.3 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) and adding
paragraphs (k) and (1) to read as follows:
9 131.3 Definitional
• • • • •
(j) States include: The 50 States, the
District of Columbia. Guam, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Virgin
Islands. American Samoa, the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA
determines qualify for treatment as
States for purposes of water quality
standards.
[k] Federal Indian Reservation, Indian
Reservation, or Reservation means all
land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government
notwithstanding the issuance of any
patent and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation."
(1) Indian Tribe or Tribe means any
Indian Tribe, band, group, or community
recognized by the Secretary of the
Interior and exercising governmental
authority over a Federal Indian
reservation.
3.	Section 131.4 is revised to read as
follows:
$131.4 Stat* authority:
(a)	States (as defined in 8 131.3) are
responsible for reviewing, establishing,
and revising water quality standards. As
recognized by section 510 of the Clean
Water Act States may develop water
quality standards more stringent than
required by this regulation. Consistent
with section 101(g) and 518(a) of the
Clean Water Act water quality
standards shall not be construed to
supersede or abrogate rights to
quantities of water.
(b)	States (as defined in S 131.3) may
issue certifications pursuant to the
requirements of Oean Water Act
section 401. Revisions adopted by States
S-JI0999 0052(03X1 t-DEC-91-09.J9.49)
-------
64894 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 199
Aules and Regulations
shall be applicable for use in issuing
State certifications consistent with the
provisions of § 131.21(c).
(c) Where EPA determines that a
Tribe qualifies for treatment as a State
for purposes of water quality standards,
the Tribe likewise qualifies for
-treatment as a State for purposes of
certifications conducted under Clean
Water Act section 401.
4.	In § 131.5 paragraphs (a) through (e)
are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(5), the introductory
paragraph is designated as paragraph
(a),	and a new paragraph (b) is added to
read as follows:
§131.5 EPA authority.
• • • * •
(b) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
authorizes EPA to issue certifications
pursuant to the requirements of section
401 in any case where a State or
interstate agency has no authority for
issuing such certifications.
5.	Section 131.7 is added to read as
follows:
§131.7 Dispute resolution nwcftantom.
(a)	Where disputes between States
and Indian Tribes anse as a result of
differing water quality standards on
common bodies of water, the lead EPA
Regional Administrator, as determined
based upon OMB circular A-105, shall
be responsible for acting in accordance
with the provisions of this section.
(b)	The Regional Administrator shall
attempt to resolve such disputes where:
(1)	The difference in water quality
standards results in unreasonable
consequences:
(2)	The dispute is between a State (as
defined in § 131.3(j) but exclusive of all
Indian Tribes) and a Tribe which EPA
has determined qualifies to be treated as
a State for purposes of water quality
standards;
(3)	A reasonable effort to resolve the
dispute without EPA involvement has
been made:
(4)	The requested relief is consistent
with the provisions of the Clean Water
Act and other relevant law;
(5)	The differing State and Tribal
water quality standards have been
adopted pursuant to State and Tribal
law and approved by EPA: and
(6)	A valid written request has been
submitted by either the Tribe or the
State.
(c)	Either a State or a Tribe may
request EPA to resolve any dispute
which satisfies the criteria of paragraph
(b)	of this section. Written requests for
EPA involvement should be submitted to
the lead Regional Administrator and
must include:
(1)	A concise statement of the
unreasonable consequences that are
alleged to have arisen because of
diffenng water quality standards:
(2)	A concise description of the
actions which have been taken to
resolve the dispute without EPA
involvement:
(3)	A concise indication of the water
quality standards provision which has
resulted in the alleged unreasonable
consequences:
(4)	Factual data to support the alleged
unreasonable consequences: and
(5)	A statement of the relief sought
from the alleged unreasonable
consequences.
(d)	Where, in the Regional
Administrator s judgment. EPA
involvement is appropriate based on the
factors o! - -¦araph (b) of this section,
the Regie ministrator shall, within
30 days, no.uy the parties in writing that
he/she is initiating an EPA dispute
resolution action and solicit their
written response. The Regional
Administrator shall also make
reasonable efforts to ensure that other
interested individuals or groups have
notice of this action. Such efforts shall
include but not be limited to the
following:
(1)	Written notice to responsible
Tribal and State Agencies, and other
affected Federal agencies.
(2)	Notice to the specific individual or
entity that is alleging that an
unreasonable consequence is resulting
from differing standards having been
adopted on a common body of water.
(3)	Public notice in local newspapers,
radio, and television, as appropriate.
(4)	Publication in trade journal
newsletters, and
(5)	Other means as appropriate.
(e)	If in accordance with applicable
State and Tribal law an Indian Tribe
and State have entered into an
agreement that resolves the dispute or
establishes a mechanism for resolving a
dispute. EPA shall defer to this
agreement where it is consistent with
the Clean Water Act and where it has
been approved by EPA.
f 0 EPA dispute resolution actions
shall be consistent with one or a
combination of the following options:
(1) Mediation. The Regional
Administrator may appoint a mediator
to mediate the dispute. Mediators shall
be EPA employees, employees from
other Federal agencies, or other
individuals with appropriate
qualifications.
(i) Where the State and Tribe agree to
participate in the dispute resolution
process, mediation with the intent to
establish Tribal-State agreements,
consistent with Clean Water Act section
518(d), shall normally be pursued as a
first effort.
(li) Mediators shall act a3 neutral
facilitators whose function is to
encourage communication and
negotiation between all parties to the
dispute.
(lii) Mediators may establish advisory
panels, to consist in part of
representatives from the affected
parties, to study the probleir and
recommend an appropriate solution.
(iv)	The procedure and schedule for
mediation of individual disputes shall be
determined by the mediator in
consultation with the parties.
(v)	If formal public hea-ngs are held
in connection with the ac ons taken
under this paragraph. Agency
requirements at 40 CFR 25.5 shall be
followed.
(2) Arbitration. Where the parlies to
the dispute agree to participate in the
dispute resolution process, the Regional
Administrator may appoint an arbitrator
or arbitration panel to arbitrate the
dispute. Arbitrators cuid panel members
shall be EPA employees, employees
from other Federal agencies, or other
individuals with appropriate
qualifications. The Regional
administrator shall select as arbitrators
and arbitration panel members
individuals who are agreeable to all
parties, are knowledgeable concerning
the requirements of the water quality
standards program, have a basic
understanding of the political and
economic interests of Tribes and States
involved, and are expected to fulfill the
duties fairly and impartially.
(i) The arbitrator or arbitration panel
shall conduct one or more private or
public meetings with the parties and
actively solicit information pertaining to
the effects of differing water quality
permit requirements on upstream and
downstream dischargers, comparative
risks to public health and the
environment, economic impacts, present
and historical water uses, the quality of
the waters subject to such standards,
and other factors relevant to the dispute,
such as whether proposed water quality
criteria are more stnngent than
necessary to support designated uses,
more stringent than natural background
water quality or whether designated
uses are reasonable given natural
background water quality.
(li) Following consideration of
relevant factors as defined in paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this section, the arbitrator or
arbitration panei shall have the
authority and responsibility to provide
all parties and the Regional
Administrator with a written -
recommendation for resolution of the
S-310W 005.K03X11-DEC-9I-09-39 53)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 64895
dispute. Arbitration panel
recommendations shall, in general, be
reached by majority vote. However,
where the parties agree to binding
arbitration, or where required by the
Regional Administrator,
recommendations of such arbitration
-panels may be unanimous decisions.
Where binding or non-binding
arbitration panels cannot reach a
unanimous recommendation after a
reasonable period of time, the Regional
Administrator may direct the panel to
issue a non-binding decision by majority
vote.
(iii)	The arbitrator or arbitration panel
members may consult with EPA's Office
of General Counsel on legal issues, but
otherwise shall have no ex parte
communications pertaining to the
dispute. Federal employees who are
arbitrators or arbitration panel members
shall be neutral and shall not be
predisposed for or against the position
of any disputing party based on any
Federal Trust responsibilities which
their employers may have with respect
to the Tribe. In addition, arbitrators or
arbitration panel members who are
Federal employees shall act
independently from the normal
hierarchy within their agency.
(iv)	The parties are not obligated to
abide by the arbitrator's or arbitration
panel's recommendation unless they
voluntarily entered into a binding
agreement to do so.
(v)	If a party to the dispute believes
that the arbitrator or arbitration panel
has recommended an action contrary to
or inconsistent with the Clean Water
Act. the party may appeal the
arbitrator's recommendation to the
Regional Administrator. The request for
appeal must be in writing and must
include a description of the statutory
basis for altering the arbitrator's
recommendation.
(vij The procedure and schedule for
arbitration of individual disputes shall
be determined by the arbitrator or
arbitration panel in consultation with
parties.
(vii) If formal public hearings are held
in connection with the actions taken
under this paragraph. Agency
requirements at 40 CFR 25.5 shall be
followed.
(3) Dispute Resolution Default
Procedure- Where one or more parties
(as defined in paragraph (g) of this
section) refuse to participate in either
the mediation or arbitration dispute
resolution processes, the Regional
Administrator may appoint a single
official or panel to review available
information pertaining to the dispute
and to issue a written recommendation
for resolving the dispute. Review
officials shall be EPA employees,
employees from other Federal agencies,
or other individuals with appropriate
qualifications. Review panels shall
include appropriate members to be
selected by the Regional Administrator
in consultation with the participating
parties. Recommendations of such
review officials or panels shall, to the
extent possible given the lack of
participation by one or more parties, be
reached in a manner identical to that for
arbitration of disputes specified in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vii) of
this section.
(g) Definitions. For the purposes of
this section:
(1)	Dispute Resolution Mechanism
means the EPA mechanism established
pursuant to the requirements of Clean
Water Act section 516(e) for resolving
unreasonable consequences that arise
as a result of differing water quality
standards that may be set by States and
Indian Tribes located on common bodies
of water.
(2)	Parties to a State-Tribal dispute
include the State and the Tribe and may,
at the discretion of the Regional
Administrator, include an NPDES
permittee, citizen, citizen group, or other
affected entity.
6. Section 131.8 is added to read as
follows:
§131.8 Requirements for Indian Tribes to
M treated as States for purposaa of water
quaflty standard*.
(a) The Regional Administrator, as
determined based on OMB Circular A-
105. may treat an Indian Tribe as a State
for purposes of the water quality
standards program if the Tribe meets the
following criteria:
(1)	The Indian Tribe is recognized by
the Secretary of the Interior and meets
the definitions in S 1313 (k) and (1),
(2)	The Indian Tribe has a governing
body carrying out substantial
governmental duties and powers.
(3)	The water quality standards
program to be administered by the
Indian Tribe pertains to the
management and protection of water
resources which are within the borders
of the Indian reservation and held by
the Indian Tribe, within the borders of
the Indian reservation and held by the
United States in trust for Indians, within
the borders of the Indian reservation
and held by a member of the Indian-
Tribe if such property interest is subject
to a trust restriction on alienation, or
otherwise within the borders of the
Indian reservation, and
(4)	The Indian Tribe is reasonably
expected to be capable, in the Regional
Administrator's judgment, of carrying
out the functions of an effective water
quality standards program in a manner
consistent with the terms and purposes
of the Act and applicable regulations.
(b) Requests by Indian Tribes for
treatment as States for purposes of
water quality standards should be
submitted to the lead EPA Regional
Administrator. The application shall
include the following information:
(1)	A statement that the Tribe is
recognized by the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2)	A desenptive statement
demonstrating that the Tribal governing
body is currently carrying out
substantial governmental duties and
powers over a defined area. The
statement shall:
(i)	Describe the form of the Tribal
government:
(ii)	Describe the types of
governmental functions currently
performed by the Tribal governing body
such as, but not limited to. the exercise
of police powers affecting (or relating to)
the health, safety, and welfare of the
affected population, taxation, and the
exercise of the power of eminent
domain; and
(iii)	Identify the source of this Tribal
government's authority to carry-out the
governmental functions currently being
performed.
(3)	A descriptive statement of the
Indian Tribe's authority to regulate
water quality. The statement shall
include:
(i)	A map or legal description of the
area over which the Indian Tribe asserts
authority to regulate surface water
quality;
(ii)	A statement by the Tribe's legal
counsel (or equivalent official) which
describes the basis for the Tribes
asaertion of authority;
(iii)	A copy of all documents such as
Tribal constitutions, by-laws, charters,
executive orders, codes, ordinances,
and/or resolutions which support the
Tribe's assertion of authority; and
(iv)	an identification of the surface
waters for which the Tribe proposes to
establish water quality standards.
(4)	A narrative statement describing
the capability of the Indian Tribe to
administer an effective water quality
standards program. The narrative
statement shall include:
(i) A description of the Indian Tribe's
previous management expenence
including, but not limited to. the
administration of programs and services
authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.),
the Indian Mineral Development Act (25
U.S.C. 2101 et seq.). or the Indian
S-JIOW 0054<03XM-DEC-('1-09:39-57)
-------
64896 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 239 / Thursday. December 12. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Sanitation Facility Construction Activity
Act (42 U.S.C. 2004a);
(ii) A list of existing environmental or
public health programs administered by
the Tribal governing body and copies of
related Tribal laws, policies, and
regulations:
(lii) A description of the entity (or
entities) which exercise the executive,
legislative, and judicial functions of the
Tribal government:
(iv)	A descnption of the existing, or
proposed, agency of the Indian Tribe
which will assume primary
responsibility for establishing,
reviewing, implementing and revising
water quality standards:
(v)	A description of the technical and
administrative capabilities of the staff to
administer and manage an effective
water quality standards program or a
plan which proposes how the Tribe will
acquire additional administrative and
technical expertise. The plan must
address how the Tribe will obtain the
funds to acquire the administrative and
technical expertise.
(5) Additional documentation required
by the Regional Administrator which, in
the judgment of the Regional
Administrator, is necessary to support a
Tribal request for treatment as a State.
(6) Where the Tribe has previously
qualified for treatment as a State under
a Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking
Water Act program, the Tribe need only
provide the required information which
has not been submitted in a previous
treatment as a State application.
(c) Procedure for processing an Indian
Tribe's application for treatment as a
State.
(1)	The Regional Administrator shall
process an application of an Indian
Tribe for treatment a9 a State submitted
pursuant to § 131.8(b) in a timely
manner. He shall promptly notify the
Indian Tribe of receipt of the
application.
(2)	Within 30 days after receipt of the
Indian Tribe's application for treatment
as a State, the Regional Administrator
shall provide appropriate notice. Notice
shall:
(i)	Include information on the
substance and basis of the Tribe's
assertion of authority to regulate the
quality of reservation waters: and
(ii)	Be provided to all appropnate
governmental entities.
(3)	The Regional Administrator shall
provide 30 days for comments to be
submitted on the Tribal application.
Comments shall be limited to the Tribe s
assertion of authority.
(4)	If a Tribe's asserted authority is
subject to a competing or conflicting
claim, the Regional Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, or his designee, and in
consideration of other comments
received, shall determine whether the
Tribe has adequately demonstrated that
it meets the requirements of
§ 131.8(a)(3).
(5)	Where the Regional Administrator
determines that a Tribe meets the
requirements of this section, he shall
promptly provide written notification to
the Indian Tribe that the Tribe has
qualified to be treated as a State for
purposes of water quality standards and
that the Tribe may initiate the
formulation and adoption of water
quality standards approvable under this
part.
|FR Doc. 91-29490 Filed 12-11-91: 8:45 am|
BIUJMQ COOC IMO-SO-M
S-310999
0055(03X 11 -DEC-91 -09 40:00)
-------
*

2s
p
o
rt
ON
-------
	EPA -¥¥o As"—9o /ooa—-
<&EF¥\ Reference Guide to
Water Quality Standards
for Indian Tribes
/6D SX
5
%
%
4>	c
*4 PROlt0
¦&
LU
CD
T
/
-------
Preface
The purpose of thjs booklet is to prowde Indian Tnbes with an overview of the water quality standards
program requirements and with a guide to existing EPA reference materials on the program. The reference
materials mclude applicable regulations, policies, guidance documents, and technical support documents and
manuals.
The booklet is designed primarily for Indian Tribes that wish to qualify as States for the water quality
standards program. Therefore, the text is written "Indian Tribes * * * The complete term should read "States
and Indian Tnbes qualifying as States for the water qualitv standards program * * * Because Indian Tnbes
qualifying for treatment as States for the water quality standards program and States must meet the same statu-
tory and regulatory requirements, State and interstate agencies involved in establishing standards may find this
booklet useful.
The booklet is divided into several chapters with each chapter containing a brief overview of the topic and
lists of the appropnate references to consult for further information. The number following the reference refers
to the number of the reference listed in Appendix A where the reader can obtain information on the full citation
for the reference and on its availability. Chapter I is an introduction to the water quality standards program with
an overview of the statutory and regulatory requirements. Chapters II and III discuss Tribal participation in the
program, providing background information as well as a summary of the amendments to the water quality
standards regulation that pertain to standards on Indian reservations. Chapters IV through VIII take the reader
step-by-step through the development, adoption, and approval of water quality standards.
Included in the booklet are several appendices. Appendix A briefly describes the contents of available ref-
erence matenals on the water quality standards program. Appendix B provides a list of contacts in EPA Re-
gional Offices and Headquarters who can answer questions on water quality standards. Appendix C is a map
of the geographical boundaries for the EPA Regional Offices. Appendix D contains a copy of Section 518 of
the Clean Water Act.
We hope Indian Tribes will find this booklet useful for identifying and obtaining information needed to es-
tablish water quality standards for reservation waters.
William R. Diamond, Director
Critena and Standards Division
Preface
-------
Table of Contents
I.	Introduction 	1
A.	Clean Water Act ... 	1
B.	Water Quality Standards 	1
C.	EPA Authority 	1
D Tribal Authority 	 1
II.	Background to Tribal Participation in the Water Quality Standards Program 	3
A.	EPA's Indian Policy 	3
B.	Section 518 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 	3
III.	Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations 	4
A.	Qualifying for Treatment as a State 	4
B.	State-Tribal Dispute Resolution Mechanism 	5
IV.	Developing Water Quality Standards 	6
Introduction 	6
A.	Waters Requiring Water Quality Standards 	6
B.	Determining Designated Uses 	6
C.	Adopting Water Quality Criteria 	8
D.	Antidegradation Policy and Implementation Methods 	 11
E.	Additional Policies 	 11
V.	Adoption of Water Quality Standards and Submittal to EPA 	13
A.	Public Participation 			13
B.	Certification by a Legal Authority 		13
C.	Submittal of Standards Package to EPA 		13
VI.	EPA Review and Approval/Disapproval of Standards 	15
A.	Review Process 		15
B.	Approval 	15
C.	Disapproval 		15
D.	Conditional Approval 		15
E.	EPA Promulgation 		15
VII.	Implementation of Water Quality Standards 	17
VIII.	Review and Revision of Existing Water Quality Standards 	18
A. Requirements 	18
C. Submittal to EPA 	 19
Appendix A. List of EPA References for Further Information
Appendix B. EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters Contacts
Appendix C. Map of Geographical Boundaries for EPA Regional Offices
Appendix D. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act
Table of Contents
-------
I. Introduction
A. Clean Water Act
In response to public concern about the status of
our Nation's waters, Congress enacted the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Collectively these amendments are known as the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The objective of the CWA
is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters." One in-
terim goal of the CWA is that wherever attainable,
water quality should provide for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide
for recreation in and on the water. In 1987, Congress
amended the CWA by authorizing EPA to treat an
Indian Tribe as a State for the purposes of the Act if
the Tribe meets certain criteria.
B. Water Quality Standards
Section 303 of the CWA authorizes the water
quality standards program. Water quality standards
are rules or laws that are adopted to protect the public
health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and
serve the purposes of the CWA by providing, wher-
ever attainable, for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and
on the water. These uses are commonly referred to
as the "fishable/swimmable" goals of the Act.
In establishing water quality standards, Tribes de-
fine the water quality goals for their waters by desig-
nating uses for the water bodies and adopting water
quality criteria to protect the designated uses. Stand-
ards are set taking into consideration the use and
value of the water body for public water supply,
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for
recreational, agricultural, industrial and navigational
purposes. Water quality standards also contain an
antidegradation policy. At a minimum, the
antidegradation policy ensures the maintenance and
protection of existing uses and water quality necessary
to protect those uses, provides for the protection of
high quality waters, and maintains water quality in
waters that are outstanding national resources.
Water qualit> standards pla> a critical role in the
Nation's water quality improvement programs. By
establishing the goals for a water body, water quality
standards provide the regulatory and legal basis for
point source and nonpoint source water quality-based
controls beyond those required by the technological
requirements of the CWA (i.e., best available tech-
nology, pretreatment and new source performance
standards). Water quality standards are enforced
through the national pollutant discharge elimination
system's (NPDES) water quality-based permits and
through nonpoint source control programs.
C. EPA Authority
EPA develops regulations, policies, and guidance
to facilitate the implementation of the water quality
standards program. In addition, EPA is responsible
for reviewing and approving or disapproving water
quality standards. EPA also promulgates Federal
water quality standards under certain conditions.
D. Tribal Authority
Indian Tribes qualifying for treatment as States
are responsible for establishing water quality stand-
ards and for reviewing and revising these standards at
least once every three years.
REFERENCES
•	All Tribes interested in developing water quality
standards initially should obtain EPA's Water
Quality Standards Regulation 40 CFR Part 131
(48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). The regu-
lation describes the requirements and procedures
for developing, reviewing, revising, and approv-
ing water quality standards. (1)
•	A useful reference for those new to the water
quality standards program is Introduction to
Water Quality Standards, (1988). (4)
I. Introduction
1
-------
• To keep up-to-date on national developments
and activities of EPA's water quality standards
program, Tnbes may subscribe to the
Sewsletter, Cnteria and Standards Division,
fice of Water Regulations and Standards (5)
1. Introduction
-------
II. Background to Tribal Participation in the Water
Quality Standards Program
There arc two important developments leading to
a greater involvement by Indian Tribes in the water
quality standards program -- EPA's Indian Policy and
Section 518 of the 1957 Amendments to the CAVA.
Policy and Implementation Guidance can be
found in Environmental Activities on Indian Res-
ervations: FY 88, (1989). (31)
A. EPA's Indian Policy
On January 24, 1983, the Federal government es-
tablished a Federal Indian Policy to treat Tribal gov-
ernments on a govcmmcnt-to-government basis and
to support the principle of self-determination and lo-
cal decision making by Indian Tribes. EPA subse-
quently adopted its own Indian Policy and
Implementation Guidance in November, 1984.
EPA's Indian Policy directs the Agency to "give
special consideration to Tribal interests in making
Agency policy and to ensure the close involvement
of Tnbal governments in making decisions and man-
aging the environmental programs affecting reserva-
tion lands." In implementing this policy, EPA works
directly with Tribal governments as independent au-
thorities for reservation affairs, and not as political
subdivisions of States.
REFERENCE
• More detailed information on EPA's Indian
B. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1987
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA added Sec-
tion 518. This section authorizes EPA to treat
Federally recognized Indian Tribes as States for cer-
tain provisions of the Act, including the water quality
standards program. Section 518 requires EPA to
promulgate regulations specifying how Indian Tribes
can qualify for treatment as States based on three
broad criteria contained in Section 518(e). In addi-
tion, Section 518 requires EPA to establish a mech-
anism to resolve unreasonable consequences that may
arise from an Indian Tribe and a State adopting dif-
ferent water quality standards on common bodies of
water.
REFERENCE
• Section 518 of the Clean Water Act is contained
in Appendix D.
11. Background to Tribal Participation in the Water Quality Standards Program
-------
III. Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Standards
Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian Reservations
The first step for an Indian Tribe that wishes to
set water quality standards on its reservation is to
qualify for treatment as a State for the water quality
standards program.
EPA proposed a rule (54 FR 39098) on September
22, 1989, to define how an Indian Tribe can qualify
for treatment as a State for the Section 303 water
quality standards and Section 401 certification pro-
grams. The proposal also establishes a dispute resol-
ution mechanism for situations where there are
unreasonable consequences resulting from a State and
Tribe adopting different water quality standards for
common water bodies.
A. Qualifying for Treatment as a State
The proposed rule adds a new section to the Code
of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 131.8, that includes
the criteria a Tribe will be required to meet to be
treated as a State, the specific information the Tribe
would be required to provide in its application to
EPA, and the procedure EPA will use to process the
Tribal application.
I. Criteria Tribes are Required to Meet
An Indian Tribe may qualify for treatment as a
State for the purposes of the water quality standards
program if the Tribe meets the following criteria:
a.	The Tribe is recognized by the Department
of the Interior and meets the definitions
found in Section 518 of the Clean Water
Act;
b.	The Tribe has a governing body carrying out
substantial duties and powers;
c.	The Tribe possesses and can adequately
demonstrate authority to manage and pro-
tect water resources within the borders of the
reservation; and
d.	The Tribe is reasonably expected to be ca-
pable, in the Regional Administrator's
judgement, of carrying out the functions of
an effective water quality standards program.
The CNVA authorizes the use of existing Tribal
regulatory authority for managing EPA programs. It
does not grant additional authority to Tribes.
REFERENCE
• Detailed information on requirements for quali-
fying as a State are in section 131.8(a) of the
proposed rule (54 FR 39098, September 22,
1989). A discussion of these requirements is in
the preamble to the proposed rule (54 FR 39101,
September 22, 1989). (2)
2. Information Required in an Application
A request by an Indian Tribe for treatment as a
State for the water quality standards program should
be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Ad-
ministrator. Application materials include statements
and documentation addressing the required criteria for
treatment as a State (see l.a. - l.d. above). The Re-
gional Administrator also may require additional
documentation.
If a Tribe qualifies for treatment as a State under
other CWA or Safe Drinking Water Act programs,
then the Tribe needs only to provide the information
specific to the water quality standards program that
has not been submitted in their previous
application(s).
REFERENCE
• Detailed information on the required application
materials to qualify for treatment as a State is in
section 131.8(b) of the proposed rule (54 FR
39098, September 22, 1989). A discussion of
these requirements is in the preamble to the
proposed rule (54 FR 39101 - 39102, September
22, 1989). (2)
ill. Proposed Amendments to the Water Qualit) Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standard* on Indian kescr\ations 4
-------
3. Procedure for Processing an Application
Several steps are involved in CPA's processing of
a Tribe's application for treatment as a State. First,
EPA will notify the Tribe promptly that the Agency
received the application. Then, within 30 days of re-
ceipt of the application, the Agency will notify ap-
propriate governmental entities (neighboring Tribes
and States) of the application and the substance and
basis for the Tribe's assertion of authority over reser-
vation waters These governmental entities will have
30 d.ivs lor review of and comment on the Tribe's
assertion of authority.
If a Tribe's asserted authority is challenged by
another governmental entity, EPA will consult with
the Tribe, the challenging entity, and the Secretary of
the Interior, and independently determine whether the
Tribe has demonstrated its authority to regulate water
quality on the reservation. If EPA determines that
the Tribe has not adequately demonstrated its au-
thority on a disputed area, then Tribal assumption of
the standards program would be restricted to non-
disputed areas.
EPA will promptly notify the Tribe when the
Agency determines that the Tribe has qualified for
treatment as a State for the water quality standards
program. If EPA determines that the Tribe does not
meet the requirements to qualify for treatment as a
State, the Tribe can resubmit the application at a fu-
ture date. If the Tribal application is deficient or in-
complete, EPA will specify the necessary changes.
REFERENCE
• The procedure for processing a Tribe's applica-
tion is in section 131.8(c) of the proposed rule
(54 FR 39098, September 22, 1989). A dis-
cussion of these requirements is in the preamble
to the proposed rule (54 FR 39102, September
22, 1989). (2)
B. State-Tribal Dispute Resolution
Mechanism
Section 518 of the CWA requires that EPA es-
tablish a mechanism to resolve any unreasonable
consequences arising as a result of different water
quality standards that mav be set by States and Indian
Tribes for a common body of water.
EPA is proposing that State-Tribal disputes be
resolved by mediation or non-binding arbitration.
The proposed rule emphasizes the use of mediation
because such an approach is consistent with the es-
tablishment of State-Tnbal cooperative agreements in
Section 518(d) of the CWA. A third technique, vol-
untary binding arbitration, is an option only where
all parties consent In addition. HPA lus propo^d .i
dispute resolution default procedure to be used where
one or more parties refuse to participate in mediation
or arbitration. Mediators and arbitrators will be EPA
employees, employees of other Federal agencies, or
other individuals with appropriate qualifications.
Either a State or Tribe may request EPA to re-
solve a dispute. The proposed rule lists the require-
merts for written requests for EPA involvement.
In determining whether to approve water quality
standards, EPA will disapprove water quality stand-
ards that are less stringent than necessary to comply
with the CWA. Based on Section 510 of the CWA,
EPA must approve water quality standards that are
more stringent than those required by the Act. EPA
does not have the authority to disapprove State or
Tribal water quality standards that EPA considers
more stringent than necessary to comply with the
CWA.
REFERENCE
o Detailed information on State-Tribal dispute re-
solution mechanisms, including the conditions
and required procedures, is in section 131.7 of the
proposed rule (54 FR 39098, September 22,
1989). A discussion of this dispute resolution
mechanism is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (54 FR 39099 - 39101, September 22, 1989).
(2)
The remainder of this booklet describes the proc-
ess of developing, adopting, and reviewing water
quality standards.
III. Proposed Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian Reservations 5
-------
IV. Developing Water Quality Standards
Introduction
After qualifying for treatment as a State, a Tribe
has several options for establishing water quality
standards on its reservation. These options include:
1.	Negotiation of a cooperative agreement with an
adjoining State to apply the State's standards to
the Indian lands;
2.	Incorporation of the standards from an adjacent
State as the Tribes's own, with or without re-
vision; or
3.	Independent Tribal development and adoption
of water quality standards that may account for
unique site-specific conditions and water body
uses.
The options represent a range of resource com-
mitments. The first two options would be the quick-
est and least costly ways of establishing Tribal water
quality standards. Option 3 requires more time and
resources to implement because it requires the Tribe
to create an entire set of water quality standards "from
scratch."
The development of Tribal water quality stand-
ards is a continual process. At least once every three
years a Tribe must review and, if appropriate, revise
its water quality standards. The Tribe may change its
approach for establishing standards in subsequent
triennial reviews. For example, Tribal standards may
evolve from the adoption of existing State standards
to a rule entirely of Tribal origin.
Several steps are involved in developing water
quality standards for reservation waters. A Tribe
must (A) identify all surface waters requiring stand-
ards, (B) designate uses for each water body or por-
tion of a water body, (C) set criteria to protect
designated uses, (D) adopt an antidegradation policy
and implementation methods, and (E) as appropriate,
adopt additional policies affecting the application and
implementation of standards. These steps are de-
scribed below.
REFERENCE
• A detailed discussion of the options available for
establishing water quality standards on Indian
lands is in the preamble to the proposed rule (54
FR 39102 - 39103, September 22, 1989). (2)
A. Waters Requiring Water Quality
Standards
Water quality standards are adopted for "waters
of the United States", including all rivers, streams, in-
termittent streams, lakes, natural ponds, wetlands, and
marine waters such as estuaries and near-shore coastal
waters. Water bodies may be segmented such that,
where appropriate, different standards may apply to
different segments of the same water body. "Waters
of the United States' does not include groundwater.
Artificially-created waters, such as irrigation
ditches and canals, may be defined as "waters of the
United States." The need to develop water quality
standards for artificially-created waters is determined
by EPA and the Tribe on a case-by-case basis.
REFERENCE
• The regulatory definition of "waters of the United
States" can be found in the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Regulation (40
CFR 122.2) and the Section 404 Regulation (40
CFR 230.3).
B. Determining Designated Uses
I. Use Classification System
Each Indian Tribe develops a use classification
system that describes the uses of water bodies to be
protected. At a minimum, water quality standards
must provide for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and
on the water. In addition, uses may include public
water supply, water supply for agricultural, industrial,
and commercial uses, and navigation.
IV. Dc\cloping Water Quality Standards
6
-------
The CWA also allows a Tribe to adopt use cate-
gories for other purposes, as long as those uses and
associated criteria enhance the quality of the water
and serve the purposes of the Act. Waste transport
and waste assimilation are not acceptable uses.
Tribes may adopt subcategories of a use and set
criteria to reflect the different needs of these subcate-
gories. One example is dividing recreation into the
subcategories of recreation "in" the water (swimming)
and recreation "on" the water (boating) Another ex-
ample is dividing protection of fisheries into cold wa-
ter and warm water fisheries.
REFERENCES
•	For EPA guidance on use classification systems
see Chapter 3 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook, (1983). Appendix A of Chapter 3
contains a sample use classification system. (6)
•	A summary of State use classifications can be
found in the document "Designated Uses", one
of the Water Quality Standards Criteria Sum-
maries; A Compilation of State I Federal Criteria,
(1988). (19)
•	For a sample of a use classification system for
Tribal water quality standards see the water
quality standards for the Colville Indian Reser-
vation (54 FR 28627 - 28629, July 6, 1989). (3)
2. Existing Uses
Existing uses are those uses actually attained in a
water body on or after November 28, 1975. Novem-
ber 28, 1975 is the date on which EPA promulgated
its first water quality standards regulation. Because
an existing use has been attained, it cannot be modi-
fied or changed unless uses are added that require
more stringent criteria. When identifying existing
uses, the Tribe should specify uses consistent with the
uses in their use classification system.
REFERENCES
• The regulatory definition of existing uses is in
EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131.3(e)). (1)
• Guidance on the interpretation of the term "an
existing use" is in Questions and Answers on
Antidegradation, (1985). (7)
3. Designated Lscs
Each Tribe has the primary responsibilit> for de-
termining the uses it would like to make of a water
body and incorporate these uses into its standards.
Unless the Tnbe can demonstrate that the
fishable/swimmable uses can not be attained (i e the
Section 101(a)(2) goals of the CWA that provide for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, and recreation in and on the water), the Tnbe
must designate, at a minimum, a lishablc swimmable
use for each water bod\ in addition to other un.'n that
are to be made of the water body
When designating uses of a water body and the
appropriate criteria for those uses, the Tribe must take
into consideration the water quality standards of the
downstream waters. The Tribe must ensure that the
water quality standards it sets for reservation waters
provide for and do not interfere with the attainment
and maintenance of the water quality standards of
downstream waters.
In some areas, uses are only practical during cer-
tain seasons. If appropriate, a Tribe should adopt a
seasonal use as a way of providing for the protection
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on
the water.
Tribes establishing water quality standards for the
first time should carefully consider the water-body
uses that are appropriate. Removing such uses, while
not impossible, requires a substantial demonstration
that attaining the use is not feasible.
REFERENCES
•	Information on the requirements for designating
uses is in EPA's Water Quality Standards Regu-
lation (40 CFR 131.10). A discussion on desig-
nated uses is in the preamble (48 FR 51400 -
51401, November 8, 1983). (1)
•	General information on designating uses can be
found in Section II of Introduction to Water
Quality Standards, (1988). (4)
•	For EPA guidance on designated uses see Chap-
ter 1 of the Water Quality Standards Handbook,
(1983). (6)
4. Use Attainability Analyses
A use attainability analysis is a scientific assess-
ment of the physical, chemical, biological, and eco-
nomic factors that affect the attainment of a use. A
use attainability analysis assists in determining what
uses are possible. It also can assist in determining the
IV. Docloping Water Qualitj Standards
7
-------
point and nonpoint source controls necessary to pro-
tect a use A use attainability analysis consists of (a)
a water body survey and assessment, (b) a wasteload
allocation, and (c) if appropriate, an economic analy-
sis.
A Tribe is required to conduct a use attainability
analysis when it designates a use that does not include
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. However,
use attainability analyses are not required when des-
ignated uses arc consilient with tishablc swimmable
uses
Use attainability analyses are the responsibility of
each Tribe, but the actual studies may be performed
by others. .\il data, however, must be made available
to the public.
REFERENCES
•	General information on use attainability analyses
can be found in Section V of Introduction to
Water Quality Standards, (1988). (4)
•	Guidance on conducting use attainability ana-
lyses is in Chapter 3 of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
•	More detailed information can be found in three
technical support manuals:
1.	Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, (1983). This manual
contains general information and technical
guidance specific to rivers. (10)
2.	Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume II: Estuarine
Systems, (1983). (11)
3.	Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume III: Lake
Systems, (1984). (12)
C. Adopting Water Quality Criteria
Water quality criteria are limits on a particular
pollutant or on a condition of a water body so as to
protect and support a use. When criteria are properly
selected and met, it is expected that the water quality
will protect the designated use.
Each Tribe is required to adopt, as part of its wa-
ter quality standards, water quality criteria to protect
the most sensitive designated use of a water bod\.
These criteria must be based on a sound scientific ra-
tionale.
When setting appropriate water quality cnteria
sufficient to protect designated uses, Tribes may:
1.	Adopt the cnteria EPA publishes under Section
304(a) of the Act;
2.	Modify the Section 304(a) guidance to retlcct
site-specific conditions; or
3.	Use other scientifically defensible methods.
Tribes are encouraged to work with EPA to de-
termine the approach to be used in setting criteria, to
assess the availability of monitoring data, and to
evaluate appropriate methods for any analyses.
REFERENCES
•	For general information on water quality criteria,
see Section III in Introduction to Water Quality
Standards, (1988). (4)
•	Information on the requirements for adopting
criteria is in EPA's Water Quality Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 131.11). (1)
•	Guidance on the methodology used by EPA in
developing aquatic life criteria is in "Guidelines
for Deriving National Water Quality Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
Uses" (45 FR 79341, November 28, 1980, as
amended at 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985). (13)
•	Guidance on the methodology used by EPA in
developing human health criteria is in "Guide-
lines and Methodology Used in the Preparation
of Health Effect Assessment Chapters of the
Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents" (45
FR 79318, November 28, 1980. (14)
I. EPA Published Criteria
EPA publishes water quality criteria under Sec-
tion 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. These criteria are
called Section 304(a) criteria and are based on the
latest scientific information available on the effect of
a pollutant on aquatic life and human health. Section
304(a) criteria are published from time-to-time as
guidance documents to assist in setting water quality
standards and have no force of law. Section 304(a)
criteria guidance documents contain two important
types of information: (a) scientific data on the effects
IV. Developing Water Quality Standards
8
-------
of pollutants on aquatic life, human health, and or
recreation; and (b) the chemical concentration in wa-
ter that will generally ensure water quality adequate
to support a particular water use.
Both human health and aquatic life criteria are
needed for the protection, propagation, and con-
sumption of fish and shellfish and for public water
supply. Tribes must adopt aquatic life and,or human
health criteria for pollutants where data indicate that
these pollutants may interfere with attaining the des-
ignated u^es
REFERENCES
•	The most important references for Section 304(a)
criteria are the individual criteria guidance docu-
ments. A list of these documents is in Appendix
A . (15)
•	Another source of information on Section 304(a)
criteria is Quality Criteria for Water, (1986), also
known as the "Gold Book." This reference con-
tains a summary of the individual Section 304(a)
criteria documents. (16)
•	For information on the relationship of Section
304(a) criteria to designated water uses see
Chapter 2 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook, {mi). (6)
2. Narrative and Numeric Criteria
Criteria can be either narrative or numeric. Nar-
rative criteria are expressed in concise statements,
generally in a "free from" format, for example "free
from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts". Numeric
criteria are expressed as concentrations of chemicals
or pollutants in water. Concentrations of chemicals
are usually expressed in micrograms per liter (ug/1).
Numeric criteria are often called chemical-specific
criteria.
EPA believes that an effective water quality
standards program should include both narrative and
numeric criteria. Narrative criteria are used to limit
the toxicity of an effluent when the specific chemicals
in the effluent cannot be identified. In addition, nar-
rative criteria can be used to limit the toxicity of the
water when a specific chemical is identified as the
cause of the toxicity, but no numeric criterion is
available.
Chemical-specific numeric criteria are important,
particularly where the cause of toxicity is known and
limits are placed on the discharge of the pollutant
through permits, or where nonpoint sources are iden-
tified as the source of the problem. Such criteria
provide a stronger basis on which to protect aquatic
life and human health.
Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria are used to protect the aesthetic
qualities of water and ensure its natural beauty Nar-
rative criteria also are used to protect against toxic
effects. EPA guidance includes five narrative criteria
or "free froms". These "free fronts" apply to all waters
and to both point sources and nonpoint source-, of
pollution. When a I nbe adopts narrative cntcna tor
toxic pollutants, it mu.st provide information on the
method that will be used to regulate point source
discharges based on the narrative criteria.
Numeric Criteria
Specific numeric criteria establish limits, as neces-
sary, for a wide variety of pollutants in or conditions
of water bodies. For example, a Tribe needs to adopt
numeric criteria for dissolved oxygen and ammonia,
as well as for toxic pollutants such as lead, mercury,
polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), etc. to protect the
aquatic life of the water body and human health
Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA requires the
adoption of numeric criteria for the toxic pollutants
listed in Section 307(a)(1) of the CWA if (!) the dis-
charge or presence of the pollutant may adversely
impact designated uses and (2) EPA has published a
criterion for the pollutant. Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants include 126 individual toxic pollutants.
These 126 pollutants are called "priority pollutants"
and are among the most persistent, prevalent, and
toxic of the chemicals known to man.
A Tribe has three options available for adopting
numeric criteria for priority pollutants. In summary,
these options are:
1.	Adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for
which EPA has issued Section 304(a) criteria
guidance;
2.	Adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for
which EPA has issued Section 304(a) criteria
guidance when the pollutant can reasonably be
expected to interfere with uses; and
3.	Adopt a translator procedure that can be used to
derive numeric criteria on an "as needed" basis.
If Section 304(a) criteria are not available, and the
presence or discharge of the pollutant may adversely
impact a designated use, a Tribe must adopt criteria
based on biological monitoring or assessment meth-
ods. To meet this requirement, at a minimum, a
Tribe must require that all point source dischargers
thought to be discharging priority toxic pollutants
conduct whole effluent toxicity tests.
IV. Developing Water Qualitv Standards
9
-------
REFERENCES
•	Guidance on the application of narrative and
numerical criteria is in Chapter 2 of the Water
Quality Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
•	Guidance on specific narrative and numeric cri-
teria for particular pollutants can be found in the
individual Suction 304(a) criteria documents. A
list of thcic documents is in Appendix A (15)
•	Another source of specific narrative and numeric
criteria for particular pollutants is Quality Crite-
ria for Water, (1986), also known as the "Gold
Book." This reference is a summary of the indi-
vidual 304(a) criteria documents. (16)
•	The Section 307(a) priority toxic pollutants are
codified at 40 CFR 401.15 and found in Section
VII of Introduction to Water Quality Standards,
(1988). (4)
•	Specific guidance on the implementation of nu-
meric criteria for the Section 307(a) priority toxic
pollutants, including a full discussion/description
of the options available, is in Guidance for State
Implementation of Water Quality Standards for
CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B),{1988). (17)
•	For a compilation of State activities implement-
ing the Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements see
Status Report: State Numerical Criteria for
Toxics as of August 1989, (1989). (18)
•	Compiled State summaries of individual
pollutant criteria can be found in Water Quality
Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compilation of
State/Federal Criteria, (1988). (19)
•	For technical guidance on conducting whole
effluent toxicity tests see the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Con-
trol, (1985). (28)
3. Site-specific Criteria
Site-specific criteria are water quality criteria de-
veloped for a specific site and reflect local environ-
mental conditions. EPA's criteria are laboratory
derived and may not always accurately reflect the ef-
fect of a pollutant in all waters. Site-specific criteria
may be appropriate where:
a Specie^ inhabiting a given site arc more or
less sensitive than those used in developing
the Section 304(a) criteria; or
b. Water chemistry, such as pH, hardness,
temperature, and color, appears to differ
significantly from the laboratory water used
in developing the Section 304(a) cnteria.
Tribes may develop site-specific criteria Devel-
oping site-specific criteria involves taking local condi-
tions into account so that criteria adequately protect
the designated use without being more or less stnn-
gent than needed.
REFERENCE
• EPA guidance on scientifically acceptable proce-
dures for deriving site-specific criteria is in
Chapter 4 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook, (1983). (6)
4. Criteria Under Development
Chemical criteria alone are inadequate to fully
characterize the physical and biological integrity of
our waters or the reductions in risk necessary to attain
the goals of the CWA. Therefore, EPA is developing
biological and sediment quality criteria to comple-
ment chemical-specific criteria.
Biological criteria may include indices or state-
ments of species richness, abundance, diversity,
trophic composition and/or biomass. These measures
can be used to establish appropriate goals for water
bodies. Initially, Tribes are to adopt narrative bi-
ological criteria. Narrative criteria may be general
statements of the biological condition of the water
body or attainable uses. Although similar to the "free
from" chemical water quality criteria, narrative bi-
ological criteria establish a positive statement about
what should occur, such as "Aquatic life shall be as it
naturally occurs." Such criteria will assist Tribes in
better characterizing the aquatic life uses appropriate
for the surface water to be protected.
EPA is developing sediment quality criteria on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Such criteria will assist
Tribes in defining where sediment contaimination is
a problem in order to target areas for regulatory,
enforcement, and clean-up actions.
REFERENCES
• Information on biological criteria will be found
in the Program Guidance Document for Biolog-
ical Criteria, (available April, 1990). (20)
IV. Developing Water Quality Standards
10
-------
•	'[ he technical Guidance Document for Biological
Criteria will supplement the program guidance
document (available after Apnl, 1990). (21)
•	Information on sediment quality criteria is in
Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory
Board on the Equilibrium Partitioning Approach
to Generating Sediment Quality Criteria, (April,
1989). (22)
•	A list of additional sediment quality criteria doc-
uments can he found in Appendix A (23)
D. Antidegradation Policy and
Implementation Methods
Each Tribe adopts a reservation-wide
antidegradation policy and implementation methods
for this policy. An antidegradation policy provides for
the maintenance and protection of existing uses,
higher quality waters, and outstanding national re-
source waters. EPA's water quality standards regu-
lation sets minimum requirements for the
antidegradation policy.
A Tribe may want to designate some of its waters
as outstanding national resource waters. These waters
may be high quality waters or ecologically unique
waters such as those within national parks or wildlife
refuges or waters of exceptional recreational or eco-
logical significance. Each Tribe establishes its own
criteria for designating and protecting outstanding
national resource waters.
Antidegradation implementation procedures ad-
dress how a Tribe will review water quality-based
permits and control programs to ensure that they are
designed to meet water quality standards and
antidegradation requirements. At a minimum, when-
ever a discharge is determined to eliminate a use or
lower the quality of high quality waters, the Tribe
must conduct an antidegradation policy review.
REFERENCES
•	General information on antidegradation is in
Section VI of Introduction to Water Quality
Standards, (1988). (4)
•	Detailed information on the requirements for an
antidegradation policy is in EPA's Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.12). A dis-
cussion on the antidegradation policy is in the
preamble of the Water Quality Standards Regu-
lation (48 FR 51402 - 51403, November 8, 1983).
(I)
•	Implementation guidance on antidegradation is
in Chapter 2 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook, (1983). (6)
•	Additional guidance can be found in Questions
and Answers on Antidegradation (1985). (7)
•	A summary of State antidegradation policies can
be found in the document ".Vntidegradahon '. one
of the H ater Quality Standards Criteria Sum-
maries; A Compilation of State j f ederal Criteria,
(1988). (19)
E. Additional Policies
Each Tribe, at its discretion, may include in its
water quality standards, policies affecting the applica-
tion and implementation of water quality standards.
Such policies include variances, mixing zones, and
low-flow exemptions. These policies must be re-
viewed and approved by EPA.
1. Variances
In a situation where waters do not meet their wa-
ter quality standards, a Tribe may grant a variance to
a discharger as an alternative to downgrading the
standard to a use requiring less stringent criteria.
Variances would be used where the Tribe believes that
the standard can ultimately be attained. By estab-
lishing a standard with uses requiring improvements
in water quality rather than allowing continued lower
water quality, the Tribe will assure that further
progress is made in attaining the goals of the CWA
and improving water quality.
A variance may be granted to an individual
discharger for a specific pollutant or pollutants. This
variance controls the permit limits for the discharger
that receives the variance. EPA reviews individual
variances, in addition to the review and approval of
the Tribal variance policy.
REFERENCES
•	Additional information on variances is in the
preamble to EPA's Water Quality Standards
Regulation (48 FR 51403, November 8, 1983).
(1)
•	Guidance on variances is contained in "Variances
in Water Quality Standards", (1985). (8)
IV. Developing Water Quality Standards
II
-------
2. Mixing Zones
A mixing zone serves as a zone of initial dilution
in the immediate area of a point source discharge.
The Tribal water quality standards should describe
the methodology for determining the location, size,
shape, outfall engineering design, and in-zone water
quality of mixing zones. The methodology should
be precise enough to support regulatory actions.
Careful consideration must be given to the appropri-
ateness of a mixing /.one where the subsUince dis-
charged is persistent in the cnuronmcnt. accumulates
in aquatic life, or causes cancer.
REFERENCES
•	Guidance on mixing zones is in Chapter 2 of the
Water Quality Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
•	Technical information on mixing zones is in
Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control, (1985). (28)
•	A summary of State mixing zone policies can be
found in the document "Mixing Zones", one of
the Water Quality Standards Criteria Summa-
ries; A Compilation of State/Federal Criteria,
(1988). (19)
3. Low-(low Exemptions
Water quality standards should protect uses e\en
in low-flow situations 1 nbes ma> designate a cr.tii.al
low-flow volume below v\ hich numerical criteria do
not apply. However, even in low-flow situations,
narrative criteria, including the "free from" toxics cri-
teria, must be applied.
REFERENCE
•	EPA's policy on low-flow exemptions is de-
scribed in Chapter 2 of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
IV. De^ eloping Water Qualit} Standards
12
-------
V. Adoption of Water Quality Standards and Submittal to
EPA
Subsequent to the development of water quality
standards, a Tribe must take several steps before sub-
mitting the standards to F.PA. First, a Tribe must
hold a public hearing for the review of the water
quality standards. Next, the Tribe adopts the water
quality standards according to its own legal and ad-
ministrative procedures. Then, the appropriate legal
authority within the Tribe certifies that the water
quality standards were adopted according to Tribal
law. After these steps arc completed, the Tribe sub-
nuts a complete standards package to the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator for review.
• Implementation guidance on public participation
for the water quality standards program is in
Chapter 2 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook, (1983). (6)
B. Certification by a Legal Authority
The Tribal "Attorney General'' or other appropri-
ate legal authority within the Tribe must certify that
the water quality standards were adopted according to
Tribal law.
A. Public Participation
An important part, perhaps even the most im-
portant part, of establishing water quality standards
is the participation of those affected by standards de-
cisions. At a minimum, a Tribe is required by Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to hold a
public hearing for reviewing the proposed water
quality standards. This public hearing must be held
in accordance with the provisions of Tribal law,
EPA's Water Quality Management Regulation (40
CFR 130.3(b)(6)), and EPA's Public Participation
Regulation (40 CFR Part 25). Prior to the hearing,
the Tribe must make available to the public proposed
water quality standards and supporting analyses.
EPA urges Tribes to actively involve Tribal
members in the review process. Public hearings or
workshops are an effective means of involving Tribal
members in setting the goals for their reservation wa-
ters, identifying existing uses of the water body, and
developing support for the proposed standards.
REFERENCES
• The public participation requirement for the wa-
ter quality standards program is in EPA's Water
Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.20(b)). (1)
C. Submittal of Standards Package to
EPA
The following elements must be included in each
Tribe's water quality standards package that it sub-
mits to EPA:
1.	Use designations consistent with the provisions
of Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Clean
Water Act.
2.	Water quality criteria sufficient to protect the
designated uses.
3.	Methods used and analyses conducted to support
the water quality standards.
4.	Antidegradation policy and implementation
methods consistent with Section 131.12 of EPA's
Water Quality Standards Regulation.
5.	Certification by the appropriate legal authority
within the Tribe that the water quality standards
were adopted in accordance with Tribal law.
6.	Information for EPA to use in determining the
adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards
that do not include the uses specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act.
V. Adoption of Water Quality Standards and Submittal to EPA
13
-------
7 Information on policies that may affect the ap-
plication and implementation of the water qual-
ity standards.
Tribes should adopt and submit water quality
standards to EPA for review within 180 days of qual-
ifying for treatment as a State for the water quality
standards program and within 30 days of Tnbal
adoption and certification of standards. The 180 day
time frame is the same time frame provided to States
under the 1972 1 edcral Water Pollution Control Act.
1 he I.PA Regional Administrator ma\ grant an ex-
tension of the 1 S0-da\ time limit if the Tribe presides
a reasonable written explanation for an extension.
REFERENCE
• Information on EPA requirements for water
quality standards adoption and submission is in
EPA s Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131.6 and 131.20). (I)
V. Adoption of Water Qualit\ Standards and Submittal to EPA
14
-------
VI. EPA Review and Approval/Disapproval of Standards
A. Re\iew Process
CPA's review of Tribal water quality standards
involves a review, at the Regional Office, with a con-
current review and comment by the Criteria and
Standards Division at Headquarters. EPA reviews the
water quality standards to ensure compliance with the
requirements of the CWA and EPA's Water Quality
Standards Regulation. EPA's review also determines
whether the analyses performed to establish water
quality standards are adequate. In addition, the
Agency evaluates whether the designated uses and
criteria arc compatible throughout the water body and
whether the downstream water quality standards are
protected. A review to determine compliance with
downstream standards is most likely to involve water
bodies on or crossing Reservation or State bounda-
ries.
In determining whether to approve, disapprove
or conditionally approve Tribal water quality stand-
ards, EPA will use the same statutory and regulatory
requirements, policies, and criteria as it uses in re-
viewing State water quality standards.
B. Approval
Tribal water quality standards that meet the re-
quirements of the CWA and EPA's Water Quality
Standards Regulation are approved by the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator within 60 days of re-
ceipt. The Regional Administrator notifies the Tribal
Chairman by letter of the approval and forwards a
copy of the letter to the Tribal agency responsible for
administering the water quality standards program.
The approval letter contains information on the scope
of the approval action. If only a portion of the sub-
mitted standards meet the requirements, the Regional
Administrator approves only that portion and identi-
fies the portions that should be revised.
C. Disapproval
If the Tribal water quality standards arc not con-
sistent with or do not meet the requirements of the
CWA or EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation,
the EPA Regional Administrator disapproves the
standards with a written notice to the Tribal Chair-
man within 90 days of receipt. The letter states why
the standards are not consistent with the CWA or the
Water Quality Standards Regulation and describes the
necessary revisions for full approval. If the Tribe fails
to adopt and submit the necessary revisions within 90
days after notification, the EPA Administrator initi-
ates promulgation of Federal water quality standards.
D. Conditional Approval
The Regional Administrator may grant condi-
tional approval for Tribal water quality standards.
This is an EPA approval conditioned on the per-
formance of specified actions on the part of a Tribe
in a timely manner (generally 90 days or less). Con-
ditional approvals may be used when there are minor
deficiencies in Tribal standards but only if the Tribe
provides assurance that it will submit corrections on
a specified, written schedule. Failure to satisfy the
identified conditions will nullify the approval and lead
to Federal promulgation action.
E. EPA Promulgation
EPA may promulgate Federal water quality
standards in situations where the Administrator de-
termines that the new or revised water quality stand-
ard is not consistent with the applicable requirements
of the CWA or where the Administrator determines
that a standard is necessary to meet the requirements
of the Act.
In promulgating water quality standards, the EPA
Administrator must follow the same policies, proce-
dures, analyses, and public participation requirements
established for the Tribe. If the Tribe corrects the
deficiencies in its water quality standards prior to
VI. EPA Review and Approval/Disappro\al of Standards
15
-------
promulgation, the Administrator will stop the
rulemaking proceedings and the Regional Adminis-
trator will approve the revised standards. After EPA
has promulgated standards, the 1 ribe may submit re-
vised water quality standards and the Federal stand-
ards will be withdrawn once Tribal standards are
approved.
RKFKRKNCKS
• Information on the 1 cderol requirements for
li PA review and approval disapproval of water
quality standards is in CPA's Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.21). (1)
•	Information on the federal requirements for
EPA promulgation is in EPA's Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.22). (1)
•	Guidance on the EPA review process and
promulgation is in Chapter 2 of the Water
Quality Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
•	Use of Federal promulgation of water quality
standards for Indian Tribes is discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule (54 tR 39|0M (2)
•	A summary of EPA-promulgated water quahtv
standards is in Summary of Federally
Promulgated Water Quality Standards Actions,
(1989). (26)
VI. EPA Re\ie\v and Appro\al/Disappro>al of Standards
16
-------
VII. Implementation of Water Quality Standards
1 nbcs implement water qualm standards through
limits placed on the amount of pollutants discharged
by point sources and through controls de\eloped for
nonpoint sources of pollution. Each point source
discharger is required to obtain a permit limiting the
pollutants that arc discharged and specifying the
monitoring and reporting requirements. These per-
mits arc part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program established
by the CWA to control the pollutant levels in
dischargers' effluent. The effluent limits contained in
NPDES permits arc either technology-based or water
quality-based.
When technology-based limits are insufficient for
water to attain water quality standards, Section
301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires the development
of more stringent limitations to attain or maintain the
water quality standards. EPA (or the Tribe if it has
been delegated authority for the NPDES program)
must then determine the total maximum daily load
(T\1DL) for the water body. The T.MDL is the
amount of a pollutant that may be discharged into a
water body and still maintain water quality standards.
Loading above this amount may result in waters ex-
ceeding the standards.
The allowable TMDL is the sum of the waste
load allocation (WLA) and load allocation (LA), in-
cluding a margin of safety. The WLA is the portion
of the pollutant load from point sources. The LA is
the portion from nonpoint sources and background
sources. This WLA/LA/TMDL process involves
identifying the pollutant sources and loadings, apply-
ing mathematical models to predict the amount of
load reduction necessary to achieve water quality
standards, and allocating this load reduction among
the pollutant sources. Water quality criteria are used
in the WLA/LA/TMDL process, and include one or
more of the following:
1.	Chemical-specific numeric criteria or a whole
effluent toxicity standard adopted by a Tribe;
2.	EPA Section 304(a) criteria if the Tribe has not
adopted a numeric criterion for a particular
pollutant; or
3 Other appropriate cntena.
In order to attain the water quality standards, the
necessary load reduction from point source
dischargers is regulated by water quality-based
NPDES permits. The load reduction from nonpoint
sources is controlled through Tribal or State nonpoint
source control programs. Nonpoint source control
programs may be either voluntary or regulatory.
REFERENCES
• As a start, for technical information on the WLA
process and effluent limits in permits see Chap-
ters 5 and 6 of the Technical Support Document
for Water Quatity-based Toxics Control, (1985).
(28)
• Tribes may want to obtain a copy of A Primer
on the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
and Its Programs, (1989) (30) and the Permit
Writers Guide to Water Quality-based Toxics
Control. (29)
® Guidance on the relationship between nonpoint
source controls and water quality standards is in
Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality
Standards, (1987). (9)
•	Tribes also may want to obtain a copy of the
Nonpoint Source Guidance, (1987). (27)
•	For more information on the WLA/LA/TMDL
process, NPDES permits, and nonpoint source
control programs please contact your Regional
Water Quality Standards Coordinator who can
put you in touch with the WLA/LA/TMDL,
permits, and nonpoint source contact persons in
your Region.
Nil. Implementation of \\ atcr Qudlil> Standards
17
-------
VIII. Review and Revision of Existing Water Quality
Standards
Water quality standards arc continually reviewed
and revised, if necessary. Tribal review and revision
of water quality standards follows the same statutory
and regulatory requirements as State review and re-
vision.
A. Requirements
1. - Thrcc-ycar Review Requirement and Public
Participation
The CWA requires that a Tribe, from time-to-
time, but at least once every three years, shall hold
public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applica-
ble water quality standards. These public hearings are
held, as were public hearings held on the initial
adoption of a Tribe's water quality standards, in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Tribal law, EPA's
Water Quality Management Regulation (40 CFR
130.3(b)(6)), and EPA's Public Participation Regu-
lation (40 CFR Part 25). Prior to the hearing, the
proposed revisions to the water quality standards and
analyses supporting the revisions must be made
available to the public.
2. Review and Upgrading Requirement
A part of the review and revision process involves
a mandatory review and upgrading requirement.
Water body segments with water quality standards
that do not include the uses specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the CWA (i.e. the protection and propa-
gation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and/or recreation
in and on the water) must be re-examined every three
years to determine if any new information, technol-
ogy, etc. has become available that would warrant
adding these uses. If new information indicates that
the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA are
attainable, the Tribe must revise its standards accord-
ingly. In addition, where existing water quality
standards specify designated uses less than those
presently being attained, a Tribe must revise its
standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.
Also, if the Tribe has granted a variance to a water
quality standard, the Tribe must review the appropri-
ateness of the variance and determine if a new vari-
ance should be issued.
3. In-dcpth Review of Specific Water Bodies
EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
each Tribe to establish its own procedures for select-
ing specific water bodies for an in-depth review. A
review could include an examination of the uses, ex-
isting water quality criteria, and the need for revised
or additional criteria on segments where the standards
are not projected to be attained with the technology-
based requirements of the CWA. Tribes also may
want to consider areas where major water quality-
based permits are scheduled for issuance or renewal
or areas where toxic pollutants have been identified
or are suspected of preventing the attainment of the
standards.
During the water quality standards review, if a
Tribe determines that a designated use has not been
attained, it can take several courses of action. A Tribe
may impose more stringent treatment requirements
on dischargers. In addition, a Tribe may establish
sub-categories of a use or a seasonal use in order to
retain the use. Only if the Tribe can demonstrate that
attaining the designated use is not feasible due to one
or more of six conditions listed in 40 CFR 131.10(g)
of EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation, may
the Tribe remove the designated but not attained use.
Tribes may not remove designated uses if they are
existing uses or if such uses will be attained by im-
plementing required technology-based effluent limits
and cost-effective best management practices for
nonpoint source control.
4. Other
In each three year water quality standards review
cycle, the Tribe should review the general provisions
of the standards to see if new statutes, regulations,
guidance, or legal decisions affecting standards have
been adequately taken into consideration.
\ HI. Roicvv and Revision of Existing Water Qualit} Standard*
13
-------
RKKKRK.NCLS
•	Detailed information on the requirements for re-
view and revision of water quality standards is in
EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
CFR 131.20). A discussion of these require-
ments are in the preamble of this regulation (48
FR 51403 - 51404, November 8, 1983). (1)
•	Guidance on the standards rewew and revision
process, including anaKses used in reviewing
standards on water quahts limited segments, is in
Chapter 1 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook, (1983). (6)
•	Guidance on the role and requirements of public
participation is in Chapter 2 of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, (1983). (6)
•	Detailed information on the requirements for
hearings and public participation is in EPA's
Water Qualit> Management Regulation (40 (.'I R
130.3(b)(6)) and EPA's Public Participation
Regulation (40 CFR Part 25).
•	Detailed information on the allowable conditions
for removing a designated use is in EPA's Water
Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(g)
and 131.10(h)). (I)
•	Chapter 2 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook, (1983), contains guidance on deter-
mining substantial and widespread economic and
social impact, one of the six conditions allowing
for the removal of a designated use. (6)
C. Submittal to EPA
Tribes submit to EPA the revisions in their water
quality standards and the analyses supporting the re-
visions as they did their initial water quality standards.
\ 111. Roicvv and Rcwsion of Existing Watei Qualit) Standards
19
-------
Appendix C. Map of Geographical Boundaries for EPA
Regional Offices
Regions
Regions
Regions
4 — Alabama
1 —Maine
3 — Pennsylvania
10 — Alaska
3 — Maryland
1 — Rhode Island
9 — Arizona
1 —Massachusetts
4 — South Carolina
6 — Arkansas
5 — Michigan
8 —South Oakota
9 — California
5 — Minnesota
4 — Tennessee
8 — Colorado
4 — Mississippi
6 — Texas
l —Connecticut
7 —Missouri
8 — Utah
3 — Oelaware
3 — Montana
1 —Vermont
3 — D.C.
7 — Nebraska
3 — Virginia
4 — Florida
9 — Nevada
10 —Washington
4 — Georgia
1 — New Hampshire
3 —West Virginia
9 — Hawaii
2 — New Jersey
5 — Wisconsin
10 — Idaho
6 — New
8 — Wyoming
5 —Illinois
2 — New York
9 — American Samoa
5 — lndi?na
4 — North Carolina
9 — Guam
7 — Iowa
8 — North Oakota
2 — Puerto Rico
7 — Kansas
5 —Ohio
2 — Virgin Islands
4 — Kentucky
6 — Oklahoma
6 — Louisiana
10 —Oregon

C-l
Appendix C. Map of Geographical Boundaries for EPA Regional Offices
-------
Appendix D. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act
SEC. 518. INDIAN TRIBES.
(a)	Policy.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
the application of section 101(g) of this Act, and all of the provi-
sions of this section shall be carried out in accordance with the pro-
visions of such section 101(g). Indian tribes shall be treated as
States for purposes of such section 101(g).
(b)	Assessment of Sewage Treatment Needs; Report.—The
Administrator, in cooperation with the Director of the Indian
Health Service, shall assess the need for sewage treatment works to
serve Indian tribes, the degree to which such needs will be met
through funds allotted to States under section 205 of this Act and
priority lists under section 216 of this Act, and any obstacles which
prevent such needs from being met. Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
submit a report to Congress on the assessment under this subsection,
along with recommendations specifying (1) how the Administrator
intends to provide assistance to Indian tribes to develop waste treat-
ment management plans and to construct treatment works under
this Act, and (2) methods by which the participation in and admin-
istration of programs under this Act by Indian tribes can be maxi-
mized.
(c)	Reservation of Funds.—The Administrator shall reserve
each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1986, before allot-
ments to the States under section 205(e), one-half of one percent of
the sums appropriated under section 207. Sums reserved under this
subsection shall be available only for grants for the development of
waste treatment management plans and for the construction of
sewage treatment works to serve Indian tribes.
(d)	Cooperative Agreements.—In order to ensure the consistent
implementation of the requirements of this Act, an Indian tribe and
the State or States in which the lands of such tribe are located may
enter into a cooperative agreement, subject to the review and approv-
al of the Administrator, to jointly plan and administer the require-
ments of this Act.
Appendix 0. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act
-------
(e)	Treatment as States. — The Administrator is authorized to
treat an Indian tribe as a State for purposes of title II and sections
104, 106, 303, 305, 308, 309, 31b, 319, 401. 402, and 404 of this Act to
the degree necessary to carry out the objectives of this section, but
only if—
(1)	the Indian tribe has a governing body carrying out sub-
stantial governmental duties and powers;
(2)	the functions to be exercised by the Indian tribe pertain to
the management and protection of water resources which are
held by an Indian tribe, held by the United States in trust for
Indians, held by a member of an Indian tribe if such property
interest is subject to a trust restriction on alienation, or other-
wise within the borders of an Indian reservation; and
(3)	the Indian tribe is reasonably'expected to be capable, in
the Administrator's judgment, of carrying out the functions to
be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and pur-
poses of this Act and of all applicable regulations.
Such treatment as a State may include the direct provision of funds
reserved under subsection (c) to the governing bodies of Indian
tribes, and the determination of priorities by Indian tribes, where
not determined by the Administrator in cooperation with the Direc-
tor of the Indian Health Service. The Administrator, in cooperation
with the Director of the Indian Health Service, is authorized to
make grants under title II of this Act in an amount not to exceed
100 percent of the cost of a project. Not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator shall,
in consultation with Indian tribes, promulgate final regulations
which specify how Indian tribes shall be treated as States for pur-
poses of this Act. The Administrator shall, in promulgating such
regulations, consult affected States sharing common water bodies
and provide a mechanism for the resolution of any unreasonable
consequences that may arise as a result of differing water quality
standards that may be set by States and Indian tribes located on
common bodies of water. Such mechanism shall provide for explicit
consideration of relevant factors including, but not limited to, the
effects of differing water quality permit requirements on upstream
and downstream dischargers, economic impacts, and present and
historical uses and quality of the waters subject to such standards.
Such mechanism should provide for the avoidance of such unrea-
sonable consequences in a manner consistent with the objective of
this Act.
(f)	Grants for Nonpojnt Source Programs.—The Administra-
tor shall make grants to an Indian tribe under section J19 of this
Act as though such tribe was a State. Not more than one-third of
one percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year under
section 319 may be used to make grants under this subsection. In
addition to the requirements of section 319. an Indian tribe shall be
required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2). and (3) of
subsection (d) of this section in order to receive such a grant.
-------
(g)	Alaska Native Organizations.—No provision of this Act
shall be construed, to—
(1)	grant, enlarge, or diminish, or in any way affect the scope
of the governmental authority, if any, of any Alaska Native or-
ganization, including any federally-recognized tribe, traditional
Alaska Native council, or Native council organized pursuant to
the Act of June 18, 193k (k8 Stat. 987), over lands or persons in
Alaska;
(2)	create or validate any assertion by such organization or
any form of governmental authority over lands or persons in
Alaska; or
(3)	in any way affect any assertion that Indian country, as de-
fined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, exists or
does not exist in Alaska.
(h)	Definitions.—For purposes of this section, the term—
(1)	"Federal Indian reservation" means all land within the
limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any
patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reser-
vation; and
(2)	"Indian tribe" means any Indian tribe, band, group, or
community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exer-
cising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reserva-
tion.
D-3
-------
73
«
{?
3
B
ft
ft
-------
United States	Office of	December 1989
Environmental Protection	Communications And	19K-1002
Agency	Public Affairs IA-107)
Glossary Of
Environmental Terms
And Acronym List
Prinud «t Rtcycltd Paptr
-------
Introduction
This glossary of environmental and acronym list replaces "Common Environmental Terms,"
published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1974 and revised in 1978 It is designed to
give the user an explanation of the more commonly used environmental terms appearing in
EPA publications, news releases and other Agency documents available to the general public,
students, the news media, and Agency employees. The terms and definitions in this
publication were selected to give the user a general sense of what a term or phrase means in
relatively non-technical language, although it was obviously necessary to use some scientific
terminology.
The terms selected for inclusion came from previously published lists, internal glossaries
produced by various programs, and specific suggestions made bv many Agency programs and
offices. The chemicals and pesticides selected for inclusion were those most frequently referred
to in Agency publications or which are the subject of major EPA regulator/ or program
activities.
Definitions or information about substances or program activities not included in this
glossary may be found in EPA libraries or scientific/technical reference documents or mav be
obtained from the various program offices.
The definitions do not constitute the Agency's official use of terms and phrases for regulators
purposes. Nothing in this document should be construed to in any way alter or supplant anv
other federal document. Official terminology may be found in the laws and related regulations
as published in such sources as the Congressional Record and the Federal Register.
Users with suggestions for future editions should write to the Publications Division, Office of
Communications and Public Affairs, A-107, USEPA, Washington DC, 20460.
-------
A
Abatement: Reducing the degree or intensity of. or eliminating, pollution
Abandoned Well: A well whose use has been permanently discontinued or
which is in a state of disrepair such that it cannot be used tor its intended
purpose
\BEL: EPA'5 computer model tor analyzing a violator's ability to pay a civil
penalty
Absorption: The passage ot one substance into or through another, e g , an
operation in which one or more soluble components of a gas mixture are
dissolved in a iiquid
Accelerator: In radiation science, a device that speeds up charged particles
such as electrons or protons
Accident Site The location ot an unexpected occurrence, failure or loss, either
at a plant or along a transportation route, resulting in a release of hazardous
materials
Acclimatization: The physiological and behavioral ad|ustments of an organ-
ism to changes in its environment.
Acetylcholine A substance in the human body having important
neurotransmitter effects on various internal systems: otten used as a broncho-
constnctor
Acid Deposition: A complex chemical and atmospheric phenomenon that
occurs when emissions ot sulfur and nitrogen compounds and other sub-
stances are transformed bv chemical processes in the atmosphere, often far
from the original sources, and then deposited on earth in either a wet or dry
torm The wet forms, popularly called "acid rain," can fall as rain, snow, or
tog. The drv forms are acidic gases or pamculates
Acid Rain: (See acid deposition)
Action Levels: 1 Regulatorv levels recommended by EPA for enforcement by
FDA and USDA when pestiode residues occur in food or feed commodities for
reasons other than the direct application of the pesficide As opposed to
"tolerances" which are established for residues occurring as a direct result ot
proper usage, action levels are set for inadvertent residues resulting from
previous legal use or accidental contamination. 2. In the Supertund program,
the existence of a contaminant concentration in the environment high enough
to warrant action or trigger a response under SARA and the Nanonal Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan The term can be used similarly in
other regulatory programs. (See: tolerances.)
Activated Carbon: A highly adsorbent form of carbon used to remove odors
and toxic substances trom liquid or gaseous emissions. In waste treatment it is
used to remove dissolved organic matter from wastewater It is also used in
motor vehicle evaporative control systems
Activated Sludge: Sludge that results when pnmary effluent is mixed with
bactena-laden sludge and then agitated and aerated to promote biological
treatment. This speeds breakdown of organic matter in raw sewage undergo-
ing secondary waste treatment.
Active Ingredient: In any pesticide product, the component which kills, or
otherwise controls, target pests. Pesticides are regulated primarily on the basis
ot active ingredients.
Acute Exposure: A single exposure to a toxic substance which results in severe
biological harm or death. Acute exposures are usually characterized as lasting
no longer than a day.
Acute Toxicity: The ability of a substance to cause poisonous effects resulting
in severe biological harm or death soon after a single exposure or dose. Also,
any severe poisonous effect resulting from a single short-term exposure to a
toxic substance (See: chronic toxicity, toxicity.)
Adaptation: Changes in an organism's structure or habit that help it ad|ust to
its surroundings
Add-on Control Device: An air pollution control device such as carbon adsor-
ber or incinerator which reduces the pollunon in an exhaust gas. The control
device usually does not affect the process being continued and thus is "add-
on" technology as opposed to a scheme to contro' Koilu-- on through making
?ome alteration to the basic process
Adhesion: Molecular attraction which holds the surfaces of two substances in
contact
Administrative Order A legal document signed by EPA directing an in-
dividual, business, or other entity to take corrective action or refrain from an
jLtivity. It describes the violations and actions to be taken, and can be enforced
n court Such orders may be issued, for example, as a result of an administra-
te complaint whereby the respondent is ordered to pay a penalty for viola-
.ions ot a statute
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal agreement signed by EPA and an
individual, business, or other ennty through which the violator agrees to pav
for correction of violations, take the required coiTecnve or clean-up acnons. or
refrain from an activity It describes the actions to be taken, mav be sub|ect to a
comment penod, applies to civil actions, and can be enforced in court.
Administrative Procedures Act: A law that spells out procedures and require-
ments related to the promulganon of regulations
Adsorption: 1 Adhesion ot molecules ot gas. liquid, or dissolved solids to a
surface 2 An advanced method ot treating wastes in which activated carbon
removes organic matter trom wastewater
Adulterants: Chemical impurities or substances thatbv law do not belong in a
food, or in a pesticide
Advanced Wastewater Treatment: Any treatment of sewage that goes bevond
the secondary or biological water treatment stage and includes the removal ot
nutnents such as phosphorus and nitrogen and a high percentage of sus-
pended solids. (See. pnmary, secondary treatment )
Advisory: A non-regulatory document that communicates nsk information to
persons who may have to make nsk management decisions
Aeration: A process which promotes biological degradation ot organic water
The process may be passive (as when waste is exposed to jin. or active us
when a mixing or bubbling device introduces the air)
Aeration Tank: A chamber used to iniect air into water
Aerobic: Life or processes that require, or are not destroved bv the presence ot
oxvgen (See* anaerobic )
Aerobic Treatment: Process by which microbes decompose complex organic
compounds in the presence of oxvgen and use the liberated energy tor
reproduction and growth Types ot aerobic processes include extended aera-
tion, trickling filtration, and rotating biological contactors
Aerosol: A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Afterburner In incinerator technology, a burner located so that the combus-
tion gases are made to pass through its flame in order to remove smoke and
odors. It may be attached to or be separated trom the incinerator proper
Agent Orange: A toxic herbicide and defoliant which was used in the Vietnam
conflict. It contains 2,4,5-tnchlorophenoxyacitic acid (2,4,5-Ti and 2-4 di-
chlorophenoxvacetic acid (2,4-D) with trace amounts ot dioxin
Agglomeration: The process by which precipitation particles grow larger bv
collision or contact with cloud particles or other precipitation particles
Agglutination: The process of uniting solid particles coated with a thin laverof
adhesive material or of arresting solid particles by impact on a surface coated
with an adhesive.
Agricultural Pollution: The liquid and solid wastes from farming, including:
runoff and leaching of pesticides and fertilizers, erosion and dust from plo-
wing; arumal manure and carcasses; and crop residues and debns
Airborne Particulates: Total suspended particulate matter found in the atmos-
phere as solid particles or liquid droplets. Chemical composition ot particu-
lates vanes widely, depending on location and nme ot v ear Airborne particu-
lates include, windblown dust, emissions from industrial processes, smoke
from the burning of wood and coal, and the exhaust of motor vehicles.
Airborne Release: Release of anv chemical into the air
Air Changes Per Hour (ACH): The movement of a volume of air in a given
period of time; if a house has one air change per hour, it means that all ot the air
in the house will be replaced in a one-hour penod.
Air Contaminant: Any particulate matter, gas, or combination thereof, other
than water vapor or natural air. (See. air pollutant.)
Air Curtain: A method of containing oil spills. Air bubbling through a per-
forated pipe causes an upward water fl(*v that slows the spread ot oil It can
also be used to stop tish from entering polluted water
Air Mass: A widespread bodv of air that gains certain meteorological or
polluted characteristics—e g., a heat inversion or smogginess—while set in
one location The characteristics can change as it moves away
Air Monitoring; (See: monitoring.)
Air Pollutant: Any substance in air which could, if in high enough concentra-
tion, harm man, other animals, vegetation, or material Pollutants mav in-
clude almost any natural or artificial composinon ot matter capable ot being
airborne Thev may be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or
in combinations of these forms Generally, thev fall into two main groups 11)
those emitted directly from identifiable sources and 12) those produced in the
air by interacnon between two or more pnmarv pollutants, or bv reacnon with
normal atmospheric consntuents. with or without photoactiv ation Exclusive
of pollen, fog, and dust, which are of natural ongin, about 100 contaminants
-------
have been identified and fall into the following categories solids, sulfur
compounds, volatile organic chemicals, nitrogen compounds, oxygen com-
pounds, halogen compounds, radioacnve compounds, and odors
Air Pollution: The presence of contaminant or pollutant substances in the air
that do not disperse properly and interfere with human health or welfare, or
produce other harmful environmental effects
Air Pollution Episode: A penod of abnormally high concentration of air
pollutants, often due to low winds and temperature inversion, that can cause
illness and death, (See episode, pollution.)
Air Quality Control Region: An area—designated by the federal
government—in which communities share a common air pollution problem
Sometimes several states are involved
Air Quality Criteria: The levels of pollution and lengths of exposure above
which adverse health and welfare effects mav occur.
Air Quality Standards: The level of pollutants prescribed by regulations that
may not be exceeded during a specified time in a defined area
Alachlor A herbicide, marketed under the trade name Lasso, used mainly to
control weeds m corn and sovbean fields
AJar: Trade name for daminozide, a pesticide that makes apples redder,
firmer, and less likely to drop off trees before growers are readv to pick them It
is also used to a lesser extent on peanuts, tart cherries, concord grapes, and
other fruits
Aldicarb: An insecncide sold under the trade name Temik It is made from
ethyl isocyanate
Algae: Simple rootless plants that grow in sunlit waters in relanve proportion
to the amounts of nutrients available They can affect water quality adverselv
by lowering the dissolved oxygen in the water They are food for fish and small
aquatic animals.
Algal Blooms: Sudden spurts of algal growth, which can affect water quality
adversely and indicate potennallv hazardous changes in local water cherrus-
try.
Alpha Particle: A positively charged particle composed of 2 neutrons and 2
protons released by some atoms undergoing radioactive decay The particle is
identical to the nucleus of a helium atom.
Alternate Method: Any method of sampling and analyzing for an air pollutant
which is not a reference or equivalent method but which has been demon-
strated in specific cases to EPA's satisfaction to produce results adequate for
compliance
Ambient Air: Any unconhned portion of the atmosphere' open air, surround-
ing air
Ambient Air Quality Standards: (See Cntena Pollutants and National
Ambient Air Quality Standards)
Anadromous: Fish that spend their adult life in the sea but swim upnver to
tresh-water spawning grounds to reproduce
Anaerobic: A life or process that occurs in. or is not destroyed by, the absence
of ox\gen
Antagonism: The interaction of two chemicals having an opposing, or
neutralizing effect on each other, or—given some specific biological effect—a
chemical interaction that appears to have an opposing or neutralizing effect
over what might otherwise be expected
Antarctic "Ozone Hole": Refers to the seasonal depletion of ozone in a large
area over Antarctica
Antibodies: Proteins produced in the bodv by immune svstem cells in re-
sponse to antigens, and capable of combining with antigens.
Anti-Degradation Clause: Part of federal air quality and water quality require-
ments prohibiting deterioration where pollution levels are above the legal
limit
Antigen: A substance that causes production of antibodies when introduced
into animal or human tissue
Aquifer. An underground geological ft - or group of formations, con-
taining usable amounts of ground water that can supply wells and springs
Arbitration: A process for the resolution of disputes Decisions are made by an
impartial arbitrator selected by the parties. These decisions are usually legally
binding. (See. mediation )
Area of Review: In the UIC program, the area surrounding an injection well
that is reviewed during the permitting process to determine whether the
injection operation will induce flow between aquifers
Area Source: Any small source of non-natural air pollution that is released
over a relatively small area but which cannot be classified as a point source
Such sources mav include vehicles and other small fuel combustion engines
Asbestosis: A disease associated with chronic exposure to and inhalation of
asbestos fibers The disease makes breathing progressi\ ei\ more dmicuit and
can lead to death
Asbestos: A mineral fiber that can pollute air or water and cause cancer or
asbestosis when inhaled EPA has banned or severely restncted its use in
manufacturing and construction
Ash: The mineral content of a product remaining alter complete combustion
A-Scale Sound Level: A measurement of sound approximating the sensim it\
of the human ear, used to note the intensity or annoyance ot sounds
Assimilation: The ability of a body of water to punh itselt ot pollutants
Atmosphere (in): A standard unit of pressure represennng the pressure
exerted by a 29.92-inch column of mercury at sea level at -45' lantude and equal
to 1000 grams per square centimeter
Atmopshere (the): The whole mass of air surrounding the earth, composed
largely of oxygen and nitrogen.
Atomize: To divide a liquid into extremely minute particles either b\ impact
with a jet of steam or compressed air, or by passage through some mechanical
device.
Attainment Area: An area considered to have air quality as good as or better
than the nahonal ambient air quality' standards as denned in the Clean Air Act
An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non-attainment area
for others
Attenuation: The process by which a compound is reduced in concentration
over time, through adsorption, degradation, dilunon. and or transformation
Attractant: A chemical or agent that lures insects or other pests by stimulating
their sense of smell
Attrition: Wearing or grinding down of a substance bv tncnon. A contributing
factor in air pollunon, as with dust
Autotrophic: An organism that produces food from inorganic substances
B
Background Level: In air pollution control, the concentration ot air pollutants
in a definite area during a fixed penod of time prior to the starting up or on the
stoppage of a source of emission under control. In toxic substances monitor-
ing, the average presence in the environment, originally referring to naturally
occurring phenomena.
BACT—Best Available Control Technology: An emission limitation based on
the maximum degree of emission reduction which (considering energy, en-
vironmental, and economic impacts, and other costs) is achievable through
application of production processes and available methods, systems, and
techniques In no event does BACT permit emissions in excess of those
allowed under anv applicable Clean Air Act provisions Use ot the BACT
concept is allowable on a case by case basis for major new or modified
emissions sources in attainment areas and applies to each regulated pollutant
Bacteria: (Singular: bacterium) Microscopic living organisms which can aid in
pollution control by consuming or breaking down organic matter in sewage or
by similarly acnng on oil spills or other water pollutants Bactena in soil, water
or air can also cause human, animal and plant health problems.
Baffle Chamber: In incinerator design, a chamber designed to promote the
settling of fly ash and coarse particulate matter bs changing the direcnon
and/or reducing the velocity ot the gases produced b\ the cumbustion ot the
refuse or sludge.
Baghouse Filter Large fabric bag, usuallv made ot glass fibers used to
eliminate intermediate and large (greater than 20 microns in diameterl parti-
cles This device operates in a wav similar to the baij ol an electric \acuum
cleaner, passing the air and smaller parnculate matter, while entrapping the
larger particulates.
Baling: Compacting solid waste into blocks tu reduce volume and simplify
handling
Ballistic Separator: A machine that sorts organic from inorganic matter tor
composting.
Band Application: In pesncides, the spreading ot chemicals o\er. or next to,
each row of plants in a field
Banking: A svstem for recording qualified air emission reductions tor later use
in bubble, offset, or netting transactions (See emissions trading j
Bar Screen: In wastewater treatment, a device used to remo\e large solids
2
-------
Barrier Coatmg(s): A laver ot a material that acts to obstruct or prevent passage
ot something through a surface that is to be protected, e g grout, caulk, or
various sealing compounds, sometimes used mth polvurethane membranes
to prevent corrosion or oxidation ot metal surfaces, chemical impacts on
various materials, or, tor example, to prevent soil-gas-borne radon from
moving through walls, cracks, or joints in a house
Basal Application: In pesticides, the application ot a chemical on plant stems
or tree trunks |ust above the =oil line
BEN: EP V 3 computer model for analyzing a viola tor's economic gain trom not
complying with the law
Benthic Organism (Benthos): A form ot aquatic plant or animal lite that is
tound on or near the bottom ot a stream, lake or ocean
Benthic Region: The bottom laver ot a bodv ot water
Beryllium: An airborne metal that can be hazardous to human health when
inhaled It is discharged bv machine shops, ceramic and propellant plants, and
foundries
Beta Particle: An elementarv particle emitted bv radioactive decav, that may
cause skin burns. It is halted by a thin sheet of paper
Bioaccumulative: Substances that increase in concentration in living organ-
isms (that are verv slowlv metabolized or eicreted) as they breathe con-
taminated air. drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food (See.
biological magnification )
Bioassay: Using living organisms to measure the ettect ot a substance, tactor.
or condition bv comparing before-and-after data Term is often used to mean
cancer bioassavs.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): A measure of the amount of oxvgen
consumed in the biological processes that break down organic matter in water
The greater the BOD, the greater the degree of pollution
Biodegradable: The abilitv to break down or decompose rapidly under natural
conditions and processes.
Biological Control: In pest control, the use ot animals and organisms that eat
or otherwise kill or out-compete pests
Biological Magnification: Refers to the process whereby certain substances
such as pesticides or heavy metals move up the food chain, work their way
into a nver or lake, and are eaten by aquatic organisms such as fish which in
turn are eaten by large birds, animals, or humans. The substances become
concentrated;in tissues or internal organs as they move up the chain. (See:
bioaccumulative.)
Biological Oxidation: The way bacteria and microorganisms feed on and
decompose complex organic materials. Used in seif-punfication of water
bodies and in activated sludge wastewater treatment.
Biological Treatment: A treatment technology that uses bacteria to consume
waste This treatment breaks down organic materials
Biomass: All of the living material in a given area, often refers to vegetation.
Also called "biota",
Biomonitonng: 1 The use of living organisms to test the suitability of effluents
tor discharge into receiving waters and to test the quality of such waters
downstream trom the discharge 2 Analysis ot blood, urine, tissues, etc., to
measure chemical exposure in humans
Biosphere: The portion ot Earth and its atmosphere that can support life.
Biostabilizer: A machine that converts solid waste into compost by grinding
and aeranon.
Biota: (See biomass.)
Biotechnology: Techniques that use living organisms or parts of organisms to
produce a variety ot products (from medicines to industnal enzymes) to
improve plants or animals or to develop microorganisms for specific uses such
as removing toxics from bodies of water, or as pesticides.
Biotic Community: A naturally occurnng assemblage of plants and animals
that live in the same environment and are mutually sustaining and inter-
'^-¦endent.
° .jck Lung: A disease of the lungs caused bv habitual inhalation of coal dust.
Blackwater Water that contains animal, human, or food wastes.
Bloom: A proliferation of algae and/or higher aquatic plants in a bodv of water;
orten related to pollution, especially when pollutants accelerate growth.
BOD5: The amount of dissolved oxygen consumed in hve days by biological
processes breaking down organic matter
Bog: A type of wetland that accumulates appreciable peat deposits. Bogs
depend primarily on precipitation tor their water source, are usually acidic and
nch in plant residue with a conspicuous mat ot living green moss
Boom: 1. A floating device used to contain oil on a bodv ot water I ^Dieceot
equipment used to apply pesticides from ground equipment such as a tractor
or truck (See: sonic boom )
Botanical Pesticide: A pesticide whose active ingredient is a plant produced
chemical such as niconne or strvchnine
Bottle Bill: Proposed or enacted legislation which requires a returnable
deposit on beer or soda containers and provides for retail store or other
redemption centers Such legislation is designed to discourage use ot throw-
awav containers
Bottom Land Hardwoods: Forested fresh-water wetlands ad|acent to nv ers in
the southeastern United States They are especially valuable for wildlife breed-
ing and nesting and habitat areas.
Brackish Water A mixture of fresh and salt water
Broadcast Application: In pesticides, the spreading ot chemicals over an entire
area
Bubble: A system under which existing emissions sources can propose alter-
nate means to comply with a set of emissions limitations under the bubble
concept, sources can control more than required at one emission point w here
control costs are relatively low in return for a comparable relaxation ot controls
at a second emission point where costs are higher
Bubble Policy: (See: emissions trading )
Buffer Strips: Strips of grass or other erosion-resisting vegetation between or
below cultivated stnps or fields
Bunal Ground (Graveyard): A disposal site tor radioactive waste materials
that uses earth or water as a shield
By-product: Material, other than the principal product, that is generated as a
consequence of an industnal process
c
Cadmium (Cd): A heavy metal element that accumulates in the environment.
Cancellation: Refers to Section 6 (b) ot the the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide
and Rodenncide Act (F1FRA) which authorizes cancellation ot a pesticide
registration if unreasonable adverse effects to the environment and public
health develop when a product is used according to widespread and com-
monly recognized practice, or if its labeling or other material required to be
submitted does not comply with FIFRA provisions
Cap: A layer of clay or other highly impermeable materal in?:ailed over the
top of a closed landfill to prevent entrv ot rainwater and minimize producnon
of leachate
Capture Efficiency: The fraction of all organic vapors generated bv a process
that is directed to an abatement or recovery device.
Carbon Adsorber An add-on control device which uses activated carbon to
absorb volatile organic compounds from a gas stream The VOCs are later
recovered from the carbon.
Carbon Dioxide (C02): A colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas. which
results trom fossii fuel combusnon and is normally a part ot the ambient air
Carbon Monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced bv
incomplete fossil fuel combustion.
Carboxyhemoglobin: Hemoglobin in which the iron is associated with carbon
monoxide (CO). The affinity ot hemoglobin for CO is about 300 times greater
than for oxygen.
Carcinogen: Any substance that can cause or contribute to the producnon of
cancer.
Carcinogenic: Cancer-producing.
Carrying Capacity: 1 In recreation management, the amount ot use a recrea-
tion area can sustain without detenorahonof its quality 1 In w ildlire manage-
ment, the maximum number of animals an area can support during a given
period of the year.
Cask: A thick-walled container (usually lead) used to transport radioactiv#
material. Also called a coffin.
Catanadramous: Fish that swim downstream to spawn
Catalytic Converter. An air pollution abatement device that removes pollut-
ants from motor vehicle exhaust, either by oxidizing them into carbon dioxide
and water or reducing them to nitrogen and oxygen
Catalytic Incinerator A control device which oxidizes volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs) bv using a catalyst to promote the vomcustiun process
Catalvnc incinerators require lower temperatures than conventional thermal
incinerators, with resultant fuel and cost savings
3
-------
Categorical Exclusion: A class of actions which either individually or cumula-
tively would not have a significant effect on the human environment and
therefore would not require preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
Categorical Pretreatment Standard: A technology-based effluent limitation for
an industrial facilitv which discharges into a municipal sewer system An-
alogous in stringency to Best Availability Technology (BAT) for direct dis-
chargers
Cathodic Protection: A technique to prevent corrosion of a metal surface by
making that surface the cathode of an electrochemical cell.
Caustic Soda: Sodium hvdroxide, a strong alkaline substance used as the
cleaning agent in some detergents.
CBOD5: The amount of dissolved oxygen consumed in 5 days from the
C»rbonaceous portion of biological processes breaking down in an effluent
The test methodology is the same as for BOD5, except that nitrogen demand is
mppressed
Ctllc 1 In solid waste disposal, holes where waste is dumped, compacted,
ind covered with layers of dirt on a daily basis 2. The smallest structural part
of living matter capable of functioning as an independent unit.
Centrifugal Collector: A mechanical svstem using centrifugal force to remove
aerosols from a gas stream or to de-water sludge.
Cesium (Cs): A silver-white, soft ductile element of the alkali metal group that
is the most electropositive element known Used especially in photoelectric
cells
Channelization: Straightening and deepening streams so water will move
faster, a flood-reduction or marsh-drainage tactic that can interfere with waste
assimilation capacit\ and disturb fish and wildlife habitats
Characteristic: Any one of the four categories used in denning hazardous
waste ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): A measure of the oxygen required to
oxidize all compounds in water, both organic and inorganic
Chemical Treatment: Any one of a variety of technologies that use chemicals
or a variety of chemical processes to treat waste
Chemostenlant: A chemical that controls pests by preventing reproduction
Chilling Effect: The lowering of the Earth's temperature because of increased
particles in the air blocking the sun's rays. (See greenhouse effect )
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: These include a class of persistent, broad-
spectrum insecticides that linger m the environment and accumulate in the
food chain Among them are DDT, aldnn, dieldnn, heptachlor, chlordane,
lindane, endnn, mirex, hexachlonde, and toxaphene Other examples include
TCE, used as an industrial solvent
Chlorinated Solvent: An organic solvent containing chlorine atoms, e g ,
methylene chloride and 1,1,1-tnchloromethane which is used in aerosol spray
containers and in traffic paint
Chlorination: The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage, or in-
dustrial waste to disinfect or to oxidize undesirable compounds
Chlonnator: A device that adds chlorine, in gas or liquid form, to water or
sewage to kill infectious bacteria
Chlorine-Contact Chamber: That part of a water treatment plant where
effluent is disinfected by chlonne
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): A family of inert, nontoxic, and easilv liquified
chemicals used in refngeranon, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, or as
solvents and aerosol propellants Because CFCs are not destroyed in the lower
atmosphere they drift into the upper atmosphere where their chlorine com-
ponents destroy ozone
Chlorosis: Discoloration of normally green plant parts, that can be caused bv
disease, lack of nutrients, or various air pollutants
Chromium: (See heavy metals )
Chronic Toxicity: The capacity of a substance to cause long-term poisonous
human health effects (See acute toxicity )
Clarification: Clearing action that occurs during wastewater treatment when
solids settle out This is often aided bv centrifugal acnon and chemically
induced coagulanon in wastewater
Clanfier: A tank in which solids are settled to the bottom and are subsequently
removed as sludge
Cleanup: Actions taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a
hazardous substance that could affect humans and/or the environment The
term "cleanup" is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal acnon, response action, or corrective action
Clear Cut: A forest management technique that involves harvesting all the
trees m one area at one time. Under certain soil and slope conditions it can
contribute sediment to water pollution
Coning: In biotechnology, obtaining a group of geneticallv identical cells trom
a single cell This term has assumed a more general meaning that includes
making copies of a gene.
Closed-Loop Recycling: Reclaiming or reusing wastewater tor non-potable
purposes in an enclosed process
Coagulation: A clumping of particles in wastewater to settle out impurities It
is often induced by chemicals such as lime, alum, and iron salts
Coastal Zone: Lands and waters adjacent to the coast that exert an influence on
the uses of the sea and its ecology, or, inversely. whose uses and ecolonv are
affected by the sea.
Coefficient of Haze (COH): A measurement ot visibility interference m the
atmosphere
Coliform Index: A rating of the puntv ot water based on a count ot tecai
bacteria.
Coliform Organism: Microorganisms found in the intestinal tract ot humans
and animals. Thetr presence in water indicates fecal pollution and potentially
dangerous bacterial contamination by disease-causing microorganisms
Combined Sewers: A sewer system that carries both sewage and storm-w ater
runoff. Normally, its entire flow goes to a waste treatment plant, but dunng a
heavy storm, the storm water volume mav be so great as to cause overflow s
When this happens untreated mixtures of storm water and sevvaee mas flow
into receiving waters Storm-water runoff mav also earn toxic chemicals trom
industrial areas or streets into the sewer svstem
Combustion: Burning, or rapid oxidanon, accompanied bv release ot energy
in the form of heat and light A basic cause of air pollution
Combustion Product: Substance produced dunng the burning or oxidation of
a material
Command Post: Facility located at a safe distance upwind from an accident
site, where the on-scene coordinator, responders, and technical representa-
tives can make response deosions, deploy manpower and equipment, main-
tain liaison with news media, and handle communications
Comment Period: Time provided for the public to review and comment on a
proposed EPA action or rulemaking after it is published in the Federal Regis-
ter
Comminution: Mechanical shredding or pulvenzing of waste Used in both
solid waste management and wastewater treatment
Comminuten A machine that shreds or pulverizes solids to make waste
treatment easier
Community Relations: The EPA effort to establish two-was communicanon
with the public to create understanding of EPA programs and related actions,
to assure public input into decision-making processes related to attected
communities, and to make certain that the Agency is aware of and responsive
to public concerns. Specific community relations activities are required in
relanon to 5uperfund remedial actions
Community Water System: A public water system which serves at least 15
service connections used by year-round residents or regularlv serv es at least 25
year-round residents.
Compaction: Reduction of the bulk of solid waste bv rolling and tamping
Compliance Coating: A coating whose volatile organic compound content
does not exceed that allowed by regulation
Compliance Schedule: A negotiated agreement between a pollution source
and a government agencv that specifies dates and procedures bv which a
source will reduce emissions and, thereby, complv with a regulation
Compost: A mixture of garbage and degradable trash w ith soil in which certain
bacteria in the soil Weak down the garbage and trash into organic fertilizer
Composting: The natural biological decomposition ot organic material in the
presence of air to form a humus-like matenal Controlled methods ot compost-
ing include mechanical mixing and aerating, ventilating the materials bv
dropping them through a vertical series of aerated chambers or placing the
compost in piles out in the open air and mixing it or turning it periodically
4
-------
Conditional Registration: Under special circumstances, the Federal In-
secticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) permits registration of
pesticide products that is "conditional" upon the submission ot additional
data These special circumstances include a rinding bv the EPA Administrator
that a new product or use of an existing pesticide will not significantly increase
the nsk ot unreasonable adverse effects A product containing a new (pre-
viousiv unregistered) active ingredient may be condmonallv registered onlv if
the Administrator tinds that such conainonal registration is in the public
interest, that a reasonable time for conducnng the additional studies has not
elapsed, and the use ot the pesticide for the period ot condmonal registration
will not present an unreasonable nsk
Confined Aquifer: An aquifer in which ground water is contined under
pressure which is significantly greater than atmospheric pressure
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved by a judge, that formalizes an
agreement reached between EPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
through which PRPs will conduct all or part of a cleanup action at a Superfund
site, cease or correct actions or processes that are polluting the environment; or
otherwise complv with regulations where the PRPs' failure to comply caused
EPA to initiate regulatory enforcement actions. The consent decree describes
the acnons PRPs will take and may be subject to a public comment period.
Conservation: Avoiding waste ot, and renewing when possible, human and
natural resources The protection, improvement, and useot natural resources
according to principles that will assure their highest economic or social bene-
fits
Contact Pesticide: A chemical that kills pests when it touches them, rather
than bv being eaten (stomach poison) Also, soil that contains the minute
skeletons of certain algae that scratches and dehvdrates waxv-coated insects
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or
matter that has an adverse affect on air, water, or soil.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out an organized, planned, and coor-
dinated course of action to be followed in case of a fire, explosion, or other
accident that releases toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioacnve mate-
rials which threaten human health or the environment (See' National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan )
Contract Labs: Laboratories under contract to EPA, which analyze samples
taken from wastes, soil, air, and water or carry out research projects
Contrails: Long, narrow clouds caused when high-flying jet aircraft disturb
the atmosphere
Contour Plowing: Farming methods that break ground following the shape of
the land in a way that discourages erosion
Control Technique Guidelines (CTG): A series ot EPA documents designed
to assist states in denning reasonable available control technology (RACT) tor
major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
Conventional Pollutants: Statutorily listed pollutants which are understood
well bv scientists These may be in the torm of organic waste, sediment, acid,
bacteria and viruses, nutrients, oil and grease, or heat.
Conventional Systems: Systems that have been traditionally used to collect
municipal wastewater in gravity sewers and convey it to a central primary or
secondary treatment plant pnor to discharge to surface waters.
Coolant: A liquid or gas used to reduce the heat generated by power produc-
tion in nuclear reactors, electric generators, various industrial and mechanical
processes, and automobile engines.
Cooling Tower: A structure that helps remove heat from water used as a
coolant, e g , in electric power generating plants.
Core: The uranium-containing heart of a nuclear reactor, where energy is
released
Corrosion: The dissolving and wearing away of metai caused by a chemical
reachon such as between water and the pipes that the water contacts, chem-
icals touching a metal surface, or contact between two metals.
Corrosive: A chemical agent that r°=!cts with the surface of a matenal causing it
to deteriorate or wear away
Cost-Effective Alternative: An alternative control or corrective method identi-
fied after analysis as being the best available in terms of reliability, per-
manence, and economic considerations Although costs are one important
consideration, when regulatory and compliance methods are being con-
sidered, such analysis does not require EPA to choose the least expensive
altemanve For example, when selecting a method for cleaning up a site on the
Superfund National Pnonnes List, the Agency balances costs with the long-
term effectiveness of the vanous methods proposed
Cost Recovery: A ieeal process bv which potentially responsible parr.es who
contributed to contaminanon at a Superfund site can be required to reimburse
the Trust Fund tor money spent during anv cleanup actions b\ the tederai
government
Cover. Vegetation or other matenal providing protection as ground cover
Cover Material: Soil used to cover compacted solid waste in a samtarv landtiil
Crawl Space: In some types of houses, which are constructed so that the tloor
is raised slightlv above the ground, an area beneath the floor which Views
access to utilities and other services This is in contrast to slab-on-g:aae or
basement construction houses
Criteria: Descriptive factors taken into account bv EPA in setnng standards ;or
vanous pollutants These factors are used to determine limits on allowable
concentration levels, and to limit the number ot violations per \ear When
issued by EPA, the criteria provide guidance to the states on how to establish
their standards
Criteria Pollutants: The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA
to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain pollutants known to
be hazardous to human health EPA has identified and set standards to protect
human health and welfare for six pollutants ozone, carbon monoxide total
suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxide The term
"criteria pollutants" derives from the requirement that EPA must describe the
characteristics and potential health and welfare ettects ot these pollutants It is
on the basis of these criteria that standards are set or revised
Cubic Feet Per Minute (CFM): A measure of the volume ot a substance flowing
through air within a fixed period of time. With regard to indoor air. reters to
the amount of air, in cubic feet, that is exchanged with indoor air in a minute s
time, or an air exchange rate
Cultural Eutrophication: Increasing rate at which water bodies die bv pollu-
tion from human activities.
Cumulative Working Level Months (CWLM): The sum ot lifetime exposure to
radon working levels expressed in total working level months
Curie: A quantitative measure of radioactivity equal to 3 7 x 1010 disintegra-
tions per second.
Cutie-Pie: An instrument used to measure radianon levels
Cyclone Collector A device that uses centrifugal force to pull large parncles
from polluted air
D
DDT: The first chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide (chemical name Dichloro-
Diphsdyl-Tnchloromethanej. It has a half-life of 15 vearsand can collect in fatty
tissues of certain animals. EPA banned registration and interstate sale ot DDT
for virtually all but emergency uses in the United States in 197; because of its
persistence in the environment and accumulation in the tood chain
Data Call-In: A part of the Office of Pesncide Programs (OPPl process ot
developing key required test data, especially on the long-term, chronic ettects
of existing pesticides, in advance of scheduled Registration Standard reviews
Data Call-In is an adjunct of the Registration Standards program intended to
expedite reregistranon and involves the "calling in" ot data trom man-
ufacturers
Dechlorination: Removal of chlorine trom a substance bvchemicallv replacing
it with hydrogen or hydroxide ions in order to detoxify the substances in-
volved.
Decibel (dB): A unit of sound measurement In general, a sound doubles in
loudness for every increase of ten decibels.
Decomposition: The breakdown of matter by bacteria and tungi It changes
the chemical makeup and physical appearance of materials
Defoliant: A herbicide that removes leaves from trees and growing plants
Degradation: The process bv which a chemical is reduced to a less complex
form
Delegated State: A state (orother governmental entity) which has applied for
and received authority to administer, within its territory, its state regulatory
program as the federal program required under a particular tederai statute As
used in connection with NPDES. UlC. and PWS programs, the term does not
connote any transfer of federal authonty to a state
Delist: Use of the petition process to have a facility's toxic designanon res-
cinded.
-------
Denitrification: The anaerobic biological reduction of nitrate nitrogen to nit-
rogen gas
Depletion Curve: In hvdraulics, a graphical representation of water depletion
from storage-stream channels, surface soil, and ground water A deplenon
curve can be drawn for base flow, direct runoff, or total flow
Depressurization: A condition that occurs when the air pressure inside a
structure is lower than the air pressure outside. Depressurization can occur
when household appliances that consume or exhaust house air, such as
fireplaces or furnaces, are not supplied with enough makeup air. Radon-
contairung soiJ gas may be drawn into a house more rapidly under de-
pressunzed conditions.
Dermal Toxicity: The ability of a pesticide or toxic chemical to poison people or
animals by contact with the skin. (See- contact pesticide.)
DES: A synthetic estrogen, diethvlstilbestrol is used as a growth shmulant in
food animals Residues in meat are thought to be carcinogenic
Desalinization: Removing salt from ocean or brackish water.
Desiccant: A chemical agent that absorbs moisture; some desiccants are cap-
able of drying out plants or insects, causing death.
Designated Pollutant: An air pollutant which is neither a criteria nor
hazardous pollutant, as described in the Clean Air Act, but for which new-
source performance standards exist The Clean Air Act does require states to
control these pollutants, which include acid mist, total reduced sulfur (TRS),
and fluondes
Designer Bugs: Popular term for microbes developed through biotecnnologv
that can degrade specific toxic chemicals at their source in toxic waste dumps
or in ground water
Desulfunzation: Removal of sulfur from fossil fuels to reduce pollution
Designated Uses: Those water uses identified in state water qualify standards
w hich must be achieved and maintained as required under the Clean Water
Act Uses can include cold water fisheries, public water supply, agriculture,
etc
Detergent: Svnthetic washing agent that helps to remove dirt and oil Some
contain compounds which kill useful bacteria and encourage algae growth
when thev are in wastewater that reaches receiving waters
Developer: A person, government unit, or company that proposes to build a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility
Diatomaceous Earth (Diatomite): A chalk-like materia) (fossilized diatoms)
used to filter out solid waste in waste-water treatment plants, also used as an
active ingredient in some powdered pesticides.
Diazinon: An insecticide In 1986, EPA banned its use on open areas such as
sod farms and golf courses because it posed a danger to migratory birds who
gathered on them in large numbers The ban did not apply to its use in
agnculture, or on lawns of homes and commercial establishments
Dicofol: A pesncide used on citrus fruits.
Differentiation: The process by which single cells grow into particular forms
ot specialized tissue, e g , root, stem, leaf.
Diffused Air: A type of aeranon that forces oxygen into sewage bv pumping
air through perforated pipes inside a holding tank and bubbling it through the
sewage
Digester In wastewater treatment, a dosed tank; in solid waste conversion, a
unit m which bacterial action is induced and accelerated in order to break
down organic matter and establish the proper carbon-to-rutrogen rano.
Digestion: The biochemical decomposition of organic matter, resulting in
partial gasification, liquefacation, and mineralization of pollutants.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to prevent a spill from spreading.
Dilution Ratio: The relationship between the volume of water in a stream and
tht volume of incoming water It affects the ability of the stream to assimilate
wiste.
Dinocap: A fungi in ¦ „<>d primarily by apple growers to control summer
diseases EPA, in 1986, proposed restrictions on its use when laboratory tests
found it caused birth defects in rabbits
Dinoseb: A herbicide that is also used as a fungicide and insecticide It was
banned by EPA in 1986 because it posed the risk of birth defects and stenlitv
Dioxin: Any of a family of compounds known chemically as dibenzo-p-
dioxins. Concern about them anses from their potential toxicity and con-
tamination in commercial products Tests on laboratory animals indicate that it
is one of the more toxic man-made chemicals known.
Direct Discharger A municipal or industrial facility which introduces pollu-
tion through a defined conveyance or system, a point source
Disinfectant: A chemical or physical process that kills pathogenic organisms
in water Chlonne is often used to disinfect sewage treatment etfluent. water
supplies, wells, and swimming pools
Dispersant: A chemical agent used to break up concentrations of organic
material such as spilled oil.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of toxic, radioactive, or other wastes,
surplus or banned pesticides or other chemicals, polluted soils, and drums
containing hazardous matenals from removal actions or accidental releases
Disposal may be accomplished through use of approved secure landfills
surface impoundments, land farming, deep well in]ecnon, ocean dumping, or
incineranon
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The oxygen freely available in water Dissolved
oxygen is vital to fish and other aquatic life and for the pre\ennon of odors
Traditionally, the levei of dissolved oxygen has been accepted as the single
most important indicator of a water body's ability to support desirable aquanc
life. Secondary and advanced waste treatment are generallv designed to
protect DO in waste-receiving waters
Dissolved Solids: Disintegrated organic and inorganic material contained in
water. Excessive amounts make water untit to dnnk or use in industrial
processes.
Distillation: The act of purifying liquids through boiling, so that the steam
condenses to a pure liquid and the pollutants remain in a concentrated resi-
due
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic aad, the molecule in which the genetic information
for most living cells is encoded. Viruses, too, can contain DNA.
DNA Hybridization: Use of a segment of DNA, called a DNA probe, to
identify its complementary DNA; used to detect specific genes. This process
takes advantage of the ability of a single strand of DNA to combine with a
complementary strand.
Dose: In radiology, the quantity of energy or radiation absorbed
Dosimeter: An instrument that measures exposure to radiation
Dredging: Removal of mud from the bottom of water bodies using a scooping
machine. This disturbs the ecosystem and causes silting that can kill aquatic
life. Dredging of contaminated muds can expose aquatic life to heavy metals
and other toxics. Dredging activities may be sub|ect to regulanon under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Dump: A site used to dispose of solid wastes without env. ironmental controls.
Dust: Particles light enough to be suspended in air
Dustfall Jar An open container used to collect large particles from the air for
measurement and analysis.
Dystrophic Lakes: Shallow bodies of water that contain much humus and, or
organic matter; that contain many plants but few fish and are highly acidic
E
Ecological Impact: The effect that a man-made or natural activity has on living
organisms and their non-living (abiotic) environment.
Ecology: The relahonship of living things to one another and their environ-
ment, or the study of such relationships.
Economic Poisons: Chemicals used to control pests and to defoliate cash crops
such as cotton.
Ecosphere: The "bio-bubble" that contains life on earth, in surface waters, and
in the air. (See: biosphere.)
Ecosystem: The interacnng svstem ot a biological community and its non-
living environmental surroundings.
Effluent: Wastewater—treated or untreated—that flows out ot a treatment
plant, sewer, or industnal outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into
surface waters.
Effluent Limitation: Restrictions established by a State or EPA on quannties,
rates, and concentrations in wastewater discharges.
Electrodialysis: A process that uses electrical current applied to permeable
membranes to remove minerals from water. Often used to desalinize salty or
brackish water.
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP): An air pollution control device that removes
particles from a gas stream (smoke) after combustion occurs. The ESP imparts
an electrical charge to the particles, causing them to adhere to metal plates
inside the precipitator. Rapping on the plates causes the particles to fall into a
hopper for disposal.
Eligible Costs: The construction costs for waste-water treatment works upon
which EPA grants are based.
6
-------
Emergency (Chemical): A situation created by an accidental release or spill of
hazardous chemicals which poses a threat to the safety of workers, residents,
the environment, or property
Emergency Episode: (See: air pollution episode )
Eminent Domain: Government taking—or forced acquisition—of private land
for public use. with compensation paid to the landowner.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other
vents, and surface areas of commercial or industrial facilities, from residential
chimnevs. and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft exhausts.
Emission Factor The relationship between the amount of pollution produced
and the amount ot raw matenal processed For example, an emission factor for
a blast furnace making iron would be the number of pounds of pamculates per
ton of raw materials.
Emission Inventory: A listing, by source, of the amount of air pollutants
discharged into the atmosphere of a community It is used to establish emis-
sion standards
Emission Standard: The maximum amount of air pollufing discharge legally
allowed from a single source, mobile or stanonary.
Emissions Trading: EPA policy that allows a plant complex with several
facilities to decrease pollution from some facilines while increasing it from
others, so long as total results are equal to or better than previous limits.
Facilities where this is done are treated as if they exist in a bubble in which total
emissions are averaged out Complexes that reduce emissions substantially
mav "bank" their "credits" or sell them to other industries
Endangered Species: Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other living organisms
threatened with extinction by man-made or natural changes in their environ-
ment Requirements for declaring a species endangered are contained in the
Endangered Species Act.
Endangerment Assessment: A study conducted to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at a site on the National Pnonties List and the nsks
posed to public health or the environment. EPA or the state conduct the study
when a legal action is to be taken to direct potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An endangerment assessment supple-
ments a remedial investigation.
Enforcement: EPA, state, or local legal actions to obtain compliance with
environmental laws, rules, regulations, or agreements and/or obtain penalties
or criminal sanctions for violations Enforcement procedures may vary, de-
pending on the specific requirements of different environmental laws and
related implementing regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA, for example,
EPA will seek to require potentially responsible parties to dean up a Super-
fund site, or pav for the cleanup, whereas under the Clean Air Act the agency
may invoke sancnons against cities failing to meet ambient air quality stan-
dards that could prevent certain types ot construction or federal funding. In
other situations, if investigations by EPA and state agencies uncover willful
violations, criminal tnals and penalties are sought.
Enforcement Decision Document (EDD): A document that provides an ex-
planation to the public of EPA's selection of the cleanup alternative at enforce-
ment sites cn the National Priorities List; similar to a Record of Decision.
Enrichment: The addition of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon
compounds) from sewage effluent or agricultural runoff to surface water This
process greatly increases the growth potential for algae and aquatic plants.
Environment: The sum of all external conditions affecting the life, develop-
ment, and survival of an organism.
Environmental Assessment: A written environmental analysis which is pre-
pared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine
whether a federal action would significantly affect the environment and thus
require preparanon of a more detailed environmental impact statement.
Environmental Audit: 1. An independent assessment of the current status of a
partv's compliance with applicable environmental requirements 2. An in-
dependent evaluation of a party's environmental compliance policies, prac-
tices, and controls.
Environmental Impact Statement: A document required of federal agencies by
the National Environmental Policy Act for major projects or legislative pro-
posals significantly affecting the environment. A tool for decision making, it
describes the positive and neganve effects of the undertaking and lists alterna-
tive actions.
Environmental Response Team: EPA experts located in Edison. NJ, and
Cincinnati, OH, who can provide around-the-clock technical assistance to
EPA regional offices and states during all types of emergences involving
hazardous waste sites and spills of hazardous substances.
EPA: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: established in 1970 bv
Presidential Executive Order, bnnging together parts of various government
agencies involved with the control of pollution
Epidemic: Widespread outbreak of a disease, or a large number ot cases ot a
disease in a single community or relanvelv small area
Epidemiology: The study of diseases as thev affect population, including the
distribution of disease, or other health-related states and e\ents in human
populations, the factors (e g , age, sex, occupation, economic stanis) :hat
influence this distnbunon, and the application of this studv to control health
problems.
Episode (Pollution): An air pollution incident in a given area caused bv a
concentranon of atmospheric pollution reacting vvith meteorological con-
dinons that may result in a significant increase in illnesses or deaths Although
most commonly used in relation to air pollution, the term mav also be used in
connection with other kinds of environmental events such as a massive water
pollution situanon.
Equivalent Method: Any method ot sampling and analvzing tor air pollution
which has been demonstrated to the EPA Administrator's sanstacnon to be.
under specific conditions, an acceptable alternative to the normally used
reference methods
Equilibrium: in relation to radiation, the state at which the radioactnitv ot
consecutive elements within a radioacnve series is neither increasing nor
decreasing.
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water Erosion occurs
naturally from weather or runoff but can be intensihed ov land-clearing
practices related to farming, residenhal or industnal development, road build-
ing, or timber-cutting
Estuary: Regions of interacfion between rivers and nearshore ocean waters,
where tidal action and river flow create a mixing of fresh and salt water These
areas may include bays, mouths of nvers, salt marshes, and lagoons. These
brackish water ecosystems shelter and feed manne life, birds, and wildlife.
(See: wetlands.)
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB): A chemical used as an agnculturai fumigant and
in certain industnal processes. Extremely toxic and found to be a carcinogen in
laboratory animals, EDB has been banned for most agnculturai uses in the
United States.
Eutrophication: The slow aging process dunng which a lake, estuarv, or bav
evolves into a bog or marsh and eventually disappears Dunng the later stages
of eutrophication the water body is choked by abundant plant life as the result
of increased amounts of numtive compounds such as nitrogen and phosphor-
us. Human acnvities can accelerate the process
Eutrophic Lakes: Shallow, murky bodies of water that ha\e excessive con-
centrations of plant nutnents causing excessive algal production. See
dystrophic lakes.)
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage sludge is dumped and allowed to
dry out.
Evapotranspiration: The loss of water from the soil both bv evaporation and bv
transpiration from the plants growing in the soil.
Exceedance: Violation of environmental protection standards by exceeding
allowable limits or concentranon levels.
Exclusionary; Any form of zoning ordinance that tends to exclude specihc
classes of persons or businesses from a particular distnct or area.
Exempt Solvent: Specific organic compounds that are not subject to require-
ments of regulation because they have been deemed by EP A to be ot negligible
photochemical reactivity.
Exempted Aquifer Underground bodies of water defined in the Under-
ground Injection Control program as aquifers that are sources of dnnking
water (although they are not being used as such) and that are exempted from
regulations barring underground injection activities.
Exposure: The amount of radiation or pollutant present in an environment
which represents a potennal health threat to the living organisms in that
environment.
Extremely Hazardous Substances: Any of 406 chemicals identmed by EPA on
the basis of toxicity, and listed under SARA Title III The list is subject to
revision.
-------
F
Fabric Filter: A cloth device that catches dust particles from industrial emis-
sions
Feasibility Studv: i Analvsis of the practicability of a proposal, e g , a descrip-
tion and analvsis ot the potential cleanup alternatives for a site or alternatives
for a site on the \ational Priorities List The feasibility study usuallv
recommends selection of a cost-ettective alternative It usually starts as soon as
the remedial in\ estimation 15 underway. together, thev are commonlv referred
to as the "R1 FS ' The term can applv to a vanetv of proposed corrective or
regulatory actions 2 In research, a small-scale investigation of a problem to
ascertain whether or not a proposed research approach is likelv to provide
useful data
Fecal Coliform Bactena: Bacteria found in the intestinal tracts of mammals.
Their presence in water or sludge is an indicator of pollution and possible
contamination bv pathogens
Feedlot: A reiatn elv small, confined area for the controlled feeding ot animals
that tends to concentrate large amounts of animal wastes that cannot be
absorbed by the soil and. hence, may be earned to nearby streams or lakes by
rainfall runoff
Fen: A type ot wetland that accumulates peat deposits Fens are less acidic
than bogs, dem ing most ot their water from groundwater rich in calcium and
magnesium (See wetlands )
Fermentation: Chemical reacnons accompanied bv living microbes that are
supplied with nutrients and other cntical conditions such as heat, pressure,
and light that are specific to the reaction at hand
Fertilizer: Materials such as nitrogen and phosphorus that provide nutrients
for plants. Commercially sold fertilizers may contain other chemicals or may
be in the form of processed sewage sludge
Filling: Depositing din and mud or other materials into aquatic areas to create
more dry land, usuallv for agricultural or commercial development purposes
Such acnunes often damage the ecology of the area.
Filtration: A treatment process, under the control of qualified operators, for
removing solid (parnculate) matter from water by passing the water through
porous media such as sand or a man-made filter The process is often used to
remove particles that contain pathogenic organisms
Finding of No Significant Impact: A document prepared bv a federal agency
that presents the reasons why a proposed action would not have a significant
impact on the environment and thus would not require preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement An FNSI is basea on the results of an
environmental assessment
First Draw: The water that immediately comes out when a tap is first opened
This water is likelv to have the highest level of lead contamination from
plumbing materials
Floe: A clump of solids formed in sewage by biological or chemical action
Flocculation: The process bv which clumps of solids in water or sewage are
made to increase in size by biological or chemical action so that thev can be
separated from the water
Floor Sweep: A \ apor collection designed to capture vapors which are heavier
than air and which collect along the floor
Flowmeter. A gauge that shows the speed of wastewater moving through a
treatment plant Also used to.measure the speed of liquids moving through
various industrial processes
Flue Gas: Vented air coming out of a chimney after combustion in the burner
It can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Flue Gas Desulfuruation: A technology which uses a sorbent, usually lime or
limestone, to remove sulfur dioxide from the gases produced by burning fossil'
fuels Flue gas desulfunzation is currently the state-of-the art technology in
use by maior S02 emitters, e g , power plants-
Fluorides: Gaseous, solid, or dissolved compounds containing fluorine that
result from industrial processes, excessive amounts in food can lead to fluoro-
sis
Fluorocarbon (FCs): Any of a number of organic compounds analogous to
hydrocarbons in which one or more hydrogen atoms are replaced by fluorine
Once used in the United States as a propellant in aerosols, they are now
primarily used in coolants and some industrial processes FCs containing
chlorine are called thlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Thev are believed to be mod-
ifymg the ozone layer in the stratosphere, therebv allowing more harmful
solar radiation to reach the Earth s surface
Fluorosis- An abnormal condition caused bv excessive intake of fluonne.
characterized chiefh by mottling of the teeth
Flume: A natural or man-made channel that duerts water
Flush: 1 To open a cold-water tap to clear out all the water which mav have
been sitting for a long time in the pipes. In new homes, to flush a svstem
means to send large volumes of water gushing through the unused pipes to
remove loose particles of solder and flux. 2. To force large amounts of water
through liquid to clean out piping or tubing and storage or process tanks.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residual particles trom the combustion process
earned by flue gas
Fogging: Applying a pesncide bv rapidly heanng the liquid chemical so that it
forms very fine droplets that resemble smoke or fog It mav be used to destro\
mosquitoes, black flies, and similar pests
Food Chain: A sequence of organisms, each ot which uses the next, lower
member of the sequence as a food source.
Formaldehyde: A colorless, pungent, irritating gas, CHiO used chieflv as a
disinfectant and preservative and in synthesizing other compounds and re-
sins
Formulation: The substance or mixture of substances w hich iscompnsedot all
aenve and inert ingredients in a pesticide
Fresh Water: Water that generally contains less than 1.000 milli?rams-per-liter
of dissolved solids.
Fuel Economy Standard: The Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard
(CAFE) which went into effect in 1978 It was meant to enhance the national
fuel conservation effort bv slowing fuel consumption through a miles-per-
gallon requirement for motor vehicles.
Fugitive Emissions: Emissions not caught by a capture s\stem
Fume: Tinv particles trapped in vapor in a gas stream
Fumigant: A pestiade that is vaporized to kill pests, used in buildings and
greenhouses.
Functional Equivalent: Term used to desenbe EPA's decision-making process
and its relationship to the environmental review conducted under the Nation-
al Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) A review is considered functionally
equivalent when it addresses the substantive components ot a NEPA review
Fungi: (Singular. Fungus) Molds, mildews, yeasts, mushrooms, and puff-
balls, a group of organisms that lack chlorophyll (i.e , are not photosvnthetic)
and which are usually non-mobile, filamentous, and multicellular Some grow
in the ground, others attach themselves to decaying tTees and other plants,
getting their nutrition from decomposing organic matter Some cause disease,
others stabilize sewage and break down solid wastes in composting.
Fungicide: Pesticides which are used to control, prevent, or destroy fungi.
G
Game Fish: Species like trout, salmon, or bass, caught tor sport Many ot them
show more sensitivity to environmental change than "rough' tish.
Gamma Radiation: Gamma rays are true rays of energv in contrast to alpha
and beta radiation. The properties are similar to x-ravs and other
electromagnetic waves They are the most penetrating wa\es of radiant nu-
clear energy but can be blocked by dense materials such as lead
Gasification: Conversion of solid matenal such as coal into a gas tor use as a
fuel.
Geiger Counter An electrical device that detects the presence ot certain types
of radioactivity
Gene: A length of DNA that directs the synthesis of a protein
Gene Library: A collection of DNA fragments from cells or organisms So tar.
no simple wav for sorting the contents of gene libranes has been deused
However, DNA pieces can be moved into bactenal cells where sorting accord-
ing to gene function becomes feasible
General Permit: A permit applicable to a class or category of dischargers
Generator A facility or mobile source that emits pollutants into the air or
releases hazardous wastes into water or soil.
Genetic Engineering: A process ot inserting new genetic intormanon into
existing cells in order to modify any organism for the purpose ot changingone
of its characteristics
Germicide: Any compound that kills disease-causing microorganisms
Grain Loading: The rate at which particles are emitted from a pollution source
Measurement is made bv the number of grains per cubic toot ot gas emitted
Granular Activated Carbon Treatment: A filtenng svstem often used in small
water systems and individual homes to remove organics GAC can be highly
effective in removing elevated levels ot radon trom water
8
-------
Gray Water The term given to domesnc wastewater composed of washwater
from sinks, kitchen sinks, bathroom sinks and tubs, aijd launarv tubs
Greenhouse Effect; The warming of the Earth's atmosphere caused bv a
buiJd-up of carbon dioxide or other trace gases, it is believed by manv scientists
that this build-up allows light from the sun's rays to heat the Earth but
prevents a counterbalancing loss of heat.
Grinder Pump: A mechanical device which shreds solids and raises the fluid to
a higher elevation through pressure sewers
Gross Alpha Particle Activity: Total activitvdue to emission ot alpha particles
Used as the screening measurement for radioactivity generally due to
naturally-occurring radionuclides Activity is commonly measured in picocur-
ies
Gross Beta Particle Activity: Total activity due to emission of beta particles
Used as the screening measurement for radioactivity from man-made
radionuclides since the decay products of fission are beta particles and gamma
ray emitters. Activity is commonly measured in picocunes.
Ground Cover Plants grown to keep soil from eroding
Ground Water The supply of fresh water found beneath the Earth's surface
(usually in aquifers) which is often used for supplying wells and springs
Because ground water is a ma|or source of drinking water there is growing
concern over areas where leaching agricultural or industrial pollutants or
substances from leaking underground storage tanks are contaminating
ground water
H
Habitat: The place where a population (eg, human, animal, plant, micro-
organism) lives and its surroundings, both living and non-living
Half-Life: 1 The nme required for a pollutant to lose half its affect on the
environment. For example, the half-life of DDT in the environment is 15 years,
of radium, 1,580 years 2. The time required for half of the atoms of a
radioactive element to undergo decav. 3. The time required for the elimination
of one half a total dose from the body
Halogen: Any of a group of five chemically-related nonmetailic elements that
includes bromine, fluorine, chlorine, iodine, and astatine.
Halon: Bromine-containing compounds with long atmosphenc lifetimes
whose breakdown in the stratosphere cause depletion of ozone Halons are
used in fire-fighting.
Hammermill: A high-speed machine that hammers and cutters to crush,
grind, chip, or shred solid wastes.
Hard Water: Alkaline water containing dissolved salts that interfere with some
industrial processes and prevent soap from lathering.
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Air pollutants which are not covered bv ambient
air quality standards but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act, may reason-
ably be expected to cause or contribute to irreversible illness or death. Such
pollutants include asbestos, beryllium, mercury, benzene, coke oven emis-
sions, radionuclides, and vinvl chlonde
Hazardous Ranking System: The principle screening tool used by EPA to
evaluate risks to public health and the environment associated with aban-
doned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites The HRS calculates a score
based on the potential of hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or ground water and on other factors such as
nearby population. This score is the primary factor in deeding if the site
should be on the National Priorities List and, if so, what ranking it should have
compared to other sites on the list.
Hazardous Substance*. 1. Any material that poses a threat to human health
and/or the environment. Typical hazardous substances are toxic, corrosive,
ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive. 2. Any substance named by EPA to
be reported if a designated quantity of the substance is spilled in the waters of
the United States or if otherwise emitted into the environment.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society that can pose a substannal or poten-
tial hazard tn 1 _ ian health or the environment when improperly managed.
Possesses •: I"".. one of four characterises (ignitability, corrosmry, reactiv-
ity, or toxicity), or appears on special EPA lists.
Hazards Analysis: The procedures involved in (1) idennfying potential
sources of release of hazardous materials from fixed facilities or transportation
accidents, (2) determining the vulnerability of a geographical area to a release
of hazardous materials, and (3) comparing hazards to determine which pr-
esent greater or lesser risks to a community
Hazards Identification: Providing information on which facilities have ex-
tremely hazardous substances, what those chemicals are, and how much there
is at each facility The process also provides informanon on how the chemicals
are stored and whether thev are used at high temperatures
Heat Island Effect: A "dome" of elevated temperatures o\er an urban area
caused by structural and pavement heat fluxes, ana pollutant emissions irom
the area below the dome
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights, e g , mercury
chromium, cadmium, arsenic, and lead. Thev can damage ii \ ing things at low
concentrations and tend to accumulate in the tood chain
Heptachlon An insecticide that was banned on some tood products in 1975
and all of them 1978. It was allowed for use in seed treatment until in 1983
More recently, it was found in milk and other dairv products in Arkansas and
Missouri, as a result of illegally feeding treated seed to dairv cattle
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to control or destroy plants, ^ eeds
or grasses.
Herbivore: An animal that feeds on plants
Heterotrophic Organisms: Consumers such as humans and animals, and
decomposers—chiefly bacteria and fungi—that jre dependent on organic
matter for food,
High-Density Polyethylene: A material that produces toxic fumes .vhen
burned Used to make plastic bottles and other products
High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW): Waste generated in the tuel of a nu-
clear reactor, found at nuclear reactors or nuclear tuel reprocessing plants It is
a serious threat to anyone who comes near the wastes without shielding. (See
Low-Level Radioactive Waste.)
Holding Pond: A pond or reservoir, usually made ot earth built to store
polluted runoff
Hood Capture Efficiency: The emissions from a process u hich are captured bv
hood and directed into the control device, expressed as a percent ot all
emissions
Host: 1 In genetics, the organism, typically a bacterium into which a gene
from another organism is transplanted. 2 In medicine, an animal intected bv
or parasitized by another organism
Humus: Decomposed organic material
Hybrid: A cell or organism resulting from a cross between two unlike plant or
animal cells or organisms.
Hybridoma: A hybrid cell that produces monoclonal antibodies in large quan-
tities.
Hydrocarbons (HO: Chemical compounds that consist entirei\ of carbon and
hydrogen.
Hydrogen Sulfide (HS): Gas emitted dunng organic decomposition. Also a
byproduct of oil refining and burning It smells like rotten e$gs and. in heavy
concentration, can cause illness
Hydrogeology: The geology of ground water, with parncular emphasis on the
chemistry and movement of water
Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties, distribution and circula-
tion ot water
Ignitable: Capable of burning or causing a fire
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge connned bv a dam. dike, floodgate,
or other bamer
Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH): The maximum level to
which a healthy individual can be exposed to a chemical for 30 minutes and
escape without suffering irreversible health etfects or impairing symptoms
Used as a "level of concern." (See. level of concern )
In Vitro: 1 "In glass", a test-tube culture 2. Any laboratory test using living
cells taken from an organism.
In Vivo: In the living body of a plant or animal In m\o tests are those
laboratory experiments earned out on whole animals or human volunteers
Incineration: 1 Burning of certain types of solid, liquid, or gaseous materials
2. A treatment technology involving destruction of waste bv controlled burn-
ing at high temperatures, e.g , burning sludge to remove the water and reduce
the remaining residues to a safe, non-burnable ash which can be disposed of
safely on land, m some waters, or in underground locanons.
Incineration at Sea: Disposal of waste by burning at sea on jpeciallv-designed
incinerator ships
Incinerator A fumace for burning wastes under controlled conditions
Indicator In biology, an organism, species, or communis w ho~e iharactens-
hes show the presence of specific environmental conditions
-------
Indirect Discharge: Introduction of pollutants from a non-domestic source
into a publiclv owned waste treatment svstem Indirect dischargers can be
commercial or industrial faahnes whose wastes go into the local sewers
Indoor Air The breathing air inside a habitable structure or conveyance
Indoor Air Pollution: Chemical, physical, or biological contaminants in indoor
air.
Indoor Climate: Temperature, hurruditv, lighting and noise levels in a habit-
able structure or conveyance Indoor climate can affect indoor air pollunon
Inert Ingredient: Pesticide components such as solvents, earners, and sur-
factants that are not active against target pests Not all inert ingredients are
innocuous
Inertial Separator: A device that uses centrifugal force to separate waste
particles
Infilbation-. 1 The penetration of water through the ground surface into
sub-surface soil or the penetration of water from the sod into sewer or other
pipes through defective joints, connections, or manhole walls 2. A land
application technique where large volumes of wastewater are applied to land,
allowed to peneffate the surface and percolate through the underlying soil
(See: percolation)
Inflow: Entry of extraneous rain water into a sewer system from sources other
than infiltration, such as basement drains, manholes, storm drains, and street
washing
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir, basin, or
treatment plant
Information File: In the Superfund program, a file that contains accurate,
up-to-date documents on a Superfund site The file is usually located in a
public building such as a school, library, or city hall that is convenient for local
residents
Injection Well: A well into which fluids are injected for purposes such as
waste disposal, improving the recovery of crude oil. or solution mining.
Injection Zone: A geological formation, group of formations, or part of a
formation receiving fluids through a well
Inoculum: I Bacterium placed in compost to start biological action 2. A
medium containing organisms which is introduced into cultures or living
organisms
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances of mineral origin, not of basically
carbon structure.
Insecticide: A pesticide compound specifically used to kill or control the
growth of insects.
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M): 1. Activities to assure proper emissions-
related operation of mobile sources of air pollutants, particularly automobile
emissions controls. 2. Also applies to wastewater treatment plants and other
anti-pollution facilities and processes.
Instream Use: Water use taking place within a stream channel, e g , hydro-
electric power generation, navigation, water-qualitv improvement, fish pro-
pagation. recreanon
Integrated Pest Management (1PM): A mixture of pesticide and non-pesticide
methods to control pests.
Interceptor Sewers: Large sewer lines that, in a combined system, control the
flow of the sewage to the treatment plant. In a storm, they allow some of the
sewage to flow directly into a receiving stream, thus preventing an overload bv
a sudden surge of water into the sewers They are also used in separate
systems to collect the flows from main and trunk sewers and carry them to
treatment points
Interim (Permit) Status: Period during which treatment, storage and disposal
facilities coming under RCRA in 1980 are temporarily permitted to operate
while awaiting denial or issuance of a permanent permit Permits issued under
these circumstances are usually called "Part A" or "Part B" permits
Inter«»>te Carrier Water Supply: A source of water for dnnking and sanitary
' . or 'lanes, buses, trains, and ships operating in more than one state These
_-.i.es are federally regulated
Interstate Waters: Waters that flow across or form part of state or international
boundaries, e g , the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, or coastal waters
Interstitial Monitoring: The continuous surveillance of the space between the
walls of an underground storage tank
Inventory: TSCA inventory of chemicals produced pursuant to Section 8 fb) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act
Inversion: An atmospheric condition caused by a layer of warm air preventing
the rise of cooling air trapped beneath it This prevents the nse of pollutants
that might othei wise be dispersed and can cause an air pollution episode
Ion: An electrically charged atom or group of atoms which can be drawn from
wastewater during the eiectTodialvsis process
Ion Exchange Treatment: A common water sottening method otten found on a
large scale at water purification plants that remove some organics and radium
by adding calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide to increase the pH to a level
where the metals will precipitate out
Ionization Chamber: A device that measures the mtensift ot ionizing radia-
tion.
Ionizing Radiation: Radiation that can remove electrons from atoms, i e
alpha, beta, and gamma radiation
Irradiated Food: Food that has been subject to bnef radioactnit\. usualh b\
gamma rays, to kill insects, bacteria, and mold, and preserve it without
refngeranon or freezing.
Irradiation: Exposure to radiation of wavelengths shorter than those ot visible
light (gamma, x-ray, or ultraviolet), for medical purposes, the destruction ot
bacteria in milk or other foodstuffs, or tor inducing polvmenzanon of monom-
ers or vulcanization of rubber
Irrigation: Technique for applying water or wastewater to land areas tosuppK
the water and nutnent needs of plants.
Isotope: A vanation of an element that has the same atomic number but a
different weight because of its neutrons Vanous isotopes ot the same element
may have different radioactive behaviors
K
Kinetic Rate Coefficient: A number that describes the rate at which a water
consntuent such as a biochemical oxvgen demand or dissolved oxygen in-
creases or decreases
L
Lagoon: 1. A shallow pond where sunlight, bactenal action, and oxvgen work
to punfy wastewater; also used to storage of wastewaters or spent nuclear fuel
rods. 2. Shallow body of water, often separated from the sea by coral reefs or
sandbars
Land Application: Discharge of wastewater onto the ground tor treatment or
reuse. (See- irrigation )
Land Fanning (of waste): A disposal process in which hazardous waste
deposited on or in the soil is naturally degraded by microbes
Landfills: 1. Sanitary landfills are land disposal sites for non-hazardous solid
wastes at which the waste is spread in layers, compacted to the smallest
practical volume, and cover material applied at the end of each operating dav
2. Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for hazardous waste They are
selected and designed to minimize the chance of release ot hazardous sub-
stances into the environment
Lateral Sewers: Pipes that run under citv streets and receive the sewage from
homes and businesses
LC 50/Lethal Concentration: Median level concentration, a standard measure
of toxicity It tells how much of a substance is needed to kill half of a group ot
experimental organisms at a specific time of observanon (See LD 50 )
LD 50/ Lethal Dose: The dose of a toxicant that will kill 50 percent of the test
organisms within a designated period of time The lower the LD 50, the more
toxic the compound.
LD 0: The highest concentration of a toxic substance at w hich none of the test
organisms die
LD L0: The lowest concentration and dosage of a toxic substance which kills
test organisms
Leachate: A liquid that results from water collecting contaminants as it trickles
through wastes, agricultural pesncides. or fertilizers Leaching may occur in
farming areas, feedlots, and landfills, and may result in hazardous substances
entering surface water, ground water, or soil.
Leachate Collection System: A system that gathers leachate and pumps it to
the surface for treatment.
Leaching: The process by which soluble constituents are dissolved and earned
down through the soil by a percolating fluid (See- leachate )
Lead (Pb): A heaw metal that is hazardous to health it breathed or swallowed
Its use m gasoline, paints, and plumbing compounds has been sharplv res-
tricted or eliminated bv federal laws and regulations (See heaw metals )
Leaded Gasoline: Gasoline to which lead has been added to raise the octane
level
10
-------
Level of Concern (LOO: The concentration in air of an extremely hazardous
substance above which there may be serious immediate health effects to
anyone exposed to it for snort periods ot time.
Lift: In a sanitary landfill, a compacted layer of solid waste and the top laver of
cover material.
Lifting Station: (See: pumping stanon )
Limestone Scrubbing: Process in which sulfur gases moving towards a
smokestack are passed through a limestone and water solution to remove
sulfur before it reaches the atmosphere.
Limiting Factor: A condition, whose absence, or excessive concentration, is
incompatible with the needs or tolerance ot a species or population and which
mav have a negative influence on their ability to grow or even survive.
Limnology: The study of the physical, chemical, meteorological, and biologi-
cal aspects of fresh water
Liner. 1. A relatively impermeable barrier designed to prevent leachate from
leaking from a landfill. Liner materials include plastic and dense clay. 2. An
insert or sleeve for sewer pipes to prevent leakage or infiltration
Lipid Solubility: The maximum concentration of a chemical that will dissolve
in tatty substances; lipid soluble substances are insoluble in water If a sub-
stance is lipid soluble it will very selectively disperse through the environment
via living tissue.
Liquefaction: Changing a solid into a liquid
List: Shorthand term for EPA list of violating facilities or list of tirms debarred
from obtaining government contracts because they violated certain sections of
the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts. The list is maintained by The Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Listed Waste: Wastes listed as hazardous under RCRA but which have not
been subjected to the Toxic Characteristics Listing Process because the dan-
gers they present are considered self-evident.
Local Emergency Planning Committee ILEPC): A committee appointed by
the state emergency response commission, as required bv SARA Title III, to
formulate a comprehensive emergency plan for its jurisdiction
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL): The concentration of a compound in air below
which a flame will not propagate if the mixture is ignited.
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate: Under the Clean Air Act, this is the rate of
emissions which reflects (a) the most stringent emission limitation which is
contained in the implementation plan of any state for such source unless the
owner or operator ot the proposed source demonstrates such limitations are
not achievable; or (b) the most stringent emissions limitation achieved in
practice, whichever is more stringent Application of this term does not
permit a proposed new or modified source to emit pollutants in excess of
existing new source standards.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW): Wastes less hazardous than most of
those generated by a nuclear reactor. Usually generated by hospitals, research
laboratories, and certain industnes. The Department of Energy, Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission, and EPA share responsibilities for managing them. (See:
high-level radioacnve wastes )
M
Major Modification: This term is used to define modifications with respect to
Prevennon of Significant Deterioration and New Source Review under the
Clean Air Act and refers to modifications to major stationary sources of
emissions and provides significant pollutant increase levels below which a
modification is not considered major.
Major Stationary Sources: Term used to determine the applicability of
Prevennon of Significant Detenoration and new source regulations. In a
nonattainment area, any stanonary pollutant source that has a potential to
emit more than 100 tons per vear is considered a major stationary source In
PSD areas the cutoff level may be either 100 or 250 tons, depending upon the
type of source.
Manufacturers Formulation: A list of substances or component parts as de-
scribed by the maker of a coating, pesncide or other product containing
chemicals or other substances.
Marine Sanitation Device: Any equipment installed on board a vessel to
receive, retain, treat, or discharge sewage and any process to treat such
sewage
Marsh: A tvpe of wetland that does not accumulate appreciable peat deposits
and is dominated bv herbaceous vegetanon Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal. (See. wetlands.)
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS): A compilation of information required
under the OSHA Communication Standard on the identity of hazardous
chemicals, health and phvsical hazards, exposure limits, and precaunons
Section 311 otSARA requires facilities to submit MSDSs under certain circum-
stances.
Maximum Contaminant Level: The maximum permissible level of a contami-
nant in water delivered to any user of a public water svstem MCLs are
enforceable standards
Mechanical Aeration: Use of mechanical energy to miect air into water to
cause a waste stream to absorb oxvgen
Mechanical Turbulence: Random irregulannes of fluid motion in air caused
by buildings or mechanical, non-thermal, processes
Media: Specific environments—air. water, soil—which are the sub|ect ot
regulatory concern and activities.
Mercury: A heaw metal that can accumulate in the enivronment and is highlv
toxic if breathed or swallowed. (See: heaw metals )
Metabolite: Any substance produced in or by biological processes and derived
from a pesticide.
Methane: A colorless, nonpoisonous, flammable gas created by anaerobic
decomposition of organic compounds.
Method 18: An EPA test method which uses gas chromatographic techniques
to measure the concentration of individual volanle organic compounds in a gas
stream.
Method 24: An EPA reference method to determine densitv, water content,
and total volatile content (water and VOO of coatings
Mefiod 25: An EPA reference method to determine the VOC concentranon in
a gas stream.
Million-gallons Per Day (MGD): A measure of water flow
Microbes: Microscopic organisms such as algae, animals, viruses, bacteria.
fungus, and protozoa, some of which cause diseases. (See: microorganism )
Microbial Pesticide: A microorganism that is used to control a pest. Thev are
of low toxicity to man.
Microorganism: Living organisms so small that individually thev can usuallv
only be seen through a microscope.
Mist: Liquid particles measuring 40 to 300 microns, that are formed bv con-
densation of vapor. By comparison, "fog" particles are smaller than 40 micro-
ns.
Mitigation: Measures taken to reduce adverse impacts on the environment
Mixed Liquor A mixture of activated sludge and water containing organic
matter undergoing activated sludge treatment in an aeration tank
Mobile Source: A moving producer of air pollution, mainlv forms of transpor-
tation such as care, trucks, motorcycles, airplanes.
Modeling: An investigative technique using a mathematical or phvsical repre-
sentation of a system or theory that accounts for all or some of its known
properties. Models are often used to test the effect of changes of svstem
components on the overall performance of the system.
Model Plant: A description of a typical but theorefical plant used for develop-
ing economic, environmental impact and energy impact analvses as support
for regulations or regulatory guidelines. It is an imaginary plant, with features
of existing or future plants used to estimate the cost ot incorporating air
pollution control technology as the first step in exploring the economic impact
of a potential NSPS.
Monitoring: Periodic or continuous surveillance or testing to determine the
level of compliance with statutory requirements and.or pollutant levels in
vanous media or in humans, animals, and other living things
Monitoring Wells: Wells drilled at a hazardous waste management facilitv or
Superfund site to collect ground-water samples tor the purpose of phvsical.
chemical, or biological analysis to determine the amounts, tvpes, and distribu-
tion of contaminants in the ground water beneath the site
Monoclonal Antibodies: Molecules of living organisms that selectively find
and attach to other molecules to which their structure conforms exactly. Thr
could also apply to equivalent activity by chemical molecules (Also call
MA8s and MCAs.)
Muck Soils: Earth made from decaying plant materials
Mulch: A layer of material (wood chips, straw, leaves, etc ) placed around
plants to hold moisture, prevent weed growth, protect plants, and enrich soil
Multiple Use: Use of land for more than one purpose, l e grazing ot livestock,
wildlife production, recreation, watershed, and timber production Could also
apply to use of bodies of water tor recreational purposes, fishing, and water
supply.
-------
Mutagen: Anv substance that can cause a change in genenc material
Mutate: To bring about a change in the genenc constitunon of a cell by altering
its DNA In turn, "mutagenesis" is any process by which cells are mutated
N
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Air quality standards
established by EPA that apply to outside air throughout the country (See
criteria pollutants, state implementation plans, emissions trading )
National Emissions Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS):
Emissions standards set by EPA for an air pollutant not covered by NAAQS
that mav cause an increase in deaths or in serious, irreversible, or incapacitat-
ing illness Pnmarv standards are designed to protect human health, secon-
dary standards to protect public welfare
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NOHSCP/NCP):
The federal regulanon that guides determination of the sites to be corrected
under the Superfund program and the program to prevent or control spills
into surface waters or other portions of the environment
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A provision of
the Clean Water Act w hich prohibits discharge of pollutants into waters of the
United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a state, or (where
delegated) a tribal government on an Indian reservation.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial
action under Superfund A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the
Trust Fund for remedial action. The list is based primarily on the score a site
receives from the Hazard Ranking System EPA is required to update the NPL
at least once a year
National Response Center: The federal operanons center that receives noti-
fications of all releases of oil and hazardous substances into the environment
The Center, open 24 hours a day, is operated by the U S Coast Guard, which
evaluates all reports and notifies the appropnate agency.
National Response Team (NRT): Representanves of 13 federal agencies that,
as a team, coordinate federal responses to nanonallv significant incidents of
pollution and provide advice and technical assistance to the responding agen-
cv(ies) before and during a response acnon
Natural Gas: A natural fuel containing primarily methane and ethane that
occurs in certain geologic formations.
Natural Selection: The process of survival of the fittest, by which organisms
that adapt to their environment survive while those that do not adapt dis-
appear
Navigable Waters: Traditionally, waters sufficiently deep and wide for
naviganon bv all or specified sizes of vessels, such waters in the United States
come under federal jurisdiction and are included in certain provisions of the
Clean Water Act
Necrosis: Death of plant or animal cells In plants, necrosis can discolor areas
on the plant or kill it entirely
Nematocide: A chemical agent which is destructive to nematodes (round
worms or threadworms!
Neutralization: Decreasing the acidity or alkalinity of a substance by adding to
it alkaline or acidic materials, respecttvelv
New Source: Any stanonarv source which is Duilt or modified after publication
of final or proposed regulations that prescribe a standard of performance
which is intended to applv to that type of emission source.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Uniform national EPA air emis-
sion and water effluent standards which limit the amount of pollutton allowed
from new sources or from existing sources that have been modified
Nitrate: A compound containing nitrogen which can exist in the atmosphere
or as a dissolved gas in water and which can have harmful effects on humans
and animals. Nitrates in water can cause severe illness in infants and cows
Nitric Oxide (NO): A gas formed by combusnon under high temperature and
high pressure in an internal combustion engine It changes into nitrogen
dioxide in the ambient air and contributes to photochemical smog.
Nitrification: The process wherebv ammonia in wastewater is oxidized to
nitnte and then to nitrate bv bacterial or chemical reacnons
Nitrilotnacetic Acid (NTA): A compouncHseing used to replace phosphates in
detergents.
Nitrite: 1 An intermediate in the process of nitrification 2 Nitrous oxide salts
used in food preservation
Nitrogen Dioxide (,\02>- The result of nunc oxide combining with oxygen in
the atmosphere A major component of photochemical smog
Nitrogenous Wastes: Animal or vegetable residues that contain significant
amounts of nitrogen.
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx): Product of combustion from transportation and
stationary sources and a major contributor to aad deposition and the
formation of ground level ozone in the troposphere.
Non-Attainment Area: Geographic area which does not meet one or more of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the cntena pollutants desig-
nated in the Clean Air Act.
Non-Community Water System: A public water system that is not a communi-
ty water svstem, e g., the water supply at a camp site or national park
Non-Conventional Pollutant: Any pollutant which is not statutorily listed or
which is poorly understood by the scientific community
Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation: 1. Radiation that does not change
the structure of atoms but does heat tissue and may cause harmful biological
effects 2 Microwaves, radio waves, and low-frequency electromagnetic fields
from high-voltage transmission lines.
Non-Point Source: Pollution sources which are diffuse and do not have a
single point of origin or are not introduced into a receiving stream from a
specific outlet. The pollutants are generally earned off the land by stormwater
runoff. The commonly used categories for non-point sources are- agnculture.
forestry, urban, mining, construction, dams and channels, land disposal, and
saltwater intrusion
Nuclear Power Plant: A facility that converts atomic energy into usable power,
heat produced by a reactor makes steam to dnve turbines which produce
electricity.
Nuclear Winter. Prediction by some scientists that smoke and debris nsing
from massive fires resulting from a nuclear war could enter the atmosphere
and block out sunlight for weeks or months The scientists making this
prediction project a cooling of the earth's surface, and changes in climate
which could, for example, negatively affect world agncultural and weather
patterns
Nutrient: Any substance assimilated by living things that promotes growth.
The term is generally applied to rutTOgen and phosphorus in wastewater, but
is also applied to other essential and trace elements.
0
Off-Site Facility: A hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal area that
is located at a place away from the generating site
Oil Spill: An accidental or intentional discharge of oil which reaches bodies of
water; can be controlled by chemical dispersion, combustion, mechanical
containment, and/or adsorption.
Oil Fingerprinting: A method that identifies sources of oil and allows spills to
be traced back to their source
Oligotrophy Lakes: Deep clear lakes with low nutrient supplies They contain
little organic matter and have a high dissolved-oxvgen level
Oncogenic: A substance that causes tumors, whether benign or malignant
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or De-
partment of Defense otficial who coordinates and directs Superfund removal
actions or Clean Water Act oil-or hazardous-spill corrective acnons
On-Site Facility: A hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal area that
is located on the generating site
Opacity: The amount of light obscured by particulate pollution in the air; clear
window glass has zero opaatv, a bnck wall 100 percent opacity Opacity is
used as an indicator of changes in performance of particulate matter pollution
control systems.
Open Burning: Uncontrolled fires in an open dump
Open Dump: An uncovered site used for disposal of waste without environ-
mental controls (See: dump )
Operable Unit: Term for each of a number of separate activities unH"	n as
part of a Superfund site cleanup A typical operable unit would r" . jving
drums and tanks from the surface of a site
Operation And Maintenance: 1. Activities conducted at a site after a Super-
fund site action is completed to ensure that the action is effective and operating
properly. 2 Actions taken after construction to assure that facilities con-
structed to treat waste water will be properly operated, maintained, and
managed to achieve efficiency levels and prescribed effluent limitations in an
optimum manner.
Organic: 1. Referring toordenved fTom living organisms 2 In chemistry, any
compound containing carbon
2
-------
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Animal or plant-produced substances con-
taining mainlv carbon, hvdrogen, and oxygen
Organic Matter Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and
onginanng from domestic or industrial sources
Organism: Any living thing.
Organophosphates: Pesticide chemicals that contain phosphorus, used to
control insects Thev are short-lived, but some can be toxic when first applied
Organotins: Chemical compounds used in ann-foulant paints to protect the
hulls ot boats and ships, buoys, and dock pilings from marine organisms such
as barnacles.
Osmosis: The tendency of a fluid to pass through a permeable membrane such
as the wail of a living cell into a less concentrated soluhon so as to equalize the
concentrations on both sides ot the membrane.
Outfall: The place where an effluent is discharged into receiving waters
Overburden: The rock and soil cleared away before mining.
Overfire Air. Air forced into the top ol an incinerator or boiler to tan the
flames
Overland Flow: A land application technique that cleanses waste water by
allowing it to tlow over a sloped surface As the water flows over the surface,
the contaminants are removed and the water is collected at the bottom of the
slope for reuse.
Overturn: The period of mixing (turnover), bv top to bottom circulation, of
previously stranfied water masses. This phenomenon may occur in spring
and'or fall, or after storms. It results in a uniformity of chemical and physical
properties of the water at all depths.
Oxidant: A substance containing oxygen that reacts chemically in air to pro-
duce a new substance. The primary ingredient of photochemical smog.
Oxidation: 1 The addition of oxygen which breaks down organic waste or
chemicals such as cyanides, phenols, and organic sulfur compounds in sew-
age by bacterial and chemical means. 2 Oxygen combining with other ele-
ments 3 The process in chemistry whereby electrons are removed from a
molecule.
Oxidation Pond: A man-made lake or bodv of water in which waste is con-
sumed by bacteria. It is used most frequently with other waste-treatment
processes. An oxidation pond is basically the same as a sewage lagoon.
Oxygenated Solvent: An organic solvent containing oxygen as part of the
molecular structure. Alcohols and ketones are oxygenated compounds often
used as paint solvents.
Ozonator: A device that adds ozone to water
Ozone (03): Found in two layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and the
troposphere. In the stratosphere (the atmospheric layer beginning 7 to 10 miles
above the earth's surface), ozone is a form of oxygen found naturally which
provides a protective layer shielding the earth from ultraviolet radiation's
harmful health effects on humans and the environment. In the troposphere (the
laver extending up 7 to 10 miles from the earth's surface), ozone is a chemical
oxidant and major component of photochemical smog. Ozone can seriously
affect the human respiratory system and is one of the most prevalent and
widespread of all the cntena pollutants for which the Clean Air Act required
EPA to set standards. Ozone in the troposphere is produced through complex
chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides, which are among the primary pollutants
emitted by combustion sources; hydrocarbons, released into the atmosphere
through the combustion, handling and processing of petroleum products; and
sunlight.
Ozone Depletion: Destruction of the stratosphenc ozone layer which shields
the earth from ultraviolet radiation harmful to biological life. This destruction
of ozone is caused by the breakdown of certain chlorine- and/or bromine-
contairung compounds (chlorofluorocarbons or halons) which break down
when they reach the stratosphere and catalytically destroy ozone molecules.
P
Packed Tower A pollunon control device that forces dirty air through a tower
packed with crushed rock or wood chips while liquid is sprayed over the
packing material. The pollutants in the air stream either dissolve or chemically
react with the liquid.
Pandemic: Widespread throughout an area, nation, or the world.
Part A Permit, Part B Permit: (See Interim Permit Status.)
Paraquat: A standard herbicide used to kill various types of crops, including
man|uana
Particulates: Fine liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or
smog, found in air or emissions
Particulate Loading: The mass of particulates per unit volume of air or water
Pathogenic: Capable of causing disease
Pathogens: Microorganisms that can cause disease in other organisms or in
humans, arumals, and plants. They may be bactena. viruses, or parasites and
are found in sewage, in runoff from animal farms or rural areas populated with
domestic and/or wild arumals, and in water used tor swimming. Fish and
shellfish contaminated by pathogens, or the contaminated water itself, can
cause senous illnesses.
PCBs: A group of toxic, persistent chemicals (polvchlonnated biphenvls) used
in transformers and capacitators for insulating purposes and in gas pipeline
systems as a lubricant. Further sale of new use was banned bv law in 1979
Percolation: The movement of water downward and radiallv through the
sub-surface soil layers, usually continuing downward to the ground water
Permeability: The rate at which liquids pass through soil or other matenals in a
specified direction.
Permit: An authonzation. license, or equivalent control document issued bv
EPA or an approved state agency to implement the requirements of an en-
vironmental regulation; e g , a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant
or to operate a facility that may generate harmful emissions
Persistence: Refers to the length of time a compound, once introduced into the
environment, stays there. A compound may persist tor less than a second or
indefinitely
Persistent Pesticides: Pesticides that do not break down chemically or break
down very slowiv and that remain in the environment after a growing season
Pesfc An insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or other form of terrestrial
or aquatic plant or animal life or virus, bacterial or microorganism that is
injurious to health or the environment.
Pesticide: Substance or mixture of substances intended tor preventing, de-
stroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest Also, any substance or mixture of
substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant
Pesticides can accumulate in the food chain and/or contaminate the environ-
ment if misused.
Pesticide Tolerance: The amount of pesticide residue allowed bv law to remain
in or on a harvested crop By using various safety factors, EPA sets these levels
well below the point where the chemicals might be harmiul to consumers
pH: A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a liquid or solid matenal.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are byproducts of petroleum refining,
tanning, and textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Low concentrations cause
taste and odor problems in water: higher concentranons can lull aquatic life
and humans.
Pheromone: Hormonal chemical produced by female of a species to attract a
mate.
Phosphates: Certain chemical compounds containing phosphorus.
Phosphorus: An essential chemical food element that can contribute to the
eutrophication of lakes and other water bodies Increased phosphorus levels
result from discharge of phosphorus-containing matenals into surface waters
Photochemical Oxidants: Air pollutants formed by the acnon of sunlight on
oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons.
Photochemical Smog: Air pollution caused by chemical reactions of various
pollutants emitted from different sources
Photosynthesis: The manufacture by plants of carbohydrates and oxygen from
carbon dioxide and water in the presence of chlorophyll, using sunlight as an
energy source.
Physical and Chemical Treatment: Processes generally used in large-scale
wastewater treatment facilities. Physical processes may involve air-stnpping
or filtration. Chemical treatment includes coagulation, chlonnanon, or ozone
addition. The term can also refer to treatment processes, treatment of toxic
materials in surface waters and ground waters, oil spills, and some methods of
dealing with hazardous materials on or in the ground.
Phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton communitv composed of tinv
plants, e.g., algae, diatoms.
Phytotoxic: Something that harms plants
Picocurie: Measurement of radioactivity. A picocune is one million millionth,
or a trillionth, of a cune, and represents about 2.2 radioactive particle disinte-
grations per minute.
Picocuries Per Liter (pCi/L): A urut of measure used for expressing levels ot
radon gas. (See picocune.)
3
-------
Pig: A container, usuallv lead, used to ship or store radioactive materials
Pile: 1 The tuel element in a nuclear reactor 2. A heap of waste
Plankton: Tinv plants and animals that live in water
Plasmid: A circular piece of DNA that exists apart from the chromosome and
replicates independently of it Bacterial plasmids carry information that ren-
ders the bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Plasmids are often used in genetic
engineering to cam- desired genes into organisms
Plastics: Non-metallic compounds that result from a chemical reacnon, and
are molded or formed into rigid or pliable construction matenals or tabncs
Plugging: 1. The act or process of stopping the flow of water, oiJ, or gas into or
out oi a formation through a borehole or well penetrating that formation 2
Stopping a leak or sealing off a pipe or hose
Plume: 1. A visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant from a given
point of origin; can be visible or thermal in water, or visible in the air as, for
example, a plume of smoke. 2. The area of measurable and potentially harmful
radiation leaking from a damaged reactor. 3. The distance from a toxic release
considered dangerous for those exposed to the leaking fumes.
Plutonium: A radioactive metallic element similar chemically to uranium.
Point Source: A stationery location or fixed facility from which pollutants are
discharged or emitted Also, any single identifiable source of poiluhon. e g , a
pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack.
Pollen: 1 A fine dust produced by plants. 2 The fertilizing element of flower-
ing plants. 3 A natural or background air pollutant.
Pollutant: Generally, anv substance introduced into the environment that
adversely affects the usefulness of a resource
Pollutant Standard Index (PSI): Measure of adverse health effects of air
pollution levels in ma|or cities
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter or energy whose nature, location,
or quantity produces undesired environmental effects. Under tne Clean Water
Act, for example, the term is defined as the man-made or man-induced
alteration of the physical, biological, and radiological integnty of water.
Polyelectrolytes: Synthetic chemicals that help solids to clump during sewage
treatment
Polymer Basic molecular ingredients in plastic.
Polyvinyl Chlonde (PVC): A tough, environmentally indestructible plastic
that releases hydrochloric acid when burned.
Population: A group of interbreeding organisms of the same kind occupying a
particular space Genencally, the number of humans or other living creatures
in a designated area
Post-Closure: The time penod following the shutdown of a waste manage-
ment or manufacturing facility For monitoring purposes, this is often consid-
ered to be 30 vears
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drinking and cooking
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Any individual or company—including
owners, operators, transporters, or generators—potentially responsible for,
or contnbuting to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site. Whenever
possible, EPA requires PRPs, through administrative and legal actions, to
clean up hazardous waste sites PRPs have contaminated.
PPM/PPB: Parts per million/parts per billion, a way of expressing tiny
concentrations of pollutants in air, water, soil, human tissue, food, or other
products. Radiobiology The study of radiation effects on living things.
Precipitate: A solid that separates from a solution because of some chemical or
physical change
Precipitation: Removal ot solids from liquid waste so that the hazardous solid
portion can be disposed of safely; removal of particles from airborne emis-
sions
Precipitators: Air pollution control devices that collect particles from an emis-
sion
Precursor In photochemical terminology, a compound such as a volatile
organic compound (VOC) that "precedes" an oxidant Precursors react in
sunlight to form ozone or other photochemical oxidants
Preliminary Assessment: The process of collecting and reviewing available
intormanon about a known or suspected waste site or release
Pressure Sewers: A svstem of pipes in which water, wastewater, or other
liquid is transported to a-higher elevanon by use of pumping force.
Pretreatment: Processes used to reduce, eliminate, or alter the nature of
wastewater pollutants from non-domestjc sources before they are discharged
into publicly owned treatment works
Prevention: Measures taken to minimize the release ot wiitfi to the environ-
ment.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): EPA progrim in which state
and/or federal permits are reauired that are intended to r»ltnct emissions for
new or modified sources in places where air quality n ilreadv better than
required to meet primary and secondary ambient air qualitv standards
Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Applies to public water svstems and
specifies a contaminant level, which, in the judgement of the EPA Administra-
tor, will have no adverse effect on human health
Primary Waste Treatment: First steps in wastewater treatment, screens and
sedimentation tanks are used to remove most matenals that float or will
settle. Primary treatment results in the removal of about 30 percent of
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand from domesnc sewage
Process Weight: Total weight of all matenals, including fuel, used in a
manufacturing process It is used to calculate the allowable particulate emis-
sion rate from the process
Proteins: Complex nitrogenous organic compounds of high molecular weight
that contain amino acids as their basic unit and are essential tor growth and
repair of animal tissue Many proteins are enzvmes
Protoplast: A membrane-bound cell from which the outer cell wall has been
partially or completely removed The term otten is applied to plant cells
Public Water System: A system that provides piped water for human con-
sumption to at least 15 service connections or regularly serves 25 individuals
Publicly Owned Treatment Works: A waste-treatment works owned bv a
state, unit of local government, or Indian tribe, usuallv designed to treat
domesnc wastewaters
Pumping Station: Mechanical devices installed in sewer or water svstems or
other liquid-carrying pipelines that move the liquids to a higher level.
Putrescible: Able to rot quicidv enough to cause odors and attract flies
Pyrolysis: Decomposinon of a chemical by extreme heat.
Q
Quality Assurance/Quality Control: A system of procedures, checks, audits
and corrective actions to ensure that all EPA research design and performance
environmental monitonng and sampling, and other technical and repornng
activines are of the highest achievable quality
Quench Tank: A water-filled tank used to cool incinerator residues or hot
matenals during industrial processes
R
RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose): A unit of absorbed dose ot radiation One
RAD of absorbed dose is equal to 01 joules per kilogram
Radiation: Any form of energy propagated as ravs. wa\es. or streams ot
energetic particles The term is frequently used in relation to the emission ot
rays from the nucleus of an atom
Radiation Standards: Regulations that set maximum exposure limits for
protection of the public from radioactive matenals
Radioactive Substances: Substances that emit radiation
Radiobiology: The study ot radiation effects on living things
Radio Frequency Radiation: (See Non-ionizing Radiation )
Radionuclide: Radioactive element characterized according to its atomic mass
and atomic number which can be man-made or naturally occumng. They can
have a long life as soil or water pollutants, and are believed to have potentially
mutagenic effects on the human body.
Radius of Vulnerable Zone: The maximum distance from the point ot release
of a hazardous substance in which the airborne concentration could reach the
level of concern under specified weather conditions
Radon: A colorless, naturally occurring, radioacnve, inert gaseous element
formed by radioactive decay of radium atoms in soil or rocks
Radon Decay Products: A term used to refer collectivelv to the immediate
products of the radon decav chain These include Po-218. Pb-214, Bi-214, and
To-214, which have an average combined half-lite ot about 30 minutes
Rasp- A machine that gnnds waste into a manageable matenal and helps
prevent odor
Raw Sewage: Untreated wastewater
"4
-------
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): The lowest emissions
limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the aoplication of control
technology that is both reasonably available, as well as technologically and
economically feasible RACT is usually applied to existing sources in
nonattainment areas and in most cases is less stringent than new source
performance standards
Receiving Waters: A nver. lake, ocean, stream, or other watercourse into
which wastewater or treated effluent is discharged.
Recharge: The process bv u hich water is added to a zone of saturation, usually
by percolation rrom the soil surface, e g , the recharge ot an aquifer
Recharge Area: A land area in w hich water reaches to the zone of saturation
from surface infiltration, e g . an area where rainwater soaks through the earth
to reach an-aquifer.
Recombinant Bacteria: A tvpe ot microorganism whose generic makeup has
been altered by deliberate introduction ot new genetic elements. Theoffspnng_
of these altered bacteria also contain these new genenc elements.
Recombinant DNA (rDNA): The new DNA that is tormed by combining
pieces of DNA from different organisms or cells
Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL): The maximum level
of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse
effect on human health would occur, and which includes an adequate margin
of safety Recommended levels are nonenforceable health goals. (See. max-
imum contaminant level )
Reconstructed Source: An existing facility m which components are replaced
to such an extent that the fixed capital cost of the new components exceed 50
percent of the capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable,
entirely new facility New source performance standards may be applied to
sources which are reconstructed after the proposal of the standard if it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the standard.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup
alternanve(s) will be used at National Priorities List sites where, under CERC-
LA, Trust Funds pay for the cleanup
Recycle/Reuse: The process of minimizing the generation of waste by recover-
ing usable products that might otherwise become waste Examples are the
recycling of aluminum cans, wastepaper, and bottles
Red Border An EPA document that is undergoing hnal review before being
submitted for final management decision
Red Tide: A proliferation of a marine plankton that is toxic and often fatal to
fish. This natural phenomenon may be stimulated by the addition of nutrients.
A hde can be called red, green, or brown, depending on the coloration of the
plankton.
Reentry Interval: The period of time immediately following the application of
a pesticide during which unprotected workers should not enter a held.
Refuse: (See- solid waste.)
Refuse Reclamation: Conversion of solid waste into useful products, e g.,
composting organic wastes to make soil conditioners or separating aluminum
and other metals for melting and recycling.
Regeneration: Manipulation ot individual cells or masses of cells to cause
them to develop into whole plants
Regional Response Team (RRT): Representatives of federal, local, and state
agencies who may assist in coordination of activities at the request of the
On-Scene Coordinator before and dunng a Superfund response action.
Registrant: Any manufacturer or formulator who obtains registration for a
pesticide active ingredient or product.
Registration: Formal listing with EPA of a new pesticide before it can be sold
or distributed in intra- or inter-state commerce. The product must be reg-
istered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentiade Act. EPA is
responsible for registration (pre-market licensing) of pesncides on the basis of
data demonstrating that thev will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on
human health or the environment when used according to approved label
direcnons
Registration Standards: Published reviews of all the data available on pesti-
cide active ingredients.
REM (Roentgen Equivalent Man): The unit of dose equivalent from ionizing
radianon to the human body, used to measure the amount of radiation to
which a person or a part of a human has been exposed
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construction or implementation phase of a
Superfund site cleanup that follows remedial design
Remedial Design: A phase of remedial action that follows the remedial
investigation/feasibility studv and includes development of engineering
drawings and specifications for a site cleanup
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study designed to gather the data neces-
sarv to determine the nature and extent ot contamination at a Superfund site,
establish cntena for cleaning up the sue: tdentifv preliminary altemanv es tor
remedial actions, and support the technical and cost anakses ot the alterna-
tives The remedial investigation is usuatlv done with the feasibility studv
Together they are usually referred to as the "RI FS"
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The EPA or state othcial responsible -or
overseeing remedial action at a site
Remedial Response: A long-term action that stops or substantial^ reduces a
release or threat of a release ot hazardous -substances that is senous but not an
immediate threat to public health
Removal Action: Short-term immediate actions taken to address releases ot
hazardous substances that require expedited response (See cleanup )
Reportable Quantity 
-------
Risk Management: The process of evaluating alternative regulatory ana non-
regulatory responses to risk and selecting among them. The selection process
necessarily requires the consideration of legal, economic, and social factors.
River Basin: The land area drained by a river and its tnbutanes
Rodenticide: A chemical or agent used to destroy rats or other rodent pests, or
to prevent them from damaging food, crops, etc
Rough Fish: Those fish, not prized for eating, such as gar and suckers Most
are more tolerant of changing environmental conditions than game species
Rubbish: Solid waste, excluding food waste and ashes, from homes, in-
stitutions, and work-places
Run-Off: That part of precipitanon, snow melt, or irnganon water that runs off
the land into streams or other surface-water It can carry pollutants from the air
and land into the receiving waters.
s
Salinity: The degree of salt in water
Salts: Minerals that water picks up as it passes through the air, over ana under
the ground, and as it is used by households and industry
Salt Water Intrusion: The invasion of fresh surface or ground water bv salt
water If the salt water comes from the ocean it may be called sea water
intrusion.
Salvage: The utilization of waste materials
Sand Filters: Devices that remove some suspended solids from sewage Air
and bacteria decompose additional wastes filtering through the sand so that
cleaner water drains from the bed
Sanitary Landfill: (See landfill, sanitary )
Sanitary Sewers: Underground pipes that carry off only domestic or inGustnal
waste, not storm water
Sanitary Survey: An on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment,
operanon, and maintenance of a public water system to evaluate the adequacv
of those elements for producing and distnbunng safe drinking water
Sanitation: Control of physical factors in the human environment that could
harm development, health, or survival.
Saturated Zone: A subsurface area in which all pores and cracks are filled with
water under pressure equal to or greater than that of the atmosphere
Scrap: Materials discarded from manufacturing operations that may be suit-
able for reprocessing
Screening: Use ot screens to remove coarse floating and suspended solids
from sewage
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a sprav of wateror reactant or a dry
process to trap pollutants in emissions.
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Unenforceable regulations which
applv to public water svstems and which specify the maximum contaminanon
levels which, in the judgement of EPA, are required to protect the public
w-elfare These regulations applv to any contaminants that may adversely
affect the oaor or appearance of such water and consequently may cause
people served by the system to discontinue its use.
Secondary Treatment: The second step in most publicly owned waste treat-
ment systems in which bacteria consume the organic parts of the waste It is
accomplished bv bnnging together waste, bacteria, and oxygen in trickling
filters or in the activated sludge process This treatment removes floating and
settleable solids and about 90 percent of the oxygen-demanding substances
and suspended solids Disinfection is the final stage of secondary treatment
(See primary, tertiary treatment )
Secure Chemical: (See landfills )
Secure Maximum Contaminant Level: Maximum permissible level of a con-
taminant in water which is delivered to the free flowing outlet of the ultimate
user of a water supply, the consumer, or of contaminanon resulting from
corrosion of piping and plumbing caused by water quality
Sedimentation: Letting solids settle out of wastewater by gravity during
wastewater treatment.
Sedimentation Tanks: Holding areas for wastewater where floating wastes
are skimmed off and settled solids are removed for disposal.
Sediments: Soil, sand, and minerals washed from land into water usually after
rain They pile up m reservoirs, rivers, and harbors, destroying fish-nesting
areas and holes of water animals and clouding the water so that needed
sunlight might not rearti aquatic plants Careless farming, mining, and build-
ing activities will expose sediment materials, allowing them to be washed off
the land after rainfalls
Selective Pesticide: A chemical designed to attect onlv certain ft pes ot pest;
leaving other plants and animals unharmed
Semi-Confined Aquifer: An aquifer that is partiallv contined bv a soil la\ er tor
lavers) of low permeability through which recharge and discharge can occur
Senescence: Term for the aging process Sometimes used to descnbe lakes or
other bodies of water in advanced stages of eutrophication
Septic Tank: An underground storage tank for wastes from homes having no
sewer line to a treatment plant The waste goes directlv from the home to the
tank, where the organic waste is decomposed bv bacteria and the sludge
settles to the bottom The effluent flows out ot the tank into the ground
through drains: the sludge is pumped out penodicallv
Service Connector The pipe that cames tap water from the public water main
to a building
Settleable Solids: Material heavy enough to sink to the bottom ot a w astew ater
treatment tank.
Settling Chamber A series of screens placed in the w a\ of flue gases to slow
the stream of air, thus helping gravity to pull particles out ot the emission into
a collection area.
Settling Tank: A holding area for wastewater, where hea\ ler particles sink to
the bottom for removal'and disposal
Sewage: The waste and wastewater produced bv residential and commercial
establishments and discharged into sewers
Sewage Lagoon: (See: lagoon )
Sewage Sludge: Sludge produced at a Publidv Owned Treatment Works, the
disposal of which is regulated under the Clean Water Act
Sewer A channel or conduit that cames wastewater and storm water runotf
from the source to a treatment plant or receiving stream. Sanitary sewers cam-
household, industrial, and commercial waste. Storm sewers carrv runoff from
rain or snow Combined sewers are used for both purposes.
Sewerage: The entire system of sewage collection, treatment, and disposal
Shotgun: Non-scientific term for the process of breaking up the DN'A den\ ed
from an organism and then moving each separate and unidentified DN'A
fragment into a bacterium.
Signal Words: The words used on a pesticide label—Danger, Warning,
Caution—to indicate the level of toxicity of the chemicals
Significant Deterioration: Pollution resulting from a new source in previous!)
"clean" areas. (See- prevention of significant detenoration.)
Significant Municipal Facilities: Those publiclv owned sewage treatment
plants that discharge a million gallons per dav or more and are theretore
considered by states to have the potential tor substantial effect on thequalit\ ot
receiving waters
Significant Violations: Violations bv point source dischargers of sufficient
magnitude and/or duration to be a regulatory pnontv
Silt: Fine particles of sand or rock that can be picked up bv the air or water and
deposited as sediment.
Silviculture: Management of forest land for timber, sometimes contributes to
water pollution, as in clear-cutting.
Sinking: Controlling oil spills by using an agent to trap the oil and sink it to the
bottom of the body of water where the agent and the oil are biodegraded
Site Inspection: The collection of informanon from a 5uperfund site to de-
termine the extent and seventy of hazards posed bv the site It tollow s and is
more extensive than a preliminary assessment The purpose is to gather
information necessary to score the site, using the Hazard Ranking Svstem. and
to determine if the site presents an immediate threat that requires prompt
removal action
Siting: The process of choosing a location for a facility
Skimming: Using a machine to remove oil or scum trom the suriace ot the
water.
Slow Sand Filtration: Treatment process in\r tu; passage ot raw water
through a bed of sand at low velocitv which results in the substantial remo\ al
of chemical and biological contaminants.
Sludge: A semi-solid residue from any of a number of air or water treatment
processes Sludge can be a hazardous waste
Slurry: A watery mixture of insoluble matter that results trom some pollution
control techniques
Smelter A facility that melts or fuses ore, otten with an accompanying chem-
ical change, to separate the metal Emissions are known to cause pollution
Smelting is the process involved
16
-------
Smog: Air pollution associated with oxidants (See- photochemical smog )
Smoke: Particles suspended in air after incomplete combustion ot materials.
Soft Detergents: Cleaning agents that break down in nature
Soft Water Any water that is not "hard." i e . does not contain a significant
amount of dissolved minerals such as salts containing calcium or magnesium.
Soil Adsorption Field: A sub-surface area containing a trench or bed with
clean stones and a system or distnbunon piping through which treated sewage
mav seep into the surrounding soil for further treatment and disposal
Soil Conditioner: An organic material like humus or compost that helps soil
absorb water, ouild a bacterial community, and distribute nutrients and
minerals
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds that occur in the small spaces
between parncles of the earth and soil. Such gases can move through or leave
the soil or rock, depending on changes in pressure.
Solder A metallic compound used to seal the joints between pipes Until
recently, most solder contained 50 percent lead.
Sole Source Aquifer An aquifer that supplies 30 percent or more of the
drinking water ot an area
Solid Waste: \'on-liquid, non-soluble materials ranging from municipal gar-
bage to industrial wastes that contain complex, and sometimes hazardous,
substances Solid wastes also include sewage sludge, agricultural refuse,
demolition wastes, and mining residues Technically, solid waste also refers to
liquids and gases in containers.
Solid Waste Disposal: The final placement of reruse that is not salvaged or
recycled
Solid Waste Management: Supervised handling of waste materials from their
source through recovery processes to disposal.
Solidification and Stabilization: Removal of wastewater from a waste or
changing it chemically to make the waste less permeable and suscepnble to
transport by water.
Solvent: Substance (usually liquid) capable ot dissolving or dispersing one or
more other substances.
Soot: Carbon dust formed by incomplete combustion.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or attracting substances: a process used in
many pollution control systems.
Special Review: Formerly known as Rebuttable Presumption Against Regis-
tration (RPAR). this is the regulatory process through which existing pesti-
cides suspected of posing unreasonable risks to human health, non-target
organisms, or the environment are referred for review by EPA. The review
requires an intensive nsk/beneht analysis with opportunity for public com-
ment. If the nsk ol any use of a pesticide is found to outweigh social and
economic benents. regulatory acnons—ranging from label revisions and use-
restnction to cancellation or suspended registration—can be initiated.
Species: A reproductivelv isolated aggregate of interbreeding populations of
organisms
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC): Plan covering
the release of hazardous substances as defined in the Clean Water Act
Sprawl; Unplanned development of open land.
Spoil: Dirt or rock that has been removed from its original location, destroying
the composition of the soil in the process, as with stnp-mining or dredging
Stabilization: Conversion ot the active organic matter in sludge into inert.
harmless material
Stabilization Ponds: (See lagoon.)
Stable Air: A mass of air that is not moving normally, so that it holds rather
than disperses pollutants.
Stack: A chimney or smokestack; a vertical pipe that discharges used air.
Stack Effect: Used air, as in a chimney, that moves upward because it is
warmer than the surrounding atmosphere
Stack Gas: (See flue gas.)
Stagnation: Lack of monon in a mass ot air or water, which tends to hold
pollutants.
Standards: Prescnptive norms which govern action and actual limits on the
amount of pollutants or emissions produced. EPA, under most ot its responsi-
bilities, establishes minimum standards States are allowed to be stneter
State Emergency Response Commission (SERC): Commission appointed by
each state governor according to the requirements of SARA Title III The
SERCs designate emergency planning districts, appoint local emergency
planning committees, and supervise and coordinate their aenvmes
State Implementation Plans (SIP): EPA-approved state plans tor the establish-
ment. regulation, and enforcement of air pollution standards
Stationary Source: A fixed, non-moving producer ot pollution mainlv power
plants and other facilities using industrial combusnon processes
Sterilization: 1. In pest control, the use oi radianon and chemicals to damage
body cells needed for reproduction. 2 The destrucnon ot all living organisms
in water or on the surface of various matenals. In contrast, disintecnon is the
destruction ot most living organisms in water or on surfaces
Storage: Temporary holding of waste pending treatment or dispcsal Storage
methods include containers, tanks, waste piles, and surface impoundments
Storm Sewer A system of pipes (separate from samtarv sewers) that cam-
only water runoff from building and land surraces
Stratification: Separating into layers.
Stratosphere: The portion of the atmosphere that is IO-to-25 miles above the
earth's surface.
Stnp-Cropping: Growing crops in a svstemanc arrangement ot strips or bands
which serve as bamers to wind and water erosion.
Strip-Mining: A process that uses machines to scrape soil or rock awav :rom
mineral deposits |ust under the earth's surtace.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A heavy, pungent, colorless, gaseous air pollutant
formed primarily by industrial fossil fuel combustion processes.
Sump: A pit or tank that catches liquid runotf for drainage or disposal
Sump Pump: A mechanism for removing water or wastewater from a sump or
wet well.
Superfund: The program operated under the legislative authont-v ot CERCLA
and SARA that funds and carries out the EPA solid waste emergency and
long-term removal remedial activities. These aenvmes include establishing the
National Pnonties List, investigating sites for inclusion on the list, determin-
ing their priority level on the list, and conducting and or supervising the
ultimately determined cleanup and other remedial acnons
Surface Impoundment: Treatment, storage, or disposal ot liquid hazardous
wastes in ponds.
Surface Water All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc ), also refers to
springs, wells, or other collectors which are directly influence^ bv surface
water.
Surfactant: A surface-active agent used in detergents to cause lathenng
Surveillance System: A series of momtonng devices designed to determine
environmental quality
Suspended Solids: Small particles of solid pollutants that float on the surface
of, or are suspended in sewage or other liquids Thev resist removal Dv
conventional means. (See: Total Suspended Solids )
Suspension: The act of suspending the use of a pesticide when EPA deems it
necessary to do so in order to prevent an imminent hazard resulting trom
conhnuec. use of the pestiade. An emergency suspension takes ettect im-
mediately: under an ordinary suspension a registrant can request a hearing
before the suspension goes into effect. Such a hearing process might take six
months.
Suspension Culture: Individual cells or small clumps ot cells growing in a
liquid nutrient medium.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated bv woodv vegetanon and does
not accumulate appreciable peat deposits Swamps mav be rresh or salt water
and tidal or non-tidal. (See- Wetlands.)
Synergism: The cooperanve interacnon of two or more chemicals or other
phenomena producing a greater total etfect than (he sum ot their individual
effects.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs): Man-made organic chemicals Some
SOCs are volatile, others tend to stay dissolved in water rather than evaporate
out of it
Systemic Pesticide: A chemical that is taken up from the ground or absorbed
through the surface and earned through the system ot the organism being
protected, making the organism toxic to pests.
T
Tailings: Residue of raw matenals or waste separated out during the process-
ing of crops or mineral ores
TBT Paints (Trybutilin): (See. organonns.)
Technology-Based Standards: Effluent limitanons applicable :o direct and
indirect sources which are developed on a category -bv -uKeioa basia uainij
statutory factors, not including water-quality eifects
1 7
-------
Teratogen-. Substance that causes malformation or senous deviation from
normal development of embrvos and fetuses.
Terracing: Diking, built along the contour of sloping agricultural land, that
holds runoff and sediment to reduce erosion.
Tertiary Treatment: Advanced cleaning of wastewater that goes beyond the
secondary or biological stage It removes nutrients such as phosphorus and
nitTOgen and most BOD and suspended solids.
Thermal Pollution: Discharge of heated water from industrial processes that
can affect the life processes of aquatic organisms.
Threshold Limit Value (TLV): Represents the air concentrations of chemical
substances to which it is believed that workers may be exposed daily without
adverse effect
Threshold Planning Quantity: A quantity designated for each chemical on the
list of extremelv hazardous substances that triggers notification by facilities to
the state emergency response commission that such facilities are subject to
emergency planning under 5ARA Title 111
Tidal Marsh: Low, flat marshlands traversed by channels and tidal hollows
and subject to tidal inundanon: normally, the only vegetation present are
salt-tolerant bushes and grasses (See: wetlands.)
Tolerances: The permissible residue levels for'pesticides in raw agricultural
produce and processed foods Whenever a pesticide is registered for use on a
food or a feed crop, a tolerance (or exempnon from the tolerance requirement)
must be established. EPA establishes the tolerance levels, which are enforced
by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture
Topography: The physical features of a surface area including relanve eleva-
tions and the position of natural and man-made features.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS): A measure of the suspended solids in
wastewater, effluent, or water bodies, determined by using tests for "total
suspended non-filterable solids." (See' suspended solids.)
Toxic: Harmful to living organisms.
Toxic Chemical Release Form: Information form required to be submitted by
facilities that manufacture, process, or use (in quantities above a specific
amount) chemicals listed under SARA Title III.
Toxic.CIoud: Airborne mass of gases, vapors, fumes, or aerosols containing
toxic materials
Toxic Pollutants:Materials contaminating the environment that cause death,
disease, and/or birth defects in organisms that ingest or absorb them. The
quantities and length of exposure necessary to cause these effects can vary
widely.
Toxic Substance: A chemical or mixture that may present an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment
Toxicant: A poisonous agent that kills or injures animal or plant life
Toxicity: The degree of danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life
(See acute, chronic toxicirv |
Toxicology: The science and study of poisons control
Transformation: The process of placing new genes into a host cell, therebv
inducing the host cell to exhibit functions encoded bv the DNA.
Transpiration: The process by which water vapor is lost to the atmosphere
from living plants The term can also be applied to the quantity of water thus
dissipated
Trash-to-Energy Plan: A plan for putting waste back to work by burning trash
to produce' energy
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility: Site where a hazardous substance
is treated, stored, or disposed TSD facilities are regulated bv EPA and states
under RCRA
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, low-boiling colorless liquid, toxic by in-
halation. TCE is used as a solvent, metal degreasing agent, and in other
industrial apphcanons.
Trickling Filter A coarse, biological treatment system in which wastewater is
trickled over a bed of stones or other matenal covered with bacterial growth
The bactena break down the organic waste in the sewage and produce clean
water
Trihaiomethane (THM): One of a family 0/ organic compounds, named as
derivatives of methane THM's are generally the byproduct from chlonnation
of drinking water that contains organic matenal.
Troposphere: The lower atmosphere: the portion of the atmosphere between
seven and ten miles from the Earth's surface where douds are formed
Trust Fund (CERCLA): A fund setup under the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to help pay for
cleanup of hazardous waste sites and for legal action to force those responsible
for the sites to dean them up.
Tundra: A type of ecosystem dominated by lichens, mosses, grasses and
woody plants. Tundra is found at high latitudes (arctic tundrai and hign
altitudes (alpine tundra). Arctic tundra is underlain b\ permatrost and is
usually very wet. (5ee. wetlands )
Turbidimeter: A device that measures the amount of suspended solids in a
liquid.
Turbidity: 1 Haziness in air caused by the presence ot parades and pollut-
ants. 2. A similar cloudy condition in water due to suspended silt or organic
matter.
u
Ultra Clean Coal (UCC): Coal that has been cashed, ground into fine parti-
cles, then chemically treated to remove sulfur, ash. silicone, and other sub-
stances; usually bnquetted and coated with a sealant made trom coal
Ultraviolet Rays: Radiation from the sun that can be useful or potennali\
harmful. UV rays from one part of the spectrum enhance plant lite and are
useful in some medical and dental procedures, L:V rays trom other parts of the
spectrum to which humans are exposed (e.g , while getting a sun tan) can
cause skin cancer or other tissue damage. The ozone laver in the atmosphere
provides a protective shield that limits the amount of ultraviolet ravs that reach
the Earth's surface.
Underground Injection Control (U1C): The program under the Safe Dnnking
Water Act that regulates the use of wells to pump fluids into the ground
Underground Sources of Drinking Water As defined in the UIC program
this term refers to aquifers that are currently being used as a source of dnnking
dnnking water, and those that are capable of supplving a public nater svstem
They have a total dissolved solids content of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less
and are not "exempted aquifers." (See: exempted aquifer.)
Underground Storage Tank: A tank located all or pamallv under ground that
is designed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products or chemical solu-
tions.
Unsaturated Zone: The area above the water table where the soil pores are not
fully saturated, although some water may be present.
Uranium: A radioactive heavy metal element used in nuclear reactors and the
producnon of nuclear weapons. Term refers usually to L-238, the most abun-
dant radium isotope, although a small percentage ot naturallv occurring ura-
nium is U-235.
Urban Runoff: Storm water from citv streets and adjacent domestic or com-
mercial properties that may carry pollutants of various kinds into the sewer
systems and/or receiving waters.
V
Vaccine: Dead, partial, or modified antigen used to induce immunity to
certain infectious diseases.
Vapor: The gaseous phase of substances that are liquid or solid at atmospheric
temperature and pressure, e g., steam.
Vapor Capture System: Anv combination of hoods and ventilation svstem tha t
captures or contains organic vapors in order that thev ma\ be directed to an
abatement or recovery device.
Vapor Dispersion: The movement of vapor clouds in air due to \Mnd. gravit\
spreading, and mixing.
Vapor Plumes: Flue gases that are visible because thev contain water droplets
Vaporization: The change of a substance from a liquid to a gas
Variance: Government permission for a detaV or excepnon in the application
of a given law, ordinance, or regulation
Vector 1 An organism, often an insect or rodent, that carries disease 2 -\n
object that is used to transport genes into a host cell (vectors can be plasmids.
viruses, or other bactena) A gene is placed in the sector, the \ector then
"infects" the bactenum
Ventilation/Suction: The act of admitting fresh air into a space in order to
replace stale or contaminated air, achieved bv blowing air into the space
Similarly, suction represents the admission of fresh air into an intenor space
by lowenng the pressure outside of the space, therebv drawing the con-
taminated air outward.
Vinyl Chloride: A chemical compound, used in producing some plastics, that
is believed to be carcogemc
Virus: The smallest form of microorganisms capable of causing disease
Volatile: Descnption of any substance that evaporates readil\
18
-------
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC): Any organic compound which parnci-
pates in atmospheric photochemical reactions except tor those designated by
the EPA Administrator as having negligible photochemical reactivity
Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals: Chemicals that tend to volatilize or
evaporate trom water
Vulnerability Analysis: Assessment of elements in the community that are
susceptible to damage should a release of hazardous materials occur
Vulnerable Zone: An area over which the airborne concentration of a chem-
ical invoked in an accidental release could reach the level of concern
w
Waste: 1 Unwanted materials left over trom a manufacturing process 2
Refuse trom places ot human or animal habitanon
Waste Load Allocation: The maximum load of pollutants each discharger of
waste is allowed to release into a particular waterway Discharge limits are
usually required for each specific water quality criterion being, or expected to
be, violated.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility containing a series ot tanks, screens, tilters,
and other processes bv which pollutants are removed from water
Waste Treatment Stream: The continuous movement of w,. jte from generator
to treater and disposer
Wastewater The spent or used water from individual homes, a community, a
tarm, or an industry that contains dissolved or suspended matter
Wastewater Operations and Maintenance: Actions taken after construcnon to
assure that facilities constructed to treat wastewater will be properly operated,
maintained, and managed to achieve efficiency levels and prescribed effluent
levels in an optimum manner
Water Pollution: The presence in water of enough harmful or ob|ecnonable
material to damage the water's quaiitv
Water Quality Criteria: Specific levels ot water quality which, if reached, are
expected to render a bodv of water suitable for its designated use The criteria
are based on specific levels ot pollutants that would make the water harmful if
used for drinking, swimming, (arming, fish production, or industrial proc-
esses.
Water Quality Standards: State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient stan-
dards for water bodies The standards cover the use of the water body and the
water quality cntena which must be met to protect the designated use or uses.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream.
Water Supplier: A person who owns or operates a public water astern
Water Supply System: The collection, treatment, storage, and distnbunon ot
potable water from source to consumer
Water Solubility: The maximum concentration ot a chemical compound
which can result when it is dissolved in water If a substance is water soluble it
can very readily disperse through the environment
Water Table: The level of ground water
Well: A bored, drilled, or driven shaft or a dug hole, whose depth is greater
than the largest surface dimension and whose purpose is to reach under-
ground water supplies or oil, or to store or burv fluids below ground
Well Injection: The subsurface emplacement ot fluids in a well.
Well Monitoring: The measurement, by on-site instruments or laboratory
methods, of the quality of water in a well.
Well Plug: A waternght and gashght seal installed in a bore hole or well to
prevent movement of fluids.
Wetlands: An area that is regularly saturated bv surface or ground water jnd
subsequently is characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted tor
life in saturated soil conditions. Examples include swamps, bogs, sens,
marshes, and estuaries
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the protection ot w-ild animals, within
which hunting and fishing are either prohibited or stnctlv controlled
Wood-Burning Stove Pollution: Air pollution caused bv emissions of pamcu-
late matter, carbon monoxide, total suspended particulates, and polvcvclic
orgaruc matter from wood-burning stoves
Working Level (WL): A unit of measure for documenting exposure to radon
decay products. One working level is equal to approximately 200 picocunes
per liter
Working Level Month (WLM): A unit of measure used to determine cumula-
tive exposure to radon
X, Y,Z
Xenobiotic: Term for non-naturallv occurring man-made substances found in
the environment (i.e., svnthenc material solvents, plasties!
Zooplankton: Tiny aquatic animals eaten by fish.
3
-------
Acronyms
A
AA: Adverse Action
AA: Advices of Allowance
AA: Assistant Administrator
AA: Associate Administrator
AA: Atomic Absorption
AAAS: American Association for the Advance-
ment ot Soence
AAEE: American Academy of Environmental En-
gineers
AANWR: Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
AAP: Affirmative Action Plan
AAP: Affirmative Action Program
AAP: Asbestos Action Program
AARC: Alliance for Acid Rain Control
ABES: Alliance for Balanced Environmental Solu-
tions
AC. Actual Commitment
AC: Advisorv Circular
AC: Altemanng Current
A&C: Abatement and Control
ACA: American Conservation Association
ACBM: Asbestos-Containing Building Matenal
ACE: Alliance for Clean Energy
ACEEE: American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy
ACFM: Actual Cubic Feet Per Minute
ACL: Alternate Concentration Limit
ACL: Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
ACM: Asbestos-Containing Matenal
ACP: Air Carcinogen Policv
ACQUIRE: Aquatic Information Retneval
ACQR: Air Quality Control Region
ACS: American Chemical Society
ACT: Action
ACTS: Asbestos Contractor Tracking System
ACYVA: American Clean Water Association
ADABA: Acceptable Data Base
ADB: Applications Data Base
ADI: Acceptable Daily Intake
ADQ: Audits of Data Qualitv
ADR: Alternate Dispute Resolution
ADSS: Air Data Screening System
ADT: Average Daily Traffic
AEA: Atomic Energy Act
AEC: Associate Enforcement Counsels (OECM)
AEE: Alliance for Environmental Education
AEERL: Air and Energy Engineering Research
La bora ton.'
AEM: Acoustic Emmision Monitoring
AERE: Association of Environmental and Re-
source Economists
AES: Auger Electron Spectometrv
AFCA: Area Fuel Consumption Allocafion
AFRCE: Air Force Regional Civil Engineers
AFS: AIRS Facility Subsystem
AFLiG. AIRS Facility Users Group
AGC: Associate General Counsels (OGC)
AH: Allowance Holders
AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act
AI: Artificial Intelligence
AICE: American Institute of Chemical Engineers
AICUZ: Air Installation Compatible Use Zones
AID: Agency for International Development
AIG. Assistant Inspector General
AIHC: Amencan Industrial Health Council
AIP: Auto lgninon Point
AIRS: Aerometnc Information Retneval Svstem
AL: Acceptable Level
AL. Administrative Leave
AL: Annual Leave
ALA: Amencan Lung Association
ALA: Delta-Aminolevuhnic Acid
ALA-O: Delta-Aminolevulinic Acid Dehydrates
ALAPO: Associanon of Local Air Pollution Con-
trol Officers
ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable
ALC: Application Limmng Consfituent
ALJ: Administrative Law Judge
ALMS: TALMS without the tunable
ALR: Action Leakage Rate
AMA: American Medical Association
AMBIENS: Atmospheric Mass Balance of In-
dustrially Emitted and Natural Sulfur (ex-,
penmental invesngation by the MAP3S Com-
munity)
AMPS: Automatic Mapping and Planning System
AMS: Amencan Meteorological Society
AMSA: Association of Metropolitan Sewer Agen-
cies
ANPR: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ANSS: Amencan Nature Study Society
AO: Administrative Officer
AO: Administrator's Office
AO: Administrative Order (on consent)
AO: Area Office
AO: Awards and Obligations
AOC: Abnormal Operating Conditions
AOD: Argon-Oxvgen Decarbonization
AOML: Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorlogi-
cal Laboratory
AP: Accounting Point
APA: Administrative Procedures Act
APCA: Air Pollution Control Associanon
APCD: Air Pollution Control District
APDS: Automated Procurement Documentation
System
APHA: Amencan Public Health Association
APRAC: Urban Diffusion Model for Carbon
Monoxide from Motor Vehicle Traffic
APT: Associated Pharmacists and Toxicologists
APT1: Air Pollution Training Institute
APWA: Amencan Public Works Association
AQ-7: Non-reactive Pollutant Modeling
AQCCT: Air Quality Cntena and Control Tech-
niques
AQCR: Air Qualitv ContTol Region (CAA)
AQD: Air Quality Digest
AQDHS: Air Qualitv Data Handling Svstem
(OAR)
AQDM: Air Quality Displav Model
AQMA: Air Qualitv Maintenance Area
AQMP: Air Quality Maintenance Plan
AQMP: Air Quality Management Plan
AQSM: Air Quality Simulahon Model
AQTAD: Air Quality Technical Assistance
Demonstration
A&R: Air and Radiation
ARA: Assistant Regional Administrator
ARA: Associate Regional Administrator
ARAR: Applicable or Relevant and Appropnate
Standards. Limitations, Cntena, and Require-
ments
ARB: Air Resources Board
ARC: Agency Ranking Committee
ARCC: Amencan Rivers Conservanon Council
ARG: Amencan Resources Group
ARIP: Accidental Release Information Program
ARL: Air Resources Laboratory
ARM: Air Resources Management
ARO: Alternate Regulatory Option
ARRP: Acid Rain Research Program
ARRPA: Air Resources Regional Pollution Assess-
ment Model
ARZ: Auto-restncted Zone
AS: Area Source
ASG Area Source Category
ASCII: Amencan Standard Code for Information
Interchange
ASDWA: Associanon of State Dnnking Water Ad-
ministrators
ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard Abatement
Act
ASIWCPA: Association ot State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
ASMDHS: Airshed Model Data Handling Svstem
ASRL: Atmospnenc Sciences Research Laboratory
ASTHO: Association ot State and Terruona.
Health Officers
ASTSWMO: Association of State and Temtonal
Solid Waste Management Officials
AT: Advanced Treatment (water!
ATERIS: Air Toxics Exposure and Risk Informa-
tion System (ORD)
AT5: Action Tracking Svstem
ATS: Administrator's Tracking Svstem
ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (HHS)
ATTF: Air Toxics Task Force
AUSA: Assistant United States Attorney
AUSM: Advanced Utility Simulation Model
A/WPR: Air/Water Pollution Report
AWRA: Amencan Water Resources Association
A WW A: Amencan Water Works Association
AWWARF: Amencan Water Works Association
Research Foundation
AX: Administrator s Office
B
BAA: Board of Assistance Appeals (OCC)
BAC: Biotechnology Advisory Committee
BACT: Best Available Control Technology
BADT: Best Available Demonstrated Technologv
BaP: Benzo(a)Pyrene
BAP: Benefits Analysis Program
BART: Best Available Retrofit Technology
BASIS: Battelles Automated Search- Information
System
BAT: Best Available Treatment
BATtA: Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable
BBS: Bulletin Board Svstem
BCC: Blind Carbon Cop\
BCCM: Board tor Certified Consulting Meteoro-
logists
BCT: Best Control Technolog\
BCT: Best Conventional Pollutant Control Tech-
nologv
BDAT: Best Demonstrated Achievable Technolo-
gy
BDT: Best Demonstrated Technology
BEJ: Best Expert Judgment
BEP: Black Employment Program
BG: Billion Gallons
BI: Brookings Institution
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs
BID: Background Information Document
BID: Buovancv Induced Dispersion
BIOPLUME: Model to Predict the Maximum Ex-
tent of Existing Plumes
BLM: Bureau of Land Management
BLOB: Biologically Liberated Organo-Beasties
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics
BMP: Best Management Practices:
BMR: Baseline Monitoring Report (CWA)
BOO " chemical Ox> gen Demand
B n ".jlogical Oxygen Demand
BOF: Basic Oxygen Furnace
BOM: Bureau ot Mines
BOP: Basic Oxygen Process
BOPF: Basic Oxygen Process Furnace
BOYSNC: Beginning ot "lear Significant \on-
Compilers
BP: Boiling Point
BPA: Blanket Purchase Agreement
BPJ: Best Professional Judgment
BPT: Best Practicable Technology
BPT: Best Pracncable Control Technology
3F^": 3est Pracncable Treatment
20
-------
BRS: Bibliographic Retrieval Service
BSO: Benzene Soluble Organics
BTU: British Thermal Unit
BTZ: Below the Treatment Zone
BU: Bargaining Unit
BUN: Blood Urea Nitrogen
BY: Budget Year
c
C. Celsius
CA: Citizen Act
CA: Compennon Advocate
CA: Cooperative Agreements
CA: Correcnve Action
CAA: Clean Air Act
CAA: Compliance Assurance Agreement
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments
CAB: Civil Aeronautics Board
CAD: Computer Assisted Design
CAER: Community Awareness and Emergency
Response
CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAFO: Consent Agreement Final Order
CAG: Carcinogenic Assessment Group
CAIR: Comprehensive Assessment ot Informa-
tion Rule
CALINE: California Line Source Model
CAMP: Connnuous Air Monitoring Program
CAN: Common Account Number
CAO: Correcnve Action Order
CAP: Corrective Action Plan
CAP: Cost Allocation Procedure
CAP: Criteria Air Pollutant
CAR: Correcnve Action Report
CAS: Center for Automotive Safetv
CAS: Chemical Abstract Service
CASAC: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
CASLP: Conference on Alternative State and Local
Practices
CATS: Correcnve Action Tracking System
CAU: Carbon Adsorption Unit
CAU: Command Anthmenc Unit
CB: Continuous Bubbler
CBA: Chesapeake Bay Agreement
CBA: Cost Benent Analysis
CBD: Central Business District
CBD: Commerce Business Daily
CBI: Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection
tCWA)
CBI: Confidental Business Information
CBO: Congressional Budget Office
CBOD: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen De-
mand
CBP: Chesapeake Bay Program
CBP: County Business Patterns
CC: Carbon Copy
CCA: Competinon in Contracting Act
CCAA: Canadian Clean Air Act
CCAP: Center for Clean Air Policy
CCEA: Conventional Combustion Environmental
Assessment
CCHW: Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous
Wastes
CCID: Confidential Chemicals Identification
System
CCMS/NATO : Committee on Challenges of a
Modern SocietviNorth: Atlantic Treaty Organ-
ization
CCP: Composite Correction Plan (CWA)
CC/RTS: Chemical Collection/Request Tracking
System
CCTP: Clean Coal Technology Program
CD: Climatological Data
CDB: Consolidated Data Base
CDBA: Central Data Base Administrator
CDC: Centers for Disease Control (HHS)
CDD: Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
CDF: Chlorinated dibenzofuran
CDHS: Comprehensive Data Handling Svstem
(OAR)
CDI: Case Development Inspecnon
CDM: Climatological Dispersion Model
CDM: Comprehensive Data Management
CDMQC: Climatological Dispersion Model with
Calibration and Source Contribution:
CDNS: Climatological Data Nahonal 5ummarv
CDP: Census Designated Places
CDS: Compliance Data System
CE: Categorical Exclusion
CE: Cost Effectiveness
CEA: Cooperative Enforcement Agreement
CEA: Cost and Economic Assessment (OECM)
CEA: Council of Economic Advisors
CEAT: Contractor Evidence Audit Team
CEARC: Canadian Environmental Assessment
Research Council
CEB: Chemical Element Balance
CEC: Commission of European Communities
CECATS: CSB Existing Chemicals Assessment
Tracking System (OPTS)
CEE: Center for Environmental Education
CEEM: Center for Energy and Environmental
Management
CEI: Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CWA)
CELRF: Canadian Environmental Law Research
Foundation
CEM: Continuous Emission Monitoring (CAA)
CEMS: Continuous Emission Monitoring System
CEO: Chief Execunve Officer
CEPP: Chemical Emergency Preparedness Plan
CEQ: Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Informa-
tion System (OSWER)
CERI: Center for Environmental Research In-
formation
CERT: Certificate of Eligibility
CEU: Continuing Education Units
CF: Conservation Foundation
CFA: Consumer Federation of American
CFC: Chlorofluorocarbons
CFM: Chlorofluoromethanes
CFM: Cubic Feet Per Minute (ft. 3'mm. preferred
except with ACFM or SCFM)
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CFS: Cubic feet per second
CHABA: Committee on Hearing and Bio-
Acoustics
CHAMP: Community Health Air Monitoring Pro-
gram
CHEMTREC: Chemical Transportation Emergen-
cy Center
CHESS: Community Health and Environmental
Surveillance System
CHIP: Chemical Hazard Information Profile
CI: Compression Ignition
CI: Confidence Interval
C1AQ: Council on Indoor Air Quality
CIBL: Convective Internal Boundary Layer
CICA: Competition in Contracting Act
CICIS: Chemicals in Commerce Information Sys-
tem
CIDRS: Cascade Impactor Data Reduction System
CIMI: Committee on Integrity and Management
Improvement
CIS: Chemical Information Svstem
CIS: Contracts Information System
CJE: Critical Job Element
CJO: Chief Judicial Officer
CLC: Capacity Limiting Constituents
CLEANS: Clinical Laboratory for Evaluanon and
Assessment of Toxic Substances
CLEVER: Clinical Laboratory for Evaluation and
Validation of Epidemiologic Research
CLF: Conservation Law Foundation
CUPS: Chemical List Index and Processing
Svstem
CLP: Contract Laboratory Program
CM: Correcnve Measure
CMA: Chemical Manufacturers Association
CMB: Chemical Mass Balance
CME: Comprehensive (ground waterl Monitoring
Evaluanon
CMEL: Comprehensive (ground ivateri Monitor-
ing Evaluanon Log
CMEP: Critical Mass Energy Proiect
COCO: Contractor Owned Contractor-Operated
COD: Chemical Oxvgen demand
COE: U.S Army Corps ot Engineers
COH: Coefficient ot Haze
CONG: Congressional Committee
CPF: Carcinogenic Potencv Factor
CP1: Consumer Price Index
CPO: Certified Proiect Officer
CPR: Center for Public Resources
CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission
CQA: Construcnon Qualitv Assurance
CR: Community Relahons
CROP: Consolidated Rules of Practice
CRR: Center for Renewable Resources
CRS: Congressional Research Service
CRSTER: Single Source Dispersion Model
CSI: Clean Sites, Inc
CSI: Compliance Sampling Inspecnon ICWA)
CSIN: Chemical Substances Information Network
CSMA: Chemical Specialties Manutacturers
Association
CSO: Combined Sewer Overflow
CSPA: Council of State Planning Agencies
CSPI: Center for Science in the Public Interest
CSRL: Center for the Studv ot Responsive Law
CTARC: Chemical Testing and Assessment Re-
search Commission
CW: Congress Watch
CWA: Clean Water Act (aka FWPCA)
CWAP: Clean Water Acnon Proiect
CWTC: Chemical Waste Transportanon Council
D
DA: Deputy Administrator
DAR: Defense Acquisition Ifegulations
dB: Decibel
DCA: Document Control Assistant
DCO: Delayed Compliance Order (CAA)
DCO: Document Control Officer
DDT: D(Ichloro)D(Iphebvl)T(Richloroethane)
DES: Diethvlstiibesterol
DI: Diagnostic Inspection (CWA)
DMR: Discharge Monitoring Report
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic and
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
DOC: Department of Commerce
DOD: Department of Defense
DOE: Department of Energy
DOI: Department of Interior
DOJ: Department of Justice
DOL: Department of Labor
DOS: Department of State
DOT: Department ot Transportanon
DOW: Defenders of Wildlife
DPA: Deepwater Ports Act
DQO: Data Qualify Ob)ecfive
DRA: Deputy Regional Administrator
DRC: Deputy Regional Counsel
DRMS: Defense Reutilizahon and Marketing Ser-
vice
DS: Dichotomous Sampler
DSAP: Data Self Auditing Program
-------
DSCF: Dry Standard Cubic Feet
DSCM: Drv Standard Cubic Meter
DSS: Decision Support System
DSS: Domestic Sewage Study
DT: Detention Time
DU: Dension Unit
DU: Ducks Unlimited
DUC: Decision Unit Coordinator
DWS: Drinking Water Standard
E
EA: Endangerment Assessment
EA: Enforcement Agreement
EA: Environmental Action
EA: Environmental Assessment (NEPA)
EA: Environmental Audit
EAF: Electnc Arc Furnaces
EAG: Exposure Assessment Group (ORD)
EAP: Environmental Action Plan
EAR: Environmental Auditing Roundtable
EB: Emissions Balancing
EBCDIC: Extended Binary Coded Decimal Inter-
change Code
EC. European Community (Common Market)
EC: Environment Canada
EC: Effective Concentration
ECA: Economic Community for Africa
ECAP: Employee Counseling and Assistance Pro-
gram
ECD: Electron Capture Detector
ECE: Economic Commission for Europe
ECHH: Electro-Catalytic Hyper-Heaters
ECL: Environmental Chemical Laboratory
ECL: Executive Control Language
ECLA: Economic Commission for Latin America
ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility Act
ED: Department of Education
ED: Effective Dose
EDA: Economic Development Administration
EDA: Emergency Declaration Area
EDB: Ethylene Dibromide
EDC: Ethylene Dichlonde.
EDD: Enforcement Decision Document
EDF: Environmental Defense Fund
EDP: Electronic Data Processing
EDRS: Enforcement Document Retrieval System
EDS: Electronic Data System
EDS: Energy Data Svstem
EDT: Edit Data Transmission
EDTA: Ethylene Diamine Triacetic Acid
EDZ: Emission Densitv Zoning
EEA: Energy and Environmental Analysis
EEC: European Economic Commission
EEG: Electroencephalogram
EEI: Edison Electnc Institute
EENET: Emergency Educanon Network (FEMA)
EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion
EER: Excess Emission Report
EERL: Eastern Environmental Radiation Labora-
tory-
EERU: Environmental Emergency Response Unit
EESI: Environment and Energy Study Institute
EESL: Environmental Ecological and Support Lab-
oratory
EETFC: Environmental Effects, Transport and
Fate Committee
EF: Emission Factor
EFO: Equivalent Field Office
EFTC: European Fluorocarbon Technical Com-
mittee
EGR: Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EH: Redox Potential
EHC: Environmental Health Committee (SAB)
EHS: Extremely Hazardous Substance
EI: Emissions Inventory
EIA: Economic Impact Assessment
EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment
E1L: Environmental Impairment Liability
EIR: Endangerment Information Report
EIR: Environmental Impact Report
EIS: Environmental Inventory System
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement (NEPA)
EIS/AS: Emissions Inventory System/Area Source
EIS/PS: Emissions Inventory System/Point Source
EKMA: Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
EL: Exposure Level
ELI: Environmental Law Institute
ELR: Environmental Law Reporter
EM: Electromagnetic Conductivity
EM: Electron Microscope
E-MAIL: Electronic Mail
EMAS: Enforcement Management and Account-
ability System (OECM)
EMI: Emergency Management Institute
EMR: Environmental Management Report
EMS: Enforcement Management System
EMSL: Environmental Monitoring Support Lab-
oratory
EMSL: Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab-
oratory
EMTS: Environmental Monitoring Testing Site
EMTS: Exposure Monitonng Test Site
EO: Ethylene Oxide
EO: Executive Officer
EO: Executive Older
EOB: Executive Office Building
EOC: Emergency Operating Center
EOD: Entrance on Duty
EOE: Equal Opportunity Employer
EOJ: End of Job
EOP: Emergency Operations Plan
EOT: Emergency Operations Team
EOY: End of Year
EP: Earth Protectors
EP: Environmental Profile
EP: Extraction Procedure
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance Act-
EPAAR: EPA Acquisition Regulations
EPACASR: EPA Chemical Activities Status Report
EPAYS: EPA Payroll System
EPD: Emergency Planning District
EPI: Environmental Policy Institute
EPIC: Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center
EPNL: Effective Perceived Noise Level
EPO: Estuanne Programs Office (NOAA)
EPRI: Electnc Power Research Institute
EPTC: Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteris-
tic
ER: Electrical Resistivity
ERA: Economic Regulatory Agency
ERAMS: Environmental Radiation Ambient
Monitonng System (OAR)
ERC: Emergency Response Commission
ERC: Emissions Reduction Credit
ERC: Environmental Research Center
ERCS: Emergency Response Cleanup Services
ERDA: Energy Research and Development Ad-
ministration
ERD&DAA: Environmental Research, Develop-
ment and Demonstration Authorization Act
ERL: Environmental Research Laboratory
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
ERP: Enforcement Response Policy
ERT: Emergency Response Team
ERTAQ: ERT Air Quality Model
ES: Enforcement Strategy
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ESA: Environmentally Sensitive Area
ESC: Endangered Species Committee
ESCA: Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Anal-
ysis
ESCAP: Economic and Sooal Commission tor Asia
and the Pacific
ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act
ESH: Environmental Safetv and Health
ESP: Electrostatic Precipitators
ET: Emissions Trading
ETP: Emissions Trading Policy
ETS: Environmental Tobacco Smoke
EWCC: Environmental Workforce Coordinating
Committee
EX: Executive Level Appointment
ExEx: Expected Exceedance
EUP: Environmental Use Permit
F
F: Fahrenheit (Degrees)
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act
FACM: Fnable Asbestos-Containing Matenal
FAM: Fnable Asbestos Matenal
FAME: Framework for Achieving Managenal Ex-
cellence
FAN: Fixed Account Number
FAO: Food'and Agriculture Organization
FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulations
FASB: Financial Accounnng Standards Board
FATES: FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement Svstem
FBC: Fluidized bed combustion
FCC: Federal Communications Commission
FCC: Fluid Catalvnc Converter
f/cc: Fibers per cubic centimeters (of air)
FCCU: Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
FCO: Federal Coordinating Officer (in disaster
areas)
FCO: Forms Control Officer
FDA: Food and Drug Administration
FDF: Fundamentally Different Factors
FDIC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
FDL: Final Determination Letter
FDO: Fee Determination Official
FE: Fugitive Emissions
FEA^ Federal Energy Administration
FEC:'Federal Executive Council
FEDS: Federal Energy Data System
FEFx: Forced Expiratory Flow
FEHB: Federal Employees Health Benefits
FEI: Federal Executive Institute
FEIS: Fugitive Emissions Information Systemv
FEL: Frank Effect Level
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Ageno
FEMA-REP-1: Response Plans and Preparedness
in Support of Nuclear Power Plants
FEMA-REP-2: Guidance for Developing State ano
Local Radiological Emergency Response Plans
and Preparedness for Transportation Actions
FEPCA: Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
FERC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FERSA: Federal Employee Retirement System Act
FES: Factor Evaluation System
FEV: Forced Expiratory Volume
FEV1: Forced Expiratory Volur	second
FEVI: Front End Volatility Inde*
FEW: Federally Employed Women
FF: Federal Facilities
FFF: Firm Financial Facility
FFAR: Fuel and Fuel Additive Registration
FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmenc Act
FFFSG: Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator
FFIS: Federal Facilities Information System
FFP: Firm Fixed Pnce
FGD: Flue Gas Desulfunzanon
FHA: Farmers Home Admirusrranon
22
-------
FHA: Federal Housing Administration
FHLBB: Federal Home Loan Bank Board
FHWA: Federal Highwav Administration
FIA: Federal Insurance Administration
FIG Federal Information Center
FICA: Federal Insurance Contributions Act
FID: Flame Ionization Detector
FIFO: First la First Out
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Roden-
fcide Act
FIM: Fnable Insulation Material
FINDS: Facility Index System iOIR\t)
FIP: Federal Implementation Plan
FIP: Federal Intormation Plan
FIP: Final Implementanon Plan
FIPS: Federal Information Procedures System
FIT: Field Investigation Team
FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
FLM: Federal Land Manager
FLP: Flash Point
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management
Act
FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act
FM: Fnable Material
F'M: Food to Microorganism Ratio
FMC: Federal Maritime Commission
FMFIA: Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
FML: Flexible Membrane Liner
FMO: Financial Management Officer
FMP: Facility Management Plan
FMP: Financial Management Plan
FMS; Financial Management System
FMVCP: Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
FOE: Friends of the Earth
FOIA: Freedom ot Information Act
FOISD: Fiber Optic Isolated Spherical Dipol An-
tenna
FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact (NEPA)
FORAST: Forest Response to Anthropogenic
Stress
FORTRAN: Formula Translation
FP: Fine Particulate
FPA: Federal Pesticide Act
FPC: Federal Power Commission
FPD: Flame Photometric Detector
FPEIS: Fine Particulate Emissions Information
S> stem
FPM: Federal Personnel Manual
FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation
FPRS: Federal Program Resources Statement
FPRS: Formal Planning arid Supporting System
FR: Federal Register
FR: Final Rulemaking
FRA: Federal Register Act
FRB: Federal Reserve Board
FRC: Federal Records Center
FRDS: Federal Reporting Data System
FREDS: Flexible Regional Emissions Data System
FRES: Forest Range Environmental Study
FRM: Federal Reference Methods
FRN: Final Rulemaking Notice
FRS: Formal Reporting System
FRTIB: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment
Board
FS: Feasibility Study
FS: Forest Service
FSA: Food Security Act
FSS: Facility Status Sheet
FSS: Federal Supply Schedule
FT: Full Time
FTC: Federal Trade Commission
FTE: Full Time Equivalent
FTP: Federal Test Procedure (for motor vehicles)
FTS: Federal Telecommunications System
FT5: File Transfer Service
TT: Full-Time Temporary
rUA: Fuel Use Act
FURS: Federal Underground Inaction Control
Reporting Svstem
FVC: Forced Vital Capacity
FVMP: Federal Visibility Monitoring Program
FVVCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
F"WP: Federal Women's Program
FV/PCA: Federal Water Pollution Control Act (aka
Clean Water Act. or CWA)
FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration
FVVS: Fish and Wildlife Service
FY: Fiscal Year
FYI: For Your Information
G
GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GAC: Ground-Water Activated Carbon
GACT: Granular Activated Carbon Treatment
GAO: General Accounting Office
GBL: Government Bill of Lading
GC: Gas Chromatograph
GC: General Counsel
GGMS: Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectograph
GCWR: Gross Combinanon Weight Rating
GEA: Glossary of EPA Acronyms
GEI: Geographic Enforcement Initiative
GEMS: Global Environmental Monitoring System
GEMS: Graphical Exposure Modeling Svstem
(OTS)
GEP: Good Engineering Practice
GF: General Files
GFF: Glass Fiber Filter
GFP: Govemment-Fumished Property
GI: Gastrointestinal
GICS: Grant Information and Control System
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
GIS: Global Indexing System
GLC: Gas Liquid Chromatography
GLERL: Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory
GLNPO: Great Lakes National ProgTam Office
GLP: Good Laboratory Practices
GLWQA: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
GMCC: Global Monitoring tor Climatic Change
g/mi: Grams per mile
GMT: Greenwich Mean Time
GNP: Gross National Product
GOCM: Goals, Ob)ectives, Commitments, and
Measures
GOCO: Goverment-Owned/Contractor-Operated
GOGO: Goverment-Owned/Government-
Ope rated
GOP: General Operating Procedures
GOPO: Goverment-Owned/Pnvately-Operated
GPAD: Gallons per acre per day
GPG: Grams per Gallon
GPO: Government Printing Office
GPR: Ground-Penetrating Radar
GPS: Ground-Water Protection Strategy
GRGL: Ground-Water Residue Guidance Level
GS: General Schedule
GSA: General Services Administration
GTN: Global Trend Network
GTR: Government Transportation Request
GVP: Gasoline Vapor Pressure
GVW: Gross Vehicle Weight
GVWR: Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GW: Ground Water
GWM: Ground-Water Monitoring
GWPS: Ground-Water Protection Standard
GWPS: Ground-Water Protection Strategy
H
HAD: Health Assessment Document
HAP: Hazardous Air Pollutant
HAPEMS: Hazardous Air Pollutant Enforcement
Management Svstem
HAPPS: Hazardous Air Pollutant Pnontizanon
Svstem
HATREMS: Hazardous and Trace Emissions
Svstem
HAZMAT: Hazardous Material
HAZOP: Hazard and Operabtlitv Studv
HB: Health Benefits
HBEP: Hispanic and Black Employ ment Programs
HC: Hazardous Constituents
HC: Hydrocarbons
HCCPD: Hexachlorocvclopentadiene
HCP: Hvpothermal Coal Process
HDD: Heavv-Dutv Diesel
HDE: Heavv-Dutv Engine
HDG: Heaw-Dutv Gasoline-Poured Vehicle
HDPE: High Densitv Polyethelene
HDT: Heavv-Dutv Truck
HDV: Heavv-Dutv Vehicle
HEAL: Human Exposure Assessment Location
HECC: House Energy and Commerce Committee
HEI: Health Effects Institute
HEM: Human Exposure Modeling
HEP: Hispanic Employment Program
HEPA: High-Efficiency Particulate Air
HERL: Health Effects Research Laboratory
HERS: Hvpenon Energy Recovery Svstem
HEX-BCH: Hexachloronorbomadiene
HHE: Human Health and the Environment
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services-
Formeriv HEW
HHV: Higher Heating Value
HI: Hazard Index
HI-VOL: High-Volume Sampler
H1WAY: A Line Source Model tor Caseous Pollut-
ants
HLRW: High-Level Radioactive Waste
HMIS: Hazardous Matenals Informanon System
HMS: Highway Mobile Source
HMTA: Hazardous Matenals Transportation Act
HMTR: Hazardous Materials Transportation
Regulations
HO: Headquarters Offices
HOC: Halogenated Organic Carbons
HON: Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HOV: High-Occupancy Vehicle
HP: Horse Power
HPLC: High Performance Liquid Chromatogra-
phy
HPV: High Priority Violater
HQ: Headquarters
HQCDO: Headquarters Case Development Offi-
cer
HRC: Human Resources Council
HRS: Hazardous Ranking Svstem
HRUP: High Risk Urban Problem
HSDB: Hazardous Substance Data Base
HSL: Hazardous Substance List
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments-
Hvpothermally Treated
H"1".'. High Temperature and Pressure
HUD: Department ot Housing and Urban De-
velopment
HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Condition-
ing (System)
HVIO: High Volume Industrial Or^anics
HW: Hazardous Waste
HWDMS: Hazardous V»aste Data Management
System (OSWER)
HWERL: Hazardous Waste Eniin>?<;nnii Research
Laboratory
-------
HWGTF: Hazaraous Waste Ground Water Task
Force
HWGTF: Hazardous Waste Ground Water Test
Facility
HWLT: Hazaraous Waste Land Treatment
HWM: Hazardous Waste Managment
HWRTF: Hazardous Waste Restrictions Task
Force
HWTC: Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
I
IA: Interagency Agreeement
1AAC. Interagency Assessment Advisory Com-
mittee
IAEA: International Atomic Energv Agency
IAG. Interagencv Agreement
IAP: Incentive Awards Program
IAP: Indoor Air Pollution
IARC: International Agencv for Research on
Cancer
IARDB: Interim Air Toxics Data Base
IBA: Industrial Biotechnology Association
IBRD: International Bank tor Reconstruction and
Development
1CAIR: Interdisciplinary Planning and Informa-
non Research
ICAP: Inducnvelv Coupled Argon Plasma
ICBN: Intemanonal Commission on the Biological
Effects of Noise
ICC: Interstate Commerce Commission
ICE: Industrial Combustion Emissions Model
ICE: Internal Combustion Engine
ICP: Inductiveiv Coupled Plasma
ICR: Information Collecnon Request
ICRE: Ignitabilitv, Corrosivitv, Reactivity. Extrac-
tion (Characteristics)
ICRP: International Commission on Radiological
Protection
ICS: Institute tor Chemical Studies.
ICS: Intermittent Control Strategies
ICS: Intermittent Control System (CAA)
ICWM: Insnrute tor Chemical Waste Management
ID: Inside Diameter
IDLH: Immediately Dangerous to Life and
Health
IEB: International Environment Bureau
IEMP: Integrated Environmental Management
Project
IES: Institute tor Environmental Studies
IFB: Invuanon tor Bid
1FCAM: Industrial Fuel Choice Analysis Model
IF1S : Industry File Informanon System
IFPP: Industrial Fuginve Process Particulate
IG: Inspector General
IGCI: industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
IIS: inflationary Impact Statement
1JC: Intemanonal Joint Commission (on Great
Lakes)
I'M: Inspection, Maintenance
IMM: Intersecnon Midblock Model
IMPACT: Integrated Model of Plumes and Atmos-
phere in Complex Terrain
IMPROVE: Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environment
INPUFF: A Gaussian Puff Dispersion Model
INT: Intermittent
IO: Immediate Office
IOAA: Immediate Office of the Assistant Adminis-
trator
IOAU: input/Output Arithmetic Unit
IOB: Iron Ore Beneficianon
lOU: InpulOutput Unit
IP- Inhalable Particles
IPA: Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPA: Intergovernmental Personnel Agreement
IPM: Inhalable Parnculate Matter
IPM. Integrated Pest Management
IPP: Implementanon Planning Program
IPP: Integrated Plotting Package
IPP: Intermedia Pnonrv Pollutant (document)
IPCS: International Program on Chemical Safety
IR: Infrared
IRG: Interagency Review Group
IRIS: Instructional Resources Information System
IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System
IRM: Intermediate Remedial Measures (CERCLA)
IRMC: Inter-Regulatorv Risk Management Coun-
cil
IRP: Installation Restoranon Program
IRPTC: Intemanonal Register of Potentially Toxic
Chemicals
IRR: Insntute of Resource Recovery
IRS: Internal Revenue Service
IRS: Intemanonal Referral S\ stems
IS: Interim Status
ISAM: Indexed Sequential File Access Method
ISC: Industnal Source Complex
ISCL: Interim Status Compliance Letter
ISCLT: Industnal Source Complex Long Term
Model
ISCST: Industnal Source Complex Short Term
Model
ISD: Interim Status Document (RCRA)
ISE: Ion-specific electrode
ISMAP: Indirect Source Model for Air Pollunon
ISS: Interim Status Standards
ITC: Interagency Testing Committee
ITC: International Trade Commission
ITDP: Individual Training and Development Plan
ITP: Individual Training Plan
IWC: In-Stream Waste Concentrahon (CWA)
IWS: Ionizing Wet Scrubber
J
JAPCA: Journal of Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion
JCL: Job Control Language
JEC: Joint Economic Committee
JLC: Justification for Limited Competition
JNCP: Justification for \on-Competitive Procure-
ment
JOFOC: Justification for Other Than Full and
Open Compennon
JPA: Joint Permitting Agreement
JSD: Jackson Structured Design
JSP: Jackson Structured Programming
JTU: Jackson Turbidity Unit
K
KW: Kilowatt
KWH: Kilowatt Hour
L
LAA: Lead Agencv Attorney
LAER: Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
LAI: Laboratory Audit Inspection
LAMP: Lake Acidification Mitigatic- . ect
(EPRI)
LC: Lethal Concentranon
LC: Liquid Chromatography
LCD: Local Climatological Data
LCL: Lower Control Limit
LCM: Life Cycle Management
LCRS: Leachate Collection and Removal System
LD: Land Disposal
LD: Light Dutv
LD50: Low Dose Where Fiftv Percent of Animals
Die
LDC: London Dumping Convention
LDCRS: Leachate Detection. Collection and Re-
moval Svstem
LDD: Light-Dutv Diesel
LDIP: Laboratorv Data Integntv Program
LDR: Land Disposal Restnctions
LDRTF: Land Disposal Restnctions Task Force
LDS: Leak Detection Svstem
LDT: Light-Dutv Truck
LDV: Light-Dut\ \ehicle
LEL: Lower Explosi\e Limit
LEP: Laboratorv Evaluation Program
LEPC: Local Emergencv Planning Committee
LERC: Local Emergencv Response Committee
LFL: Lower Flammabihtv. Limit
LIDAR: Light Detection and Ranging
LIFO: Last In/First Out
LIMB: Limestone-Injection, Multi-Stage Burner
LLRW: Low Level Radioactive Waste
LMFBR: Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor
LMR: Labor Management Relations
LNEP: Low Noise Emission Product
LNG: Liquified Natural Gas
LOAFL: Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
LOC: Librarv of Congress
LOE: Level of Eftort
LOEL: Lowest Observed Effect Level
LOIS: Loss of Intenm Status (5DV\ Ai
LONGZ: Long-Term Terrain Model
LOQ: Level of Quantitation
LP: Legislanve Proposal
LPG: Liquified Petroleum Gas
LSI: Legal Support Inspection (CWA)
LSL: Lump Sum Leave
LST: Low-Solvent Technology
LTA: Lead Tnal Attornev
LTD: Land Treatment Demonstration
LTO: Landing-Takeott Cvcle
LTOP: Lease to Purchase
LTR: Lead Technical Representative
LTU: Land Treatment Unit
LUST: Leaking underground Storage Tanktsi Icur-
rent usage omits the "L")
LWCF: Land and Water Conservation Fund
LWOP: Lease with Option to Purchase-
LWOP: Leave Without Pav
M
MAB: Man and Biosphere Program
MADCAP: Model of Advection. Dittusion and
Chemistry tor Air Pollution
MAER: Maximum Allowable Emission Rate
MAG: Management Advisorv Group
MAP3S: Multistate Atmospheric Power Produc-
tion Pollunon Studv
MAPPER: Maintaining, Preparing, and Producing
Execunve Reports
MAPSIM: Mesoscale Air Pollution Simulation
Model
MARC: Mining and Reclamation Council
MATC: Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentra-
non
MBDA: Minontv Business Development Agencv
MBE: Minority Business Enterprises
MCA: Manufacturing Chemists Association
MCEF: Mixed Cellulose Ester Filter
MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MCP: Municipal Compliance Plan (CWAl
MD: Mail Drop
MDA: Methvlenedianilline
MDL: Method Detection Limit
MEF5: Midterm Energv Forecasting Svstem
MEI: Maximum Exposed Individual
MEK: Methvl Ethvl Ketone
MEM: Modal Emission Model
MENS: Mission Element Needs Statement
2 c
-------
MEP: Multiple Extraction Procedure
MERL: Municipal Environmental Research Lab-
oratory
MESOPAC: Mesoscale Meteorological Reproces-
ser Program
MESOPLUME: Mesoscale "Bent Plume' Model
MESOPUFF: Mesoscale Putf Model
MESS: Model Evaluation Support Svstem
MFBI: Ma|or Fuel Burning Installation
MFC: Metal Finishing Cateaorv
MGD: Million Gallons Per Dav
MH: Man-Hours
MHD: Magnetohvdrodynamics.
MIBK: Methvl Isobutvl Ketone
MIC. Methvl Isocavnate
MICE: Management Intormanon Capability for
Enforcement
MICROMORT: A One-in-a-Million Chance of
Death trom an Environmental Hazard
MIPS: Millions of Instructions Per Second
MIS: Management Information System
MIS: Mineral Industry Survevs
MITS: Management Information Tracking System
ML: Meteorology Laboratory:
ML: Military Leave
MLAP: Migrant Legal Action Program
MLSS: Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MLVSS: Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids'
MMS: Minerals Management Service (DOI)
MMT: Million Metric Tons
MOA: Memorandum ot Agreement
MOBILE: Mobile Source Emission Model
MOD: Miscellaneous Obligation Document
MOD: Modification
MOI: Memorandum of Intent
MOS: Margin ot Safety
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
MP: Melting Point
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization
MPP: Merit Promotion Plan
MPRSA: Marine Protection. Research and Sanc-
tuaries Act
MPTOS: Ml'I tR Model with Deposition and Set-
tling of Pollutants
MPTER: Multiple Point Source Model with Ter-
rain
MRA: Minimum Retirement Age
MRP: Multi-Roller Press (in sludge drying unit)
MS: Mail Stop
MS: Mass Spectrometry
MSA: Management Svstem Audits
MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Areas
MSAM: Multi-Keyed Indexed Sequential File Ac-
cess Method.
MSDS. Material Safety Data Sheet
MSEE: Major Source Enforcement Effort
MSHA: Mine Safety and Health Administration
IDOL)
MSIS- Model State Information System
MSL: Mean Sea Level
MSPB: Ment System Protection Board
MTB: Matenals Transportation Bureau
MTBE: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
MTD: Maximum Tolerated Dose
MTDDIS: Mesoscale Transport Diffusion and
Deposition Model for Industrial Sources
MTG: Media Task Croup
MTS: Management Tracking Svstem (OW)
MTSL: Monitoring and Technical Support Labora-
tory
MTU: Mobile Treatment Unit
MVA: Multivariate Analysis
MVAPCA: Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control
Act
MVEL. Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory
MVI/M: Motor Vehicle Inspection. Maintenance
MVICSA. Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act
MVRS: Marine Vapor Recovery Svstem
MVTS: Motor Vehicle Tampering Survey
MW: Megawatt
MW: Molecular Weight
MWC: Municipal Waste Combustor
MWC: Model Work Croup
MWL: Municipal Waste Leachate
MYDP: Multi-Year Development Plans
N
NA: National Archives
NA: Nonattainment
N/A: Not Applicable
N/A: .Mot Available
NAA: Nonattainment Areas
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Program (CAA)
NAAS: National Air Audit System (OAR)
NACA: National Agricultural Chemicals Associa-
tion
NADB: Nanonal Atmospheric Data Bank
NADP: National Atmospheric Deposition Pro-
gram
NIAIS: Neutral Administrative Inspection
System
NALD: Nonattainment Areas Lacking Demon-
strations
NAMA: National Air Monitoring Audits
NAMS: Nanonal Air Monitoring Svstem
NANCO: Nanonal Association ot Noise Control
Offioals
NAPAP: National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program
NAPBN: National Air Pollution Background Net-
work
NAPBTAC: National Air Pollution Control Tech-
nical Advisory Committee
NAR: National Asbestos Registry
NARA: National Air Resources Act
NARA: National Archives and Records Adminis-
tration
NARS: National Asbestos-Contractor Registry
5vstem
NAS: Nanonal Academy of Sciences
NAS: National Audubon Society
NASA: Nanonal Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration
NATICH: Nanonal Air Toxics Information Clear-
inghouse
NAVVC. Nanonal Associahon ot Water Companies
NAWDEX: National Water Data Exchange
NBAR: Non-Binding Allocation of Authority
NBS: National Bureau of Standards
NCA: National Coal Association.
NCA: Noise Control Act
NCAC: .National Clean Air Coalition
NCAF: National Clean Air Fund
NCAMP: Nanonal Coalition Against the Misuse of
Pesticides
NCAQ: Nahonal Commission on Air Quality
NCAR: Nanonal Center for Atmospheric Research
NCASI: Nanonal Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvements
NCC: Nanonal Climatic Center
NCC: National Computer Center
NCF: Network Control Facility
NCHS: Nanonal Center for Health Stansncs (N1H)
NCI: Nanonal Cancer Institute
NCIC: National Crime Information Center
NCLP: Nanonal Contract Laboratory Program
NCM: National Coal Model
NCM: Notice ot Commencement of Manufacture
(TSCA)
NCO: Negonated Consent Order
NCP: Nanonal Contingency Plan (CERCLA)
NCP: Noncompliance Penalties (CAA)
NCP: Nonconformance Penalty
NCR: Noncompliance Report 1CWA1
NCR: Nonconformance Report
NCRIC: National Chemical Response and In-
formation Center
NCS: Nanonal Compliance Strategy
NCV: Nerve Conducnon Velocity
NCVECS: .National Center tor Vehicle Emissions
Control and Satetv
NCWQ-. National Commission on W ater Quahtx
NDD: Negotiation Decision Document
NDDN: Nanonal Drv Deposinon Network
NDIR: Nondispersive Infrared Analysis
NDS: Nanonal Dioxin Studv
NDS: National Disposal Site
NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory
Council
NEA: Nahonal Energy Act
NEDA: N ational Ens ironmental Dev eiopment
Associanon
NEDS: National Emissions Data Sv~;eTi
NEEC: National Environmental Enforcement
Council (NAAG)
NEE]: Nahonal Environmental EmorveT.ent lour-
nal (NAAG)
NEIC: Nanonal Enforcement Investimations Cen-
ter
NEP: National Energy Plan
NEP: National Estuary Program
NEPA: Nanonal Environmental folic. -Vet
NER: Nanonal Emissions Report
NEROS: Northeast Regional Oxidant Studv
NESCAUM: Northeast States tor Coordinated Air
L'se Management
NESHAPS: National Emissions Standards 'or
Hazardous Air Pollutants (C.AAi
NETC: National Emergency Training Center
NETTING: Emission Trading L'sed to Avoid PSD
NSR Permit Review Requirements
NFAN: Nanonal Filter Analvsis Network
NFFE: Nanonal Federation ot Federal E-nplovees
NF1P: National Flood Insurance Program
NFWF: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
NGA: Natural Cas Associanon
NGPA: Natural Gas Policv Act
NGWIC: National Ground Water Information
Center
NHANES: National Health and Nutrition Ex-
amination Studv
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA: National Highwav Trattic jatetv Act
NHTSA: National Highwav Trattic Satetv Ad-
ministration (DOT)
NHWP: Northeast Hazardous Waste Prciect
NICS: National Institute tor Chemical Studies
NIEHS: National Institute ot Environmental
Health Sciences
NIEI: Nanonal Indoor Environmental Institute
N1H: Nanonal Insntutes of Health
NIM: National Impact Model
NIMBY: Not In Mv Backvard
NIOSH: National Insntuteot Occupational Safety
and Health
NIPDWR: National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulanons
NIS: Noise Information Svstem
NITEP: Nanonallncineratr ie= ngandEvalua-
non Program
NLAP: Nanonal Laboratory Audit program
NLETS: National Law Enforcement Teletv pe Sv s-
tems
NLM: Nanonal Library ot Medicine
NLT: Not Later Than
NMC: Nanonal Meteorological Center
NMFS: Nahonal Marine Fisherie* ien.^e DOCi
NMHC: Nonmethane Hvdrocarcvn-.
NMOC: Nonmethane Organic Comtvi'nJ
NMP: Nahonal Municipal Policv
-------
NMR: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
NNC. Notice ot Noncompliance
NNPSPP: National Non-Point Source Pollution
Program
NOA: New Obligation Authority
NOAA: Nanonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (DOC)
NOAEL: No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NOC: Notice of Commencement
NOD: Notice of Deficiency (RCRA)
NOEL: No Observed Effects Level
NOHSCP: National Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stances Contingency Plan
NON: Notice of Noncompliance (TSCA)
NOPES; Non-Occupational Pesticide Exposure
Study
NORA: National Oil Recvclers Association
NOS: Nanonal Ocean Survey (NOAA)
NOV: Notice of Violation
NOV/C/D: Notice of Violation/Compliance'
Demand
NPAA: Noise Pollution and Abatement Act
NPCA: National Parks and Conservanon Associa-
non
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (CWA)
NPIRES: National Pesticide Information Retneval
System
NPL: Nanonal Pnonty List (CERCl-A)
NPM: National Program Manager
NPN: National Particulate Network
NPRM: Nonce of Proposed Rulemaking
NPS: National Park Service
NPS: National Permit Strategv
NPS: National Pesncide Survey (OW)
NPS: Non-Point Source
NPUG: National Pnme User Group
NRA: National Recreation Area
NRC: National Research Council
NRC: National Response Center
NRC: Non-Reusable Containers
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRCA: National Resource Council of America
NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council
NRT: National Response Team
NRWA: National Rural Water Associanon.
NSC: National Security Council
NSDWR: National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulanons
NSF: National Sanitahon Foundation
NSF: National Science Foundation
NSO: N'onterrous Smelter Orders (CAA)
NSPS: New Source Performance Standards (CAA)
NSR: New Source (Pre-construction) Review
NSTL: National Space Technology Laboratory
NSWMA: National Solid Waste Management
Association
N5WS: National Surtace Water Survey
NTA. Negotiated Testing Agreement
NTE: Not to Exceed
NTIS: National Technical Information Service
NTN: National Trends Network
NTP* National Toxicology Program
NTSP: National Transportation Safety Board
NURF: NAPA Utility Reference File
NVPP: National Vehicle Population Poll
NWA: National Water Alliance
NWF: National Wildlife Federation
NWPA: Nuclear Waste Policy Act
NWRC: National Weather Records Center
NWS: National Weather Service (NOAA)
0
0*: Total Oxidants
OASDI: Old Age and Survivor Insurance
OC: Object Class
OCD: Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model
OCI: Organizational Conflicts ot Interest
OCR: Optical Character Reader
OCS: Outer Continental Shelf
OCSLA: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
OD: Organizational Development
OD: Outside Diameter
OF: Optional Form
O&G: Oil and Gas
O&M: Operanons and Maintenance
OMB: Office ot Management and Budget
OP: Operating Plan
OPAC: Overall Performance Appraisal Certifica-
tion
OPF: Official Personnel Folder
ORM: Other Regulated Material
ORNL: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ORP: Oxidation-Reduction Potennal
ORV: Off-road Vehicle
OSC: On-Scene Coordinator
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Act
OSHA: Occupanonal Safetv and Health Adminis-
tration (DOL)
OSM: Office of Surface Mining (DOI)
OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy
(White House)
OS/VS: Operating SvstemVirtual Storage
OT: Overtime
OTA: Office of Technology Assessment (US Con-
gress)
OY: Operating Year
OYG: Operating Year Guidance
OZIPP: Ozone Isopleth Plotting Package
OZIPPM: Modified Ozone Isopleth Plotting Pack-
age
P
PA: Policy Analyst
PA: Preliminary Assessment
P&A: Precision and Accuracy
PAA: Pnontv Abatement Areas
PADRE: Particle Analysis and Data Reduction
Program
PAGM: Permit Applications Guidance Manual
PAH: Polvcyclic Aromanc Hydrocarbon
PAHO: Pan Amencn Health Organization
PAI: Performance Audit Inspection (CWA)
PAIR: Preliminary Assessment Information Rule
PAL: Point, Area, and Line Source Air Quality
Mode
PALDS: PAL Model with Deposition and Settling
of Pollutants
PAN: Peroxvacetvl Nitrate
PAPR: Powered Air Purifying Respirator
PARS: Precision and Accuracy Reporting System
PASS: Procurement Automated Source System
PAT: Permit Assistance Team (RCRA)
PBB: Polvbromated Biphenvls
PBL: Planetary Boundary Layer
PBLSQ: The Lead Line Source Model
PC: Personal Computer
PC: Planned Commitment
PC: Posinon Classification
PC: Pulverized Coal
PCA: Principle Component Analysis
PCB: Polvchlonnated Biphenvls
PC&B: Personnel Compensation and Benefits
PCDD: Polvchlonnated Dibenzodioxin
PCDF: Polvchlonnated Dibendzofuran
PCE: Pollunon Control Equipment
PCIE: President's CounciJ on Integntv and Effi-
ciency in Government
pCi/I: Picocunes Per Litre
PCIOS: Processor Common Input Output Sv stem
PCM: Phase Contrast Microscopv
PCO: Pnnting Control Ofncer
PCON: Potential Contractor
PCP: Pentachlorophenvl
PCS: Permanent Change ot Station
PCS: Permit Compliance Svstem iCU A|
PCSC: PC Site Coordinator
PCV: Positive Crankcase Vennlation
PD: Position Descnption
PD: Posinon Document
PD: Proiect Descnption
PDF1D: Preconstrucnon Direct Flame Ionization
Detection
PDMS: Pesticide Document Management Svstem
(OPP)
PDR: Particulate Data Reduction
PE: Program Element
PEL: Permissible Exposure Limit
PEL: Personal Exposure Limit
PEM: Partial Equilibnum Multimarket Model
PEM: Personal Exposure Model
PEPE: Prolonged Elevated Pollution Episode
PESTAN: Pesncides Analvncal Transport Solution
PF: Potency Factor
PF: Protection Factor
PFT: Permanent Full Time
PFTE: Permanent Full-Time Equivalent
PHC: Pnnopal Hazardous Constituent
PHS: (US) Public Health Sen-ice
PHSA: Public Health Service Act
PI: Preliminary In]unction
PI: Program Information
PIC: Products of Incomplete Combustion
PIC: Public Information Center
PIGS: Pesticides in Groundwater Strategy
PIN: Procurement Information Nonce
PIP: Public Involvement Program
PIPQUIC: Program Integration Proiect Quenes
Used in Interactive Command
PIRG: Public Interest Research Group
PIRT: Pretreatment Implementanon Review Task
Force
PIS: Public Informanon Specialist
PITS: Proiect Information Tracking System (OTSi
PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and Risk
Retention Act
PLM: Polanzed Light Microscopy
PLUVVJE: Plume Visibility Model
PM: Particulate Matter
PM: Program Manager
PM10: Particulate Matter (nominally 10m and less)
PM15: Particulate Matter (nominally ISmandless)
PMEL: Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
PMIP: Presidential Management Intern Program
PMIS: Personnel Management Information Svs-
tem (OARM)
PMN: Premanufacture Notification (TSCA)
PMNF: Premanufacture Notification Form
PMR: Pollutant Mass Rate
PMRS: Performance Management and Recogni-
tion System (OARM)
PMS: Personnel Management Specialist
PMS: Program Management Svstem
PNA: Polvnuclear ' mane Hydrocarbons
PO: Project Of -«"•
PO: Purchase Urder
POC: Point of Compliance
POC: Program Office Contacts
POE: Point of Exposure
POGO: Pnvatelv-Owned'Government-Operated
POHC: Pnnopal Organic Hazardous Constituent
POI: Point of Intercepnon
POLREP: Pollution Report
POM: Particulate Organic Matter
POM: Polvcvchc Organic Matter
26
-------
POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
POV: Privately Owned Vehicle
PP: Pay Period
PP: Program Planning
PPA: Pesticide Producers Association
PPA: Planned Program Accomplishment
ppb: Parts Per Billion
PPC: Personal Protective Clothing
PPE: Personal Protective Equipment
PPIS: Pesticide Product Information Svstem
ppm: Parts Per Million
PPMAP: Power Planning Modeling Application
Procedure
PPSP: Power Plant Siting Program
PPT: Permanent Part Time
ppt: Parts Per Trillion
ppth: Parts Per Thousand
PR: Preliminary Review
PR: Procurement Request
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
PRA: Planned Regulatorv Action
PRM: Prevention Reterence Manuals
PRP: Potenfiallv Responsible Partv (CERCLA)
PS: Point Source
PSAM: Point Source Ambient Monitoring
PSD: Prevention ot Significant Deterioration
PSE: Program Subelement
PSES: Pretreatment Standards tor Existing
Sources
PSI: Pollutant Standards Index
PSI: Pounds Per Square Inch (Pressure)
PSI: Pressure Per Square Inch
PSIG. Pressure Per Square inch Gauge
PSM: Point Source Monitoring
PSNS: Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
PSP: Pavroll Savings Plan
PSS: Personnel Statting Specialist
PSTN: Pesticide Satetv Team Network
PT: Part Time
PTDIS: Single Stack Meteorological Model in EPA
L'N'AMAP Series
PTE: Potential to Emit
PTFE: Polvtetrafluoroethvlene (Teflon)
PTMAX: Single Stack Meteorlogical Model in EPA
L'\'A.MAP series
PTPLU: Point Source Gaussian Diffusion Model
PUC: Public Utility Commission
PV: Proiect Verification
PVC: Polyvinyl Chloride
PWS: Public Water Supply
PWS: Public Water Svstem (SDWA)
PWSS: Public Water Supply Svstem (SDWA)
PY. Prior Year
Q
QA: Qualitv Assurance
QAC: Qualitv Assurance Coordinator
QAQC: Qualitv Assistance Quality Control
QA.MIS: Qualitv Assurance Management and In-
formation Svstem
QAO: Qualitv Assurance Officer
QAPP: Quality Assurance Program (or Proiect)
Plan
qBlu: Quadrillion Bntish Thermal L'nits
QC: Qualitv Control
QCA: Quiet Communities Act
QCI: Quality Control Index
QCP: Quiet Community Program
QNCR: Quarterly Moncompliance Report
QSI: Qualitv Step Increase
R
RA: Reasonable Alternative
RA: Regional Administrator
RA: Regulatorv Alternatives
RA: Regulatorv' Analysis
RA: Remedial Acnon
RA: Resource Allocanon
RA: Risk Analv sis
RA: Risk Assessment
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking
5vstem
RAC: Radianon Advisorv Committee
RAC: Regional Asbestos Coordinator
RAC: Response Acnon Coordinator
RACM: Reasonably Available Control Measures
RACT: Reasonably Available Control Technology
RAD: Radiation Adsorbed Dose (unit of measure-
ment of radiation adsorbed by.humans)
RADM: Random Walk Advection and Dispersion
Model
RADM: Regional Acid Deposition Model
RAM: Urban Air Quality Model tor I'ointand Area
Source in EPA UNAMAP Senes
RAMP: Rural Abandoned Mine Program
RAMS: Regional Air Monitonng Svstem
RAP: Radon Acnon Program
RAP: Remedial Accomplishment Plan
RAP: Response Action Plan
RAPS: Regional Air Pollunon Study
RARG: Regulatorv Analysis Review Group
RAS: Routine Analytical Service
RAT: Relanve Accuracy Test
RB: Red Border
RBC: Red Blood Cells
RC: Regional Counsel
RC: Responsibility Center
RCC: Radiation Coordinanng Council
RCDO: Regional Case Development Officer
RCP1. Research Centers Program
RCRA: Resource Conservanon and Recovery Act
RCR1S: Resource Conservation and Recovery In-
formanon System
RD: Remedial Design (CERCLA)
R&D: Research and Development
RD&D: Research. Development and Demonstra-
hon
RDF: Refuse-Derived Fuel
rDNA: Recombinant DN'A
RDU: Regional Decision Units
RE: Reasonable Efforts
RE: Reportable Event
REAP: Regional Enforcement Activities Plan
REE: Rare Earth Elements
REEP: Review of Environmental Effects ot Pollut-
ants
REF: Reference
REM: Roentgen Equivalent. Man
REM/FIT: Remedial/Field Inveshganon Team
REMS: RCRA Enforcement Management System
REP: Reasonable Efforts Program
REPS: Regional Emissions Proiection System
RESOLVE: Center tor Environmental Conflict
Resolution
RF: Radio Frequency
RF: Response Factor:
RFA: Regulatorv Flexibility Act
RFB: Request tor Bid
RFD: Reference Dose Values
RFI: Remedial Field Invesngation
RFP: Reasonable Further Programs
RI: Reconnaissance Inspection (CWA)
RI: Remedial Investigation
RIA: Regulatorv Impact Analysis
RIA: Regulatorv Impact Assessment
RIC: Radon Information Center
RIC: RTP Information Center
RICC. Retirement Information and Counseling
Center
RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organi-
zations Act
RI/FS: Remedial Intormanon Feasioilitv Mudv
RIM: Regulatorv Interpretation MeToranou"!
RIN: Regulatory Identifier \umoer*
RIP: RCRA Implementanon Plan
RISC: Regulatorv Intormation Se-\ 'ce Center
(OMB)
RJE: Remote Job Entrv
RLL: Rapid and Large Leakage Ra;e>
RMCL: Recommended Maximum Cuntaminjnt
Level (this phrase is being discontinued in tav or
ot MCLG)
RMDHS: Regional Model Data Handling ~v ~;em
RMIS: Resources Management (normanon rv ¦•-
tem
RMO: Records Management Otfcer
RMP: Revolutions Per Minute
RNA: Ribonucleic Acid
RO: Regional Ottice
ROADCHEM: Roadvvav Vernon *hj; In*.
Chemical Reacnons ot Bl \0: rJO-
ROADWAY: A Mode! to Predict p-|,u:ant Con-
centrations Near a Roadway
ROC: Record of Communication
ROD: Record of Decision (CERCLAi
ROG: Reachve Organic Ca^es
ROLLBACK: A Propornonal Reduction Model
ROM: Regional Oxidant Model
ROMCOE: Rockv Mountain Center .'n :he En-
vironment
ROP: Regional Oversight Policv
ROPA: Record ot Procurement ^fion
RP: Respirable Particulates
RP: Responsible Partv
RPAR: Rebuttable Presumption	Recita-
tion (FIFRA)
RPM: Reactive Plume Model
RPM: Remedial Project Manager cHaCl
RPM: Revolutions Per Minute
RPO: Regional Planning Otticer
RPO: Regional Program Officer
RQ: Reportable Quantines
RRC: Regional Response Center
RRT: Regional Response Team
RRT: Requisite Remedial Technolonv
RSCC: Regional Sample Control Center
RSKERL: RobertS Kerr Environmentai Re?e.irvh
Laboratory
RT: Regional Total
RTCM: Re asonable Transportation Control
Measure
RTD: Return to Dutv
RTDM: Rough Terrain Dittusion Mudel
RTECS: Registry ot Toxic Ettects of Chemical Sub-
stances
RTM: Regional Transport Model
RTP: Research Triangle Park
RUP' Restricted Use Pesticide iF!FR\>
RVP: Reid Vapor Pressure
RWC: Residential Wood Combu>ron
s
SA: Special Assistant
SA: Sunshine Act
S&A: Sampling and Analvsis
S&A: Surveillance and Analvsis
SAB: Science Advisorv Board 1AO1
SAC: Secretarial Advisorv Bo.ird
SAC. Suspended and Can^e VJ iV-t nJe> FIF-
RA)
SADAA: Science Assistant to :he LVi*u:v \o-
ministrator
SAEWG: Standing Air Emis«ion» i.rou^
-------
SAIC: Special-Agents-In-Charge (NEIG
SAIP: Systems Acquisition and Implementation
Program
SAMWG: Standing Air Monitoring Work Group
SANE: Sultur and Nitrogen Emissions
SANSS: Structure and Nomenclature Search
Svstem
SAP: Scientific Advisory Panel
SAR: Start Action Request
SAR: Structural Acnvitv Relationship (of a quali-
tative assessment)
SARA: Supertund Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act or 1986
SAROAD: Storage and Retrieval of Aerometnc
Data
SAS: Special Analytical Service
SAS: Statisncal Analysis Svstem
SASS: Source Assessment Sampling System
SBA: Small Business Act
S8A: Small Business Administration
S80: Small Business Ombudsman
SC: Sierra Club
SC: Steenng Committee
SCAP: Supertund Consolidated Accomplish-
ments Plan (CERCLA)
SCAC: Support Careers Advisory Committee
SCBA: Selt-Contained Breathing Apparatus
SCC: Source Classification Code
SCFM: Standard Cubic Feet Per Minute
SCLDF: Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
SCORPIO: Subiect Content-Oriented Retriever
tor Processing information On-Line
SCR: Se ecme Catalytic Reduction
SCRAM. State Consolidated RCRA Authorization
Manual
SCRC: Supertund Community Relations Coordi-
nator
SCS: Soil Conservanon Service
SCS: Supplementary Control Strategy
SCS: Supplementary Control System
SCSA: Soil Conservation Society of Amenca
SCSP- Storm and Combined Sewer Program
SCW: Supercritical Water Oxidation
SD: Standard Deviation
SDBE: Small Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
SDC fv stems Decision Plan
SDWA: Sate Drinking Water Act
S&E: Salaries and Expensses
SEA: State Enforcement Agreement
SEA: State EPA Agreement
SEAM: Surtace. Environment, and Mining
SEAS: Strategic Ens ironmental Assessment Sys-
tem
SEE- Senior Environmental Employee
SE1A: Socioeconomic Impact Analysis
SEM: Scanning Electronic Microscope
SEM: Standard Error of the Means
SEPWC. Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee
SERC: State Emergency Response Commission
SES: Secondary Emissions Standard
SES: Senior Eiecunve Service
SES: Socioeconomic Status
SETS: Site Enforcement Tracking Svstem
SF: Standard Form
SF: Supertund
SFA: Spectral Flame Analvzers
SFFAS: Supertund Financial Assessment Svsterm
SFIREG: State FIFRA Issues Research and Evalua-
tion Group
SHORTZ: Short Term Terrain Model
SHWL. Seasonal High Water Level
SI: International System of Units
SI: Spark Ignition
SIC: Standard Industrial Classificanon
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act
SIMS: Secondary Ion-Mass Spectometry
SIP: State Implementanon Plan (CAA)
SIS: Stay In School
SITE: Supertund Innovative Technology Evalua-
tion
SL: Sick Leave
SLAMS: State'Local Air Monitoring Station
SLSM: Simple Line Source Model
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act
SME: Subject Matter Expert
SMO: Sample Management Office
SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
SNA: System Network Architecture
SNAAQS: Secondary National Ambient Air Qual-
irv Standards
SNAP: Significant Noncompliance Action Pro-
gram
SNARL: Suggested No Adverse Response Level
SNC: Signficant Noncomphers
SNUR: Significant New Use Rule (TSCA)
SOC: Synthetic Organic Chemicals
SOCMI: Synthetic Organic Chemicals Man-
ufacturing Industry
SOP: Standard Operating Procedure
SOTDAT: Source Test Data
SOW: Scope of Work
SPAR: Status of Permit Application Report
SPCC: Spill Prevention, Containment, and Coun-
termeasure (CWA)
SPE: Secondary Particulate Emissions
SPECS: Specifications
SPF- Structured Programming Facility
SPI: Strategic Planning Initiative
SPLMD: Soil-pore Liquid Monitoring Device
SPMS: Special Purpose Monitoring Stations
SPMS: Strategic Planning and Management Sys-
tem
SPOC: Single Point of Contact
SPS: 5tate Permit System
SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SPUR: Software Package for Unique Reports
SQBE: Small Quantity Burner Exemption
SQG: Small Quantity Generator
SRAP: Superfund Remedial Accomplishment
Plan
SRC: Solvent-Refined Coal
SRM: Standard Reference Method
SS: Settleable Solids
SS: Superfund Surcharge
SSA: Sole Source Aquifer
SSAC: Soil Site Assimulated Capacity
SSC: State Superfund Contracts. (OSWER)
SSD: Standards Support Document
SSEIS: Standard Support and Environmental Im-
pact Statement
SSEIS: Stationary Source Emissions and Inventory
System
SSI: Size Selective Inlet
SSMS: Spark Source Mass Spectrometry
SSN: Social Security Number
SSO: Source Selection Official
SST: Supersonic Transport
SSURO: Stop Sale. Use and Removal Order (FIF-
RA)
STAPPA: State and Territorial Air Pollution Pro-
gram Administrators
STALAPCO: State ap^'^v 1 Air Pollution Control
Officials
STAR: Stability Wind Rose
STAR: State Acid Rain Proiects
S/TCAC: Scientific/Technical Careers Advisory-
Committee
STEL: Short-Term Exposure Limit
STEM: Scanning Transmission-Electron Micro-
scopy
STN: Scientific and Technical Information Net-
work
STORET: Storage and Retneval of Water-Related
Data
STP: Sewage Treatment Plant
STP: Standard Temperature and Pressure
SUP: Standard Unit of Processing
SURE: Sulfate Regional Expenment Program
SV: Sampling Visit
SW: Slow Wave
SWC: Settlement With Conditions
SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act
SWIE: Southern Waste Information Exchange
SWMU: Solid Waste Management Lnit
SYSOP: Systems Operator
T
TA: Travel Authorization
T&A: Time and Attendance
TALMS: Tunable Atomic Line Molecular Spec-
troscopy
TAMS: Toxic Air Monitoring Svstem
TAMTAC: Toxic Air Monitoring Sv stem .Advisory
Committee
TAP: Technical Asssistance Program
TAPDS: Toxic Air Pollutant Data Svstem
TAPP: Time and Attendance. Payroll, and Per-
sonnel
TBT: Tnbutvltin
TC: Target Concentration
TC: Technical Center
TC: Toxic Concentranon
TCDD: Dioxin (Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxini
TCDF: Tetrachiorodibenzofurans
TCE: Tnchloroethvlene
TCLP: Total Concentrate Leachate Procedure
TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
TCM: Transportation Control Measure
TCP: Transportation Control Plan
TCP: Tnchloroethvlene
TCP: Tnchloropropane
TCRI: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
TD: Toxic Dose
TD5: Total Dissolved Solids
TDY: Temporary Duty
TEAM: Total Exposure Assessment Model
TEC: Technical Evaluation Committee
TEG: Tetraethvlene Glvcol
TEGD: Technical Enforcement Guidance Docu-
ment
TEM: Texas Episodic Model
TEM: Transmission Electron Microscopy
TEP: Technical Evaluanon Panel
TES: Technical Enforcement Support
TEXIN: Texas Intersection Air Quality Model
TFT: Temporary Full Time
TFTE: Temporary Full-Time Equivalent
TGO: Total Gross Output
THC: Total Hydrocarbons
THM: Tnhalomethane
Tl: Temporary Intermittent
TI: Therapeutic Index
TIBL: Thermal Internal Boundary Laver
TIC: Technical Information Coordinator
TIC: Tentatively Identitied Compounds
TIM: Technical Information Manager
TIP: Transportanon Improvement Program
TISE: Take It Somewhere Else (Solid Waste Svn-
drome See NIMBY)
TITC: Toxic Substance Control Act Interagency
Testing Committee
TLV: Threshold Limit Value
TMI: Three Mile Island
TNT: Trinitrotoluene
TO: Task Order
TO: Travel Order
TOA: Trace Organic Analysis
TOC: Total Organic Carbon
TOC: Total Organic Compound
TOT: Time-of-Travel
28
-------
TOX: Tetradichloroxvlene
TPC: Tesnng Priorities Committee
TPI: Technical Proposal Instructions
TPQ: Threshold Planning Quantity
TPSIS: Transportation Planning Support Informa-
tion Svstem
TPTH: Tnphenvltinhvdroxide
TPY: Tons Per Vear
T-R: Transiormer-Rectmer
TRC. Technical Review Committee
TRD: Technical Review Document
TRI: Toxic Release Inventory
TRIP: Tome Release Inventorv Program
TRLN: Triangle Research Libran. \etwork
TRO: Temporary Restraining Order
TS: Toxic Substances
TSA: Technical Systems Audit
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
TSC ATS: TSCA Test Submissions Database tOTS}
TSCC: Toxic Substances Coordinating Committee
TSD: Technical Support Document
TSDF: Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilitv
(OTS)
TSDG: Toxic Substances Dialogue Group
TSM: Transportation System Management
TSO; Time Shanng Option
TSP: Teleprocessing Services Program
TSP: Thntt Savings Plan
TSP: Total Suspended Particulates
TSS: Terminal Security System
TSS: Total Suspended (non-tilterable) Solids
TTFA: Target Transformation Factor Analysis
TTHM: Total Tnhalomethane
TTO: Total Toxic Organics
TTY: Teletvpewnter
TV A: Tennessee Valley Authority
TWA: Time Weighted Authority
TZ: Treatment Zone
u
UAC: User Advisory Committee
UAM: Urban Airshed Model
UAPSP: Utility Acid Precipitation Study Program
UAQI: L'n form Air Quality Index
UARG: Utility Air Regulatory Group
UCC: Ultra Clean Coal
UCL: Upper Control Limit
UDMH: Unsvmmetncal Dimethvl Hydrazine
UEL: Upper Explosive Limit
UFL: Upper Flammabilitv Limit
UIC: Underground Injection Control
UL: Underwriters' Laboratones
LLP: Uniair Labor Practices
UMTA: Urban Mass Transportation Administra-
tion
U'MTRCA: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Con-
trol Act
UN: United Nations
UNAMAP: Users' Newtork for Applied Modeling
of Air Pollution
UNEP: United Nations Environment Program
UNESCO: United Nations Educational. Scientific
and Cultural. Organization
UN I DO: United Nations Industrial Development
Organization
USAO: United States Attorney's Office
USBM: United States 8ureau ot Mines
USC: Unified Soil Classification
USC: United States Code
L'SCA: United States Code Annotated
USDA: United States Department ot Agriculture
USDOI: United States Department ot the Interior
USDW: Underground Sources ot Drinking Water
USEPA: United States Environmental Protection
Agency
b'SFS: United States Forest Service
USGS: United States Geological Survev	WWF: World Wiljlite Fund
USNRC: United 5tates Nuclear Regulator Com- WWTP: Wastewater Treatment p,jnt
mission
USPHS: United States Public Health Service
USPS: United States Postal Service
UST: Underground Storage Tank
UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator
UTP: Urban Transportation Planning
UV- Ultraviolet
UZM: Unsaturated Zone Monitoring
V
VA: Veterans Administration
VALLEY: Meteorological Model to Cjlculate Con-
centrations on Elevated Terrain
VCM: Vinvl Chlonde Monomer
VE: Visual Emissions
VEO: Visible Emission Observation
VHS: Vertical and Horizontal Spread Model
VHT: Vehicle-Hours ot Travel
VISTTA. Visibility Impairment from Sultur
Transformation and Transport in the Atmos-
phere
VKT: Vehicie Kilometers Traveled
VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds
VOS: Vehicle Operating Survev
VOST: Volanle Organic Sampling Train
VP: Vapor Pressure
VSD: Virtually Sate Dose
VSI: Visual Site Inspection
VSS: Volatile Suspended Solids
w
WA: Work Assignment
WADTF: Western Atmospheric Deposition Task
Force
WAP: Waste Analysis Plan (RCRA)
WB: Wet Bulb
WB: World Bank
WBC: White Blood Cells
WBE: Women's Business Enterprise
WCED: World Commission on Environment and
Development
WDROP: Distribution Register ot Organic Pollut-
ants in Water
WHNDB: Water Enforcement \ational Data Base
WERL: Water Engineering Research Laboratory
WG: Wage Grade
WG: Work Group
WGI: Within Grade Increase
WHO: World Health Organization
WHWT: Water and Hazardous Waste Team
WIC: Washington Information Center
WICEM: World Industry Conference on Environ-
mental Management
WISE: Women In Science and Engineering
WL: Warning Letter
WL: Working Level (radon measurement)
WLA/TMDL: Waste Load Allocation Total Max-
imum Daily Load
WLM: Working Level Months.
WMO: World Meteorological Organization
WPCF: Water Pollution Control Federation
WRC: Water Resources Council
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act
WRI: World Resources Institute
WS: Work Status
WSF: Water Soluble Fraction
WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
WSTB: Water Sciences and Technology Board
WSTP: Wastewater Sewage Treatment Plant
WWEMA: Waste and Wastewater Equipment
Manufacturers' Association
Y-Z
YTD*. Year '.o Date
ZBB: Zero Base Budgeting
ZHHi Zero	E\"jctcr
ZOI: Zone or Incorporation
ZRL: Zero Risk Le\ el
-------
uc)
8s
p
n
(t
00
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
RELATED DOCUMENTS
LAWS AND REGULATIONS
1.	Clean Water Act. Public Law 92-500, as amended: 33 U.S.C.A. 1251 et seq.
In response to public concern about the status of our nation's waters,
Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of
1972. Collectively these amendments are known as the Clean Water Act.
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
2.	Water Quality Planning and Management, Water Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part
130. This regulation with preamble is found in 50 Federal Register (FR) 1779,
January 11, 1985.
Establishes policies and program requirements for water quality planning,
management, and implementation.
3.	Water Quality Standards Regulation. 40 CFR Part 131. This regulation with the
preamble is found in 48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983. Amendments to the
Water Quality Standards Regulation That Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations are found in 56 FR 64876 December 12, 1991.
Federal requirements governing the development, review, revision, and
approval of water quality standards for States and Indian Tribes.
4.	EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Regulation. 40 CFR Part 122. This regulation with the
preamble is found in 48 FR 14153, April 1, 1983.
State Program Requirements. 40 CFR Part 123. This regulation with the
preamble is found in 48 FR 14178, April 1, 1983.
Part 122 pertains to the Federal requirements governing the NPDES
program permitting requirements under sections 318, 402, and 405 of the
Clean Water Act. Part 123 specifies what a State must do to obtain
approval to operate its program in lieu of a Federal program, and
minimum requirements for administering the approved State program.
-------
5.	Criteria for Issuance of Permits to Aquaculture Projects. 40 CFR 125.11. The
regulation with the preamble is found in 54 FR 257, January 4, 1989.
Criteria to be met for issuance of an NPDES permit to an aquaculture
project.
6.	40 CFR 230 - Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for
Dredged or Fill Material. This regulation with the preamble is found in 45 FR
85344, December 24, 1980.
Guidelines designed to control the disposal of dredged or fill material in
the waters of the United States
7.	Public Participation in Programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act. 40 CFR Part 25.
This regulation with the preamble is found in 44 FR 10292, February 16, 1979.
Description of the minimum requirements for public participation in
activities under the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
8.	Water Quality Standards for the Colville Indian Reservation in the State of
Washington; Final Rule. 54 FR 28622, July 6, 1989.
Rule establishing Federal water quality standards on the Colville
Confederated Tribes Reservation. The standards consist of designated
uses and criteria for all surface waters on the reservation.
9.	Effluent Guidelines Plan; Notice. 55 FR 80. January 2, 1990.
Proposed plan for reviewing and revising the existing effluent guidelines,
and promulgating new effluent guidelines to implement section 304(m) of
the Clean Water Act.
10.	Guidelines for Deriving National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. 45 FR 79318, November 28, 1980, amended
in 50 FR 330784, July 29, 1985.
Guidance on the methodology used by EPA in developing aquatic life
criteria.
11.	Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic
Pollutants', States' Compliance, 57 Federal Register 60848, December 22, 1992.
A rule, promulgated for 14 States, containing chemical-specific, numeric
criteria for priority toxic pollutants.
-------
12.	Guidelines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of Health Effect Assessment
Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents. 45 FR 79347,
November 28, 1980.
Guidance on the methodology used by EPA in developing human health
criteria.
The charge for individual copies of the Federal Register in paper or microfiche is $1.50 for each
issue, or $1.50 for each group of pages as actually bound, or $175.00per magnetic tape. Remit
check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account or VISA or Mastercard.
Use the volume number and the page number to cite Federal Register citations.
For single copies or back copies, call 202-783-3238for paper and 202-512-2235for magnetic
tape.
EPA DOCUMENTS
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
13.	Introduction to Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and
Standards Division. September 1988. EPA 440/5-88-089.
Contains general information on the water quality standards program in
question and answer format. Designed to give the general public a basic
understanding of the program.
14.	Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. 1989 and 1991.
The first publication addresses the first-ever National Conference on water
quality standards, held on March 1-3, 1989, in Dallas, Texas. Topics
discussed included establishing priorities for the current water quality
standards program with emphasis on standards for wetland protection and
development of biological and sediment criteria. The second document is
a summary of the proceedings from the National Conference held in
Arlington, Virginia, on December 10-12, 1990. Topics focused on
implementation.
15.	Water Quality Standards Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. December 1983.
Contains guidance prepared by EPA to assist States in implementing the
water quality standards regulation. Contents include: Chapter 1 -Water
-------
Quality Standards Review and Revision Process; Chapter 2 - General
Program Guidance; Chapter 3 - Water Body Survey and Assessment
Guidance for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses; and Chapter 4 -
Guidelines for Deriving Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria. (This
document is presently being revised.)
16.	Water Quality Standards Workbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This document will provide practical "how-to" information for
determining the economic impacts of implementing water quality
standards. (The document is currently being developed.)
17.	Summary of Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards Actions. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. August 1989.
Contains a summary of EPA-promulgated water quality standards.
18.	Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compilation of State/Federal
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1988.
Fifty-six individual summaries, each containing the water quality standards
for a particular State or territory. Each summary contains information on
the responsible agency, contact person, use classifications, criteria, and
policy language.
19.	Guidelines for State and Areawide Water Quality Management Program
Development; Chapter 5 - Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. November 1976.
Describes the overall factors to be taken into account, and provides a
framework for agency use in developing water quality management
programs. Chapter 5 of this document pertains specifically to revisions
of water quality standards.
20.	National Water Quality Inventory: 1988 Report to Congress. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. April 1990. EPA 440/4-90-
003.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires States to report to EPA on
the extent to which their surface waters are meeting the goals of the Act
and to recommend how the goals can be achieved. EPA, in turn, is to
analyze these reports and transmit them and this national report to
Congress. This report summarizes the States' 1988 reports, which contain
data collected in 1986 and 1987.
-------
21. Newsletter. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division.
Quarterly newsletter of the EPA Headquarters Criteria and Standards
Division providing updates on national developments and activities of the
[water quality] Standards Branch, [water quality] Criteria Branch, and
[sewage] Sludge Regulation Branch.
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
22.	Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainability Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards
Division. November 1983.
Provides guidance for conducting use attainability analyses and
information specific to river systems. This manual supplements Chapter 3
of the Water Quality Standards Handbook.
23.	Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainability Analyses, Volume II: Estuarine Systems. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division.
Addresses the unique characteristics of estuarine systems. Supplements
the previous technical support manual.
24.	Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainability Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division. November 1984.
Addresses the unique characteristics of lake systems. Supplements the two
previous technical support manuals.
TOXICS CONTROL
25.	Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. March 1991. EPA 505/2-90-
001.
Technical support document providing guidance for each step in the water
quality-based toxics control process from screening to compliance
monitoring. It also details water quality criteria recommended by EPA
and how those criteria should be applied.
-------
26. Permit Writers Guide to Water Quality-based Toxics Control. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits. July 1987.
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
27.	Ambient Water Quality Criteria for (1) Aluminum - 1988, EPA 440/5-88-008; (2)
Ammonia - 1984, EPA 440/5-85-001; (3) Ammonia (saltwater) - 1989, EPA
440/5-88-004; (4) Arsenic - 1984, EPA 440/5-84-003; (5) Cadmium - 1984, EPA
440/5-84-032; (6) Chloride - 1988, EPA 440/5-88-001; (7) Chromium - 1984,
EPA 440/5-84-029; (8) Copper - 1984, EPA 440/5-84-021; (9) Chlorine - 1984,
EPA 440/5-84-030; (10) 2,3,7,8-Tetra Chloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin - 1984, EPA
440/5-84-007; (11) Dissolved Oxygen, EPA 440/5-86-003; (12) Lead, EPA 440/5-
84-027; (13) Mercury, EPA 440/5-84-026. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water.
Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 requires the
Administrator of the EPA to publish criteria for water quality. These
documents are revisions of proposed criteria based upon comments
received from other Federal agencies, State agencies, special interest
groups, and individual scientists.
28.	Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 (also called the "Gold Book"). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1986.
Contains summaries of all section 304(a) criteria guidance developed by
EPA. Also contains narrative criteria language. Appendices contain
summary of methodologies for developing these criteria. Updated
summaries of 304(a) criteria are made available to those purchasing this
document as new criteria are developed and existing criteria revised. (The
criteria will be further updated by Quality Criteria for Water 1992. which
will be referred to as the "Silver Book.") Previous editions are the
"Green Book" (1968), the "Blue Book" (1973), and the "Red Book"
(1976).
29.	Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compilation of State/Federal
Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. September
1988. (1) acidity-alkalinity (pH); (2) antidegradation; (3) arsenic; (4) bacteria;
(5) cadmium; (6) chromium; (7) copper; (8) cyanide; (9) definitions; (10)
designated uses; (11) dissolved oxygen; (12) dissolved solids; (13) general
provisions; (14) intermittent streams; (15) iron; (16) lead; (17) mercury; (18)
mixing zone; (19) nitrogen/ammonia/nitrate/nitrite; (20) organics; (21) other
elements; (22) pesticides; (23) phosphorus; (24) temperature; (25) turbidity; and
(26) zinc.
-------
This digest is compiled to provide general information to the public as
well as to Federal, State, and local officials. It contains excerpts from the
individual Federal-State water quality standards establishing pollutant-
specific criteria for interstate surface waters.
30.	State Adoption/Proposal of Numeric Criteria for Priority Pollutants as of August
1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
This report presents information pertaining to ongoing State efforts to
address the Clean Water Act section 303(c)(2)(B) requirement to include
priority pollutant numeric criteria.
31.	Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office
of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. December
1988.
Provides guidance for States on adoption of numeric criteria for priority
toxic pollutants. Describes three options for meeting this requirement of
section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act. Also provides background
information and discusses pros and cons of each option.
32.	Status Report: State Compilation with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) as of
February 4, 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
(1990).
The principal objective of this report is to characterize State efforts to
adopt numerical water quality criteria for section 307(a) pollutants. This
report updates and replaces the report entitled "State Numerical Water
Quality Criteria for Toxics as of August 1989."
HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
33.	Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. September 1989. EPA-
503/8-89-002.
This manual provides guidance for health risk assessments related to
chemically contaminated fisheries based on EPA approaches, and is
directed primarily at risk assessments related to recreational fisheries.
34.	Health Effects Assessment for Cadmium. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. 1988. (EPA-600/8-
89/087).
-------
AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
35.	Guidelines for Deriving Numeric National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. Stephen, C.E., D.I. Mount,
D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Research Laboratories, Duluth MN. 1985
Guidance on the methodology used by EPA in developing aquatic life
water quality criteria.
36.	Manual of Instructions for Preparing Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria
Documents - Draft. Stephen, C.E. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN. 1987.
Document describes the aspects of preparing aquatic life water quality
criteria documents.
37.	Guidelines for Deriving Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division. May 1987.
Document provides the guidelines recommended by EPA for calculating
aquatic life advisory concentrations.
SEDIMENT CRITERIA
38.	Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on the Equilibrium
Partitioning Approach to Generating Sediment Quality Criteria. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. April 1989. EPA-440/5-89-002.
Technical document evaluating the Equilibrium Partitioning method used
in generating sediment quality criteria. This reference serves as the first
source for understanding sediment quality criteria.
39.	Contaminated Sediments: Relevant Statutes and EPA Program Activities. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee.
December 1990. EPA 506/6-90/003.
Document provides information on EPA office activities relating to
contaminated sediment issues and identifies specific statutes.
-------
40. Managing Contaminated Sediments: EPA Decision-Making Processes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee.
December 1990. EPA 506/6-90/002.
Document identifies EPA's current decision-making process (across
relevant statutes and programs) for assessing and managing contaminated
sediments. Management activities relating to contaminated sediments are
divided into the following six categories: finding contaminated sediments,
assessment of contaminated sediments, prevention and source controls,
remediation, treatment of removed sediments, and disposal of removed
sediments.
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
41.	Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. April 1990. EPA 440/5-90-004.
Describes the steps and procedures for developing biological criteria and
provides guidance on the implementation of biological assessments and
biological criteria to enhance Tribal and State water quality programs.
42.	Transmittal of Final Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria
(Memorandum). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. From
Tudor T. Davies, Director, Office of Science and Technology to Waste
Management Division Directors, Regions I-X. June 19, 1991.
Memorandum provides a brief history of the policy development and
additional information on relevant guidance.
43.	Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Plafkin, J.L, M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K.
Gross, and R.M. Hughes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. 1989. EPA 444/4-89-
001.
Technical reference for conducting cost-effective biological assessments
of lotic systems. Three macroinvertebrate and two fish protocols are
presented.
44.
Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria (draft). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology. March 1992.
-------
45.
Biological Criteria: State Development and Implementation Efforts. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. July 1991. EPA-440/5-91-
003.
Presents the most recent review of biological criteria development in each
of the 50 States (plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands). Included are five case studies on States with the most
active biological criteria programs - Ohio, Maine, North Carolina,
Florida, and Arkansas - and seven case summaries on States with
substantial experience in biological criteria - Texas, Connecticut,
Vermont, New York, Nebraska, Delaware, and Minnesota.
46.	Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation - Proceedings of a Symposium.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. July 1991. EPA-
440/5-91-005.
Proceedings of symposium on December 12-13, 1990, in Arlington,
Virginia, sponsored by the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
47.	Biological Criteria: Guide to Technical Literature. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. July 1991. EPA/5-91-004.
Document is intended to serve as a general technical reference source for
publications pertinent to the development of biological criteria.
48.	Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. May 1989. EPA/444/4-89-001.
Document provides States with a practical technical reference for
conducting cost-effective biological assessments of lotic systems.
49.	Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR. July 1989. EPA/600/3-89/060.
RISK ASSESSMENT
50.	Principles of Risk Assessment: A Non-Technical Review. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, (workshop on risk assessment; no document number)
51.	The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA-600/8-87/045.
-------
52.
Ecological Risk Assessment.
Office of Pesticide Programs.
1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-540/9-85-001.
53. Resource Document for Workshop on Risk Communication. 1989. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
RISK COMMUNICATION
54.	Communicating Environmental Risk: A Guide to Practical Evaluations. Regan,
Michael J. and William H.Desvousges. Research Triangle Institute. December
1990. EPA-230-01-91 -001.
This report provides practical guidance on how to design and conduct
practical, cost-effective evaluations of risk communication efforts.
55.	Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. Covello, Vincent T. (Columbia
University) and Frederick W. Allen (USEPA). April 1988. OPA-87-020.
There are no easy prescriptions for risk communication that will guarantee
success. However, most experts and practitioners agree on several
guiding principles. These are reflected by EPA's seven cardinal rules.
While many of these rules seem obvious, they are consistently violated.
This pamphlet is a non-binding reference document; the manner in which
its guidance should be applied will vary from case to case.
56.	Hazardous Substances in our Environment: A Citizen's Guide to Understanding
Health Risks and Reducing Exposures. Mauskopf, Ann, Anne Forrest, and
William H. Desvousges. Research Triangle Institute. September 1990. EPA-
230-09-90-081.
This is a guide for citizens who are already concerned about
environmental issues and want more information on how environmental
health risks are estimated and how personal risks from exposure to
specific hazards can be reduced. The guide includes a list of additional
inrormation sources. An executive summary is available of the report in
pamphlet form (EPA-230-09-90-082).
ANTIDEGRADATION
57.	Questions and Answers on Antidegradation. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria
and Standards Division. August 1985.
-------
Document providing guidance on the antidegradation policy component of
water quality standards and its application. Uses a question and answer
format. Presents information on origin of the policy, meaning of terms,
and application both in general and specific examples. This guidance
supplements the Water Quality Standards Handbook.
VARIANCES
58.	Variances in Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
memorandum signed by Edwin L. Johnson, (March 1985).
Guidance stating EPA's Office of General Council interpretation on what
factors can be considered in allowing variances. Clarifies previous
interpretation that is discussed in the preamble to the water quality
standards regulation. This guidance supplements the Water Quality
Standards Handbook.
59.	National Assessment of State Variance Procedures. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division. November 1990.
Report summarizing the national assessment of State variance procedures
conducted by the Criteria and Standards Division of the EPA. The report
summarizes the approach, major findings, and conclusions of the
assessment.
WETLANDS
60.	Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. July 1990. EPA 440/S-90-011.
Provides guidance for meeting the priority established in the FY 1991
Agency Operating Guidance to develop water quality standards for
wetlands during the FY 1991-1993 triennium. By the end of FY 1993,
States are required as a minimum to include wetlands in the definition of
"State waters," establish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing
narrative and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt narrative biological
criteria for wetlands, and apply antidegradation policies to wetlands.
61.	Wetlands and 401 Certification. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. April 1989.
-------
NPDES
62.	Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division. April 1991. EPA/440/4-9/00
Defines and clarifies the requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act including a description of the steps involved in identifying and
prioritizing impaired waters and developing and implementing TMDLs.
63.	Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. May 1987.
64.	A Primer on the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits and Its Programs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits. 1989.
Designed for the general reader, this primer explains how the goals of the
Clean Water Act are accomplished through the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits programs.
65.	Overview of Selected EPA Regulations and Guidance Affecting POTW
Management. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1989. EPA
430/09-89-008.
The information in this document is meant only as a summary of some of
the regulations and guidance that may apply to publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) operations. This document does not provide a
comprehensive overview of all applicable Federal requirements.
NONPOINT SOURCES
66.	Nonpoint Sources: Agenda for the Future. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division. January 1989.
This report sets forth EPA's commitment to a national nonpoint source
program during the next five years. Reflecting significant public input,
it is an agenda of necessary actions aimed at solving the problem of
nonpoint source pollution of our rivers, lakes, and streams.
67.	Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. August 1987.
Describes the relationship between nonpoint source controls and water
quality standards. Contains information on CWA requirements,
-------
approaches for managing nonpoint pollution sources, and implementation
of nonpoint source controls. This guidance supplements the Water Quality
Standards Handbook.
68.	Nonpoint Source Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division. December 1987.
Guidance document describing opportunities for nonpoint source control
programs as part of an overall State Clean Water Strategy. Includes
information on development of State assessment reports, State
Management Programs, and administrative provisions. Also contains
information on grant application requirements.
INDIAN TRIBES
69.	Reference Guide to Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. January 1990. EPA 440/5-90-
002.
This booklet provides Indian Tribes with an overview of the water quality
standards program requirements, and acts as a guide to existing EPA
reference materials on the program. The publication includes an
introduction to the water quality standards program, an overview of the
program requirements, Tribal participation in the program, and the step-
by-step process of developing, adopting, and approving water quality
standards.
70.	Environmental Activities on Indian Reservation: FY 88. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities. March 1989.
Annual report designed to give an overview of EPA efforts to establish
environmental regulations on Indian lands. Gives EPA work-years and
dollars expended on each program on Indian lands. Is a source for
identifying existing tribal water programs. Contains EPA's Indian Policy
and Implementation Guidance.
-------
TERMINOLOGY
71. Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Communications and Public Affairs. December
1989.
Glossary of the more commonly used environmental terms.
Documents published by the Environmental Protection Agency are available
through various sources, many at no cost. The Standards and Applied Science
Division and the Health and Ecological Criteria Division maintain a clearinghouse
containing many of the documents. Clearinghouse request forms are at the end
of this bibliography. For further information, contact:
Standards and Applied Science Division
(202) 260-7301
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
(202) 260-5389
Wetlands Division
(202) 260-7791
EPA Wetlands Hotline
l-(800) 823-7828
Center for Environmental Research Information
(CERI) (513) 569-7562
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) (703) 487-4650
Office of Water Resource Center
(202) 260-7786
OTHER SOURCES
72.	Directory of Member Organizations of National Water Data Exchange
(NAWDEX). Blackwell, C.D. U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. 421 National
Center, Reston, VA 22092. Open-file Report 90-141.
73.	Water Quality Indicators Guide: Surface Water, Appendix C. Glossary. Terrell,
C.R., P. Bytnar Perfetti. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1989. SCS-TP-161.
Glossary of terms related to surface water quality.
74.	Citizen's Handbook on Water Quality Standards. National Resource Defense
Council. May 1987. 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005. (202) 783-7800.
-------
75.	Clean Water Deskbook. Environmental Law Reporter, Environmental Law
Institute. 1988. 1616 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
76.	A Gtizen's Guide to Clean Water. Izaak Walton League of America. 1990.
1401 Wilson Boulevard, Level B, Arlington, VA 22209.
77.	Water Law. 2nd ed. Goldbarb, W. Lewis Publishers, Inc. 1989. 121 South
Main Street, Chelsea, MI 48118.
This book is primarily intended for non-lawyers. The author translates
and explains legal concepts for people without formal legal training.
78.	Environmental Law Handbook. 10th ed. Arbuckle, J.G. Government Institutes,
Inc. March 1989.
The objective of this book is to satisfy the need for comprehensive and
authoritative information on the major environmental laws and regulations.
It is written for those concerned with protecting public health and the
environment.
79.	Establishing Priorities for Wetland Management. Barnard, W.D. et al. Water
Resources Bulletin. 21:1049-1054. 1985.
80.	Our National Wetland Heritage - A Protection Guidebook. Environmental Law
Institute, Washington, D.C. 1983.
81.	Federal Supervision of State Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act.
Vanderbilt Law Review. 36:1167-1219. 1983.
82.	Innovative Water Quality-Based Permitting: A Policy Perspective. Journal of
the Water Pollution Con. Fed. 57:358-365. 1985.
83.	Water Quality Management Planning: The Fate of 208. Goldfarb, W.
University of Toledo Law Review. 8:105-134. 1976.
84.	Outstanding National Resource Waters: A National Resource Management Tool.
Barbara West, National Park Service, Water Resources Division. September
1989.
85.	Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems, Vol. n. 1988. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
86.	Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 1992.
-------
87.	Derivation of Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium and the St. Louis
River Basin, Duluih, MinnesotaStephan, R.L. and A.R. Carleson. 1984.
Environmental Toxicology and Cfiemistry, Vol. 3, pp. 651-665. Available from
National Technical Information Service (NTIS); the order number is
PB84-153196.
88.	Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and
Nongovernment Organizations, Plenum Press, New York. 1989.
89.	Chemical Carcinogens: A Review of the Science and Its Associated Principles.
U.S. Interagency Staff Group on Carcinogens. 1986. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 67:201-282.
90.	Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 1983.
91.	Draft Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. 1990. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public
Health Service.
92.	Principles of Applied Toxicology (Course notes). 1990. International Center for
Health and Environmental Education.
93.	Casarett & Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 2nd Edition.
1980. Doull, J. et al.
94.	Essentials of Toxicology, 3rd Edition. Loomis, T.A. 1978.
-------
REV 02/07/94
WATER RESOURCE CENTER
202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROFILE
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
NAME
Date request made
POSITION/TITLE
Date submitted to EPA
ORGANIZATION
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (1) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
1. Water Quality Standards Regulation, Part II, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register,
November 8, 1983
Regulations that govern the development, review, revision and approval of water quality standards
under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.

2. Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, September 1993
Contains guidance issued to date in support of the Water Quality Standards Regulation.

• Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, EPA 822/F-93-009, October 1993
This memorandum transmits Office of Water policy and guidance on the interpretation and
implementation of aquatic life metals criteria. It covers aquatic life criteria, total maximum daily
loads permits, effluent monitoring, compliance and ambient monitoring.

3. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 1989
Summary of the proceedings from the first National Conference on water quality standards held in
Dallas, Texas, March 1-3, 1989.

4. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 1991
Summary of the proceedings from the second National Conference on water quality standards held in
Arlington, Virginia, December 10-12, 1990.

5. Compilation of Water Quality Standards for Marine Waters, November 1982
Consists of marine water quality standards required by Section 304(a)(6) of the Clean Water Act. The
document identifies marine water quality standards, the specific pollutants associated with such water
quality standards and the particular waters to which such water quality standards apply. The
compilation should not in any way be construed as Agency opinion as to whether the waters listed are
marine waters within the meaning of Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act or whether discharges to
such waters are qualified for a Section 301(h) modification.

-------
REV 02/07/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REUQESTED
6. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, November 1983
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
regulation (48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983) The guidance assists States in answering three key
questions:
a.	What are the aquatic protection uses currently being achieved in the waterbody?
b.	What are the potential uses that can be attained based on the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the waterbody?
c.	What are the causes of any impairment of the uses?

7. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume II: Estuarine Systems
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
regulation (48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). This document addresses the unique characteristics of
estuarine systems and supplements the Technical Support Manual: Waterbodv Summary and
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (EPA. November 1983).

8. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems, November 1984
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
regulation (48 FR 51400 November 8, 1983). The document addresses the unique characteristics of
lake systems and supplements two additional outdance documents: Technical Support Manual:
Waterbodv Survey and Assessments for Conductine Use Attainability Analyses EPA. (November 1983)
and Technical Support Manual: Waterbodv Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Vol II' Estuarine Systems.

9. Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters, EPA 600/1-80-031, August 1983
This report presents health effects quality criteria for marine recreational waters and a
recommendation for a specific criterion. The criteria were among those developed using data collected
from an extensive in-house extramural microbiological research program conducted by the U S. EPA
over the years 1972-1979

10. Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters, EPA 660/1-84-004, August 1984
This report presents health effects criteria for fresh recreational waters and a criterion for the quality
of the bathing water based upon swimming - associated gastrointestinal illness. The criterion was
developed from data obtained during a multi-year freshwater epidemiological-microbiological research
program conducted at bathing beaches near Erie, Pennsylvania and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Three bacterial
indications of fecal pollution were used to measure the water quality. E. Coli, enterococci and fecal
coliforms.

11. Introduction to Water Quality Standards, EPA 440/5-88-089, September 1988
A primer on the water quality standards program written in question and answer format. The
publication provides general information about various elements of the water quality standards
program.

12. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986 EPA 440/5-84-002
This document contains bacteriological water quality criteria. The recommended criteria are based on
an estimate of bacterial indicator counts and gastro-intestinal illness rates.

-------
REV 02/07/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
13. Test Methods for Escherichia Coil and Enterococci; In Water by the Membrane Filter Procedure,
EPA 600/4-85/076, 1985
Contains methods used to measure the bacteriological densities of E. coll and enterococci in ambient
waters. A direct relationship between the density of enterococci and E. coli in water and the
occurrence of swimming - associated gastroenteritis has been established through epidemiological
studies of marine and fresh water bathing beaches These studies have led to the development of
criteria which can be used to establish recreational water standards based on recognized health
effects-water quality relationships.

14. Twenty-Six Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries, September 1988
These documents contain twenty-six summaries of State/Federal criteria. Twenty-six summaries have
been compiled which contain information extracted from State water quality standards. Titles of the
twenty-six documents are• Acidity-Alkalinity, Antidegradation, Arsenic, Bacteria, Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Cyanide, Definitions, Designated Uses, Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Solids, General
Provisions, Intermittent Streams, Iron, Lead, Mercury, Mixing Zones, Nitrogen-Ammonia/Nitrate/Nitrite,
Organics, Other Elements, Pesticides, Phosphorus, Temperature, Turbidity, and Zinc.

15. Fifty-Seven State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September 1988
Contains fifty-seven individual summaries of State water quality standards Included in each summary
is the name of a contact person, use classifications of water bodies, mixing zones, antidegradation
policies and other pertinent information.

16. State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September 1988 (Composite document)
This document contains composite summaries of State water quality standards. The document contains
information about use classifications, antidegradation policies and other information applicable to a
States' water quality standards.

17. Transmittal of Final "Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B)", December 12, 1988
Guidance on State adoption of criteria for priority toxic pollutants. The guidance is designed to help
States comply with the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act which requires States to control
toxics in water quality standards.

18. Chronological Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards Promulgation Actions, January
1993
This document contains the date, tvpe of action and Federal Register citation for State water aualitv
standards promulgated by EPA. The publication also contains information on Federally promulgated
water quality standards which have been withdrawn and replaced with State approved standards.

19. Status Report: State Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(b) as of February 4, 1990
Contains information on State efforts to comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act which
requires adoption of water quality standards for priority pollutants. The report identifies the States
that are compliant as of February 4, 1990, summarizes the status of State actions to adopt priority
pollutants and briefly outlines EPA's plan to federally promulgate standards for noncompliant States.

20. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance, July 1990
Provides guidance for meeting the priority established in the FY 1991 Agencv Operating Guidance to
develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-1993 triennium. By the end of FY
1993, States are required as a minimum to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters,"
establish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt
narrative biological criteria for wetlands and apply antidegradation policies to wetlands.

-------
REV 02/07/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
21. Reference Guide for Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes, January 1990
Booklet provides an overview of the water quality standards program. Publication is designed
primarily for Indian Tribes that wish to qualify as States for the water quality standards program. The
booklet contains program requirements and a list of reference sources

22. Developing Criteria to Protect Our Nation's Waters, EPA, September 1990 (Pamphlet)
Pamphlet which briefly describes the water quality standards program and its relationship to water
quality criteria, sediment criteria and biological criteria.

23. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, EPA 823-R-92-009, December 1992
Summary of the proceedings from the Third National Conference on Water Quality Standards held in
Las Vegas, Nevada, August 31 -September 3, 1992

24. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, EPA-440/5-90-004, April
1990
This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological criteria.

25. Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations - Final Rule. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December 12,
1991
This final rule amends the water quality standards regulation by adding1 1) procedures by which an
Indian Tribe may qualify for treatment as a State for purposes of the water quality standards and 401
certification programs and 2) a mechanism to resolve unreasonable consequences that may arise when
an Indian Tribe and a State adopt different water quality standards on a common body of water.

26. Guidance on Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification Programs Administered by Indian
Tribes, December 31, 1991
This guidance provides procedures for determining Tribal eligibility and supplements the final rule
"Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
Reservations".

27. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants;
State's Compliance - Final Rule, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December
22, 1992
This regulation promulgates for 14 States, the chemical specific, numeric criteria for priority toxic
pollutants necessary to bring all States into compliance with the requirements of Section 303(c)(2)(B)
of the Clean Water Act Staates determined by EPA to fully comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B)
requirements are not affected by this rule.

28. Interim Guidance on Determinations and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals, EPA 823-B-94-
001, February 1994
This guidance contains specific information on procedures for developing water-effect ratios

AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
REV 02/15/94
WATER RESOURCE CENTER
202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROFILE
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
NAME
Date request made
POSITION/TITLE
Date submitted to EPA
ORGANIZATION
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (1) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
1. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process, EPA 440/4-91-001, April 1991
This document defines and clarifies the requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Its
purpose is to help State water quality program managers understand the application of total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) through an integrated, basin-wide approach to controlling point and nonpoint
source pollution The document describes the steps that are involved in identifying and prioritizing
impaired waters and developing and implementing TMDLs for waters listed under Section 303(d).
Contact: Don Brady (202) 260-5368

2. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
Rivers - Chapter 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen, EPA 440/4-84-020, September
1983
This chapter presents the underlying technical basis for performing WLA and analysis of BOD/DO
impacts Mathematical models to calculate water quality impacts are discussed, along with data needs
and data quality.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

3. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
Rivers - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-021, November 1983
This chapter emphasizes the effect of photosynthetic activity stimulated by nutrient discharges on the
DO of a stream or river. It is principally directed at calculating DO concentrations using simplified
estimating techniques
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

4. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
Rivers - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances, EPA 440/4-84-022, June 1984
This chapter describes mathematical models for predicting toxicant concentrations in rivers. It covers
a range of complexities, from dilution calculations to complex, multi-dimensional, time-varying
computer models. The guidance includes discussion of background information and assumptions for
specifying values.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
5. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Simplified Analytical
Method for Determining NPDES Effluent Limitations for POTWs Discharging into Low-Flow
Streams
This document describes methods primarily intended for "desk top" WLA investigations or screening
studies that use available data for streamflow, effluent flow, and water quality. It is intended for
circumstances where resources for analysis and data acquisition are relatively limited.
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013

6. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes and
Impoundments - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-019, August 1983
This chapter discusses lake eutrophication processes and some factors that influence the performance
of WLA analysis and the interpretation of results. Three classes of models are discussed, along with
the application of models and interpretation of resulting calculations. Finally, the document provides
guidance on monitoring programs and simple statistical procedures.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

7. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes, Reservoirs
and Impoundments - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances Impact, EPA 440/4-87-002, December 1986
This chapter reviews the basic principles of chemical water quality modeling frameworks. The
guidance includes discussion of assumptions and limitations of such modeling frameworks, as well as
the type of information required for model application Different levels of model complexity are
illustrated in step-by-step examples.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

8. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VI Design Conditions
- Chapter 1 Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling, EPA 440/4-87-004, September 1986
Many state water quality standards (WQS) specify specific design flows. Where such design flows are
not specified in WQS, this document provides a method to assist in establishing a maximum design flow
for the final chronic value (FCV) of any pollutant.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

9. Final Technical Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions for Steady State
Modeling, December 1988
WQS for many pollutants are written as a function of ambient environmental conditions, such as
temperature, pH or hardness. This document provides guidance on selecting values for these
parameters when performing steady-state WLAs.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

10. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VII: Permit
Averaging, EPA 440/4-84-023, July 1984
This document provides an innovative approach to determining which types of permit limits (daily
maximum, weekly, or monthly averages) should be specified for the steady-state model output, based on
the frequency of acute criteria violations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

11. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
Surface and Ground Water - Part I - EPA 600/6-85-022a, September 1985
This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment. Chapters include
consideration of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances, waste loading calculations, rivers and
streams, impoundments, estuaries, and groundwater.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
12. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
Surface and Ground Water - Part II - EPA 600/6-85-022b, September 1985
This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment. Chapters include
consideration of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances, waste loading calculations, rivers and
streams, impoundments, estuaries, and ground water
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

13. Handbook - Stream Sampling for Waste Load Allocation Applications, EPA 625/6-86/013,
September 1986
This handbook provides guidance in designing stream surveys to support modeling applications for
waste load allocations. It describes the data collection process for model support, and it shows how
models can be used to help design stream surveys. In general, the handbook is intended to educate
field personnel on the relationship between sampling and modeling requirements.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

14. EPA's Review and Approval Procedure for State Submitted TMDLs/WLAs, March 1986
The step-by-step procedure outlined in this guidance addresses the administrative (i e., non-technical)
aspects of developing TMDLs/WLAs and submitting them to EPA for review and approval. It includes
questions and answers to focus on key issues, pertinent sections ofWQM regulations and the CWA,
and examples of correspondence.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

15. Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs, EPA 440/4-85-031,
October 1985
This guidance is for use by States and EPA Regions in developing annual section 106 and 205Q) work
programs. The first part of the document outlines the objectives of the water monitoring program to
conduct assessments and make necessary control decisions. The second part describes the process of
identifying and calculating total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations for point and
nonpoint sources of pollution.
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013

16. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book III Estuaries - Part 1 -
Estuaries and Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-002, May 1990
This document provides technical information and policy guidance for preparing estuarine WLA. It
summarizes the important water quality problems, estuarine characteristics, and the simulation models
available for addressing these problems.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

17. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book III Estuaries - Part 2 -
Application of Estuarine Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-003, May 1990
This document provides a guide to monitoring and model calibration and testing, and a case study
tutorial on simulation of WLA problems in simplified estuarine systems.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
18. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations-Book III: Estuaries - Part 3 -
Use of Mixing Zone Models in Estuarine Wasteload Allocations, EPA 823-R-92-004
This technical guidance manual describes the initial mixing wastewater in estuarine and coastal
environments and mixing zone requirements. The important physical processess that govern the
hydrodynamic mixing of aqueous discharges are described, followed by application of available EPA
supported mixing zone models to four case study situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

19. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Book III - Estuaries - Part 4
- Critical Review of Coastal Embayment and Estuarine Wasteload Allocation Modeling, EPA 823-
R-92-005, August 1992
This document summarizes several historical case studies of model use in one freshwater coastal
embayment and a number of estuarine discharge situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

20. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA 505/2-90-001,
March, 1991
This document discusses assessment approaches, water quality standards, derivation of ambient
criteria, effluent characterization, human health hazard assessment, exposure assessment, permit
requirements, and compliance monitoring. An example is used to illustrate the recommended
procedures.
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013

21. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling (Second
Edition), U.S. EPA 600/3-85/040, June 1985
This manual serves as a reference on modeling formulations, constants and rates commonly used in
surface water quality simulations. This manual also provides a range of coefficient values that can be
used to perform sensitivity analyses.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

22. Dynamic Toxics Waste Load Allocation Model (DYNTOX), User's Manual, September 13, 1985
A user's manual which explains how to use the DYNTOX model. It is designed for use in wasteload
allocation of toxic substances.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

23. Windows Front-End to SWMM (Storm Water Management Model), EPA 823-C-94-001, February
1994
A user interface (front-end) to the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) and supporting
documentation is avaiable on diskette. Operating in the Microsoft Windows Environment, this
interface simplifies data entry and model set-up.
Contact: Jerry LaVeck (202) 260-7771

24. Windows Front-End to SWRRBWQ (Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basins-Water
Quality), EPA 823-C-94-002, February 1994
A user interface (front-end) to the Simulator for Water Resource in Rural Basins-Water Quality
model and supporting documentation is available on diskette. Operating in the Microsoft Windows
environment, this interface simplifies data entry and model set-up.
Contact: Jerry LaVeck (202) 260-7771

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
25. De Minimis Discharges Study: Report to Congress, U.S. EPA 440/4-91-002, November 1991
This report to Congress addresses the requirements of Section 516 by identifying potential de minimis
discharges and recommends effective and appropriate methods of regulating those discharges.
Contact: Rich Healy (202) 260-7812

26. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume I, U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 a, September
1992
This report contains results of a screening study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted
waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 260-7812

27. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume II. U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 b, September
1992
This report contains results of a screening study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted
waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 260-7812

AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.
-------
U.S. EPA
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
REV 02/15/94
WATER RESOURCE CENTER
202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROFILE
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
Date request made
Date submitted to EPA
NAME
POSITION/TITLE
ORGANIZATION
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (1) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
1. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium, U.S. EPA, EPA 823-R-92-006, September 1992
This compendium is an "encyclopedia" of methods that are used to assess chemically contaminated
sediments. It contains a description of each method, associated advantages and limitations and
existing applications.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037

2. Managing Contaminated Sediments: EPA Decision-Making Processes, Sediment Oversight
Technical Committee, U.S. EPA Report - 506/6-90/002, December, 1990
This document identifies EPA's current decision-making process (across relevant statutes and
programs) for assessing and managing contaminated sediments. Management activities relating to
contaminated sediments are divided into the following six categories: finding contaminated sediments,
assessment of contaminated sediments, prevention and source controls, remediation, treatment of
removed sediments, and disposal of removed sediments.
Contact: Mike Kravitz (202) 260-7049

3. Contaminated Sediments: Relevant Statutes and EPA Program Activities, Sediment Oversight
Technical Committee, U.S. EPA Report - 506/6-90/003, December, 1990
This document provides information on program office activities relating to contaminated sediment
issues, and the specific statutes under which these activities fall. A table containing major laws or
agreements relevant to sediment quality issues is included.
Contact: Mike Kravitz (202) 260-7049

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
4. Contaminated Sediments News, U.S. EPA 823-N92-001
This newsletter, issued periodically, contains information about contaminated sediment issues Back
issues of the newsletter are available.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 1, August 1989

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 2, April 1990

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 3, April 1991

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 4, February 1992

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 5, April 1992

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 6, August 1992

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 7, December 1992

Contaminated Sediments News, Number 8, May 1993

• Contaminated Sediment News, Number 9, August 1993

• Contaminated Sediment News, Number 10, December 1993

5. Proceedings of the EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Forum, U.S. EPA, Report 823-R-
92-007, September 1992
This report summarizes the proceedings of three EPA sponsored forums designed to obtain input on
EPA s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037

6. Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment, U.S. EPA 823-B93-001, June 1993
This planning guide assists federal-State remedial managers, local agencies, private cleanup
companies and supporting contractors in remedial decision-making process at contaminated sediment
sites.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037

7. Questions and Answers About Contaminated Sediments, U.S. EPA 823-F-93-009, May 1993
This general pamphlet highlights what sediments are, how they are contaminated and what can be
done.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037

8. Tiered Testing Issues for Freshwater and Marine Sediments, U.S. EPA 823-R93-001, February
1993, Proceedings of A Workshop Held in Washington, DC, September 16-18, 1992.
This report summarizes the proceedings of the workshop sponsored by the Office of Water and Office
of Research and Development. The workshop was held to provide an opportunity for experts in
sediment toxicology and EPA to discuss the development of standard freshwater and marine sediment
bioassay procedures.
Contact: Thomas Armitage (202) 260-5388

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
FISH CONTAMINATION SECTION
TITLE
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
9. Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum for Fish Consumption, User's Manual, V.I.O., U.S. EPA
822/8-91/001, February 1992
This user's manual describes various features of the Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum for fish
consumption advisotries, bans and risk management. The manual explains how to access the SIG and
use its data bases, messags, bulletins and other computer files.
Contact: Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305

10. Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish, A Review and Analysis of Survey Methods, U.S.
EPA-822/R-92-001, February 1992.
This document contains a critical analysis of methods used to determine fish consumption rates of
recreational and subsistence fisherment, groups that have the greates potential for exposure to
contaminants in fish tissues.
Contact: Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305

11. Proceedings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Technical Workshop "PCBs
in Fish Tissue", U.S. EPA/823-R-93-003, September 1993
This documents summarizes the proceedings of the EPA sponsored workshop held on May 10-11, 1993
in Washington, DC.
Contact: Rick Hoffman (202) 260-0642

12. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Risk Advisories, Volume 1: Fish
Sampling and Analysis, EPA 823-R-93-002, August 1993
This document provides detailed technical guidance on methods for sampling and analyzing chemical
contaminants in fish and shellfish tissues. It addresses monitoring strategies, selection of fish species
and chemical analytes, field and laboratory procedures and data analyses.
Contact: Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305

13. National Fish Tissue Data Repository User Manual, Version 1.0, EPA 823-B-903-003, November
1993
The U.S. EPA has developed the National Fish Tissue Data Repository (NFTDR) for collection and
storage of fish and shellfish contaminants data. The data repository is part of a large EPA data base
system called the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES). This manual explains how to access
information from the ODES database.
Contact: Rick Hoffman (202) 260-0642

14. National Fish Tissue Data Repository: Data Entry Guide, Version 1.0, EPA 823-B-93-006,
November 1993
The U.S. EPA has developed the National Fish Tissue Data Repository (NFTDR) for collection and
storage of fish and shellfish contaminants data. The data repository is part of a larger EPA data base
system known as the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES). This manual assists State and Federal
Agencies in submitting data to the NFTDR.
Contact: Rick Hoffman (202) 260-0642

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.
-------
U.S. EPA
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
OST RESOURCE CENTER
202-260-7786

COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:	
	 		Ecotogkgl Bisk Assessment Branch
RBQUgSTORPRfMUS

NAME
POSITION/TITLE

ORGANIZATION
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
STREET ADDRESS
city/state/zip code
TELEPHONE NUMBER
ttii 10 mam umavm, msm U\ tm 
-------
REV 01/25/93
Bcologka] fesesmeDi Braoch
10. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. (Draft) September
1993
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260- 9456

11. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Endrin. (Draft)
September 1993.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260- 9456

12. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Ruoranthene. (Draft) September
1993.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260- 9456

13. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene. (Draft) September
1993.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260-9456

14. Analytical Method for Determination of Acid Volatile Sulfide in Sediment. (Draft) December 1991.
Contact: Mary Reiley (202) 260-9456

15. An SAB Report: Review of Sediment Criteria Development Methodology for Non-Ionic Organic
Contaminants. (September 1992).
contact: Mary Reilly (202) 260-9456

16. Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wildlife Resources - December 1989. EPA 600/3-89-067.
Topic areas include legislative authority for wildlife criteria development, strategy to incorporate into
current regulatory framework, strategy for choosing chemicals, research strategies, summary of
rPSPATPh pffnrl <3
Contact: Cynthia Noli (202) 260-1940.

17. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Criteria Documents for the Protection of Wildlife DDT, Mercury,
2.3.7.8-TCDD and PCB's. April 1993. EPA-822-R-93-007.
This document presents the derivation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative wildlife criteria for four
chemicals: DDT. Mercury. 2,3,7.8-TCDD, PCB's.
Contact: Cynthia Noll (202) 260-1940.

18. Wildlife Criteria Portions of the Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. July 1993.
EPA-822-R-93-006.
Excerpts from the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance specific to the derivation of wildlife criteria. This
document will facilitate review of and comment on the proposed wildlife criteria approach by persons
who may not keep abreast of Federal Register notices.
Contact: Cynthia Nolt (202) 260-1940.

19. Interim Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. May 1992.
This guidance addresses the use of EPA metals criteria in water quality standards intended to protect
aquatic life. This guidance also addresses the derivation of NPDES permit limits from such criteria.
Contact: Charles Delos (202) 260-7039.

20. Six DRAFT Ambient Water Quality Criteria documents for. ADlimony DI. Phenanthrene. Silver.
Hexachlorobenzene, 2.4.5-Trichlorophenol. Di-2-Ethylhexylphthlate.
These proposed 304(a) criteria were originally noticed in the Federal Register on May 14. 1990.
(FR 55 19986).
Contact: Amy Leaberry (202) 260-6324.



21. DRAFT Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Tributyltin. (TBT).
This draft 304(a) criteria was originally noticed on June 6. 1989 (54 FR 23529).
Contact: Kennard Potts (202) 260-7893.

-------
REV 01/25/93
ftatogeal RiskissessmoH Branch
22. DRAFT Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aniline. September 1993.
This draft 304(a) criteria was orginally noticed on January 26.1994. (59 FR 3762) and November 23. 1993
(58 FR 61910). Contact: Amy Leaberry (202) 260-6324.

23. DRAFT Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 2.4-Dimethylphenol. September 1993.
This draft 304(a) criteria was orginally noticed on January 26.1994. (59 FR 3762) and November 23,1993
(58 FR 61910). Contact: Amy Leaberry (202) 260-6324.

24. Copy of Federal Register Notice for Aniline aDd 2.4-Dimethylphenol.
The original notice of availability and request for comments of November 23. 1993; (58 FR 61910) and the
extension of comment period and correction notice of January 26. 1994: (59 FR 3762).
Contact: AMy Leaberry (202) 260-6324.



AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM. PLEASE FOLD. STAPLE.
ADD A STAMP. AND MAIL
-------
U.S. EPA
Water Resource Center
(RC-4100) Room G099
401 N STREET. SW
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
-------
REV 4/15/93
CHEMICAL
HEALTH
ADVISORY
(HA)
HA
FACTSHEET
DRINKING
WATER
CRITERIA
DOCUMENT
Acrylamide



Acifluorfen

N\A

Alachlor



Aldicarb



Aldrin

N\A
N\A
Ametryn

N\A
N\A
Ammonia

N\A
N\A
Ammonium sulfamate

N\A
N\A
Antimony

N\A

Atrazine



Barium



Baygon

N\A
N\A
Bentazon

N\A
N\A
Benzene



Beryllium

N\A

Boron

N\A

Bromacil

N\A
N\A
Bromochloromethane


N\A
Bromomethane


N\A
Butylate

N\A
N\A
Cadmium



Carbaryl

N\A
N\A
Carbofuran



Carbon tetrachloride



Carboxin

N\A
N\A
Chloramben

N\A
N\A
Chlordane



Chlorobenzene



bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether


N\A
-------
U.S. EPA
HEALTH & ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA DIVISION
(WH-586)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
REV 4/15/93
CHEMICAL
HEALTH
ADVISORY
(HA)
HA
FACTSHEET
DRINKING
WATER
CRITERIA
DOCUMENT
Chloromethane


N\A
Chlorothalonil

N\A
N\A
o-Chlorotoluene


N\A
p-Chlorotoluene


N\A
Chlorpyrifos

N\A
N\A
Chromium



Cyanazine

N\A

Cyanide



2,4-D



Dacthal

N\A

Dalapon



DBCP

N\A

Diazinon

N\A
N\A
Dicamba

N\A
N\A
m-Dichlorobenzene



o-Dichlorobenzene



p-Dichlorobenzene



Dichlorodifluoromethane


N\A
1,2-Dichloroethane



1,1-Dichloroethylene



cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene



trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene



Dichloromethane

N\A

1,2-Dichloropropane



1,3-Dichloropropene

N\A

Dieldrin

N\A
N\A
Dimethrin

N\A
N\A
Dinoseb

N\A
N\A
Diphenamid

N\A
N\A
-------
REV 4/15/93
CHEMICAL
HEALTH
ADVISORY
(HA)
HA
FACTSHEET
DRINKING
WATER
CRITERIA
DOCUMENT
p-Dioxane

N\A
N\A
Disulfoton

N\A
N\A
Diuron

N\A
N\A
Endothall

N\A

Endrin



Epichlorohydrin



Ethylbenzene



Ethylene dibromide



Ethylene glycol

N\A
N\A
Ethylene thiourea

N\A

Fenamiphos

N\A
N\A
Fluometuron

N\A
N\A
Fonofos

N\A
N\A
Formaldehyde

N\A
N\A
Glyphosate

N\A

Heptachlor and
Heptachlor epoxide



Hexachlorobenzene

N\A

Hexachlorobutadiene



N-Hexane


N\A
Hexazinone

N\A
N\A
Isophorone

N\A
N\A
Lead

N\A
N\A
Lindane



Malathion

N\A
N\A
Maleic hydrazide

N\A
N\A
Man made radionuclides (alpha & beta
emitters)
N\A
N\A

MCPA

N\A
N\A
Mercury



-------
REV 4/15/93
CHEMICAL
HEALTH
ADVISORY
(HA)
HA
FACTSHEET
DRINKING
WATER
CRITERIA
DOCUMENT
Methomyl

N\A
N\A
Methoxychlor



Methyl ethyl ketone

N\A
N\A
Methyl parathion

N\A
N\A
Metolachlor

N\A

Metribuzin

N\A

Naphthalene


N\A
Nickel



Nitrate/Nitrite



p-Nitrophenol

N\A
N\A
Oxamyl



Paraquat

N\A
NAA
Pentachlorophenol



Phenol

N\A
N\A
Picloram

N\A
N\A
Prometon

N\A
N\A
Pronamide

N\A
N\A
Propachlor

N\A
N\A
Propazine

N\A
N\A
Propham

N\A
N\A
Radium
N\A
N\A

Radon
N\A
N\A

Silver

N\A

Simazine

N\A

Styrene



Tebuthiuron

N\A
N\A
Terbacil

N\A
N\A
Terbufos

N\A
N\A
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin

N\A

-------
REV 4/15/93
CHEMICAL
HEALTH
ADVISORY
(HA)
HA
FACTSHEET
DRINKING
WATER
CRITERIA
DOCUMENT
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane



Tetrachloroethylene



Thallium

N\A

Toluene



Toxaphene



2,4,5-TP



1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene


N\A
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene


N\A
1,1,1-Trichloroethane



1,1,2-Trichloroethane



Trichloroethylene



1,2,3-Trichloropropane



Trifl uorotrichloromethane


N\A
Trifluralin

N\A

Uranium
N\A
N\A

Vinyl Chloride



Xylenes



-------
REV 4/15/93
CHEMICAL
HEALTH
ADVISORY
(HA)
HA
FACTSHEET
DRINKING
WATER
CRITERIA
DOCUMENT
MICROBIOLOGICAL



Legionella

N\A

MUNITIONS



2,4- and 2,6-Dinitrotoluene



Diisopropyl methyl-phosphonate
(DIMP)


N\A
1,3-Dinitrobenzene


N\A
Hexachloroethane


N\A
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-l ,3,5-triazine
(RDX)


N\A
Isopropyl Methylphosphonic Acid


N\A
Nitrocellulose


N\A
Nitroguanidine (NQ)


N\A
Octahydro-l,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX)


N\A
Trinitroglycerol


N\A
Trinitrotoluene


N\A
White Phosphorous


N\A
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published water
quality criteria for toxic pollutant(c) categories. Copies of
water quality criteria documents are available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Front Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650. Prices of individual
documents may be obtained by contacting NTIS. Order numbers are
listed below. Where indicated, documents may be obtained from the
Water Resource Center, 401 M St., S.W. - RC-4100, Washington, DC
20460, (202) 260-7786.
Chemical
NTIS Order No.
EPA Document No.
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aesthetics
Alkalinity
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Aluminum
Ammonia
Ammonia (Saltwater)
Antimony
Antimony (III) - aquatic
(draft)
Arsenic - 1980
-	1984
Asbestos
Bacteria - 1976
-	1984
Barium
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium - 1980
-	1984
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloride
Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chlorinated Naphthalene
Chlorinated Phenols
Chlorine
Chloroalkyl Ethers
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium - 1980
-	1984
Color
PB 81-117269
PB 81-117277
PB 81-117285
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 81-117301
PB 88-245998
PB 85-227114
PB 89-195242
PB 81-117319
resource center
PB 81-117327
PB 85-227445
PB 81-117335
PB 263943
PB 86-158045
PB 263943
PB 81-117293
PB 81-117343
PB 81-117350
PB 263943
PB 81-117368
PB 85-224031
PB 81-117376
PB 81-117384
PB 88-175047
PB 81-117392
PB 81-117400
PB 81-117426
PB 81-117434
PB 85-227429
PB 81-117418
PB 81-117442
PB 81-117459
PB 263943
PB 87-105359
PB 81-117467
PB 85-227478
PB 263943
EPA 440/5-80-015
EPA 440/5-80-016
EPA 440/5-80-017
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-019
EPA 440/5-86-008
EPA 440/5-85-001
EPA 440/5-88-004
EPA 440/5-80-020
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/9-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/9-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/9-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/9-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/5-
EPA 440/9-
80-021
84-033
80-022
76-023
84-002
76-023
80-018
80-023
80-024
•76-023
•80-025
•84-032
80-026
•80-027
•88-001
•80-028
•80-029
•80-031
¦80-032
¦84-030
•80-030
¦80-033
•80-034
¦76-023
•86-005
¦80-035
•84-029
•76-023
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT (cont.)
Copper - 1980
-	1984
Cyanide
Cyanides
DDT and Metabolites
Demeton
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane/
Dichloropropene
Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate -
aquatic (draft)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhydrazine
Dissolved Oxygen
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Gasses, Total Dissolved
Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses.
Guthion
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Hardness
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene - aquatic
(draft)
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Iron
Isophorone
Lead - 1980
- 1984
Malathion
Manganese
Mercury - 198 0
- 1984
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Naphthalene
Nickel - 1980
-	1986
Nitrates/Nitrites
PB 81-117475
PB 85-227023
PB 85-227460
PB 81-117483
PB 81-117491
PB 263943
PB 81-117509
PB 81-117517
PB 81-117525
PB 81-117533
PB 81-117541
resource center
PB 81-117558
PB 81-117566
PB 81-117731
PB 86-208253
PB 81-117574
PB 81-117582
PB 81-117590
PB 81-117608
PB 263943
PB 85-227049
PB 263943
PB 81-117616
PB 81-117624
PB 263943
PB 81-117632
resource center
PB 81-117640
PB 81-117657
PB 81-117665
PB 263943
PB 81-117673
PB 81-117681
PB 85-227437
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 81-117699
PB 85-227452
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 81-117707
PB 81-117715
PB 87-105359
PB 263943
EPA 440/5-80-036
EPA 440/5-84-031
EPA 440/5-84-028
EPA 440/5-80-037
EPA 440/5-80-038
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-039
EPA 440/5-80-040
EPA 440/5-80-041
EPA 440/5-80-042
EPA 440/5-80-043
EPA 440/5-80-044
EPA 440/5-80-045
EPA 440/5-80-062
EPA 440/5-86-003
EPA 440/5-80-046
EPA 440/5-80-047
EPA 440/5-80-048
EPA 440/5-80-049
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-050
EPA 440/5-80-051
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-052
EPA 440/5-80-053
EPA 440/5-80-054
EPA 440/5-80-055
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-056
EPA 440/5-80-057
EPA 440/5-84-027
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-058
EPA 440/5-84-026
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-059
EPA 440/5-80-060
EPA 440/5-86-004
EPA 440/9-76-023
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT (cont.)
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
Oil and Grease
Parathion
Pentachlorophenol - 1980
- 1986
Ph
Phenanthrene - aquatic
(draft)
Phenol
Phosphorus
Phthalate Esters
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polynuclear Aromatc
Hydrocarbons
Selenium - 1980
- 1987
Silver
Silver - aquatic (draft)
Solids (Dissolved) and
Salinity
Solids (Suspended) and
Turbidity
Sulfides/Hydrogen Sulfide
Tainting Substances
Temperature
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo
p-dioxin
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene - 1980
- 1986
Tributyltin - aquatic
(draft)
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol -
aquatic (draft)
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc - 1980
- 1987
PB 81-117723
PB 81-117749
PB 81-117756
PB 263943
PB 87-105383
PB 81-117764
PB 87-105391
PB 263943
resource center
PB 81-117772
PB 263943
PB 81-117780
PB 81-117798
PB 81-117806
PB 81-117814
PB 88-142239
PB 81-117822
resource center
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 89-169825
PB 81-117830
PB 81-117848
PB 81-117863
PB 81-117863
PB 87-105375
resource center
PB 81-117871
resource center
PB 81-117889
PB 81-117897
PB 87-143581
EPA 440/5-80-061
EPA 440/5-80-063
EPA 440/5-80-064
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-86-007
EPA 440/5-80-065
EPA 440/5-85-009
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-066
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-067
EPA 440/5-80-068
EPA 440/5-80-069
EPA 440/5-80-070
EPA 440/5-87-008
EPA 440/5-80-071
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-84-007
EPA 440/5-80-073
EPA 440/5-80-074
EPA 440/5-80-075
EPA 440/5-80-076
EPA 440/5-86-006
EPA 440/5-80-077
EPA 440/5-80-078
EPA 440/5-80-079
EPA 440/5-87-003
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY	rev 10/1/92
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION (OST)
Date Received
NAME
TEL. NO.
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE
ORGANIZATION CATEGORY: (Select the two digit code at the bottom of this form which best describes your
organization). Place two digit code in this space	
please check REQUESTED TITLES
I J
1. Introduction to Water Quality Standards
[ J
2. Antidegradation Policy: A Means to Maintain and Protect Existing Uses and Water Quality
I ]
3. Development of Water Quality Criteria and Its Relationship to Water Quality Standards
I J
4. Enumeration Methods for E. Coli and Enterococci
I J
5. Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
[ J
6. Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification
I J
7. Economic Considerations in Water Quality Standards
[ J
8. Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands
f ] 9. Development of Biological Criteria for Use in Water Quality Standards
How will the videos be used?
How did you hear about the videos?
DATE VIDEO(S) MAILED
VIDEO(S) DUE
VTDEO(S) RETURNED
Date Late Notice Sent



Date Late Notice Call



ORGANIZATION CATEGORIES
01
Indian Tribes
08 State Governments
02
Public Interest Groups
09 Local Governments (County/Municipalities)
03
Environmental Organizations/Conservations Groups
10 Industrial Organizations/Trade Groups
04
Educational (local school systems, colleges, universities)
11 Foreign Governments
05
Contracting Firms
12 Engineering
06
Law Firms
13 Agricultural
07
Other Federal Agencies
14 Other
-------
7A
ft
S9
3
P
rs
n
so
-------
Directory of State Agencies and Indian Tribal Representatives
Responsible for Water Quality
April 1993
Alabama:	Department of Environmental Management
Water Division - Water Quality Branch
1751 Congressman W.L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 271-7700
ATTN: James McAdoo
Alaska:	Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Quality Management
Water Quality Standards Section
Suite 105
401 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5300
ATTN: Doug Redburn
Arizona:	Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Waste and Water Quality Management
3003 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-2300
ATTN: Ed Swanson
.Arkansas:	Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Water Division
8001 National Drive
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 562-7444
ATTN: Bill Keith
California:	Water Resources Control Board
Surface Water Quality
P.O. Box 100
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
(916) 657-0799
ATTN: David Cohen
Colorado:	Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-2000
-------
Connecticut:	Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Management
Planning and Standards Division
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-7049
ATTN: Randall May
[Effective, June 1993]
Delaware:	Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
Division of Environmental Control
Water Resources Management
Richardson and Robinson Building
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4793
District of Columbia:	Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Environmental Control Division
Water Resources Management
2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, S.E
Suite 203
Washington, DC 20020
(202) 404-1120
ATTN: James Collier
Department of Environmental Regulation
Division of Water Management
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 488-0782
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Water Protection Branch
Floyd Towers, Suite 1070
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-6905
ATTN: Mark Winn
Department of Health
Environmental Management Division
Clean Water Branch
5 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 250
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 586-4309
Florida:
Georgia:
Hawaii:
-------
Idaho:	Division of Environmental Quality
Community Programs
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5860
ATTN: Dr. Walton C. Poole
Illinois:
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-1654
Indiana:
Department of Environmental Management
5500 West Bradbury
Indianapolis, IN 46241
(317) 243-5012
ATTN: Denny Clark
Iowa:
Department of Natural Resources
Water Quality Bureau
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5011
ATTN: Darrell McCallister
Kansas:	Department of Health and Environment
Division of Environment
Bureau of Environmental Quality
Office of Science and Support
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
(913) 296-5565
ATTN: Ron Hammerschmidt
Kentucky:	Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
Division of Water
Water Quality Branch
Fort Boone Plaza
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410
ATTN: Terry Anderson
-------
Louisiana:	Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge. LA 70884-2215
(504) 765-0634
ATTN: E. Cormeier
Maine:	Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies
State House. Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-3355
ATTN: David Courtemanch
Maryland:	Department of Environment
Water Management Division
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore. MD 21224
(410) 631-3906
Massachusetts:	Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Technical Service Section
P.O. Box 116
North Grafton, MA 01536-0116
(508) 792-7470
ATTN: Paul Hogan
Michigan:	Department of Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-1949
ATTN: Robert Miller
Minnesota:	Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
Assessment and Planning Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
(612) 296-7213
ATTN: Greg Gross
Mississippi:	Department of Natural Resources
Water Division
P.O. Box 10385, Southport Mall
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5171
ATTN: Robert Cypher
-------
Department of Natural Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
205 Jefferson Street
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(314) 751-1300
ATTN: Nicholas A. DiPasquale
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Water Quality Bureau
Surface Water Programs
Cogswell Building, Room A-206
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-2406
ATTN: Frederick Shewman
Department of Environmental Control
Water Quality Division
Surface Water Section
P.O. Box 98922
State House Station
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-2186
ATTN: Gale Hutton
Department of Human Resources
Bureau of Health Protection Services
505 East King Street
Room 103
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4750
ATTN: Jeff Fontaine
New Hampshire:	Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
Department of Environmental Services
Bureau of Water Quality
Permits and Compliance
P.O. Box 95
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03302-0095
(603) 271-3503
ATTN: Dr. Edward Schmidt
New Jersey:	Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Land and Water Planning
P.O. Box CN423
Trenton, NJ 08625-0423
(609) 984-0058
ATTN: Daniel Van Abs
Missouri:
Montana:
Nebraska:
Nevada:
-------
New Mexico Environment Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
1190 St. Francis Drive
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502
(505) 827-0187
ATTN: David Tague
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water
Room 306
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-6674
ATTN: N.G. Kaul
North Carolina:	Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh. NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083
ATTN: Steve W. Tedder
North Dakota:	Department of Health
Division of Water Quality
1200 Missouri Avenue
Room 203
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
(701) 221-5210
ATTN: Michael Ell
Ohio:	Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 644-3020
ATTN: Daniel Dudley
Oklahoma:	Water Resources Board
Water Quality Division
600 North Harvey Avenue
P.O. Box 150
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-0150
(405) 231-2500
ATTN: Shon Simpson
[In July 1993, the Department of Environmental Quality is
to be established. Direct questions to: Patricia Eaton,
Olkahoma Secretary> of the Environment, (405) 231-2551.]
New Mexico:
New York:
-------
Oregon:	Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5279
ATTN: Greg McMurray
Pennsylvania:	Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Management
P.O. Box 8465
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717) 787-9633
ATTN: Edward R. Brizina
Rhode Island	Department of Environmental Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277-3961
South Carolina:	Department of Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Drinking Water Protection
2600 Bull Street
Columbia. SC 29201
(803) 734-5310
ATTN: Robert E. Malpuss
South Dakota:	Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Regulation
Joe Foss Building
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3351
Tennessee:	Department of Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
150 Ninth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615) 532-0625
Texas:	Texas Water Commission
Environmental Assessment Division
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 463-8475
ATTN: Jim Davenport
[Address to change in Fall 1993]
-------
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801)	538-6146
Vermont Water Resources Board
58 East State Street
Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-3201
(802)	828-2871
ATTN: William Bartlett
Department of Environmental Quality
Water Division
Innsbruck Office Park
4900 Cox Road
Glen Allen, VA 23060
(804) 527-5091
ATTN: Eleanor Daub
Washington:	Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
621 Woodland Square Loop, SE
Lacey, WA 98503-7600
(206) 438-7090
ATTN: Mike Llewelyn
West Virginia:	West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311-1088
(304) 558-2107 .
ATTN: Bill Brannon
Wisconsin:	Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
Bureau of Water Resources Management
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-7610
ATTN: Dwayne Schuttpelz
Utah:
Vermont:
Virginia:
-------
Wyoming:	Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
122 West 25th Street
Kirschner Bldg, 4th Floor, West
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7781
ATTN: Marissa Latady
U.S. Virgin Islands:	Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
8000 Nisky Shopping Center
Suite 45
St. Thomas, VI 00802
(809) 774-3320 ext. 135/136
ATTN: Leonard Reed
Puerto Rico:	Environmental Quality Board
Fernandez Uncos Station
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 767-8181
ATTN: Lucinia Gugliotta
Guam:	Guam Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, GU 96910
Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands: Division of Environmental Quality
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
P.O. Box 1304
Saipan, MP 96950
Attention: Miriam K. Seman
Palau Environmental Quality Protection Board
P.O. Box 100
Koror, Republic of Palau 96940
American Samoa EPA
American Samoa Government
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Stephanie Poston
Tribal Planner
Sandia Pueblo
P.O. Box 6008
Bernalillo, NM 87004
(505) 867-3317
Palau:
American Samoa:
Sandia Pueblo:
-------
San Juan Pueblo
Isleta Pueblo:
Charlie Lujan
Water Quality Control Officer
San Juan Pueblo
P.O. Box 1099
San Juan Pueblo, NM 87566
(505) 852-4212
Blane Sanedez
Water Quality Control Officer
Isleta Pueblo
P.O. Box 317
Isleta, NM 87022
(505) 869-3111
-------
fe
a>
&
<3
s
o
re
-------
3
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 131
Wafer Quality Standards; Establishment
of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic
Pollutants; States' Compliance Final Rule
-------
60848 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFH Part 131
[WH-FRL—*543-3]
Water Quality Stanaarta;
Establishment ct Numeric Criteria for
Priority Toxic Pollutants; States'
Compliance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
summary: This rule promulgates for 14
States, the chemical-specific, numeric
criteria for priority toxic pollutants
necessary to bring eQ States into
compliance with ihe requirements of
section 303(c)(2)(E) of the Clsan Water
Act (CVVA). States determined by EPA to
fully comply with section 303(c)(2)(B)
requirements ore not affected by this
rule.
The rule addresses two situations. For
a few States. EPA is promulgating a
limited number of criteria which were
previously identified as necessary in
disapproval letters to such States, and
which the State has failed to address.
For other States, Federal criteria are
necessary for all priority toxic
pollutants for which EPA has issued
section 304(a) water quality criteria
guidance and that are not the subject of
approved State criteria.
When these standards take effect, they
will be the legally enforceable standards
in the named States for all purposes and
programs under the Clean Water Act,
including planning, monitoring, NPDES
permitting, enforcement and
compliance.
EPA is also withdrawing today the
human health criteria published in the
1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria
documents for Beryllium/Cadmium,
Chromium, Lead, Methyl Chloride.
Selenium, Silver, and 1,1,1
Trichloroethane. A summary of the
criteria recommendation and the notice
of availability of each criteria document
were published at 45 FR 79318,
November 28,1980.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule shall be
effective February 5,1993.
ADDRESSES: The public may inspect the
administrative record for this
rulemaking, including documentation
supporting the aquatic life and human
health criteria, and all public comments
received on the proposed rule at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Standards and Applied Science
Division, Office of Science and
Technology, room 919 East Tower,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.(
Washington. Z2C 20460 (Telephone:
202-260-1315) on weekdays during the
Agency's normal business noun of 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. A reasonable fee will
be charged for photocopies. Inquiries
can be -nade by r*"i->ng 202-260-1315.
FCR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David K. Sab ode cr R. Kant Ball en tine.
Telephone 202-280-1315.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Tiis preamble is organized according
to the following outline:
A IntrocviCTiQU esc Overview
1.	Introoucuon
2.	Overview
3. Statutory and Regulatory Background
1.	Pre-'A'atsr QuaLty Act Amendments of
1S87 (Pub. L 100-t)
2.	The Water Quality Act Amendment! of
1387 fPwj. L. 100-1)
a.	Description of the New Requirements
b.	EPA's IziCal Implementing Actions for
sections 303(c) and 304(1)
3.	EPA's Program Guidance for section
303(cX2!(B1
C State Actions Pursuant to section -
303(c){?!(B)
D. Determining State Compliance with
section 303(c)(2)(B)
1.	EPA's Review of State Water Quality
Standards for Toxics
2.	Determining Current Compliance Status
B. Rationale and Approach For Developing
the Final Rule
1.	Legal Basis
2.	Approach for Developing the Pinal Rule
3.	Approach for States that Fully Comply
Subsequent to Issuance of thisPlnal Rule
P. Derivation of Critaria
1.	Section 304(a) Criteria Process-
2.	Aquatic Life Criteria
3.	Criteria fox Human Health
4.	Section 304(a) Human Health Criteria
. Excluded
5.	Cancer Risk Level
6.	Applying EPA's Nationally Derived
Criteria to State Waters
7.	Application of Metals Criteria
G.	Description of the Pinal Rule and Changes
from Proposal
1.	Changes from Proposal
2.	Scope
3.	EFA Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants
4.. Applicability
H.	(Reserved)
L Response to Public Comments
1.	Legal Authority
2.	Science
3.	Economics
4.	Implementation
5.	Timing and Process
6.	State Issues.
). Executive Order 12291
K. Regulatory Flexibility Act
L. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. Introduction and Overview
I.	Introduction
This section of the Preamble
introduces the topics which are .
addressed subsequently and provides a
brief overview of EPA's basis and
rationale for promulgating Federal
criteria for priority toxic pollutants.
Section B of this Preamble presents a
description of the evolution of the
Federal Government's efforts to control
toxic pollutants beginning with a
discussion of the authorities in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. Also described i»
some detail is the development of the
water quality standards review and
revision process which provides for
establishing both narrative goals and
enforceable numeric requirements for
controlling toxic pollutants. This
discussion induaes the chances enacted
in the 1387 Qean Water Act ~
Amendments which are the basis for
this rule. Section C summarizes State
efforts since 1987 to compiy with the
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B).
Section D describes EPA's procedure for
determining whether a State has fully
complied with section 303(c)(2)(B).
Section E sets out the rationale and
approach for developing the final rule,
including a discussion of EPA's legal
basis. Section F describes the
development of the criteria included in
this rule. Section G summarizes the
provisions of the final rule. (Section H
is reserved.) Section I contains the
response to major public comments
received on the proposal. Sections J, K,
and L address the requirements of
Executive Order 12291, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and the Paperwork
Reduction Act. respectively. Section M
provides a list of subjects covered in
this rule.
A public hearing on the proposed rule
was neld on December 19,1991, in
Washington, DC A total of 26 non-EPA
people registered at the hearing. The
Kblic comment period closed on
camber 19,1991. EPA received a total
of 133 written comments on the
proposed rule.
2. Overview
This rule, which establishes Federal
criteria for certain priority toxic
pollutants in a number of States, is
important for several environmental,
programmatic and legal reasons.
First, control of toxic pollutants in
surface waters is an important priority
to achieve the Qean Water Act's goals
and objectives. The most recant
National Water Quality Inventory
indicates that one-third of monitored
river miles, lake acres, and coastal
waters have elevated levels of toxics.
Forty-seven States and Territories have
reported elevated levels of toxic
pollutants in fish tissues. States have
issued a total of 586 fishing advisories
and 135 bans, attributed mostly to
industrial discharges and land disposal.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 24& / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60849
The absence of State water quality
standards for toxic pollutants
undermines State and EPA toxic control
efforts to address these problems.
Without clearly established water
quality goals, the effectiveness of many
of EPA's water programs is jeopardized.
Permitting, enforcement, coastal water
quality improvement, fish, tissue quality
protection, certain nonpoint source
controls, drinking water quality
protection, and ecological protection all
depend to a significant extent on
complete and adequate water quality
standards. Numeric criteria for toxics
are essential to the process of
controlling toxics because they allow
States and EPA to evaluate the adequacy
of existing and potential control
measures to protect aquatic ecosystems
and human health. Formally adopted
standards are the legal basis for
including water quality-based effluent
limitations in NPDES permits to control
toxic pollutant discharges. The critical
importance of controlling toxic
pollutants has been recognized by
Congress and is reflected, in part, by the
addition of section 303(c)(2)(B) to the
Act Congressional impatience with the
pace of State toxics control programs is
well documented in the legislative
history of the 1987 CWA amendments.
In order to protect human health,
aquatic ecosystems, and successfully
implement toxics controls, EPA believes
that all actions which an available to
the Agency must be taken to ensure that
all necessary numeric criteria for
priority toxic pollutants an established
in a timely manner.
.Second, as States and EPA continue
the transition from an era of primarily
technology-based controls to an era in
which technology-based controls are
integrated with water quality-based
controls, it is important that EPA
ensures timely compliance with CWA
requirements. An active Federal role is
essential to assist States in getting in
place complete toxics criteria as part of
their pollution control programs. While
most States recognize the need for
enforceable water quality standards for
toxic pollutants, their recent adoption
efforts have often been stymied by a
variety of factors including limited
resources, competing environmental
priorities, and difficult scientific, policy
and legal challenges. Most water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants have been
available since 1980. Section 303 of the
CWA requires States to review, revise,
and adopt updated water quality
standards every three years as part of a
continuing triennial review process. The
water quality standards regulation has
required State adoption of numeric
criteria for toxic pollutants since 1983
(see 40 CFR 131.11). Despita-the
availability of scientific guidance
documents and clear statutory and
regulatory requirements, a preliminary
assessment of the water quality
standards for all States in February of
1990 showed that only six States had
established fully acceptable criteria for
toxic pollutants. This rate of toxics
criteria adoption is contrary to the CWA
requirements and is a reflection of the
difficulties faced by States. In such
circumstances, it is EPA's responsibility
to exercise its CWA authorities to move
forward the toxic control program in
concert with the statutory scheme.
EPA's action will also help restore
equity among the States. The CWA is
designed to ensure all waters are
sufficiently clean to protect public
health ana the environment The CWA
allows some flexibility and differences
among States in their adopted and
approved water quality standards, but it
was not designed to reward inaction and
inability to meet statutory requirements.
Although most States nave made
important progress toward satisfying
CWA requirements, some have still
failed to fully comply with section
303(c)(2)(B). The CWA authorizes EPA
to promulgate standards where
necessary to meet the requirements of
the Act Where States have not satisfied
the CWA requirement to adopt water
quality standards for toxic pollutants,
which was reemphasized by Congress in
1987, it is imperative that EPA take
action.
EPA's ability to oversee State
standards-setting activities and to
correct deficiencies in State water
quality standards is critical to the
effective implementation of section
303(c)(2)(B). This rule is a necessary and
important component of EPA's
implementation of section 303(c)(2)(B)
as well as EPA's overall efforts to
control toxic pollutants in surface
waters.
On February 28,1992. EPA's Deputy
Administrator issued "Guidance on Risk
Characterization for Risk Managers and
Risk Assessors" which addresses a
regarding the reliability of EPA's
scientific assessments and related
regulatory decisions. The guidance
noted that "when risk information is
presented to the * * * publicrthe
results have been boiled down to a point
estimate of risk * * ¦* which do not
fully convey the range of information
considered and used in developing the
assessment" The guidance lays out
principles and implementation
procedures to address risk assessments
in future EPA presentations, reports and
decision packages. The guidance
specifically notes, "However, we do not
expect risk assessment documents that
are close to completion to be rewritten."
The proposal for this final rule was
published in November, 1991. three
months prior to the risk assessment
guidance being issued. Since the
Agency was striving to meet a mid-
February statutory deadline for final
publication, when the risk guidance was
issued the rulemakingpackage was
essentially complete. The specifics of
the aquatic life and human health
guidelines are discussed in the
preamble and in the response to public
comments. The actual methodology and
criteria documents describe in detail the
risk assessment process involved in
deriving a water quality criteria and the
water quality standards contained in
this rule and the resulting risk
characterization. The water quality
criteria methodology and individual
criteria documents are part of the record
for this rule. Therefore, while all the
specifics of the new risk
characterization guidance were not
followed in this preamble, the spirit of
the guidance is reflected.
Moreover, EPA has initiated a review
and update of these criteria
methodologies. These updates will be
conducted in conformance with the risk
characterization guidance and include
public involvement and review.
B. Statutory and Regulatory
Background
1. Pie-Water Quality Act Amendments
of 1987 (Pub. L 100-4)
Section 303(c) of the 1972 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C
1313(c)) established the statutory basis
for the current water quality standards
program. It completed the transition
from the previously established program
of water quality standards for interstate
waters to one requiring standards for all
surface waters of the United States.
Although the major innovation of the
1972 FWPCA was technology-based
controls, Congress maintained the
concept of water quality standards both
as a mechanism to establish goals for the
Nation's waters and as a regulatory
requirement when standardized
technology controls for point source
discharges and/or nonpoint source
controls were inadequate. In recent
years, these so-called water quality-
based controls have received new
emphasis by Congress and EPA in the
continuing quest to enhance and
maintain water quality to protect the
public health and welfare.
-------
60850 Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Briefly stated, the key elements of
section SQ3(c) are:
(a)	A water quality standard is defined
as the designated beneficial uses of a
water segment and the water quality
criteria necessary to support those uses;
(b)	The minimum beneficial uses to be
considered by Stares in establishing
water quality standards are specified as
public water supplies, propagation of
fish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural
uses, industrial uses and navigation:
(c)	A requirement that State standards
must protect public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of water and serve
the purposes oi the Clean Water Act;
(d)	A requirement that States must
review their standards at least onca each
three year period using a process that
includes public participation;
(e)	The process for EPA review of
State standards which may ultimately
result in the promulgation of a
superseding Federal rule in cases where
a State's standards are not consistent
with the applicable requirements of the
CWA. or in situations where the Agency
determines Federal standards are
necessary to meet the requirements of
the Ad.
Another major innovation in the 1972.
FWPCA was the establishment of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDESJ which
requires paint source discharges to
obtain a permit before legally
discharging to the waters of the United
States. In addition to the permit limits
established on the. basis of technology
(e.g. effluent limitations guidelines}, the
Act requires discharges to meet instream
water quality standards. (See section
301(b)(1)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C)).
The water quality standards serve a
dual function under the Clean Water
Act regulatory scheme. Standards
establish narrative and numeric
definitions and quantification of the
Act's goals and policies (see section 101,
33 U.S.C. 1251) which provide a basis
for identifying impaired waters. Water
quality standards also establish
regulatory requirements which are
translated into specific discharge
requirements. In order to fulfill this
critical function, adopted State criteria
must contain sufficient parametric
coverage to protect both human health
and aquatic life.
In its initial efforts to control toxic
pollutants, the FWPCA, pursuant to
section 307. required EPA to designate
a list of toxic pollutants and to establish
toxic pollutant effluent standards based
on a formal rulemaking record. Such
rulemaking required formal hearings,
including cross-examination of
witnesses. EPA struggled with this
unwieldy process and ultimately
promulgated effluent standards for six
toxic pollutants, pollutant families or
mixtures. (See 40 CFR part 129.)
Congress amended section 307 In the
1977 Clean Water Act Amendments by
endorsing the Agency's alternative
procedure of regulating toxic pollutants
by use of effluent limitations guiaelineat
by amending the procedure for
establishing toxic pollutant effluent
standards to provide for more flexibility
in the hearing process for establishing a
record, and by directing the Agency to
include sixty-five specific pollutants or
classes of pollutants on the toxic
pollutant list. EPA published the
required list on January 31,1978 (43 FR
4109). This toxic pollutant list was the
basis on which EPA's efforts on criteria
development for toxics was focused.
During planning efforts to develop
effluent limitations guidelines and
water quality criteria, the list of sixty-
five toxic pollutants was judged too
broad as some of the pollutants were, in
fact, general families or classes of
organic compounds consisting of many
individual chemicals. EPA selected key
chemicals of concern within the 65
families of pollutants and identified a
more specific list of 129 priority toxic
pollutants. Two volatile chemicals and
one water unstable chemical were
removed from the list (see 46 FR 2266,
January 8,1981; 46 FR 10723, February
4.1981) so that at present there are 126
priority toxic pollutants. This list is
published as appendix A to 40 CFR part
423.
Another critical section of the 1972
FWPCA was section 304(a) (33 U.S.C
1314(a)). Section 304(a)(1) provides, in
pertinent part, that EPA
¦ • • shall develop and publish * * *
criteria for water quality accurately reflecting
the ktest~srieotific knowledge (A) on the
kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
health and welfare iwrWtng, taut not limited
to. plankton, fish,	wildlife, plant
life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and
recreation which may be expected from the
presence of pollutants in any body of water.
* * * and (C) on the effects of pollutants on
biological community diversity, productivity,
and stability, * * *
In order to avoid confusion, it must be
recognized that the Clean Water Act
uses the term "criteria" in two separate
ways. In section 303(c). which is
discussed above, the term is part of the
definition of a water quality standard.
That is, a water quality standard is
comprised of designated uses and the
criteria necessary to protect those uses.
Thus. States are required to adopt
regulations or statutes which contain
legally achievable criteria. However, in
section 304(a). the term criteria is used
in a scientific sense and EPA develops
recommendations which States consider
in adopting regulatory criteria.
In response to this legislative mandate
and an earlier similar statutory
requirement. EPA and a predecessor
agency have produced a series of
scientific water quality criteria guidance
documents. Early Federal efforts were
Water Quality Criteria (1988 "Green
Book") and Quality Criteria for Water
(1976 "Red Book"). EPA also-sponsored
a contract effort with the National
Academy of Science—National
Academy of Engineering which resulted
in Water Quality Criteria. 1972 (1973
"Blue Book"). These early efforts were
premised on the use of literature
reviews and the collective scientific
judgment of Agency and advisory
Eanels. However, when faced with the
st of 65 toxic pollutants and tha need
to develop criteria for human health as
well as aquatic life, the Agency
determined that new procedures were
necessary. Continued reliance solely on
existing scientific literature was deemed
inadequate, since for many pollutants
essential information was not available.
EPA scientists developed formal
methodologies for establishing
scientifically defensible criteria. These
were subjected to review by the
Agency's Science Advisory Board of
outside experts and thapuhhc. Tills
effort culminated on November 28.
1980, when the Agency published
.criteria development guidelines for
aquatic life ana for human health, along
with criteria for 64 toxic pollutants. (See
45 FR 79318.) Since that initial
publication, die aquatic life
methodology was slightly amended (50
FR 30784, July 29,1985) and additional
criteria was proposed for public
comment and finalized as Agency
criteria guidance. EPA summarized the
available criteria information in Quality
' Criteria for Water 1986 (1986 "Gold
Book") which is updated from time-to-
time. However, the individual criteria
documents, as updated, are the official
guidance documents.
EPA's criteria documents provide a
comprehensive toxicologic#! evaluation
of ewh rhamlr-al For toxic pollutants,
the documents tabulate the relevant
acute and chronic toxicity information
for aquatic life and derive the criteria
maximum concentrations (acute criteria)
and criteria continuous concentrations
(chronic criteria) which the Agency
recommends to protect aquatic life
resources. For human health criteria, the
document provides the appropriate
reference doses, and if appropriate, the
carcinogenic slope factors, and derives
recommend criteria. The details of this
[trocess are described more folly in a
ater part of thi3 Preamble.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60851
Programmatically, EPA's initial efforts
wars aimed at converting a program
focused on interstate waters into one
addressing all interstate and intrastate
surface waters of the United States.
Guidance was aimed at the inclusion of
traditional water quality parameters to
protect aquatic life (e.g.. pH.
temperature, dissolved oxygen and a
narrative "free from toxicity"
provision), recreation (e.g.,
bacteriological criteria) and general
aesthetics (e.g., narrative "free from
nuisance" provisions). EPA also
required State adoption of an
anucegradation policy to maintain
existing high quality or ecologically
unique waters as well as maintain
improvements in water quality as they
gccut.
The initial water quality standards
regulation was actually a part of EPA's
water quality management regulations
implementing section 303(e) (33 U.S.C.
1313(a)) of the Act It was not
comprehensive and did not address
toxics or any other criteria specifically.
Rather, it simply required States to
adopt appropriate wateT quality criterv
necessary to support designated uses.
(See 40 CFR 130.17 as promulgated ir
40 FR 55334, November 28.1975).
After several years of effort and faced
with increasing public and
Congressional concerns about toxic
pollutants, EPA realized that proceeding
under section 307 of the Act would not
comprehensively address in a timely
manner the control of toxics through
either toxic pollutant effluent standards
or effluent limitations guidelines
because these controls are only
applicable to specific types of
discharges. EPA sought a broader, more
generally applicable mechanism and
decided to vigorously pursue the
alternative approach of EPA issuance of
scientific water quality criteria
documents which States could use to
adopt enforceable water quality
standards. These in turn could be used
as the basis for establishing State and
EPA permit discharge limits pursuant to
section 301(b)(1)(C) which requires
NPDES permits to contain
• • • more stringent limitation,
including those necessary to meet water
quality standards * * *, or required to
implement any applicable water quality
standard established pursuant to this Act
Thus, the adoption by States of
appropriate toxics criteria applicable to
their surface waters, such as those
recommended by EPA in its criteria
documents, would be translated by
regulatory agencies into point source
permit limits. Through the use of water
quality standards, all discharges of
toxics are subject to permit limits and
not just those discharged by particular
industrial categories. In order to
facilitate this process, the Agency
amended the water quality standards
regulation to explicitly address toxic
criteria requirements in State standards.
The culmination of this effort was the
promulgation of the present water
quality standards regulation on
November 8, 1983 (40 CFR part 131, 48
FR 51400).
The current water quality standards
regulation (40 CFR part 131) is much
mere comprehensive than its
predecessor. The regulation addresses in
detail both the beneficial use
component and the criteria component
of a water quality standard. Section
131.11 of tie regulation requires States
to review available information and.
* * * to identify specific water bodies
where toxic pollutants may be adversely
affecting water quality or the attainment of
the designated water use or where the levels
of toxic pollutants are at a level to warrant
concern and must adopt criteria for such
toxic pollutants applicable to the water body
sufficient to protect the designated use.
The regulation provided that either or
both numeric and narrative criteria may
be appropriately used in water quality
standards.
EPA's water quality standards
emphasis since the early 1980's
reflected the increasing importance
placed on controlling toxic pollutants.
States were strongly encouraged to
adopt criteria in their standards for the
priority toxic pollutants, especially
where EPA had published criteria
guidance under section 304(a) of the-
Act
Under the statutory scheme, during
the 3-year triennial review period
following EPA's 1980 publication of
water quality criteria for the protection
of human health and aquatic life, States
should have reviewed those criteria and
adopted standards for many priority
toxic pollutants. In fact. State response
to EPA's criteria publication and toxics
initiative was disappointing. A few
States adopted large numbers of
numeric toxics criteria, although
primarily for the protection of aquatic
life. Most other States adopted few or no
water quality criteria for priority toxic
pollutants. Some relied on a narrative
"free from toxicity" criterion, and so-
called "action levels" for toxic
pollutants or occasionally calculated
site-specific criteria. Few States
addressed the protection of human
health by adopting numeric human
health criteria.
In support of the November, 1983,
water quality standards rulemaking,
EPA issued program guidance entitled.
Water Quality Standards Handbook
(December 1983) simultaneously with
the publication of the final rule. The
foreword to that guidance noted EPA's
two-fold water quality based approach
to controlling toxics: chemical specific
numeric criteria and biological testing
in whole effluent or ambient waters to
comply with narrative "no toxics in
toxic amounts" standards. More
detailed programmatic guidance on the
application of biological testing was
provided in the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality Based
Toxics Control (TSD) (EPA 440/4-35-
032. September 1985). This document
provided the needed information to
convert chemical specific and
biologically based criteria into water
quality standards for ambient receiving
waters and permit limits for discharges
to those waters. The TSD focused on the
use of bioassay testing of effluent (so-
called whole effluent testing or WET
methods) to develop effluent limitations
within discharge permits. Such effluent
limits were designed to implement the
"free from toxicity" narrative standards
in State water quality standards. The
TSD also focused on water quality
standards. Procedures and policy were
presented for appropriate design flows
for EPA's section 304(a) acute and
chronic criteria. In 1991, EPA revised
and expanded the TSD. (Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-
based T oxics Control. EPA 505/2-90-
001, March 1991.) A Notice of
Availability was published in the
Federal Register on April 4, 1991 (56 FR
13827). All references in this Preamble
are to the revised TSD.
The Water Quality Standards
Handbook and the TSD are examples of
EPA's efforts and assistance that were
intended to help, encourage and support
the States in adopting appropriate watei
3uality standards for the protection of
leir waters against the deleterious
effects of toxic pollutants. In some
States, more and more numeric criteria
for toxics were being adopted as well as
more aggressive use of the "free from
toxics" narratives in setting protective
NPDES permit limits. However, by the
time of Congressional consideration and
action on the CWA reauthorization,
most States had adopted few, if any,
water quality standards for priority toxic
pollutants.
State practices of developing case-by-
case effluent limits using procedures
that were not standardized in State
regulations made it difficult to ascertain
whether such procedures were
consistently applied. The use of
approaches to control toxicity that did
not rely on the statewide adoption of
numeric criteria for the priority toxic
-------
60852 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Rules and Regulations
pollutants generated frustration in
Congress. Senator Robert T. Stafford,
first chairman and then ranking
minority member of the authorizing
committee, noted during the Senate
debate:
An important problem in this regard ij that
few States have numeric ambient cntana for
toxic pollutants. The lack of ambient criteria
[tor toxic poilutantsl make it impossible to
calculate additional discharge limitations for
toxics * * *. It is vitally important that the
water quality standards program operate in
such a way that it supports the objectives of
the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain
the integrity of the Nation's Waters.
(bracketed material added). A Legislative
History of the Water Quality Act of 1987"
(Pub. L. 100-4). Senate Print 100-144,
USGPO, November 1988 at page 1324.
Other comments in the legislative
history similarly note tha Congressional
perception that tha States were failing to
aggressively address toxics and that EPA
was not using its oversight role to push
the States to move more quickly and
comprehensively. Thus Congress
developed the water quality standards
amendments to the Clean Water Act for
reasons similar to those strongly stated
during the Senate debate by a chief
sponsor, Senator John H. Chafee,
A cornerstone of the bill's new toxic
pollution control requirements is the so
called beyond-BAT program * * •.Adopting
the beyond BAT provisions will assure that
EPA continues ta move forward rapidly on
the program* * *. If wear* going to repair
the damage to those water bodies that have
become highly degraded as a result of toxic
substances, we are going ta have ta move
forward expeditiously on this beyond-BAT
program. The Nation cannot tolerate endless
delays and negotiations between EPA and
States on this program. Both entities must
move agpessively In taking the necessary
steps to make this program work within the
time frame established by this Bill * * *.
Ibid, at page 1309.
This Congressional impatience with
the pace of State and EPA progress and
an appreciation that the lack of State
standards for toxics undermined the
effectiveness of the entire CWA-based
scheme, resulted in the 1987 adoption
of stringent new water quality standard
provisions in the Water Quality Act
amendments.
2. The Water Quality Act Amendments
of 1987 (Pub. L 100-4]
a. Description of the New Requirements
The 1987 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act added Section 303(c)(2)(B)
which provides:
Whenever a State reviews water quality.
standards pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection, or revises or adopts new
standards pursuant to this paragraph, such
State shall adopt aiteria for all toxic
pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a)(1)
cf this Act for which criteria have been
published under section 304(a), the discharge
or presence of which in the affected waters
could reasonably be expected to interfere
with those designated use* adopted by the
State, as necessary to support such
designated uses. Such criteria shall be
specific numerical criteria ibr such toxic
pollutants. Where such numerical criteria are
not available, whenever a State reviews water
quality standards pursuant to paragraph (1),
or revises or adopts new standards pursuant
to this paragraph, mch State shall adopt
criteria based on biological monitoring or
assessment methods consistent with
information published pursuant to section
304(a)(8). Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or delay the use of affluent
limitations or other permit conditions based
on or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods or previously adopted
numerical criteria.
b. EPA's Initial Implementing Actions
for Sections 303(c) and 304(1)
The addition of this new requirement
to the existing water quality standards
review and revision process of section
303(c) did not change the existing
procedural or timing provisions. For
example, section 303(c)(1) still requires
that States review their water quality
standards at least once each 3 year
period and transmit the results to EPA
for review. EPA's oversight and
promulgation authorities and statutory
schedules in section 303(c)(4) were
likewise unchanged. Bather, the
provision required the States to place
heavy emphasis on adapting numeric
chemical-specific criteria for toxic
pollutants (Lb., rather than just narrative
approaches) during the next triennial
review cycle. As discussed in the
previous section ~ Congress was
frustrated that States were not using the
numerous section 304(a) criteria that
EPA had developed, and was continuing
to develop, to assist States in controlling
the discharge of priority toxic
pollutants. Therefore, for the first time
in the history of the Clean Water Act,
Congress took, the unusual action of
explicitly mandating that States adopt
numeric criteria for specific toxic
pollutants.
In response to this new Congressional
mandate, EPA redoubled its efforts to
promote and assist State adoption of
water quality standards for priority toxic
pollutants. EPA's efforts included the
development and issuance of guidance
to the States on acceptable
implementation procedures for several
new sections of the Act, including
sections 303(c)(2)(B) and 304(1).
The 1987 CWA Amendments added
to, or amended, other CWA Sections
related to toxics control. Section 304(1)
(33 U.S.C. 1314(1)) was an important
corollary amendment because it
required States to take actions to
identify waters adversely affected by
toxic pollutants, particularly those
waters entirely or substantially impaired
by point sources. Section 304(1) entitled
"Individual Control Strategies for Toxic
Pollutants," requires in part, that States
identify and list waterboaies where the
designated uses specified in the
applicable water quality standards
cannot reasonably be expected to be
achieved because of point source
discharge of toxic pollutants. For each
segment so identified, the State is
required to develop individual control
strategies to reduce the discharge of
toxics from point sources so that in
conjunction with existing controls on
point and nonpoint sources, water
quality standards will be attained. To
assist the States in identifying waters
under section 304(1), EPA's guidance
listed a number of potential sources of
available data for States to review.
States generally assembled data for a
broad spectrum of pollutants, including
the priority toxic pollutants, which
could be useful in complying with
sections 304(1) and 303(c)(2)(B). In fact,
between February 1988 and October
1988, EPA assembled pollutant
candidate lists for section 304(1) which
were then transmitted to each
jurisdiction. Thus, each State had a
preliminary list of pollutants that had
been Identified as present In, or
discharged to, surface waters. Such-lists
were limited by the quantity and
distribution of available effluent and
ambient monitoring data for priority
toxic pollutants. This listing exarcisa
further emphasized the need for water
quality standards for toxic pollutants.
Lack of standards increased the
difficulty of identifying impaired
waters. On the positive side, the data
gathered in support of the 304(1) activity
proved helpftu in identifying those
pollutants most obviously in need of
water quality standards.
EPA, in devising guidance for section
303(c)(2)(B), attempted to provide States
the HiAYinnim flexibility mat complied
with the express statutory language but
also with the overriding congressional
objective; Prompt adoption and
implementation of numeric toxics
criteria. EPA believed that flexibility
was important so that each State could
comply with section 303(c)(2)(B) and to
the extent possihle. accommodate its
existing water quality standards
regulatory approach. The options EPA
identified are described in the next
Section of this Preamble. EPA's program
guidance was issued in final form on
December 12,1988 but was not
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60853
substantially different from earlier drafts
available for review by the States. The
availability of the guidance was
published in a Federal Register Notice
on January 5,19S9 (54 FR 346).
J. EPA's Program Guidance for Section
303(c)(2)(B)
EPA's section 303(c)(2)(B) prbfpam
guidance identified three options that
could be used by a State to meet the
requirement that the State adopt toxic
pollutant criteria "* * * the discharge
or presence of which in the affected
waters could reasonably be expected to
interfere with those designated usee
adopted by the State, as necessary to
support such designated uses."
Option 1. Adopt statewide numeric
criteria in State Water Quality Standards
for all section 307(a) toxic pollutants for
which EPA has developed criteria
guidance, regardless or whether the
pollutants are known to be present.
This option is the most
comprehensive approach to satisfy the
statutory requirements because it would
include all of the priority toxic
pollutants for which EPA has prepared
section 304(a) criteria guidance for
either or bothaquatic life protection and
human health protection. In addition to
a simple adoption of EPA's section
304(a) guidance as standards, a State
must select a risk level for those toxic
pollutants which are carcinogens (L«*
. that cause, or may cause cancer in
humans).
Many States found this Option
attractive because it ensured
comprehensive coverage of the priority
toxic pollutants with scientifically
defensible criteria without the need to
conduct a resource-intensive evaluation
of the particular segments and -
pollutants requiring criteria. This option
would also not be mare costly to
dischargers than other options because
permit limits would only be based on
the regulation of the particular toxic
pollutants in their discharges and not on
the total listing in the water quality
standards. Thus, actual permit limits
should be the same under any of the
options.
Option 2. Adopt chemical-specific
numeric criteria for priority toxic
pollutants that are the subject of EPA
section 304(a) criteria guidance, where
the State determines based on available
information that the pollutants are
present or discharged and can
reasonably be expected to interfere with
designated uses.
This option results in the adoption of
numeric water quality standards for
some subset of those pollutants for
which EPA has issued section 304(a)
criteria guidance baaed on a review of
current information. To satisfy this
Option, the guidance recommended that
States use the data gathered during the
section 304(1) water quality assessments
as a starting point to identify those
water segments that need water quality
standards for priority toxic pollutants.
That data would be supplemented by a
State and public review of other data
sources to ensure sufficient breadth of
coverage to meet the statutory objective.
Among the data available to be reviewed
were: (1) Ambient water monitoring
information, including those for tha
water column, sediment, and aquatic
life (e.g., fish tissue data); (2) NPDES
permit applications and permittee self-
monitoring reports; (3) affluent
guideline development documents,
many of which contain priority toxic
pollutant scans; (4) pestidde and
herbicide application information and
other records of pesticide or herbicide
inventories; (5) public water supply
source monitoring data noting
pollutants with maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs); and (6) any other relevant
information on toxic pollutants
collected by Federal, Stats, industry,
agendas, academic groups, or scientific
organizations. EPA also recommended
that States selecting this option adapt a
translator provision similar to that
described in Option 3 but applicable to
all chemicals causing toxicity, and not
just priority toxic pollutants.
This Option 2 review resulted in a
State proposing new or revised water
quality standards and providing an
opportunity for public review and
comment on the pollutants, criteria, and
water bodies included. Throughout this
process, EPA's Regional Offices wren
available to assist States by providing
additional guidance and technical
assistance on applying EPA's
recommended criteria to particular
situations in the States.
Option 3. Adopt a procedure to be
applied to a narrative water quality
standard provision prohibiting toxicity
in receiving waters. Such procedures
would be used by the State in
calculating derived numeric criteria
which must be used for all purposes
under section 303(c) of the CW A. At a
minimum, such criteria need to be
developed for section 307(a} toxic
pollutants, as necessary to support
designated uses, where these pollutants
are discharged or present in the affected
waters and could reasonably be
expected to interfere with designated
uses.
The combination of a narrative
standard (e.g., "bee from toxics in toxic
amounts") and an approved translator
mechanism as part of a State's water
quality standards satisfies the
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B). As
noted above, such a procedure is also a
valuable supplement to either option 1
or 2. There are several regulatory and
scientific requirements EPA's guidance
specifies are essential to ensure
acceptable scientific quality and full
involvement of the public and EPA in
this approach. Briefly stated these are:
•	Tha procedure (Le., narrative
criterion and translator) must be used to
calculate numeric water quality criteria;
•	The State must demonstrate to EPA
that the procedure results in numeric
criteria that are sufficiently protective to
meet the goals of the Act;
•	The State must provide for full
opportunity for public participation
during the adoption of the procedure;
•	Tera procedure must be formally
adopted as a State rule and be
mandatory in application; and
•	The procedure must be submitted
for review and approval by EPA as part
of the State's water quality standards
regulation.
The scientific elements of a translator
are similar to EPA's 304(a) criteria
methodologies whan applied on a site*
specific basis. For ammipla, aquatic
criteria are developed using a sufficient
number and diversity of aquatic spedes
representative of the biological
assemblage of a particular water body.
Human health criteria focus on
determining appropriate exposure
conditions fcg. amount of aquatic life
consumed per person per day) rather
than underlying pollutant toxicity. The
results of tha procedures are
scientifically defensible criteria that are
protective for the site's particular
conditions. EPA's review of translator
procedures includes an evaluation of
tha scientific merit of the procedure
using the section 304(a) methodology as
a guide.
Ideally, States adopting option 3
translator procedures should prepare a
preliminary list of criteria and specify
the waters the criteria apply to at the
time of adoption. Although under
option 3 the State retains flexibility to
derive new criteria without revising the
adopted standards, establishing this
preliminary list of derived criteria at the
of the triennial review will assist
the public in determining the scope of
the adopted standards, and help ensure
that the State ultimately complies with
the reouirement to establish criteria for
all pollutants that can "reasonably be
expected" to interfere with uses. EPA
believes that States selecting solely
option 3 should prepare an analysis
(similar to that required of option 2
States) at the time of the triennial
review identifying pollutants needing
criteria.
-------
60854 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations -
EPA's December 1983 guidance also
addressed the timing issue (or Stale
compliance with section 303(c)(2)(B).
The statutory directive was clear: All
State standards triennial reviews
initiated after passage of the Act must
include a consideration of numeric toxic
criteria.
The structure of section 303(c) is to
require States to review their water
quality standards at least onc9 each
three year period. Section 303(c)(2)(B)
instructs States to include reviews for
toxics criteria whenever tbfey initiate a
triennial review. SPA initially looked at
February 4,1990, the 3-year anniversary
of the 1987 CWA amendments, as a
convenient point to index State
compliance. The April 1990 Federal
Register Notice used this Index point for
the preliminary assessment. However,
some States were very neariy
completing their State administrative
processes for ongoing revie vs when the
1937 amendments were enacted and
could not legally amend those
proceedings to address additional toxics
criteria. Therefore, in the interest of
fairness, and to provide such States a
full 3-year review period, EPA's FY
1990 Agency Operating Guidance
provided that "By the end of the FY 88-
90 triennium, States should have
completed adoption of numeric criteria
to meet the section 303(c)(2)(B)
requirements." (p.48.) The FY 88-90
triennium ended on September 30,
1990.
Clean Water Act section 303(c) does
not provide penalties for States that do
not complete timely water quality
standards reviews. In no previous case
has the EPA Administrator found that
State failure to complete a review
within three years jeopardized the
public health or welfare to such an
extent that promulgation of Federal
standards pursuant to section
303(c)(4)(B) was justified. The pre-1987
CWA never mandated State adoption of
priority toxic pollutants or other
specific criteria. EPA generally relied on
its water quality standards regulation
(40 CFR 131.11) and its criteria and
program guidance to the States on
appropriate parametric coverage in State
water quality standards to encourage
State adoption of water quality
standards. However, since the 1987
statutory amendments, the
programmatic environment has
changed. Beyond the increased
Congressional and public concern,
about the relative importance of toxic
pollutant controls, there is increased
evidence of toxic pollution problems in
our Nation's waters. In response, the
Agency in this rulemaking is proceeding
pursuant to section 303(c)(4)(B) and 40
CFR 131.22(b) to rectify a longstanding
program deficiency.
The current regulation at 40 CFR Part
131 in conjunction with the statutory
language provides a clear and
unambiguous basis and process for
today's Federal promulgation.
C State Actions Pursuant to Section
303(cM2)(B)
In recent years, there has been
substantial progress by many States in
the adoption, and EPA approval, of
water quality standards for toxic
pollutants. Virtually all States have at
least proposed new toxics criteria for
priority toxic pollutants since section
303(c)(2)(B) was added to the CWA in
February cf 1987. Unfortunately, nci ail
such State proposals address, in a
comprehensive manner, the
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B). For
example, some States have proposed to
adopt criteria to protect aquatic life, but
not human health; other States have
proposed human health criteria which
do not address major human exposure
pathways. In addition, in some cases
final adoption of proposed State toxics
criteria which would be approvable by
EPA has been substantially delayed due
to controversial and difficult issues
associated with the toxics criteria
adoption process. For purposes of
today's rulemaking, it is EPA's judgment
that 43 States completed actions which
fully satisfy the requirements of section
303(c)(2)(B).
In sum, States have devoted
substantial resources, and have made
substantial progress, in adopting new or
revised numeric criteria for priority
pollutants. In so doing, they have
addressed a number of significant and
difficult issues. These efforts have
generated extensive examination by
dischargers. States, environmental
groups and the public on all aspects of
the CWA water quality criteria and
related issues. It amounts to a multi-year
consideration of the issues that are
central to this proposed and final
rulemaking.
D. Determining State Compliance With
Section 303(c)(2)(B)
J, EPA's Review of State WaterQuality
Standards for Toxics
The EPA Administrator has delegated
the responsibility and authority for
review and approval or disapproval of
all State water quality standards actions
to the 10 EPA Regional Administrators
(see 40 CFR 131.21). State section
303(c)(2)(B) actions are thus submitted
to the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator for review and approval.
This de-centralized EPA system for
State water quality standards review
and approval is guided by EPA
Headquarters Office of Water, which
issues national policies and guidance to
the States and Regions such as the
annual Office of Water Operating
Guidance and various technical
manuals.
For purposes of evaluating State
compliance with CWA section
303(c)(2)(B), EPA relied on the statutory
language, the existing water quality
standards regulation, and section
303(c)(2|(B) national guidance to
provide the basis for EPA review. In
some cases, individual Regions also
used Regional policies and procedures
in reviewing State section 3C3fcH2)(B)
actions. The flexibility provided by the
national guidance, coupled with subtle
differences in Regional policies and
procedures, contributed to some
differences in the approaches taken by
States to satisfy section 303(cl(2)(B)
reauiremenls.
As discussed previously, EPA's final
guidance on compliance with section
303(c)(2)(B) was developed to provide
States with the necessary flexibility to
allow State standards revisions that
would complement the State's existing
water quality standards program and
still comply with section 303(c)(2)(B).
As guidance, it described the range of
acceptable approaches and EPA's .
recommendations. Some innovative
State approaches were expected as well
as differences in terms of criteria
coverage, stringency and application
procedures.
Although the guidance provided for
. State flexibility, it was also consistent
with existing water quality standards
regulation requirements of 40 CFR
131.11 that explicitly require State
criteria to be sufficient to protect
designated uses. Such water quality
criteria also must be based-on sound
scientific rationale and support the most
sensitive use designated for a water
body.
Tne most complicated EPA
. compliance determinations involve
States that selected EPA Options 2 or 3.
Since most States use EPA's section
304(a) criteria guidance, where States
select Option 1, EPA normally is able to
focus Agency efforts on verifying that all
available EPA criteria are included,
appropriate cancer risk levels are
selected, and that sufficient application
procedures are in place (e.g. laboratory
analytical methods, mixing zones, flow
condition, etc.).
However, for States using EPA's
Option 2 or 3, substantially more EPA
evaluation and judgment was required
because the Agency must evaluate
which priority pollutants and, in some
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60855
cases, segments or designated uses,
require numeric criteria. Under these
options, the State must adopt or derive
numeric criteria for priority toxic
pollutants for which EPA has section
304(a) criteria, "* * * the discharge or
presence of which in the affected waters
could reasonably be expected to
interfere with those designated uses
adopted by the State * * '."The
necessary justification and the ultimate
coverage and acceptability of a State's
actions vary State-to-State because of
differences in the adequacy of availabla
monitoring information, local
waterbody use designations, the effluent
and nonpoint source controls in place,
and different approaches to the
scientific basis for criteria.
In submitting criteria for the
protection of human health. States were
not limited to a 1 in 1 million risk level
(10-4). EPA generally regulates
pollutants treated as carcinogens in the
range of 10"6 to 10~* to protect average
exposed individuals and more highly
exposed populations. If a State selects a
criterion that represents an upper bound
risk level less protective than 1 in
100,000 (i.e., 10~5), however, the State
needed to have substantial support in
the record for this level. This support
focused on two distinct issues. First, the
record must include documentation that
the decision maker considered the
public interest of the State in selecting
the risk level, including documentation
of public participation in the decision
making process as required by the water
quality standards regulation at 40 CFR
131.20(b). Second, the record must
include an analysis showing that tha
risk level selected, when combined with
other risk assessment variables, is a
balanced and reasonable estimate of
actual risk posed, based on the best and
most representative information
available. The importance of the
estimated actual risk increases as the
degree of conservatism in the selected
risk level diminishes. EPA carefully
evaluated all assumptions used by a
State if the State chose to alter any one
of the standard EPA assumption values.
Where States selected Option 3, EPA
reviews must also include an evaluation
of the scientific defensibility of the
translator procedure. EPA must also
verify that a requirement to apply tha
translator whenever toxics may
reasonably be expected to interfere with
designated uses (e.g., where such toxics
exist or are discharged) is included in
the State's water quality standards.
Satisfactory application procedures
must also be developed by States
selecting Option 3.
In general, each EPA Region made
compliancedecisions based on
whatever information was available at
the time of the triennial review. For
some States, information on the
presence and discharge of priority toxic
pollutants is extremely limited.
Nevertheless, during the period of
February 1088 to October 1990, to
supplement State efforts, EPA
assembled the available information and
provided each State with various
pollutant candidate Lists in support of
tha section 304(1) and section
303(c)(2)(B) activities. These were based
in part on computerized searches of
existing Agency data bases.
Beginning in 1988, EPA provided
States with candidate lists of priority
toxic pollutants and water bodies in
support of CWA Section 304(1)
implementation. These lists were
developed because States were required
to evaluate existing and readily
available water-related data in order to
comply with Section 304(1). 40 CFR
130.10(d). A similar " straw man"
analysis of priority pollutants
potentially requiring adoption of
numeric criteria under Section
303(c)(2)(B) was furnished to most
States in September or October of 1990
for their use in on-going and subsequent
triennial reviews. The primary
differences between the "strawman"
analysis and the section 304(1)
candidate lists were that the
"strawman" analysis: (1) Organized the
results by chemical rather than by water
body, (2) included data for certain
STORET monitoring stations that were
not used in constructing the candidate
lists, (3) included data from the Toxics
Release Inventory database, and (4) did
not include a number of data sources
used in preparing the candidate lists
(e.g. those, such as fish kill information,
that did not provide chemical specific
information).
In its 1988 section 303(c)(2)(B)
guidance, EPA urged States, at a
minimum, to use the information
gathered in support of section 304(1)
requirements as a starting point for
identifying which priority toxic
pollutants require adoption of numeric
criteria. EPA also encouraged States to
consider the presence or potential
construction of facilities that
manufacture or use priority toxic
pollutants as a strong indication of the
need for toxics criteria. Similarly, EPA
indicated to States that the presence of
priority pollutants in ambient waters
(including those in sediments or in
aquatic life tissue) or in discharges from
point or nonpoint sources also be
considered as an indication that toxics
criteria should be adopted. A limited
amount of data on the effluent
characteristics of NPDES discharges was
readily available to States. States were
also expected to take into account newer
information as it became available, such
as information in annual reports from
the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
requirements of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-To-Know Act of
1986. (Title m, Pub. L 99-499.)
In summary, EPA and the States had
access to a variety of information
gathered in support of section 304(1).
section 303(c)(2)(B), and section 305(b)
activities. For some States, as noted
above, such information for priority
toxic pollutants is extremely limited. In
the final analysis, the Regional
Administrator made a judgment on a
duly submitted State standards triennial
review based on the State's record and
the Region's independent knowledge of
the facts and circumstances surrounding
the State's actions. These actions, taken
in consultation with the Office of Water,
determined which State actions were
sufficiently consistent with the coverage
contemplated in the statute to justify
approval. These approval actions
include allowable variations among
State water quality standards. EPA
approval indicates that, based on the
record, the State water quality standards
met the requirements of the Act.
2. Determining Current Compliance
Status
The following summarizes the process
generally followed by the Agency in
assessing compliance with section
303(c)(2)(B).
A State was determined to be in full
compliance with the requirements of
section 303(c)(2)(B) if.
a.	The Sfate had submitted a water
quality standards package for EPA
review since enactment of the 1987
Clean Water Act amendments or was
determined to be already in compliance,
and,
b.	The State adopted water quality
standards are effective under State law
and consistent with the CWA and EPA's
implementing regulations (EPA's
December 1988 guidance described
three Options, any one, or a
combination of which EPA suggested
States could adopt for compliance with
the CWA and EPA regulations), and
c.	EPA has issued a formal approval
determination to the State.
States meeting these criteria are not
included in this final rulemaking.
States which adopted standards
following Option 1 generally have been
found to satisfy section 303(c)(2)(B). An
exception exists for selected States
which attempted to follow Option 1 by
adopting all EPA section 304(a) criteria
by reference. EPA has withheld
-------
608S6 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
approval for one State which has
aacpted such a reference into their
standards because the adopted
standards did not specify application
factors necessary to implement the
criteria (e.g., a risk level for
carcinogens). Othar States have
achieved full compliance following
options 1. 2, 3, or some combination of
these options.
As or the date of signature of today's
rule, the Agency has determined that 43
States and Territories are in full
compliance with the requirements of
section 303(c)(2)(E). Compliance status
for all States and Territories is set forth
in Table l.
Ta9le 1—assessment of State Cot*-
puance with CWA Section
303(C)(2)(B)

Is State In

compliance

with section

303
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 I Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Rules and Regulations 60857
establishing water quality standards for
toxic pollutants is no longer accsptabla.
Prompt control of toxic pollutants in
surface waters is critical to the success
of a number of Clean Water Act
programs and objectives, including
permitting, enforcement, fish tissue
quality protection, coastal water quality
improvement, sediment contamination
control, certain nonpoint source
controls, pollution prevention planning,
and ecological protection. The decade
long delay in State adoption of water
quality standards for toxic pollutants
has had a ripple effect throughout EPA's
water programs. Without clearly
established water quality goals, the
effectiveness of many water programs is
jeopardized. For too long, the absence of
water quality standards has had a
chilling effect on toxic control progress
in many State and Federal programs.
Failure to take prompt action at this
juncture would also undermine the
continued inability of the current
statutory scheme to establish standards.
Excessive delay subverts the entire
concept of the triennial review cycle
which is intended to combine current
scientific information with the results of
previous environmental control
programs to direct continuing progress
in enhancing water quality.
Finally, another reason to proceed
expeditiously is to bring closure to this
long-term effort and allow State
attention and resources to be directed
towards important, new national
program initiatives. Until standards for
toxic pollutants are in place, neither
EPA nor the States can fully focus on
the emerging, ecologically-based water
quality activities such as wetlands
criteria, biological criteria and sediment
criteria.
1. Legal Basis
Clean Water Act Section 303(c)
specifies that adoption of water quality
standards is primarily the responsibility
of the States. However, Section 303(c)
also describes a role for EPA of
overseeing State actions to ensure
compliance with CWA requirements. If
the Agency's review of the State's
standards finds flaws or omissions, then
the Act authorizes EPA to initiate
promulgation to correct the deficiencies
(see section 303(c)(4)). The water quality
standards promulgation authority has
been used by EPA to issue final rules on
nine separata occasions. These actions
have addressed both insufficiently
protective State criteria anchor
designated uses and failure to adopt
needed criteria Thus, today's action is
not unique, although it would affect
more States and pollutants than
previous actions taken by the Agency..
Tha Clean Water Act in section
303(c)(4) provides two bases for
promulgation of Federal water quality
standards. The first basis, in paragraph
(A), applies when a Stats submits new
or revised standards that EPA
determines are not consistent with the
applicable requirements of the Act If.
after EPA's disapproval, the State does
not promptly amend its rules so as to be
consistent with the Act, EPA must
promulgate appropriate Federal water
quality standards for that State. The
secend basis for EPA'3 action is
paragraph (B), which provides that EPA
shall promptly initiate promulgation
" * * * in any case where the
Administrator determines that a revised
or new standard is necassary to meet the
requirements of this Act." EPA is
relying on both section 303(c)(4)(A) and
section 303(c)(4)(B) as the legal basis for
this rule.
Section 303(c)(4)(A) supports today's
action for several States. These States
have submitted criteria for some number
of priority toxic pollutants and EPA has
disapproved the State's adopted
standards. The basis for EPA's
disapproval generally has been the lack
of sufficient criteria or particular criteria
that were insufficiently stringent In
these cases. EPA has, by letter to the
State, noted the deficiencies and
specified the need for corrective action.
Mot having received an appropriate
correction within the statutory time
frame, EPA is today promulgating the
needed criteria The action in today's
rule pursuant to section 303(c)(4)(A)
may differ from those taken pursuant to
section 303(c)(4)(B) by being limited to
criteria for specific priority toxic
pollutants, particular geographic areas,
or particular designated uses.
Section 303(c)(4)(B) is the basis for
EPA's requirements for most States. For
these States, the Administrator has
determined that promulgating criteria is
necessary to bring the States into
compliance with the requirements of the
CWA. In these cases. EPA is
promulgating, at a minimum, criteria for
all priority toxic pollutants not
addressed by approved State criteria.
EPA is also promulgating criteria for
priority toxic pollutants where any
previously-approved State criteria do
not reflect current science contained in
revised criteria documents and other
guidance sufficient to fully protect all
designated uses or human exposure
pathways, or where such previously-
approved State criteria are not
applicable to all appropriate designated
uses. EPA's action pursuant to section
304(c)(4)(B) may include several
situations.
In some cases, the State has failed to
adopt and submit for approval any
criteria for those prionty toxic
pollutants for which EPA has published
criteria. This includes those States that
have not submitted triennial reviews. In
other cases, the State has adopted and
EPA has approved criteria for either
aquatic life or human health, but not
both. In yet a third situation, States have
eubmitted some criteria but not all
necessary criteria. Lasdy. one State has
submitted criteria that do not apply to
all appropriate geographic sections of
the waters of the State.
The use of section 303(c)(4)(B)
requires a determination by the
Administrator"" * " that a revised or
new standard i3 necessary to meet the
requirements of * * *" the Act. The
Administrator's determination could be
supported in different ways.
One approach would be for EPA to
undertake a time-consuming effort to
research and marshal] data to
demonstrate the need for promulgation
for each criteria for each stream segment
or waterbody in each State. This would
include evidence for each Section 307(a)
priority toxic pollutant for which EPA
has Section 304(a) criteria and that there
is a "discharge or presence" which
could reasonably "be expected to
interfere with" the designated use. This
approach would not only impose an
enormous administrative burden, but
would be contrary to the statutory
scheme and the compelling
Congressional directive for swift action
reflected in the 1987 addition of section
303(c)(2)(B) to the Act
An approach that is more reasonable
and consistent with Congressional
intent focuses on the State's failure to
complete the timely review and
adoption of the necessary standards
required by section 303(c)(2)(B) despite
information that priority toxic
pollutants may interfere with designated
uses of the State's waters. This approach
is consistent with the fact that in
enacting section 303(c)(2)(B) Congress
expressed its determination of the
necessity for prompt adoption and
implementation of water quality
standards for toxic pollutants.
Therefore, a State's failure to meet this
fundamental 303(c)(2)(B) requirement of
adopting appropriate standards
constitutes a failure "to meet the
requirements of the Act." That failure to
act can be a basis for the Administrator's
determination under section
-303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised criteria
are necessary to ensure designated uses
are adequately protected. Here, this
determination is buttressed by the
existence of evidence of the discharge or
presence of priority toxic pollutants in
-------
60858 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Rules and Regulations
a State's waters for which the State has
not adopted numeric water quality
criteria. The Agency has compiled an
impressive volume of information in the
record for this rulemaking on the
discharge or presence of toxic pollutants
in State watars. This data supports the
Administrator's determination pursuant
to section 303(c)(4)(B). The record was
available to the public for review during
this rulemaking period and continues to
be on file.
The Agency's choice to base the
determination on the second approach
is supported by both the explicit
language of the statutory provision and
by the legislative history. Congress
added subsection 303(c)(2)(B) to section
303 with full knowledge of the existing
requirements in section 303(c)(1) for
triennial water quality standards review
and submission to EPA and in section
303(c)(4)(B) for EPA promulgation.
There was a clear expectation that these
provisions be used in concert to
overcome the programmatic delay that
many legislators criticized and achieve
the Congressional objective of the rapid
availability of enforceable water quality
standards for toxic pollutants. As
quoted earlier, chief Senate sponsors,
including Senators Stafford, Chaffee and
others, wanted the provision to
eliminate State and EPA delays and
force aggressive action.
In normal circumstances, it might be
argued that to exercise section
303(c)(4)(B) the Administrator might
have the burden of marshalling
conclusive evidence of "necessity" for
Federally promulgated water quality
standards. However, in adopting section
303(c)(2)(B), Congress made clear that
the "normal" procedure had become
inadequate. The specificity and
deadline in section 303(c)(2)(B) were
layered on top of a statutory scheme
already designed to achieve the
adoption of toxic water quality
standards. Congressional action to adopt
a partially redundant provision was
driven by their impatience with the lack
of State progress. The new provision
was essentially a Congressional
"determination" of the necessity for
new or revised comprehensive toxic
water quality standards by States. In
deference to the principle of State
primacy, Congress, by linking section
303(c)(2)(B) to the section 303(c)(1)
three-year review period, gave States a
last chance to correct this deficiency on
their own. However, this Congressional
indulgence does not alter the fact that
section 303(c)(2)(B) changed the nature
of the CWA State/EPA water quality
standard relationship. The new
provision and its legislative background
indicate that the Administrator's
determination to invoke his section
303(c)(4)(B) authority in this
circumstance can be met by a generic
finding of inaction on the part of a State
and without the need to develop data
for individual stream segments.
Otherwise, the Agency could face a
heavy data gathering burden of
justifying the need for each Federal
criterion and the process could stretch
for years and never be realized. To
interpret the combination of subsections
(c)(2)(B) and (c)(4) as an effective bar to
prompt achievement of statutory
objectives would be a perverse
conclusion and render section
303(c)(2)(B) essentially meaningless.
A second strong argument against
requiring EPA to shoulder a heavy
burden to exercise section 303(c)(4)(B)
authority is that it would invert the
traditional statutory scheme of EPA as
national overseer and States as the
entity with the greatest local expertise.
The,CWA provides States the flexibility
to tailor water quality standards to local
conditions and needs based upon their
wealth of first-band experience,
knowledge and data. However, this
allowance for flexibility is based on an
assumption of reasoned and timely State
action, not an abdication of State
responsibility by failure to act. EPA
does not possess the local expertise or
resources necessary to successfully
tailor State water quality standards.
Therefore, the fact that the CWA allows
States flexibility in standards
development does not impose an
inappropriate burden on EPA in the
exercise of its oversight promulgation
responsibilities. A broad Federal
promulgation based on a showing of
State inaction coupled with basic
information on the discharge and
presence of toxic pollutants meets the
statutory objective of having criteria in
places that are protective of public
health and the environment Without
local expertise to help accurately
narrow this list of pollutants and
segments requiring criteria, there is no
assurance of comparable protection.
Nothing in the overall statutory water
quality standards scheme anticipates
EPA would develop this expertise in
lieu of the States. EPA's lack of
familiarity with local conditions argues
strongly for a simple "determination"
test to trigger section 303(c)(4)(B)
promulgations. It also supports the
concept of an across-the-ooard
rulemaking for all priority toxic
pollutants with section 304(a) criteria.
A final major reason supporting a
simple determination to trigger
303(c)(4)(B) action is that
comprehensive Federal promulgation
imposes no undue or inappropriate
burden on States or dischargers, it
merely puts in place standards for toxic
pollutants that are utilized in
implementing Clean Water Act
programs. Under this rulemaking, a
State still retains the ability to adopt
alternative water quality standards
simpiy by completing its standards
adoption process. Upon EPA approval
of those standards, EPA will take
actions to withdraw the Federally-
promulgated criteria.
Federal promulgation of State water
quality standards should be a course of
last resort. It is symptomatic of
something awry with the basic statutory
scheme. Yet, when it is necessary to
exercise this authority, as the
compelling evidence suggests in this
case, there should be no undue
impediments to its use. Section
303(c)(4) is replete with deadlines and
Congressional directives for the
Administrator to act "promptly" in
these cases. The statute indicates that
the Administrator of EPA. is to " * * *
promptly prepare and publish proposed
regulations setting forth a revised or
new water ouality standard * * * " and
" * * * shall promulgate any revised or
new standard * * * not later than 90
days after he published such proposed
standards, unless prior to such
promulgation, sucn State has adopted a
revised or new standard which the
Administrator determines to be in
accordance with the Act" The adoption
of section 303(c)(2)(B) reinforced this
emphasis on expeditious actions. EPA
has demonstrated extensive deference to
State primacy and a willingness to
provide broad flexibility in their
adoption of State standards for toxics.
However, to fulfill its statutory
obligation requires that EPA's deference
and flexibility cannot be unlimited.
For the reasons just discussed, EPA
does not believe it is necessary to
support the criteria promulgated today
on a pollutant specific, State-by-State,
waterbody-by-waterbody basis.
Nonetheless, over the course of the past
several years in working with and
assisting the States, the Agency has
reviewed the readily-available data on
the discharge and presence of priority
toxic pollutants. While this data is not
necessarily complete, it constitutes a
substantial record to support a strong
prima facie case for the need for
numeric criteria for most priority toxic
pollutants with section 304(a) criteria
guidance in most States. In the absence
of final State actions to adopt criteria
pursuant to either Option 2 or 3 which
meet the requirements for EPA
approval, this evidence strongly
supports EPA's decision to promulgate,
pursuant to section 303(c)(4)(B), criteria
-------
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60859
for ail priority toxic pollutants not fully
addressed by State criteria. The EPA
data supporting this assertion Is
discussed more fully in the next section.
2. Approcch for Developing the Final
Rule
The State-specific requirements In
§ 131.38(d) were developed using one of
two approaches. In the formal review of
the adopted standards for certain States.
EPA determined that specific numeric
toxics criteria are lacking. For some,
criteria were omitted from the State
standards, even though in EPA's
judgment, the pollutants can reasonably
be expected to interfere with designated
uses. In these coses whare EPA
specifically identified deficiencies in a
State submission, this rule establishes
Federal criteria for that limited number
of priority toxic pollutants necessary to
correct the deficiency.
For the balance of th9 Stetas, EPA
applies, to all appropriate State waters,
the section 304(a) criteria for all priority
toxic pollutants which are not the
subject of approved State criteria. EPA
also is promulgating Federal criteria for
priority toxic pollutants where any
previously-approved State criteria do
not reflect cunent science contained in
revised criteria documents and other
guidance sufficient to fully protect all
designated uses or human health
exposure pathways, where such
previously-approved State criteria do
not protect against both acute and
chronic aquatic lifie effects, or where
such previously-approved State criteria
are not applicable to all appropriate
State designated uses.
Absent a State-by-State pollutant
specific analysis to narrow the list,
existing data sources strongly support a
comprehensive rulemaking approach.
Information in the rulemaking record
from a number of sources Indicates the
discharge, potential discharge or
presence of virtually all priority toxic
pollutants in all States. The data
available to EPA was assembled into a
"strawman" analysis designed to
identify priority toxic pollutants that
potentially require the adoption of
numeric criteria. Information on
pollutants discharged or present was
identified by accessing various national
data sources:
—Final section 304(1) short lists
Identifying toxic pollutants likely to
impair designated uses;
—Water column, fish tissue and
sediment observations in the Storage
Retrieval (STORET) data base (i.e.,
where the pollutant was detected);
—The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System's (NPDES) Permit
Compliance System data base to
identify those pollutants limited in
direct dischargers' Dermits'.
—Pollutants included on Form 2(c)
permit applications which have been
submitted by wastewater dischaigera:
—Information on discharges to surface
waters or POTWs from the Toxics
Release Inventory required by the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act of 19efi (Title 01.
P.L. 99-499);
—Pollutants predicted to be in the
effluent of NPDES dischargers based
on industry-specific analyses
conducted for the Clean Water Act
effluent guideline program.
The extent of this data supports a
conclusion that promulgation of Federal
criteria for all prionty toxic pollutants
with section 304(a) criteria guidance
documents is appropriate for those
States that have not completed their
standards adoption .process. This
conclusion is supported by several other
factors.
First, many of tha available data
sources have limitations which argue
against relying on them solely to
identify all needed water quality
criteria. For example, the section 304(1)
short lists only identified water bodies
where uses were impaired by point
source discharges; State 304(1) long lists
did not generally identify pollutants
causing use impairment by nonpoint
sources. Other available data sources
(i.e.. NPDES permit limits) have a
similar narrow scope because of their
particular purposes. Even the value of
those databases designed to identify
ambient water problems is restricted by
the availability of monitoring data. In
many States, the quantity, spatial and
temporal distribution, and pollutant
coverage of monitoring data is severely
limited, for example, the most recent
Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress included an evaluation of use
attainment for only one-third of all river
miles and less than one-half of lake
acres. Even for those waters where use
attainment status was reported, many
assessments were based on data whidi
did not include the chemical-specific
information necessary to identify the
priority toxic pollutants which pose a
threat to designated uses. After
evaluating this data, EPA concluded
that it most likely understates the
adverse presence or discharge of priority
toxic pollutants.
Further evidence justifying a breed
promulgation rulemaking can be found
in the State actions to date in'their
standards adoption process. While
many have not come to completion, the
initial steps have led many States to
develop or propose rulemaking
packages with extensive pollutant
coverage. The neture of these
preliminary State determinations argues
for a Federal promulgation of ail sectior
304(a) criteria pollutants to ensure
adequate public health and
environmental protection against
priority toxic pollutant insults.
The detailed assumptions and
approach followed by EPA in writing
tne § 131.36(d) requirements for all
jurisdictions are described beiow. In the
following discussions, EPA refers lo
these assumptions and approach as
"rules."
(1)	No criteria are promulgated for
States which have been fuily approved
by EPA as complying with the section
303(c)(2)(B) requirements.
(2)	For States which have not been
fully approved, if EPA has not
previously determined which specific
pollutants criteria/waterbodies era
lacking from a State's standards (i.e., as
part of an aoproval/disapprovai action
only), all of tne criteria in Columns B.
C, and D of the §131.36(b) matrix are
promulgated for statewide application
to all appropriate designated uses,
except as provided for elsewhere in
these rules. That is, EPA brought the
State into compliance with section
303(c)(2)(B) via an approach which is
comparable to option 1 of the December
1988 national guidance for section
303(c)(2)(B).
(3)	If EPA has previously determined
which specific pollutants/criteria/
waterbodies are needed to comply with
CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) (i.e., as part of
an approval/disapproval action only),
the criteria in § 131.36(b) are
promulgated for only those specific
pollutants/criteria/waterbodies (i.e..
EPA brought the State into compliance
via an approach which is comparable to
option 2 of the December 1988 national
guidance for section 303(c)(2)(B)).
(4)	For aquatic life, except as provided
for elsewhere in these rules, all waters
with designated aquatic lifs uses
providing even minimal support to
aquatic life are Included in the rule (i.e.,
fish survival, marginal aquatic life, etc.)
(Sa) For human nealth, except as
provided for elsewhere In these rules,
all waters with designated uses
providing for public water supply
protection (and therefore a potential
water consumption exposure route) or
minimal aquatic life protection (and
therefore a potential fish consumption
exposure route) are included in tne rule
(5b) Where a State has determined the
specific aquatic life segments which
provide a fish consumption exposure
route (i.e., fish or other aquatic life are
being caught and consumed) and EPA
approved this determination as part of
-------
60860 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
a standards approval/disapproval
action, the rule includes Ute fish
consumption (Column D2) criteria for
only those aquatic lira segments, except
as provided for elsewhere in these rules.
In making a determination that certain
segments,do not support a F.s'n
consumption exposure route, a State
must have completed, and EPA
approved, a use attainability analysis
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR
131.10(j). In the absence of such an
approved State determination, EPA
promulgated fish consumption criteria
for ail aquatic life segments.
(6)	Uses/Classes other than those
which support aquatic life or human
health are not included in the rule (e.g.,
livestock watering, industrial water
supply), unless they are defined in the
State standards as also providing
protection to aquatic life or human
health (i.e., unless they are described as
protecting multiple uses including
aquatic life or human health). For
example, if the State standards include
a use such as industrial water supply,
and in the narrative description of the
use the State standards indicate that the
use includes protection for resident
aquatic life, then this use is included in
this rule.
(7)	For human health, the "water +
fish" criteria in Column Dl of
§ 13t.36(b> are promulgated for all
waterbodies where public water supply
and aquatic life uses are designated,
axcept as provided for elsewhere in
these rules (e.g., rule 9).
(8)	if the State has public water
supplies where aquatic life uses have
not been designated, or public water
supplies that have been determined not
to provide a potential fish consumption
exposure pathway, the "water+
organisms only" criteria in Column Dl
of § 131.36(b) are promulgated for such
waterbodies, except as provided for
elsewhere in these rules (e.g.. rule 9).
(9)	EPA is generally not promulgating
criteria for priority toxic pollutants for
which a State has adopted criteria and
received EPA approval. The exceptions
to this general rule are described in
rules 10 and 11.
(10)	For priority toxic pollutants
where the State has adopted human
health criteria and received EPA
approval, but such criteria do not fully
satisfy section 303(c)(2)(B)
requirements, the rule includes human
health criteria for such pollutants. For
example, consider a case where a State
has a water supply segment that poses
an exposure risk to human health from
both water-and fish consumption. If the
State has adopted, and received
approval for, human health criteria
based on water consumption only (e.g.,
Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum
Contaminant Levels ftfGLaj) which are
less stringent than the "water + fish"
criteria in Column 01 of § 131.36(b). the
Column Dl criteria an promulgated for
those water supply segments. The
rationale for this is to ensure that both
water and £sh consumption exposure
pathways are adequately addressed and
human health is fciilv protected. If the
State has adopted water consumption
only criteria which are more stringent or
equal to the Column 01 criteria, the
"water - fish" criteria in Column Dl
criteria are not promulgated.
(11)	For priority toxic pollutants
where the State has adopted aquatic life
criteria and previous to the 1987 CWA
Amendments received EPA approval;
but such criteria do not fully satisfy
section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements, the
rule includes aquatic life criteria for
such pollutants. For example, if the
State nas adopted nct-to-be-exceeded
aquatic life criteria which are less
stringent than the 4-day average chronic
aquatic life criteria in § 131.36(b) (i.e:, in
Columns B2 and C2), the acute and
chronic aquatic life criteria in
§ 131.36(b) are promulgated for those
pollutants. The rationale for this is that
the State-adopted criteria do not protect
resident aquatic life from both acute arid
chronic affects, and that Federal criteria
are necessary to fully protect aquatic life
designated uses. If the State has adopted
not-to-be-exceeded aquatic life criteria
which are more stringent or equal to the
chronic aauatic life criteria in
§ 131.36(b), the acute and chronic
aquatic life criteria in § 131.36(b) are not
promulgated for those pollutants.
(12)	Under certain conditions
discussed in rules, 9,10, and 11, criteria
listed in § 131.36(b) are not promulgated
for specific pollutants; however, EPA
made such exceptions only for
pollutants for which criteria have been
adopted by the State and approved.by
EPA, where such criteria are currently
effective under State law the
appropriate EPA Region concluded that
the State's criteria fully satisfy section
303(c)(2)(B) requirements.
3. Approach.far States that Fully
Comply Subsequent to Issuance of this
Final Rule
As discussed in prior Sections of this
Preamble, the water quality standards
program has been established with an
emphasis on State primacy. Although
this rule was developed to Federally
promulgate toxics criteria for States,
EPA prefers that States maintain
primacy, revise their own standards,
and achieve full compliance. EPA is
hopeful this rule will provide additional
impetus for non-complying States to
adopt the criteria for priority toxic
pollutants necessary to comply with
section 303(c)(2)(B).
Removal of a State from the rule will
require another rulemaking by EPA
according to the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.). EPA will withdraw the
Federal rule without a notice and
comment rulemaking whan the State
adopts standards no less stringent than
the Federal rule (i.e., standards which
provide, at least, equivalent
environmental and human health
protection). For example, see 51 FR
11530, April 4,1986, which finalized
EPA's removal of a Federal rule for the
State of Mississippi.
However, if a State adopts standards
for toxics which are less stringent than
the Federal rule but, in the Agency's
judgment, fully meet the requirements
of the Act, EPA will propose to
withdraw the rule with a Notice of
proposed rulemaking and provide for
public participation. This procedure
would be required for partial or
complete removal of a State from this
rulemaking. An exception to this
requirement would be when a State
adopts a human health-criterion for a
carcinogen at a 10~3 risk level where the
Agency has promulgated at a 10-4 risk
level. La sucn a case, the Agency
believes it would be appropriate to
withdraw the Federal criterion without
notice and comment because the
Agency has considered in this rule that
criteria based on either 10~ror KT* risk
levels meet the requirements of the Act
A State covered by this final rule could
adopt the necessary criteria Usingany of
the three Options or combinations or
those Options described in CTA's 1989
guidance.
EPA cautions States and the public
that promulgation of this Federal rule
removes most of the flexibility available
to States for modifying their standards
on a discharger-specific or stream-
specific basis. For example, variances
and site-specific criteria development
are actions sometimes adopted by the
States. These are optional policies under
terms of the Federal water quality
standards regulation. Except for the
water-effect ratio for certain metals, EPA
has not incorporated either options!
policy, in general, in this rulemaking;
that ii. EPA has not generally
authorized State modification of Federal
water quality standards. Eadrof these
types of modifications will, in general,
require Federal rulemaking"an a case-
by-case basis to change the Federal rule.
Because of the time rnnmmtwg nature of
reviewing such requests, limited Federal
resources, and the need for the Agency
to move into other priority programs
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60861
areas in establishing environmental
controls, CPA alerts the States and the
public that a prompt Agency response to
requests for variances and site-specific
modifications to the Federal criteria is
unlikely. The best course of action, if
such provisions are desired in a State,
is for a State to adopt its own standards
and take advantage, if it so chooses, of
the flexibility offered by these optional
provisions.
The Federal criteria published today
are effective in 45 days. However, this
action does not change existing -
applicable State and EPA provisions
related to permit issuance or reissuance
as they affect schedules of compliance.
EPA and the States may continue
issuing permits containing enforceable
compliance schedules for these
Federally established water quality
standards if it is consistent with State
policy.
F. Derivation of Criteria
3. Section 304(a) Criteria Process
Under the authority of CWA section
304(a), EPA has developed
methodologies and specificxriteria to
protect aquatic life and human health.
These methodologies are intended to
provide protection for all surface water
on a national basis. As described below,
there are site-specific procedures for
more precisely addreskng site-specific
conditions for an individual water body.
However, the water quality criteria are
scientifically sound and will achieve the
statutory objective of protecting
designated uses even in the absence of
these modification procedures.
Although the site-specific procedures
may allow for more precise criteria for
certain waterbodies, these procedures
are infrequently used because the
Section 304(a) criteria recommendations
are designed to protect all waterbodies
and have proven themselves to be
appropriate. The methodologies have
been subject to public review, as have
the individual criteria documents.
Additionally, the methodologies have
been reviewed and approved by EPA's
Science Advisory Board of external
experts. Additional comments on the
methodologies were taken as part of this
action and nave been considered and
responded to in developing this final
rule. In addition, these comments will
be considered in the Agency's ongoing
effort to propose revised methodologies
for public review and comment in fiscal
year 1993.
EPA incorporated by reference into
the record of this rule the aquatic life
methodology as described in "Appendix
B—Guidelines for Deriving Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Life and Its Uses" (45 FR 79341,
November 28,1980) as amended by
"Summary of Revisions to Guildlines
for Deriving Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" (50
FR 30792, July 29,1985).
Note; Throughout the remainder of this
rule, this reference Is described as the 1985
Guidelines. Any page number reference* are
to the actual guidance document, not the
notice of availability in the Federal Xsgistar.
The actual guidelines document vras
available through the National Technical
Information Service (PB8S-227049), is in the
record of this rulemaking, and is abstracted
in Appendix A of Quality Criteria for Water.
1986.
EPA also incorporated by reference into
the record of this rule the human health
methodology as described in "Appendix
C—Guidelines and Methodology Used
in the Preparation of Health Effects
Assessment Chapters of the Consent
Decree Water Criteria Documents" (45
FR 79347, November 23,1980).
Note: Throughout the remainder of this
Preamble, this reference is described as the
Human Health Guidelines or the 1980
Guidelines.
EPA also recommends that the
following be reviewed: "Appendix D—
Response to Comments on Guidelines
for Deriving Weter Quality Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Life and Its
Uses," (45 FR 79357, November 28,
1980); "Appendix E—Responses to
Public Comments on the Human Health
Effects Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria" (45 FR
79368, November 28,1980); and
"Appendix B—Response to Comments
on Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses" (50 FR 30793, July 29.
1985). EPA also placed into the record
the most current individual criteria
documents for the priority toxic
pollutants included in today's rule.
The primary focus of this rule is the
inclusions of the water quality criteria
for pollutant(s) in State standards as
necessary to support water quality-
based control programs. The Agency
accepted comment on the criteria
proposed for inclusion in this rule.
However, Congress established a very
ambitious schedule for the
promulgation of the final criteria. The
statutory deadline in section 303(c)(4)
clearly indicates that Congress intended
the Agency to move very expeditiously
when Federal action is warranted.
The methodology used to develop the
criteria and the criteria themselves (to
the extent not updated through IRIS)
have previously undergone scientific
peer review and public review and
comment, and have been revised as
appropriate. For the most part, this
review occurred before Congress
amended the Act in 1987, to require the
inclusion of numeric criteria for certain
toxic pollutants in State standards.
Congress acted with full knowledge of
the EPA process for developing criteria
and the Agency's recommendations
under section 304(a). EPA believes it is
consistent with Congressional intent to
rely in large part on existing criteria
rather than engage in a time-consuming
reevaluation of the underlying basis for
water quality criteria. Accordingly, the
Agency stands by its prior decisions
regarding its published methodology
and criteria even after review of the
comments received. It is the Agency's
belief that this approach will best
achieve the purpose of moving forward
in promulgating criteria for States not in
compliance with section 303(c)(2)(B) so
that environmental controls intended by
Congress can be put into place to protect
public health ana welfare and enhance
water quality.
It should oe noted that the Agency is
initiating a review of the basic
guidelines for developing criteria and
that comments received during this
rulemaking will be considered in that
effort Future revisions to the criteria
guidelines will be reviewed by the
Agency's Science Advisory Board and -
submitted to the public for review and
comment following the same process
that was used in issuing the existing
methodological guidelines. Subsequent
revisions of criteria documents and the
issuance of any new criteria documents
will also be subject to the public review.
2. Aquatic Life Criteria
Aquatic life criteria may be expressed
in numeric or narrative forms. EPA's
1985 Guidelines describe an objective,
internally consistent and appropriate
way of deriving -chemical-specific,
numeric water quality criteria for the
protection of the presence of, as well as
the uses of, both fresh and marine water
aquatic organisms.
An aquatic life criterion derived using
EPA's section 304(a) method "might be
thought of as an estimate of the highest
concentration of a substance in water
which does not present a significant risk
to the aquatic organisms in the water
and their uses." (45 FR 79341.) The term
"their uses" refers to consumption by
humans and wildlife (1985 Guidelines,
page 48). EPA's guidelines are designed
to derive criteria that protect aquatic
communities by protecting most of the
species and their uses most of the time,
but not necessarily all of the species all
of the time (1985 Guidelines, page 1).
Aquatic communities can tolerate some
-------
60862 Federal Register / Voi ST. No. 246 / Tuesday* December 22. 1992" t Rules1 and. Regulations
stress and occasional adverse effects" cur
a faw species so that total protection at
ail species all of the time isnot
necessary. EPA's 1985 Guidelines
attempt to provide a reasonable- end
adequate amount of protection with
only a small possibility c£ substantial
overprotection; orunderprctection. As
discussed.indetaiLbelow, there- ara
several individual factors; which may
make-the criteria somewhat
overprotective orunderproteetive-. The.
approach EPA. is using, is believed to be
as well balanced as possible,, given the
state of the- science..
Numerical aquatic life criteria derived
usin&EPA's1985 Guidelines are-
expressed as short-term and long-term
cumbers, rather than one-number, in
order that the criteria more accurately
reflect toxicologicaL'and practical-
realities. The combinationofa-criteria
maximum concentration (CMC),.a one-
houraverage acute limit, and * criteria,
continuous concentration (GCC), a; four-
day average concentration chronic limit,
provide protection of aquatic life and its
uses'-from acutei and chronic toxicity to>
animals and plants*, and from
bioconcentratioiih.y aquatic organisms,
without.beingas; res tractive as-a one-
number criterion, would have- to be.
(1985. Guidelines*, page*4>-5\);
The twomumher criteria are.- intended
to identify average- pollutant,
concentrations which, will groduce-
water quality generally suited to
maintenance of aquatic lifar and their
uses-while restricting the-duration of.
excursions over the-average so that total
exposures-mil not cause>unacceptable
adversa effects.. Merel.y specifying, arr
average value over a time period is
insufficient unless the-time period' is-
short; because-excursians;lrighertharr
the average; can: kill or cause substantial
damage in, short periods^
A minimum data: set of eight specified
families is required- far criteria:
development (details are gjven inthe-
1985/ GuidaliroSp page-22)-The eight -
specific families are intended to-he
representative of a wide spectrum at
aquatic, life. Fob this reason) it is.not
necessary-that: the'specific: organisms
tested-be actually present in the water
body. States may develop: site-specific
criteria using,native species; provided*
that the broad spectrum-, representediby
the eight families: is maintained^. All
aquatic organisms- and their common'
uses are meant tobe considered, hut not
necessarily protected»i£ relevant data"
are available^
EPA'J- application, of. guidelines to
develop* the. criteria, matrix in the-final
rule is judged by the Agency to be
applicable.taalLwateis.of the United
States, and to. all ecosystems. (1985
Guidelines, page 4), There are-waters
and ecosystems where site-specific
criteria could be developed, as
discussecLbeiow,. but it is: up ta States,
to identify those waters, ana develop the
appropriate sxts-specinc criteria.
Fresn wat6r ana salt water (including
both estuarine and marine waters) have
different.chemical compositions, and
freshwater and saltwater species-rant?
inhabit thesame/w&ter simultaneously.
To provida adciitional accuracy, criteria
developed recently are developed for
fresh water and for salt water.
Assumptions which may makethe:
criteria underprotective include the fact
that not all species are protected, the-
use of criteria on an individual basis,
with no consideration of additive or
synergistic effects, and the general lack
ofconsideretion of iinpactson wildlife,
due principally to a lack of data-.
Chemical toxicity is often related ta
certain receiving-water characteristics;
(pH, hardness; etc.)-of a waterbody.
Adoption ofsome criteria without
considiaration: otthesajparameters; could'
result in- the1 criteria-being
overprotective;
3. Criteria for Human Health
EEA.'s> section/204{a} human, health,
guidelines attempt toi provide]criteria-i
which minimize) qe specify the1 potential
risk of adverse human effects due-to-
substances-in', ambient water (45 FR
79347). EPA's* section- 304(al criteria for
human: hBalthi are based on two. types of
biologicalendpoihtsrdl Carcinogenicity
and: (21 systemic- toxicity (lie:,, all other
adverse affectsothar tharr, cancerii.Thua,.
there'araitwa procedures? for assessing:
these health: effects:: one for carcinogens
and one for nontcardnogens.
EPA'a humem health guidelines
assume that carcinogenicity is a "non-
threshold phenomenon,," that is, there
are na"safe" or "na-effect levels"
because even, extremely-small doses are-
assumed to- cause- a- finite- increase- in> the
incidence of the response (i.e., cancBr);,
Therefore; EPA's;water quality criteria
for carcinogens ara presented: as:
pollutant concentrations;corresponding;
to increases in. the risk ot developing
cancer.
For pollutants that.do>not mani fest
any apparentmrrincgenic.effects in-
animal studies (uei, systemic toxicants);
EPA assumes-that the pollutant ha& a.
threshold' below which: na effects- will!
be observed. This-assumption; is based-
on the premise^ that- a. physiological
mechanism, exists-within living;
organisms- to avoid-- or overcome die
adverse affects-of the pollutant below
the threshold concentrations
The-human-health-risks of.a substance
cannot be determined with any degree
of confidancaunless dose-response
relationships-are quantified; Therefore,
a dose-response assessment is required
before a criterion can be calculated. The
dose-responsB- assessment determines
the quantitative relationships, betweeo.
the amount of exposire to a substance,
and the onset of toxic injury or disease
Data for determining dose-response-
relationshios are typically derived from
animal studies, or less frequently, from
epidemiological atncias in exposed
populations'.
i he doserresponse information-
needed- for carcinogens is an estimateof
th&carcinogenic. potency ofthe-
compound. Carcinogenic potency is
defined hare as a- general'term. for a
chemical's human cancer-causing-
potential. This term is often used,
loosely ta refer ta them ore: specific
carcinogenic or cancer slope factor
which is defined as an estimate of
carcinogenic potency derived from
animal studies or epidemiological data
of human, exposure*. It-is-based on
extrapolation from test exposures of
high- dose- revels: over relativeLy short
periods of time to-more rsalfsticrlnw
dose levels over a lifetime: exposure
period*byusr of linear extrapolation
models; The cancer slope factor; ql*, is
EPA's estimate-of carcinogenic potency
and1 is intend'ed-to Be-s. conservative-
upper bouncf estimate (etg; 95% upper
bound confidence- limit);
For nonHMrcihogeng; EPA uses'tfie-
reference'(fose-(E3D):as the* dose1
response- parameter iir calculating- the-
criteria. Tha-RfUwas formerly' re?arred;
to affeir'"Acceptable-DmTy Intake'''or
ADI. The-RfB'is-usefiii- as a< reference*
point' for gauging the-potentiial1 efiects of
other doses. Doses-that are* less than-the-
RfD aremotf likely to- be assoeiated>with
any health; riskst and are'there fore* less-
likely to-be of regulatory Goncem. As the
frequency of exposures-exceeding the*
RfD increases and! asthei8ize
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No 246 / Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60863
trie exposure default assumption
ai though the human health guidelines
provide for considering other sources
where data are available (see 45 FR
79354). Thus the criteria are based on an
assessment of risks related to the surface
water exposure route only.
The assumed exposure pathways in
calculating the criteria are the'
consumption of 2 liters per day at the
criteria concentration and the
consumption of 6.S grains per day of
fish/shellfish contaminated at a level
equal to the criteria concentration but
multiplied by a "bioconcentration
factor." The use of fish consumption as
an exposure factor requires the
quantification of pollutant residues in
the edible portions of the ingested
species. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs)
are used to related pollutant residues in
aquatic organisms to the pollutant
concentration in ambient waters. BCFs
ai9 quantified by various procedures
depending on the lipid solubility of the
pollutant. For lipid soluble pollutants,
the average BCF is calculated from the
weighted average percent lipids in the
edible portions of fish/sheilfish. which
is about 3%; or it is calculated from
theoretical considerations using the
octanol/water partition coefficient. For
non-lipid soluble compounds, the BCF
is determined empirically. The assumed
water consumption is taken from the
National Academy of Sciences
publication "Drinking Water and
Health" (1977]. (Referenced in Human
Health Guidelines. 45 FR 79356). The
6.5 grams per day contaminated fish
consumption value is equivalent to the
average per-capita consumption rate of
ail (contaminated and non-
contaminated) freshwater and estuarine
fish for the U.S. population. (See
Human Health Guidelines, 45 FR
79348.)
EPA also assumes in calculating water
quality criteria that the exposed
individual is an average adult with body
weight of 70 kilograms. The issue of
concern is dose per kilogram of body
weight. EPA assumes 6.5 grams per day
of contaminated fish consumption and 2
liters per day of contaminated drinking
water consumption for a 70 kilogram
person in calculating the criteria.
Persons of smaller body weight are
expected to ingest less contaminated
fish and water, so the dose per kilogram
of body weight is generally expected to
be roughly comparable. There may be
subpopulations within a State, such as
subsistence fishermen, who as a result
of greater exposure to a contaminant, are
at greater risk than the hypothetical 70
kilogram person eating 6.5 grams per
day of maximally contaminated fish and
shellfish and drinking 2 liters per day of
maximally contaminated drinking
water.
For example, individuals that ingest
ten times more of a pollutant than is
assumed in derivation of the criteria at
a lCf6 risk level will be protected to a
10-3 level, which EPA has historically
considered to be adequately protective.
There may. nevertheless, be
circumstances where site-specific
numeric criteria that are more stringent
than the State-wide criteria are
necessary to adequately protect highly
exposed subpopulations. Although EPA
intends to focus on promulgation of
appropriate State-wide criteria that will
raauce risks to all exposed individuals,
including highly exposed
subpopuiations. site-specific criteria
may be developed subsequently by EPA
or the States where warranted to
provide necessary additional protection.
(See Human Health Guidelines. Issue 8.
45 FR 79369.}
For non-carcinogens, oral RfD
assessments (hereinafter simply "RfDs")
are developed based on pollutant
concentrations that cause threshold
effects. The RfD. is an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order
of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the
human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without
appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime. (See Human Health
Guidelines, 45 FR 79348.)
Criteria are calculated for individual
chemicals with no consideration of
additive, synergistic or antagonistic
effects in mixtures. If the conditions
within a State differ from the
assumptions EPA used within the
constraints of the Federal rule, the
States have the option to perform the
analyses for their conditions.
EPA has a process to develop a
scientific consensus on oral reference
dose assessments and carcinogenicity
assessments (hereinafter simply cancer
slope factors or slope factors). Reference
doses and slope factors are validated by
two Agency work groups (i.e., one work
group for each) which are composed of
senior Agency scientists from all of the
program'offices and-the Office of
Research and Development. These work
groups develop a consensus of Agency
opinion for RfDs and slope factors
which are then used throughout the
Agency for consistent regulation and
guidance development. EPA maintains
an electronic data base which contains
the official Agency consensus for oral
RfD assessments and carcinogenicity
assessments which is known as the
Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). It is available for use by the
public on the National Institutes of
Health's National Library of Medicine's
TOXNET system, and through diskettes
from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS). (NTIS access number is
PB 90-591330).
For the criteria included in today's
rule, EPA used the criteria
recommendation from the appropriate
Section 304(a) criteria document. (The
availability of EPA's criteria documents
has been announced in various Federal
Register Notices. These documents are
also placed in the record for today's
rule.) However, if the Agency has
changed any parameters in IRIS used in
criteria derivation since issuance of the
criteria guidance document, EPA
recalculated the criteria
recommendation with the latest
information, invited comment on the
updating procedure and the numbers
that would be derived from it. (This
information is included in the record.)
Thus, there may be differences between
the original criteria guidance document
recommendation, and those in this rule,
but this ryle presents the Agency's most
current section 304(a) criteria
recommendation. The recalculated
human health numbers are denoted by
an "a" in the criteria matrix in
subsection 131.36(b) of today's rule.
A difficult and controversial problem
facing both the States and EPA in
attempting to comply with the
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B)
involved selecting a criterion for
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin). EPA, the States,
dischargers, environmental groups and
the public at large have been involved
in discussions concerning the ambient
level of protection that is protective of
public health. At issue during the State
debates on selecting criterion for dioxin
and in comments to this rulemaking are
scientific questions specific to dioxin
such as determining'the carcinogenic
potency of the pollutant and the extent
to which the pollutant tends to
accumulate in fish tissues. Other issues
are raised that are more generic to EPA's
human health criteria. Most of these
issues relate, directly or indirectly, to
concerns expressed by dischargers
regarding the cost of complying with
water quality-based effluent limits for
dioxin.
In order to base its regulatory
decisions on the best available science,
EPA continuously updates its
assessment of the risk from exposure to
contaminants. On September 11,1991,
EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) began reassessing
the scientific models and exposure
scenarios used to predict the risks of
biological effects from exposure to low
levels of dioxin. This reassessment has
the potential to alter the risk assessment
for dioxin and accordingly the Agency's
-------
60864 Federal: Register / Vai. 57, No. 246- / Tuesday, December 22, 1992" / Rule?, and Regulations
regulatory decisions related to. dioxin.
At this time, EPA is unable to say- with
any-certainty-what the degree or
directions of any changes in risk,
estimates might be. Moreover. the
results of the assessmentandany-
potential impact on the criteria limit
will not be known, far quite soma time..
Considerable comment was-received
that the Agency not include dioxin in
the: rule pending'the results of the-
dioxin'reassessment However- no
additional data was submitted by the
commenters that adds to tha
information available upon which to
make a decision. Based on information
currently available to the Agency and in
the face of known uncertainties, the
limitpromiilgated today is within the
range of scientific defensibility.
A State may adopt a different limit
subsequent to this rule;, following the
nonnal procedures: for adapting or
revising water quality/ standards (40 FR.
131). lie adoption by a State of anew
or revised criterion for dioxin ..whether
more or less stringent then the-axis ting
section 304(a) guidance, will be-
accepted by the Agency based an the
results of the Agency's reassessment
without any further justification.. Once a
State adopts a new dioxin criterion,, the
permitting authority, either EPA or the
State (if authorized to administera.
permit program)1, may change the'
effluent limitation for dioxin. in a permit
subjectto.the antibacksliding.
requirements of sections 402(a): and
303(d)(4)iOfthe.CWA and the
antidegradation policy ofcthe State:
This final rule includes criteria for
dioxin. This-action encourages and
supports the ongoing1 efforts of fourteen
States actively considering.adopting
criteria far dioxin. Most.of these States;
are relying- an the same, data used by
EPA in deriving-its criterinnifbr dioxin..
In addition, dioxin limits axe included
as appropriate, in Individual Control.
Strategies (ICS's) developed under
section 3Q4(1), so. there should ben a
immediate regulatory action that will be
based upon tha promulgation; of Federal
criteria..
Moreover, as discussed in more, detail
in Section J, Executive Order 12291,.
example 5, itis unlikely that the
practical impact of including dioxin' at
the 0.013 ppq. level in. this rule will
affect the need for treatment and thus,
is unlikely-to be the basis for any
incremental costs for pulp and paper
mills to reduce dioxin discharges.
4. Section 304(a). Human Health. Criteria
Excluded
Today's rule doesnot contain certain
of the section 304(alcriteria for priority
toxin pollutants because those criteria
were not based on toxicity; The basis for
these panicular criteria are organoleptic
effects (e.g., taste and odor) which:
would maim water and edible aquatic
li fa unpalatable tautnot toxic Because
the basis, for this, rule is to protect the
public health, and aquatic Ufa from,
toxicity- consistent with the language:
and intent in seetian.3Q3(c)(2)(B),.EPA. -
is promulgating; criteria only foe thosa
priority toxic p oilutanta whose criteria,
recommendations.arebased cm.toxicity.
The Section 304(a) human health
criteria-based on organoleptic-effects fbr
copper,, zinc, 2,4-dimethylphenal. and
3-meth.yl-4-chlorophenoLare excluded,
for this reason.
5. Cancer Risk Level
EPA's section 304(a); criteria guidance
documents, for priority toxic pollutants
that are-based on carcinogenicity-
present concentrations for upper bound
risk levels of 1 excess cancer per
100,000 people (10~3). per 1,000,000
people (10-6). and-per 10,000,000
people (10"7). However,, the criteria,
documents do. not recommend a
particular risk level as EPA policy.
In. the-April, 1990, Federal Register
notice:of preliminary assessment of
State compliancei.EPA announced its
intention to propose this rule' with, an-
incremental cancer risk level o£ ona in
a million (lOr6), for all priority toxic,
pollutants regulated as-carcinogens (55
FR14351). This risk level was in fact
proposed in the November 19,. 1991
Federal Register Notice of proposed
rulemaking. However, EPA's Office of
Water's guidance to; the States has.
consistently reflected tha Agency's'
policy of accepting:cancer risk policies
from the States in. the range of lO^tO'
10~* (see 45 FR 79323-,.November 28-,
1980; Guidance, for Stale
Implementation of Water Quality
Standards; far CWA.section; 303(c)(2)(B),.
November 12,1988 (5.4 FR. 346); sea. also
document described in footnote 3 of this
preamble). EPA rs/iaws individual State
policies as part of its-water quality
standards, oversight function and
determines it States have appropriately
consulted their citizenry and applied
good science in-adopting water quality
criteria.
In the proposal-, EPA not only sought
public comment on ita decision ta
ftropose criteria based on a lO^rislc
eveL.but also specifically solicited,
comment an an alternate risk level of
10~s. EPA received extensive comments
that the proposed application of tha
criteria at the 1Q""4 risk level was
contrary to Agency policy, contradicted
other risk levels accepted by EPA in
States included in the proposal,
oversteps EPA authority by failing to
recognize that such a decision more-
properly should be a State decision,
given their primary authority to..
establish, water quality standards, ami'
that EPA nVtrnil^TrnrinHiifia a Half level
in. tha final: rule;
Upon consideration of dies®
comments, EPA agrees that establishing
a single risk level for all. States departs
from Agency, policy in. the standards
program. The application or the human
health criteria in today's rule,, on a
State-by-State basis, therefore, has been
changed: In today's-rule. the risk level
for each State is based on the best
information available to the Agency as-
to each State's policy or practice-
regarding what risk level iff, or should
be, used' in regulating carcinogens-in-
surface-waters; Inmost cases the risk
levels were-based orr a State-adopted or
formally proposed risk level, orin the-
case of Edaho, Rhode Island, and Nevada
on an-expression of State policy
preference. EPA is therefore
promulgating criteria at either the I07"1
or 10^ risk level, eitherofwhich- i»
consistent with EPA policy and with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
the Agency recognizer that it made
some of its: decisions regarding the-
appropriate risk level on limited' dhta.
However, in the-time available to the
Agency, we relied on die best available
information. The- Agency believesit is
important to move forward'with this
rule based on available information; To
ensure, that the Agency has* selected'the
appropriate risk level for each State; the
Agency is providing a final opportunity
for the Governor of each' State (or other
official with authority ta determine risk
levels with respect to water quality"
criteria) to inform EPA ifthey believe a
different risk level shauld.be selected
for their State.
Today's regulation will become
effective 45 days from publication in. the
Federal Register. However,,ifwithin 30
days of publication of this rule in. the-
Federal'Register, the Governor or other
appropriate official determines that the
final rule is not based on the correct
State policy or practice with regard to
risk lavels,.thfl Governor Gat other
appropriate official) may request tha
Administrator in writing, to adopt a
differentrisk level fbr the State^
NotetTha Governor is notconstrainsi to
requesting-the Administrator ta adopta-
single risk level foralLcBrcinoganic
compounds- It is also acceptable-for a State
to so Led more than one risk, level* For.
example, New Jersey is proposing to adopt
1CT"6 for Class A and B" carcinogens,.and 10"*
for Class C carcinogens. In this-rule; EPA is-
promulgating the two risk- level'-concept fat
New Jersey. The Governor mustexplain the
basis fbr the request to change the rtsk.leveL
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 608S5
If EPA determines, after receipt of
such a latter from tire Governor or other
appropriate State official, tha State's
preference is consistent with EPA
policy, as set out in this rulemaking,
and the requirements of the Clean Wiater
Act. EPA will amend the rule
accordingly. _
As no'.ea above, in this rulemaking
EPA is adopting risk levels that it
believes best reflects the expressed
preferences of the covered States (10~*
or 10~5 for ail carcinogens). If there
were, however, no clear expression of
preference by a State. EPA also believes
it Is reasonable for States to adopt a risk
level of 1(T5 for many of the covered
carcinogens and a more stnngent risk
level of 10"4 for those carcinogens with
substantially higher bioconcentiadon
factors. Recognizing the currant
limitations of the scientific data
available for this rulemaking, EPA
believes it would be reasonable to
conclude that carcinogens that
bioaecumulate. particularly given the
exposure of fishermen to sucn
carcinogens, may Justify a more
protective risk level of 10~* for the
average fish consumer, but for other
carcinogens a less conservative level
(10~5) may be appropriate.
6. Applying EPA's Nationally Derived
Criteria to State Waters
To assist States in modifying EPA's
water quality criteria, the Agency has
provided guidance on developing site
specific-criteria for aquatic life and
human health' ee Chapter 4. Water
Quality Standards Handbook,
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water Quality Criteria, for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses, and the Guidelines and
Methodology Used in the Preparation of
Health Effect Assessment C&apters of
the Consent Decree Water Criteria
Documents). This guidance can be used
by the appropriate regulatory authority
to develop alternative criteria. Where
such criteria are more stringent than, the
criteria promulgated today. Section S1Q
of the Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1370}
allows their implementation and
enforcement in lieu of today's
promulgated criteria.
EPA's experience with such site-
specific criteria has verified that the
national criteria are generally protective
and appropriate for direct use by the
States. (See Response to Comments on
the 1965 Aquatic Life Guidelines.
Comment 57. SO FR 30796, July 29,
1965.)
7. Application of Metals Criteria
A substantial number of comments
were received requesting Agency
guidance on the implementation, of
metals criteria for aquatic life. In
response, the Agency has prepared
guidance- on this issue, which is
described in general terms below, end
which is being applied to tha metals
criteria being promulgated today.
Response; to individual comments may
be found in section I, comments 19 to
53.
In selecting an approach for
implementing the metals criteria, the
principal Issue is the correlation
between metals that are measured and
metals that are biologically available'
and toxic, as discussed more fully in
EPA's Interim Guidance on
Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. U-S.
EPA. 1992. Office of Science and
Technology, May 1992. (Notice of
availability published at 57 FR 24041.
June 5.1992.
In order to assure that the metals
criteria are appropriate for the chemical
conditions under which they are
applied. EPA Is promulgating the
criteria in tenns'of total recoverable
metal and providing for adjustment of
tha criteria through application of the
"water-effect ratio" procedure as
described and recommended in the
above Guidance document This
procedure was developed in the early
1980*8. and was originally set forth,
along with several case study
applications, £s the Indicator Species
procadure in Chapter 4 of the Water
Quality Standards Handbook (U.S. EPA
1983 at page 4-12). EPA notes that
performing the testing to use site-
specific water-effect ratios is. optional on
the part of the States.
In natural waters metals may exist in
a variety of dissolved and particulate
forms. The bioavailability and toxicity
of metals depend strongly on the exact
physical ana chemical form of tha
metaL Generally, dissolved metal has
greater toxicity than, particulate metal,
and For some metals, such as copper,
certain dissolved forms have greater
toxicity than other dissolved forms.
Because the speciatian among the '
various forms of a particular metal may
vary from place to plan, the same metal
concentration may cause different
toxicity from place to place.
With one exception ([selenium), EPA's
metals criteria for aquatic life protection
are developed from laboratory toxicity
data. Use of laboratory toxicity testing Is
usually much more cost-effective for
obtaining data on (1) the toxicity of
substances to a variety of species, and
(2) the effect of various water quality
characteristics on toxicity. (See 1980
Aquatic life guidelines, comment 21.45
FR 79360. Se»aIso responses to
comments 17.18,19, 20.) The dilution
water used in laboratory toxicity tests is
ordinarily low in particulate matter (i.e.
suspended solids), and low in organic
matter compared to many ambient
waters. As a result, laboratory toxicity
tests are ordinarily more likely to
overestimate the toxicity than
underestimate the toxicity of metals in
soma ambient waters, particularly fresh
waters.
Because of the complexity of metals
speciation and its effect on toxicity, the
relationship between measured
concentrations and toxicity is not
precise. Consequently, any method that
could be recommended would not
guarantee precise comparability
between concentrations measured in the
field and concentrations employed in
the toxicity tests underlying th» criteria.
For metals criteria derived from
laboratory toxicity tests, tha best
approach is to use a biological method
to compare bioavailability and toxicity
in receiving waters versus laboratory
test waters {the water-effect ratio) and to
adjust the criteria values accordingly.
This involves running toxicity tests for
at least two species, each preferably
from a different family, measuring acuta
(and possibly chronic) toxicity values
for the pollutant using fa) the local
receiving water, and to) standard
laboratory toxicity testing, water, which
is also the source of toxicity test
dilution water. A water-effect ratio is
the acute (oc chronic) value in site water
divided by tha acute (or chronic) value
in standard laboratory water. An acute
value is an LC5Q from. a. 48-96 hour tast.
as appropriate for tha species. A chronic
value is a concentration resulting from
hypothesis testing or regression analysis
of measurements of survival, growth, or
reproduction in life cycle, partial life
cyda. or early life stage tests on aquatic
species.
Chemical approaches for da£ning and
compering bioavailahle metal are-
subject to greater uncertainty than tha
above biological approach.
Chemical approaches, such as
dissolved ana total recoverable metals
are easier to apply than biological
approaches. One approach that EPA has
approved in State standards is to
measure metals In ambient waters la
terms of dissolved metal* and to
compare such measurements to criteria
appropriate for dissolved metaL Sinca
effluent Omits, for both technical and
legal (see NPDES permits regulation, 40
C^. 122.45) reasons, should be
expressed In terms of total recoverable
metal, ilia necessary to translate
. between the dissolved and total
recoverable concentrations. EPA has not
incorporated tha alternative of dissolved
-------
60866 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
rastals criteria into this rule, because the
use of the water-effect ratio
accomplishes the same ends but is
technically superior and subject to
fewer uncertainties than
implementation cf the criteria as
dissolved concentrations.
The simplest approach for ambient
metals standards is the use of the total
recoverable analytical method without a
water-effect ratio adjustment. This is a
reasonable, albeit environmentally
conservative strategy, for applying
EPA's aquatic life criteria. Where the
toxicity testing necessary to develop an
alternative water-effect ratio has not
been performed, this rule will apply the
total recoverable analytical method
without a water-effect r&tio adjustment.
This occurs because EPA assigns the
water-effect ratio a value of 1.0, subject
:o being rebutted by toxicity resting
results.
Because of the comments received,
and because of the desire to achieve the
greatest possible degree of accuracy.
EPA has chosen to apply the total
recoverable metals criteria unadjusted
for site-specific water chemistry, unless
the State adjusts the criteria through the
use of a water-effect ratio as provided
for in this rule. Allowance for water-
effect ratio adjustment also satisfies the
concerns of comments requesting
consideration of dissolved, criteria.
The water-effect ratio approach
compares bioavailability and toxicity of
a specific pollutant in receiving waters
and in laboratory test waters. It involves
running toxicity tests for at least two
species an appropriate number of times,
as determined by the States, ordinarily
on samples collected in at least two
seasons (or more where large metal
loadings are involved). As with other
site-specific procedures, the basic
analysis or testing may be performed by
the State, a permittee, or any other
interested party. Acute or chronic
toxicity for the pollutant are measured
using (a) the local receiving water where
the criterion is being implemented, and
(b) standard laboratory toxicity testing
water, as the sources of toxicity test
dilution water. The water-effect ratio is
calculated as the acute or chronic value
in site water divided by respective acute
or chronic values in standard laboratory
water. Ordinarily, the geometric mean
water-effect ratio from the valid tests is
used for calculation of the criterion,
except where protection of sensitive
species requires a more stringent value.
Because the metal's toxicity in standard
laboratory water is the basis for EPA's
criterion, this comparison is used to
adjust the national criterion to a site-
specific value. Because the procedure is
a biological measure of differences in
water chemistry, the water-e&ecl redo,
even when derived from acute tests,
usually may be assumed to also apply
to chronic criteria.
For criteria that do not vary with
hardness, the criterion for a specific site
equals the acute cr chronic value
tabulated in the rule (i.e., the matrix in
40 CFR.131.36(b)} multiplied by the
site-specific water-effect ratio for that
pollutant. The result may either reduce
or increase the stringency of the criteria.
For criteria whose toxicity vanes with
hardness, the criterion tor a soedfic site
equals the criterion calculated at the
design hardness (see 4G CFK
131.36(c)(4j), multiplied by the site-
speciSc water-effect ratio.
The water-effect ratio is assigned a
value of 1.0, unless scientifically
defensible data clearly demonstrate that
a value less than 1.0 is necessary or a
value greater than 1.0 is sufficient to
fully protect the designated uses of the
water body from the toxic effects of the
pollutant. Any data accepted for
calculation of the water-effect ratio is to.
be generated through standard toxicity
testing protocols (EPA recommends the
methodology in Annual Book of ASTM
Stds. 1991. Vol 11.04. ASTM.
Philadelphia, PA.), using sampled
ambient water representative of
conditions in the affected water body,
and using laboratory dilution water
comparable to that used in, toxicity tests
.underlying the criteria. Hie guidance
documents cited at the beginning of this
section provides more guidance on
generating the Information necessary to
determine the correct value of the water-
effectratio. However, EPA intends
within the next few months to provide
additional guidance or performing the
analyses necessary to develop
scientifically defensible water-effect
ratios for metals. As envisioned at this
time, EPA will expand Chapter 4 in the
Handbook to apply the appropriate ,
procedures described there specifically
to metals. EPA will look at the chemical
characteristics of the laboratory water
used in the toxicity tests included in the
metals criteria data base, appropriate
test organisms, analytical methods,
safeguards against unintended metals
contamination during toxicity testing,
and appropriate data handling and-
statisties. While EPA believes the
current guidance is adequate for
application of the water-affect ratio, the
additional guidance should help
standardize procedures and make
results more comparable and defensible.
The rule as promulgated is
constructed as a rebuttable
presumption. The water-effect ratio is
assigned a value of 1.0 but provides that
a State may assign a different value
derived from suitable tests. As EPA has
noted elsewhere, the actual decision as
to the numeric value assigned to a
water-effect ratio may-be made during a
State or EPA NPDES permit proceeding
provided that adequate notice and
opportunity for public participation is
provided. It is the responsibility of the
permit writing authority to determine
whether to apply the water-effect ratio
in an NPDES permit. However, EPA
believes use of the ratio will lead to
more appropriate permit limits. States
may wish to allow permittees to fund
State-administered studies necessary to
develop the ratio for particular
waterbodies.
EPA reviews State issued NPDES
permits. To facilitate EPA consideration
of a State-developed water-effect ratio, a
State should specify in documentation,
supporting that action what decisions
were made for critical parameters such
as toxicity testing protocols used,
frequency of testing, critical periods for
sampling and testing, and analytical
auality control and assurance. Each of
the factors must be articulated in a
record as a basis for a determination that
the water-effect ratio is scientifically
defensible.
The procedure applies only to aquatic
life criteria derived from laboratory
toxicity data. That is, it applies to the
acute and chronic criteria (Columns B
and C in 40 CFR 131.36(b)} for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel-, and zinc. It also applies to the
acute criteria for mercury and silver,
and the saltwater acute and chronic
criteria for selenium. It does not apply
to the chronic criteria for mercury,
because they are residue based, or to the
freshwater acute and chronic criteria for
selenium, because they are field based.
The water-effect ratio Is affected not
only by speciation among the various
dissolved and particulate forms, but also
by additive, synergistic, and
antagonistic effects of other materials in
the affected site waters. As such, the
water-effect ratio is a rather
comprehensive measure of the effect of
water chemistry on the toxicity of a.
pollutant Because the procedure
accounts far any reduction in
bioavailability resulting from binding of
the metal to particulate matter, all
metals criteria-have been appropriately
expressed as total recoverable metal in
this rule.
Where measured water-effect ratios
are used in deriving NPDES permit
limits, data from appropriate testing
during the term cf the permit should be
accumulated so that the.value of the
water-effect ratio can be reevaluated
each time the permit is reissued. Thus,
were measured water-effect ratios are
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60867
involved, EPA recommends that NPDES
permits establish monitoring
requirements that include periodic
determinations of water-effect ratios.
G. Description of the Final Rule and
Changes From Proposal
1. Changes From Proposal
Several changes were made in the
final rule from the proposal both as a
result of Agency and State action with
respect to the ongoing adoption of water
quality standards by the States and
because of the Agency's consideration of
issues raised in specific public
comments.
The States of Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Louisiana, New
Hampshire, Virginia, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and Hawaii are not included in
the final rule as their standards were
duly adopted and approved by EPA as
fully meeting the requirements of
section 303(c)(2)(B). Arizona's water
quality standards were approved on
March 2,1992; Colorado's standards
were approved by EPA on December 10,
1991; Connecticut on May 15,1992;
Louisiana on January. 24,1992; New
Hampsnire on June 25, 1992; Virginia
on June 30,1992; CNMI on January 13,
1992; and Hawaii on November 4,1992.
Copies of the approval letters are
included in the record to this final
rulemaking.
In addition, human health criteria
adopted by the State of Arkansas were
approved by EPA on January 24,1992,
and such criteria were removed from
today's rule as it affects Arkansas. EPA
is not promulgating and aquatic life
criterion in Arkansas for arsenic because
a review of monitoring data from 1985
to the present reveals no reason to
conclude that arsenic will interfere with
designated aquatic life uses. Additional
details on EPA's action with respect to
Arkansas may be found in Section I—
Response to Public Comments,
subsection 6.
Except for dioxin, criteria for the State
of Florida for both human health and
Srotection of aquatic liSa were approved
y EPA on February 25,1992. Florida is
included in thtf rule only for the.
purposes of establishing a criterion for
dioxin. More details on Florida's action
are included in the Florida section of
subsection 6 of the Response to
Comments section of this preamble.
The criteria applicable to California
have been revised to reflect a partial
approval of the State's water quality
standards on November 6,1991.
Additional comments with respect to.
California may be found in subsection €
of Section I—Response to Public
Comments.
The rule as it applies to the State of
Washington was revised after discussion
with the State as to EPA's interpretation
of the uses designated by the State. The
rule is now based on use categories
rather than use classes. Additional
details on this change may be found in
subsection 6 of Section I—Response to
Public Comments.
The rule as it applies to Alaska was
modified to delete the assignment of
criteria to a seafood processing use. This
use falls under the standards program.
However, because it applies to food
preparation only, it is not appropriate to
apply to it aquatic life or human health
criteria. Additional aquatic life and
human health criteria were added to
several use classifications after
discussions with the State clarified the
State's use classifications. Additional
details on this change may be found in
subsection 6 of Section I—Response to
Public Comments.
The rule as it applies to Idaho was
modified to add additional criteria for
the protection of primary contact
recreation after discussions with the
State concerning that use. Additional
details may be found in subsection 6 of
Section I—Response to Public
Comments.
The rule as it applies to Kansas was
changed by removing the promulgation
of silver for sections (2) (A), (B), (Q, and
(6)(C) as the State has an EPA approved
aquatic life criterion more stringent than
the EPA criterion. The human health
criterion for silver was removed because
EPA has withdrawn its silver human
health criterion.
The rule as it applies to New Jersey
was revised to reflect comments
received from the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy to add waters classified as
Pinelands and to extend coverage of the
criteria to the mainstem Delaware River
and Delaware Bay (zones lC-6).
Additional details on this change may
be found in subsection 6 of Section I—
Response to Public Comments.
Clarifications on several aspects of the
rule with respect to implementation
procedures are addressed in the
response to public comments section of
this preamble (section I).
Language was added in § 131.36(c)(4)
dealing with the application of metals
criteria as discussed in section F-7 of
this preamble. We also added
requirements to clarify how hardness
should be handled In doing water-effect
ratio determinations (see
131.36(c)(4)(iii), footnotes "e" and "m"
to 131.36(b)).
The criteria for carcinogenic
compounds included in this rule are
applied at a risk level based on State
preference as reflected by adopted or
proposed standards, or in the case of
Idaho, Nevada, and Rhode Island, on
expression of State policy preference,
rather than at an across-the-board 10-6
risk level as was proposed by the
Agency. The rationale for this change is
discussed in detail in section F-5 and
there is additional discussion in the
Response to Public Comment Section.
The basis for EPA's selection of a risk
level for an individual State is described
in the following paragraphs:
Alaska: Risk Level; 10~5
In July 1992, the State proposed
human health water quality based on
achieving a 10~5 risk level for two
carcinogens: Dioxin and chloroform.
Also, on November 16.1992, the
Commissioner of the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation wrote
the Director, Water Division, in EPA
Region X, and indicated that"... I also
had this matter reviewed by our
Attorney General's Office, and hereby
confirm the appropriateness of utilizing
a 10~s risk level for Alaska in the
National Toxics Rule."
California: Risk Level: 10~*
Standards adopted by the State
contained in the Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries Plan, and the Inland Surface
Waters Plan, approved by EPA on
November 6,1991, and the Ocean Plan
approved by EPA on June 28,1990,
contain a risk level of 10-5 for
carcinogens. The total number of toxic
pollutants differs In each plan but
approximately 60-65 pollutants are
covered.
District of Columbia: Risk Level: 10"*
In 1985 the District adopted water
quality criteria for human health, based
solely on exposure through water
consumption. The criteria were based
on a 10-* risk level. See D.C.M.R. title
21. chapter 1102.8(1).
Florida: Risk Level: 10"*6
The State adopted human health
criteria for all toxic pollutants, except
dioxin, and received EPA approval on
February 25.1992, at a risk level of 10-6.
Idaho: Risk Level: 10~*
On November 12.1992, the
Administrator of the Division of
Environmental Quality, Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare,
indicated in a letter to the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Water that while
Idaho would be publishing proposed
standards for public review ana
-------
60868 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
comment in the nffxt several months.
. . . "Until we know what standard the
public in Idaho prefers, we believe it is
prudent to adopt the more protected
standards of ten to the minus six."
EPA Region X is (he permit issuing
authority for the State and applies 10-6
for water quality based human health
requirements. These permits have been
certified by the State under section 401
as meeting water quality standards.
Kansas: Risk Level: 10"®
The State completed a series of public
hearings in August 1992 on proposed
water quality standards revisions ana is
now processing public comments
leading to the final, formal adoption
hearing scheduled for January 1993.
Formal adoption Is scheduled for
February 1993. The risk level in the
current proposed standards is 10-6. See
proposed K_A.iL 28-l&-28e(c)(4)(B).
Michigan: Risk Level: lO-*
For several years Michigan has been
controlling toxics through application of
the Guidelines for Rule 57. These
guidelines are applied at a 10~s risk
leveL See R 323.1057(2)(d).
Nevada: Risk Level: 10~5
On November 3,1992, EPA received
a letter from the Administrator of the
Division of Environmental Protection,
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources,". . . that the public health
risk level that DEP would prefer to see
in federal regulations is 10rs (one in one
hundred thousand), unless a state can
provide substantial support in the
record that a risk level of 10"* (one in
ten thousand) is appropriate and
protective. This gives states the
flexibility to use a more conservative
10-6 risk level if they see fit, but without
requiring it when it is not necessary."
New Jersey: Risk Level: 10-6 For Class A
and B Carcinogens, 10-3 For Class C
Carcinogens
New Jersey, on October 20,1992,
solicited public comment on proposed
surface water quality standards. The
comment period is to close on December
18,1992. The proposed human health
criteria for carcinogens are established
on a two-tiered system for risk levels.
See proposed N.J.A.C. 7:9B-l,5(a)4. The
State previously had indicated their
intention to do this in a letter to EPA on
December 19,1991.
Puerto Rico: Risk LeveL 10~5
In 1990, the State proposed and held
public hearings on criteria for human
health using a 10"5 risk leveL
Subsequently, the proposed standards
were revised. Just recently the State
completed public hearings on the mont
recent revision to standards. The
standards are under review by the
Environmental Quality Board. The risk
level remains at 10~s.
Rhode Island: Risk Level; 10~5
On November 2,1992, the EPA
Regional Administrator received a letter
from the Director, Department of
Environmental Management, that, along
with the Department of Health, the
State's"* * * policy choice on the
promulgation of the human health
criteria is for the adoption of a cancer
risk level of 10~3." The Director also
indicated that "* " ' future
modifications of this risk level, whether
it be to 10-4 or 1CT5, could be considered
on a pollutant and subpopulation basis,
to produce a site specific risk
assessment and protection of human
health."
Vermont: Risk Level: 10-6
On May 27,1991, State submitted to
EPA final water quality standards which
reference the EPA section 304(a) criteria
to be applied at a 10~* risk leveL
However, the effective date of these
standards is not until January 1,1995.
This delayed effective date was the
reason Region I advised the State that
the State did not comply with section
303(c)(2)(B).
Washington: Risk LeveL 10~*
During the summer of 1992, the State
formally proposed and held public
hearings on revisions to its water quality
standards. The standards, scheduled for
adoption in late November 1992,
include a risk level of 10"8.
On December 18,1991, in its official
comments on the proposed rule, the
Department of Ecology urged EPA to
promulgate human health criteria at
10-6. Specifically, "The State of
Washington supports adoption of a risk
level of one in one million for
carcinogens. If EPA decides to
promulgate a risk level below one in one
million, the rule should specifically
address the issue of multiple
contaminants so as to better control
overall site risks."
The final phrase in § 131.36(c)(2)
relating to the applicability of the rule
was amended by deleting the text.
beginning "but only * • *" EPA
received numerous comments that the
Federal criteria should be implemented
consistently with current State
practices. EPA amended the language -
- because the Agency had not intended to
be inconsistent with the provisions of
the water quality standards regulation
(40 CFR 131.21(c)), which provides that
a State water quality standard remains
in effect even though disapproved by
EPA, until the State revises it or EPA
promulgates a rule that supersedes the
State water quality standards.
Although not directly resulting in a
change to the rule, this preamble
clarifies, at the public's request, whether
schedules of compliance were
applicable to this rule. In Section E-3
EPA clarifies that schedules of
compliance for these criteria are not
provided for in these rules, but that
such schedules of compliance are
available in NPDES permits if
authorized by State regulations. See In
the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc.,
NPDES Appeal No. 88-5, Before the
Environmental Appeals Poard. EPA.
Mary 26,1992.
Several deletions were made to the
proposed human health criteria as a
result of the Agency's review of data
submitted in public comments and to
reflect the pertinent impact of other
relevant Agency actions. The revisions
are as follows:
(1)	Criteria for three pollutants
included in the matrix of the proposed
rule are not included in the final rule for
(A) acenaphthylene, (B)
benzo(ghi}perylene, and (C)
phenanthrene. The criteria for these
pollutants were removed because they
are not recognized by the Agency as
carcinogenic compounds nor do they
have a reference dose that would allow
the Agency to calculate a criterion leveL
(2)	Silver The human health criteria
for silver, were deleted from this final
rule because the criteria were developed
based on a cosmetic effect impact and
not a toxicity endpoint
(3)	Cadmium, Chromium, Selenium
and Beryllium: As described below, the
Agency has determined that the
proposed criteria for these contaminants
are no longer scientifically defensible
and accordingly has withdrawn these
criteria pending evaluation of relevant
data regarding their toxicity. EPA notes
that the criteria promulgated for aquatic
life will provide adequate protection for
human health in most instances.
(4)	Methyl Chloride, Lead and 1,1,1,
Trichloroethane: As described below,
the Agency has determined that there is
currently an insufficient basis for
calculating human health criteria for
these three contaminants. Accordingly,
EPA has withdrawn die proposed
criteria for these contaminants pending
further analysis.
In addition to the above changes, the
Agency is today withdrawing the
human health criteria recommendations
previously published in'the 1980
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Documents for silver, cadmium,
chromium, selenium, beryllium, lead,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60869
.r.eihyl chloride, and 1.1,1,
Trichloroethane. Summaries of the
human health criteria were also
published in Quality Criteria for Water,
1986. These summaries are also being
officially withdrawn today.
EPA's final rule establishes a new
§ 131.38 in 40CFR part 131 entitled.
"Toxics Criteria for Those States Not
Fully Complying with Clean Water Act
section 303(c)(2)(B)."
2. Scope
Subsection (a), entitled "Scope",
clarifies that this Section is not a general
promulgation of the section 304(a)
criteria for priority toxic pollutants but
is restricted to specific pollutants in
specific States.
J. EPA Criteria for Priority Toxic
Follutants
As proposed, subsection (b) presents
a matrix of the applicable EPA criteria
for priority toxic pollutants. Section
303(c)(2)(3) of the Act addresses only
pollutants listed as "toxic" pursuant to
section 307(a) of the Act. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, the section
307(a) list of toxics contains 65
compounds and families of compounds,
which potentially include thousands of
specific compounds. The Agency uses
the list of 126 "priority toxic pollutants"
for administrative purposes (see 40 CFR
131.36(b) herein). Reference in this rule
to priority toxic pollutants, toxic
pollutants, ox toxics refers to the 125
priority toxic pollutants.
However, EPA has not developed both
aquatic life and human health section
304(a) criteria for all of the 126 priority
toxic pollutants. The matrix in
paragraph (b) contains human health
criteria in Column D for 91 priority
toxic pollutants which are divided into
criteria (Column 1) for water
consumption (i.e., 2 liters per day) and
aquatic life consumption (i.e., 6.5 grams
per day of aquatic organisms), and
Column 2 for aquatic life consumption
only. The term aquatic life includes fish
and shellfish such as shrimp, clams,
.oysters and mussels. The total numbeT
of priority toxic pollutants with criteria
promulgated today differs from the total
number of priority toxic pollutants with
section 304(a) criteria because EPA has
developed and is promulgating
chromium criteria for two valence states
with respect to aquatic life criteria.
Thus, although chromium is a single
priority toxic pollutant, there are two
criteria for chromium for aquatic life.
However, the human criterion is based
on total chromium consistent with
Agency policy. See pollutant 5 in
§ 131.36(b).
The matrix contains aquatic life
criteria for 30 priority pollutants. These
are divided into freshwater criteria
(column B) and saltwater criteria
(Column C). These columns are further
divided into acute and chronic criteria.
The aquatic life criteria are considered
by EPA to be protective when applied
under the conditions described in the
section 304(a) criteria documents and in
the "Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control"
For example, waterbody uses should be
protected if the criteria are not
exceeded, on average, once every three
year period. It should be noted that the
criteria maximum concentrations (the
acute criteria) are one-hour average
concentrations and that the criteria
continuous concentrations (the chronic
criteria) are four-day averages. It should
also be noted that for certain of the
metals, the actual criteria are equations
which are included as footnotes to the
matrix. The toxicity of these metals are
water hardness dependent and may be
adjusted by determining appropriate
water-effect ratios. The values shown in
the table are based on a hardness
expressed as calcium carbonate of 100
mg/1 and a water-effect ratio of 1.0.
Finally, the criterion for
pentachlorophenol is pH dependent
The equation is the actual criterion and
is included as a footnote. The value
shown in the matrix is for a pH of 7.8
units.
Several of the freshwater aquatic life
criteria are incorporated into the matrix
in the format used in the 1980 criteria
methodology which uses a final acute
value instead of a continuous maximum
concentration. This distinction is noted
in footnote (g) to the table.
4. Applicability
Section 131.36(c) establishes the
applicability of the criteria for each
included State. It provides that the
criteria promulgated for each State
supersede and/or complement any State
criteria for that toxic pollutant. EPA
believes it has not superseded any State
criteria for priority toxic pollutants
unless the State-adopted criteria are
disapproved or otherwise insufficient.
The approach followed by the Agency
in preparing § 131.36(d) is described In
section E.2, and further rationale is
provided in section E.3 of this preamble.
EPA's principal purpose today is to
promulgate the toxics criteria necessary
to comply with section 303(c)(2)(B).
However, in order for such criteria to
achieve their Intended purpose the
implementation scheme must be such
that the final results protect the public
health and welfare. In section F of this
preamble a discussion focused on the
factors in EPA's assessment of criteria
for carcinogens. For example, fish
consumption rates, bioaccumulation
factors, and cancer potency slopes were
discussed When any one of these
factors is changed, the others must also
be evaluated so that, on balance,
resulting criteria are adequately
protective.
Ones an appropriate criterion is
selected for either aquatic life or human
health protection, then appropriate
conditions for calculating water quality-
based effluent limits for that chemical
must be established in order to maintain
the intended stringency and achieve the
necessary toxics control. EPA has
included in this rule appropriate
implementation factors necessary to
maintain the level of protection
intended. These factors are included in
subsection (c).
For example, in order to do steady
state waste load allocation analyses,
most States have low flow values for
streams ana rivers which establish flow
rates below which numeric criteria may
be exceeded. These low flow values
became design flows for sizing
treatment plants and developing water
quality-based effluent Limits.
Historically, these so-called "design"
flows were selected for the purposes of
waste load allocation analyses which
focused on instream dissolved oxygen
concentrations and protection of aquatic
life. With the publication of the 1985
Technical Support Document for Water
Quality Based Toxics Control (TSD),
EPA introduced hydrologically and
biologically based analyses for the
protection of aquatic life and human
health.1 EPA recommended either of
two methods for calculating acceptable
low flows, the traditional hydrologic
method developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey and a biological
based method developed by EPA. The
results of either of these two methods
may be used.
Some States have adopted specific
low flow requirements for streams and
rivers to protect designated uses against
the effects of toxics. Generally these
have followed the guidance in the TSD.
However, EPA believes it is essential to
include design flows for steady state
analyses in today's rule so that, where
1 Thaw concepts hava bean expanded
subsequently in guidance entitled Technical
Guidance Manual for Performing Westeload
Allocation*. Book 8. Design Condition*," USEPA.
OSes of Water Regulations and Standard!,
Washington. DC (1980). These new developments
are Included in Appendix ~ of the revised TSD. The
discussion here is greatly simplified and is
provided to support EPA's decision to promulgate
baseline application values lor instream flows and
thereby maintain the intended stringency of the
criteria for priority toxic pollutants.
-------
60870 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
States have not yet adopted such design
flc-.vs, the criteria promulgated today
would be implemented appropriately.
The TSO also recommends the use of
three dynamic models to perform
waste load allocations. Dynamic
wasteloaa models do not generally use
specific steady state design flows but
accomplish the same effect by factoring
in the probability of occurrence of
stream flows based on the historical
flow record. For simplicity, only steady
state conditions will be discussed here.
Clearly, if the criteria were implemented
using inadequate design flows, the
resulting toxics controls would not be
fully effective, because the resulting
ambient concentrations would exceed
EPA's criteria.
In the case of aquatic life, more
frequent violations than the once in 3
years assumed exceedences would
result in diminished vitality of stream
ecosystems characteristics by the loss of
desired species such as sport fish.
Numeric water quality criteria should
apply at all flows that are equal to or
Seater than flows specified below. The
w flow values are:
Aquatic Life
acute criteria (CMC) 1 Q 10 or 1 B
3
chronic criteria (CCC) 7 Q10 or 4 B
3
Human Health
non-carcinogens 30 Q 5
carcinogens harmonic mean flow
Where:
1Q10 is the lowest one day flow with
an average recurrence frequency of
once in 10 years determined
hydrologicallv;
1 B 3 is biologically based and
indicates an allowable exceedenco
of once every 3 years. It is
determined by EPA's computerized
method (DFLOW model);
7 Q10 is the lowest average 7
consecutive day low flow with an
average recurrence frequency of
once in 10 years determined
hydrologicallv;
4 B 3 is biologically based and
indicates an allowable exceedence
for 4 consecutive days once every 3
years. It is determined by EPA's
computerized method (DFLOW
model);
30 Q 5 is the lowest average 30
consecutive day low flow with an
average recurrence frequency of
once in 5 years determined
hydrologically; and
the harmonic mean flow is a long
term mean flow value calculated by
dividing the number of daily flows
analyzed by the sum of the
reciprocals of those daily flows.
EPA is promulgating the harmonic
mean flow to be applied with human
health criteria for carcinogens. The
concept of a harmonic mean is a
standard statistical data analysis
technique. EPA's model for human
health effects assumes that such effects
occur because of a long-term exposure
to low concentration of a toxic
pollutant. For example, two liters of
water per day far seventy years. To
estimate the concentrations of the toxic
pollutant in those two liters per day by
withdrawal from streams with a high
daily variation in flow, EPA believes the
harmonic mean flow is tha correct
statistic to use in computing such
design flows rather than other averaging
techniques.2
All waters, whether or not suitable for
such hydrologic calculations but
included in this rule (including lakes,
estuaries, and marine waters), must
attain the criteria promulgated today.
Such attainment must occur at the end
of the discharge pipe, unless the State
has a mixing zone regulation. If the
State has a mixing zone regulation, then
the criteria would apply at the locations
stated in that regulation. For example,
the chronic criteria (CCC) must apply at
the geographically defined boundary of
the mixing zone. Discussion of and
guidance on these factors are included
in the revised TSD in chapter 4.
EPA is aware that the criteria
promulgated today for some of tha
priority toxic pollutants are at
concentrations less than EPA's.current
analytical detection limits. Analytical
detection limits have never been an
acceptable basis for setting standards
since they are not related to actual
environmental impacts. The
environmental impact of a pollutant is
based on a scientific determination, not
a measuring technique which is subject
to change. Setting the criteria at levels
that reflect adequate protection tends to
be a forcing mechanism to improve
analytical detection methods. (See 1985
Guidelines, page 21.) As the methods
improve, limits closer to the actual
criteria necessary to protect aquatic life
and human health became measurable.
The Agency does not believe it is
appropriate to promulgate criteria that
are not sufficiently protective.
EPA does believe, however, that the
use of analytical detection limits are
appropriate for determining compliance
with NPDES permit limits. This view of
the role of detection limits was recently
articulated in guidance for translating
'For a description of harmonic meant see
"Design Stream Flows Based on Harmonic Means,"
Lewis A. busman, f. of Hydraulics Engineering,
VoL 116, No. 7. July, 1980. This article is contained
In the record [or this proposal.
dioxin criteria into NPDES permit limns
which is the principal method used for
water quality standards enforcement.3
This guidance presents a model for
addressing toxic pollutants which have
criteria recommendations less than
current detection limits. This guidance
is equally applicable to other priority
toxic pollutants with criteria
recommendations less than current
detection limits. The guidance explains
that standard analytical methods may be
used for purposes of determining
compliance with permit limits, but not
for purposes of establishing water
quality criteria or permit limits. Under
the Clean Water Act analytical methods
are appropriately usedin connection
with NPDES permit limit compliance
determinations. Because of the function
of water quality criteria, EPA has not
considered the sensitivity of analytical
methods in deriving the criteria
promulgated today.
EPA has added provisions in
paragraph (c)(3) to determine when
fresh water or saltwater aquatic life
criteria apply. In response to comments,
this provision was expanded to
incorporate a time parameter to better
define the critical condition. The
structure of the paragraph is to establish
presumptively applicable rules and to
allow for site-specific exceptions where
the rules are not consistent with actual
field conditions. Because a distinct
separation generally does not exist
between fresh water and marine water
aquatic communities, EPA is
establishing the following; (1) The fresh
water criteria apply at salinities of 1 part
per thousand and below at locations
where this occurs 95% or more of the
time; (2) marine water criteria apply at
salinities of 10 parts per thousand and
above at locations where this occurs
95% more of the time; and (3) at
salinities between 1 and 10 parts per
thousand the more stringent of the two
apply unless EPA approves the
application of the freshwater or
saltwater criteria based on a biological
assessment. The percentiles included
here were selected to minimize the
chance of overlap, that is, one site
meeting both criteria. Determination of
these percentiles can be done by any
reasonable means such as interpolation
between points with measured data or
by the application of calibrated and
verified mathematical models (or
hydraulic models). It is not EPA's intent
' Strategy for the Regulation of Discharges ol
PHDDs and PHBFi from Pulp and Paper Mills to
Waters of the United States, memorandum from the
Assistant Administrator for Water to the Regional
Water Management Division Directors end NPDES
State Directors, May 21,1990.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60871
to require actual data collection at
particular locations.
In the brackish water transition zones
of estuaries with varying salinities, there
generally will be a mix of freshwater
and saltwater species. Generally,
therefore, it is reasonable for the more
stringent of the freshwater or saltwater
criteria to apply. In evaluating
appropriate data supporting the
alternative set of aiteria, EPA will focus
on the species composition as its
preferred method
This assignment of criteria for fresh,
brackish and marine waters was
developed in consultation with EPA'a
research laboratories atDuluth.
Minnesota and Narragaasett, Rhode
Island. The Agency believes such an
approach is consistent with field
experience.
In paragraph (c)(4)(i) EPA included a
limitation on the amount of hardness
that EPA can allow to antagonize the
toxicity of certain metals (see footnote
(e) in the criteria matrix in paragraph (b)
of the rule). The data base used for the
Section 304(a) criteria documents for
metals do not include data supporting
the extrapolation of the hardness effects
on metal toxicity beyond a range of
hardness of 25 mg/1 to 400 mg/1
(expressed as calcium carbonate). Thus,
the aquatic life values for the CMC
(acute) and CCC (chronic) criteria for
these metals in waters with a hardness
less than 25 mg/1, must nevertheless use
25 mg/1 when calculating the criteria;
and in waters with a hardness greater
than 400 mg/1, must nevertheless use
400 mg/l when calculating the criteria.
In paragraph (c)(4), subparagraphs (i)
and (ii) are the same as proposed.
Subparagraph (iii) was added to
incorporate the water-effect ratio
guidance described in Section F-7 of
this preamble.
Subsection (d) lists the States for
which rules are being promulgated. For
each Identified State, ue designated
water uses impacted (and in some cases
the specific waters covered) and the
criteria are identified. In all cases, the
criteria are applied to use designations
adopted by the States; EPA has not
promulgated any new use classifications
in this rule although the Agency has the
authority to do so.
H.	(Reserved)
I.	Response to Public Comments
The Response to Public Comment
Section is organized into several sub-
sections, as follows:
1.	Legal Authority
2.	Science
3.	Economics
4.	Implementation
5.	Timing and Process
6.	State lisuaa
I. Legal Authority
1. Comment: Several comments were
received that in various ways suggested
that EPA exceeded its authority in
proposing to establish Federal water
quality standards for States because it
was alleged standards are to be
developed by the States. These
comments tended to emphasize the
primary role attributed to States under
the Clean Water Act in establishing
standards with some going so far as to
indicate that States should have full and
unrestrained authority to act. In this
mode, a comment was offered that all
the Clean Water Act requires is a good
faith effort on the part of a State to meet
the statutory requirement. A related
comment suggested that EPA can
promulgate standards only after
specifically disapproving a State's
standard. There were opposing views
offered suggesting that EPA not only has
the authority to act, it is obliged to act.
Response: The Clean Water Act
assigns States the primary role in
establishing water quality standards and
EPA has continually supported that role
before Congress in reauthorization
hearings on the Clean Water Act The
Act, however, also defines a role for
EPA in terms of reviewing and either
approving or disapproving State-
adopted standards and of promulgating
Federal standards. Sections 303(c) (3)
and (4) of the Act clearly indicate that
Congress jdid not intend States to have
full and unrestrained authority to set
standards. EPA's action in developing
this rulemaking is not to be taken as a
change in EPA policy in dealing with
the States. Our policy continues to be
that we prefer States to adopt their own
standards but we will use our
promulgation authority when
warranted EPA believes that the need to
control the discharge of toxic pollutants
to protect human health and the
environment, the establishment of the
statutory requirement for addressing
toxic pollutants, and the responsibility
for EPA review of State water quality
standards for consistency with the Clean
Water Act coupled with the inclusion of
a process for Federal promulgation in
the Act strongly supports EPA's
promulgation authority. Moreover, this
elaborate process also makes clear-that
Congress intended that.States do more
than just evidence a good faith effort.
As described in detail in section E of
this Preamble, the Clean Water Act
authorizes and establishes a timetable
for Federal promulgation action. Under
the Clean Water Act, States must adopt
water quality standards to protect public
health and welfare and enhance the
quality of water. Section 303(c)(4) of the
Clean Water Act authorizes the
Administrator of EPA to promulgate
Federal standards applicable to a State
when: (1) The State submits standards
for EPA approval and EPA determines
that the State standards foil to meet the
requirements of the Act, or (2) in any
case where the Administrator
determines a new or revised standard is
necessary to meet the requirements of
the Act EPA's implementing
regulations also make clear that the
Administrator may take action to
promulgate either when a State fails to
adopt changes specified in a
disapproval or in any case where the
Administrator determines a new or
revised standard is necessary (40 CFR
131.22). Both these provisions are used
to support this action. Although in fact
EPA did notify the States in a Federal
Register notice of April 19,1990, and in
a letter to the Administrator of the
responsible State agency of each
potentially affected State on April 9,
1990, the Administrator is not required
in exercising the authority of section
303(c)(4) to specifically disapprove a
State's standard when exercising the
authority to promulgate Federal
standards. Historically, in eight of the
nine Federal promulgation actions
completed, the Agency based its action
on disapproval of State standards but in
the ninth instance, a criterion for
chloride in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, there was no disapproval
involved (see 52 FR 9102, March 20.
1987).
2. Comment: Closely related to the
above comments were others that
asserted that EPA Is empowered to
promulgate Federal standards only on a
State-by-State, waterbody-by-waterbody,
pollutant-by-pollutant approach, and
that Congress did not intend that
national standards be developed. In the
same vein, it was suggested that it
would be easier for the public to
respond if each State were proposed in
a separate rule.
Response: Neither EPA nor the States
are directed by either the statute or the
implementing water quality standards
regulation to establish standards in the
manner suggested by the first comment.
EPA's implementing regulation and
policies certainly allow EPA to act in
this way but it is not required to do so.
Section 131.22(b) of the water quality
standards regulation specifically
indicates that the Administrator "* • "
may propose and promulgate a
regulation applicable to one or more
states * •
We do not see this action as
establishing national standards as it
-------
60872 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
expressly limits the application of the
criteria in the final rule to the States
earned in the rule. (40 CFR 131.36(a))
As explained mora fully in the
preamble, water quality standards
consist of designated beneficial uses of
a State's waters and the criteria
necessary to protect those uses. The
comment urges a v/aterbocy-by-
waterbody approach. Jar purposes of
this rulemaking, EPA is presuming that
the States have adequately made such
designated use determinations fcr its
waters. EPA is merely adding criteria for
priority toxic nollutaiits-on a dtate-by-
State basis sufficient to protacruia
Stale's designated uses. EPA believes its
ap proach.accomplishes the ccmmentsrs
objectives but in a morercomprahensive
manner. .Moreover, EPA .doesn't believe
this approach is .more burdensomey
not directing the Agencytonse tha
results of the atherstatntory'sactmns die
commenters identified, anahyaiBS of
the "could reasanably he .expectsdlo
interfere" language, CnngrmwriirBCtgd
the Agencyto bermoreiinduflivBiathar
than less inclusive in ids applicable
critBriaicovenge. Thus^EEA urged .a low
threshold, for incluaion
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60873
applied by the Regions in evaluating
acceptability of State standards.
Response: Each State's water quality
standards submission is different They
require case specific review for
adequacy and consistency with
environmental and human health
requirements and statutory and
regulatory provisions. The statute
allows for State flexibility. Given these
factors. EPA established broad guidance
parameters and Regional Offices
reviewed each submission for
consistency. EPA Headquarters staff
exercised oversight on this process to
assure appropriate inter-Rsgional
consistency. This process did not
produce identical standards in each
State but that is not required. A.11 State
standards that were approved were
judged by EPA to meet the twin tasts of
protection of water body uses and
scientific defensibility.
Both the criteria development and the
standards programs are iterative
programs and EPA expects to request
States to continue to focus on adopting
criteria for additional toxic pollutants
end revising existing criteria in future
triennial reviews which new
information indicates is appropriate. In
no sense should States or the regulated
community assume that the task of
addressing pollution from toxics is
completed by what the States have
adopted or EPA is promulgating in the
way of criteria for toxic pollutants.
7. Comment: EPA did not propose
criteria for inclusion in State standards
when the criteria were based on
organoleptic effects. The Agency
specifically solicited comment on this
issue. Most of the comments received
indicated that EPA was correct in not
including such criteria in the rule.
There were several comments to the
contrary indicating that such criteria
should be included because the
pollutants are on the section 307(a) list
and EPA did issue a criteria
recommendation for the pollutant under
section 304(a). Therefore, they argue
that the requirements of section
303(c)(2)(B) apply.
Response: In the final rule, EPA has
not included criteria for pollutants
where the section 304(a) criteria
recommendation was based on
organoleptic effects. Such effects cause
taste and odor problems which may
increase treatment costs in drinking
water or the selection by the public of
alternative but less protective sources of
drinking water and may cause tainting
of or off flavors in fish flesh and other
edible aquatic life reducing their
marketability and resource value. EPA is
also aware that some States have
adopted such criteria in their standards.
Nonetheless, because section
303(c)(2)(B) focuses on toxicity of the
priority toxic pollutants, EPA believes
its rule should likewise focus on
toxicity. The 304(a) criteria documents
for these pollutants do not recommend
a criteria based on toxicity and therefore
such criteria are outside the intent of a
rulemaking for section 303(c)(2)(B).
This decision notwithstanding, it
should be noted that the criteria based
on organoleptic effects still represent
the Agency's best scientific
recommendations at thin time and are
within the range of scientific
acceptability for a State's use.
8. Comment: One commenter asserted
that EPA's Option 3 (i.o. adoption of a
narrative standard coupled with a
translator mechanism to compute a
derived numeric limit) of its December
1988 guidance on complying with the
Act does not meet the legal
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B). It
is argued that EPA should therefore
disapprove all State water quality
standards which rely solely on a
narrative "free from" toxics water
quality standard and a translator
mechanism. A related comment is that
this translator procedure may be
appropriate as a supplement to adopting
specific numeric criteria.
Response: The legality of Option 3 is
not an issue in this rulemaking. We are
not promulgating any water quality
standards based on Option 3. Option 3
is only a potential issue in the
subsequent approval of standards for
those States which are not included in
this rule.
Nevertheless, as noted in the
December 1988 guidance, EPA believes
the combination of a narrative standard
along with a translator mechanism as a
part of a State's water quality standards
can satisfy the substantive requirements
of the Clean Water Act. Such translators
would need to be subject to all the
State's legal and administrative
requirements for adoption of standards
plus review and either approval or
disapproval by EPA, and result inthe
development of derived numeric criteria
for specific section 307(a) toxic
pollutants.
EPA's guidance presented several
factors that EPA expected to be
incorporated into a translator process in
order to comply with the Act In
essence. EPA expected that the
technical mechanism used would need
to be equivalent to a criteria
development protocol. That is, it would
need to include an appropriate number
of sensitive species using suitable
testing and analytical methodologies. If
established and applied correctly, EPA
has indicated that it could meet the
legal requirements of section
303(c)(2)(B). The central objective of
section 303(c)(2)(B)—establishing
chemical specific numeric limits—is
achieved by this approach. There is no
statutory bar to it and the Agency sees
no reason not to continue to support
this approach by States.
Ultimately. EPA believes all State
toxic control programs will be
strengthened by adoption of both
chemical specific standards and a
translator mechanism for those
ollutants where water quality criteria
ave yet to be developed.
9. Comment: EPA invited comment on
whether to promulgate a translator
mechanism for the States in this final
rule. A translator mechanism would
enable the States to derive numeric
limits for pollutants beyond those in
this promulgation based on a State's
general narrative criterion. The Agency
received comments both supporting and
opposing this approach.
Response: While a translator
mechanism could be a valuable
supplement to State standards to deal
with toxics for which no section 304(a)
criteria recommendation is available, it
is not necessary for EPA to promulgate
a translator at this time to meet the
objectives of section 303(c)(2)(B).
Today's promulgation of chemical
specific criteria fulfills that obligation.
For that reason a translator mechanism
is not included in today's final action.
However, EPA believes that such a
mechanism should be available in all
States. Therefore, in revisions to the
basic water quality standards regulation,
EPA may propose a requirement for a
translator mechanism which would be
applicable to all jurisdictions included
in the standards program.
10. Comment: Comments were
received that EPA is attempting to
establish use classifications in this rule
and that such action is a right belonging
to a State.
Response: The use classifications to
which Federal criteria are applied in
this rule are the classifications
established and defined by each State
affectedby the rule. EPA is not creating
State use classifications nor assigning
use classifications to any water bodies
in this rule. In the few instances
described in Section G of this preamble,
appropriate adjustments to uses and
criteria were made as necessary to
accurately reflect State use
classifications. Further, EPA believes
the regulated community is fully aware
of the uses adopted by a State and to
which water bodies the uses apply.
Specific revisions in the rule pertaining
to State use classifications are discussed
-------
60874 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
in subsection 6 of the Response to
Public Comments Section.
11.	Comment: During the pendency of
this rulemaking, several States asked if
adopting an emergency rule wouid be
•sufficient to allow removal of the State
from '-ha final promulgation. Several
States also indicated .they shnuid.be
removed iram the miBbecause they had
plans to adapt standards.
.Response ."Emergency zuiemaking
actions by States areaot judged by EPA
as sufficient hasis for removal from this
rulemaking. In most cases. State
emergency rules have a limited duration
and expire at a data certain. There is no
assurance that enforceable permanent
water quality standards would be in-
place at that time. If EPA were to allow
emergency rulemakings to he the basis
for removal from this package, given the
long delays:to date hy these States, there
is the strong possibility promulgation
action would have to be-commenced
again by EPA in the near future. The
delays and .related .program disruptions
experiencedhy EPA have already heen
too great. There has to he closure on the
standards adoption portion nf our toxic
control efforts. Reliance nn.temporary
emergency State actions wauld not
produce that .closure.
There is .also .the question of legal
vulnerabilityto the adoption of
emergency rules and .whether the State
emergency rule procedures allow for
sufficient public review. Moreover, tire
emergency rules adopted wnuldhave to
fully .complywith the Act States which,
contend they should be dropped imm
this ruta because theynowplan to adopt
standards remain in this -rule because
EPA has -no reasonable-means of being
assured -standards will be -adopted as
planned. Since-passaga of the
amendments in 1987, many Stateplans
for standards adoption have not been
completed.as anticipated. When States
complete approvable adoptions, EPA
will taketimely-actiontoTemove'the
promulgation as applicable to that State.
12.	Comment. One commenter
asserted that States do not have fhe
necessary legal authority under State
law to use national water quality
stondardsinState-pennitB.
Response.Without-mare information,
we cannot determine the precise
concerns of thiscommanter.-However,
section 402(b).of the Clean Water Act
requires that States appmved .to
administer the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program jnustiiave adequate authority
to issue permits which comply with-any
applicable requirements of.sectitm.3ai
of the Act Among those requirements
are limitations to meet water quality
standards, .and the criteria promulgated
today are"* " * applicable water
quality standard(s) established pursuant
to this Act." Section 301(b)(1)(C).
Once promulgated, Federal standards
will be the basis of ail environmental
control programs designed to meat
water quaiitv standards. States-which
had inadequate criteria for toxics will
have amuch.morexomplste basis for
determining if there/aretoxic
contamination problems-in their-waters.
If problems ^re identified, the State and
EPA will need to work together to see
if the sources of these problems can be
identified and controlled. The most
directimpaa will be on NPDES permits
for individual point source discharges.
The permitting agency, whather.it be the
State or EPA will have .to determine on
a case-hy-case basis whether to re-open
an individual permit nr wait until a
Eermit expires before intmducing-new
mits.
13. Comment. One.commenter
described ongoing judicial and
administrative proceedings to establish
the authority of.the.staieto setpermit
limits for dioxin hy interpreting. the
state.'smarrative.criterionusing.EPA's
section 304(a) dioxin guidance. The
rammaTitar indicated that the.state ha" ,
consistently implemented its narrative
water-quality criterion to control .dioxin
discharges by interpreting that^ritenon
using EPArS.guidance. It isihe
commentar's viewthat if the ^tate
prevails in the ongoingilitigation, it will
effectivelyhaveia.mtrrwriccritflrioii -for
dioxin.
Response The critical flaw in the
commenter'.s-argument is thai the StatB
does nnthaveon-placB!en:EPA-appmued
nuiTTHTir rrilHriciTi -frrr rtimrinnnm
approval translator tngHimmte a
nnmwrir .criteria -for dioxin. Moreover,
conclusion ofthe litigation-would not
establish an Approved:numericxxiterian.
even if the-State^wereto prevail. EPA
understands thatStatesxiften implement
their Jiarratrve criteria.by interpreting
those criteria using EPA guidance. EP.A
supports this process hythe.States.
However, section.303(c)(2)(B) isclear
that States are to adopt nnmBric water
quality criteria for toxic pollutants. The
purpose of thisi^emafcing'isto finally
establish thB necessary:numeric toxic
criteria in all States, and only those
states with the necessary approved
numeric criteria ara excluded from the
rule.
2. Science
The response tocomments in this
subsection .are included under die
following headings: :(A) General
Comment, (B) Aquatic Life Criteria, and
(C) Human Health Criteria.
A. General Comments
14. Gommsnf.' Numerous.comrnen'uS
were received that ZPA's water .quality
criteria were published as scientific
guidance and ware .never intended to be
used as regulatory provisions without
modification to reflect local
environmental, conditions. Ha la tad
rrhat because the
criteria were published asgui dance,, the
public comment-receivedxm.the.draft
water quality criteria documents were
restricted since reviewers .did not
anticipate their use as enforceable
limits.
Response: Watar quality criteria.are
published as scientific information.or
guidance under section J 04(a). of the Act
because .that is what the Claan Water
Act specifies. ERA's implementing
recognizes t^at the section 304(a)
criteria may be used as a basis-for States
to establish enforceable-standards..See
40 CER-131.11(b). Toimpiythat the
section.304(a) criteria.aremerely
informational andnntuUrectty jaktedto
establishing water quality .standaxds
under section.303(c) isnotonly iieading
the Actinan crabbed manner, it-also
ignores 36 years of program lustnry
which demonstrates .that.States
generally ralytanithecritBria
recommandedhy EPA in establishing
Standards. Wmnimff, thimilnimHTig n!
the process "which tsmsfasixB"thBS0
recommendatiorB into: enforceable
regulatory xequirements iorspecific
States. Any specific issiffisxeiatad to
establishing AesBicriteriairao^p^ahle
raised during thismfenakingiwen if
the issues werw-miiwd .onramsidprBdin
the earlier publication nfniterk
documents.
FurthermorB.althnughthB.EPA water
quality standaxosregulationallows
StatB modification of water quality
criteria to reflect local,.site-epedfic
conditions, it is not a requirement to do
so. EPA is.also not obligated to modify
criteria to reflect local environmental
conditions although ideally EPA would
consider-any data submitted in vuppoit
of establishing a site-specific criterion in
determining -whethershe-specffic
criteria would be appropriate. Tn
addition, EPA believes the methodology
and the extensive database used bythe
Agency results in deriving national
criteria that will be protective formost
species in virtually all waterbodies
throughout the-country. (See 1983
Guidelines, page 4.)
Congress has given substantial
credibilitytothe section 304(a).criteria
as well. For example, in sectkm
301(h)(9) applicants must meet the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 246 I Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60875
-------
S0876 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 216 / Tuesday, -December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
under section. 405 of the Act concerning
the disposal of wastewater solids.
Response: The proposed regulations
for the disposal of wastewater solids
represented the first time EPA proposed
such standards, an a was the first tuna
e methodology and specific criteria were
proposed by EPA for wastewater solids.
Therefore, the extensive raview for that
pToposea regulation was appropriate.
The situation is notthe same for the
criteria promulgated in today's rule.
EFA and the States have been regulating
the discharge of pollutants into surface
waters for many years. The
methodologies for deriving criteria for
the protection of both human health and
aquatic life were peer and publicly
reviewed in 1960. The aquatic life
guidelines were revised with peer and
public review in 1985. Both
methodologies are currently being
reviewed for possible revisions. As
discussed elsewhere in this section, this
rulemaking makes use of the existing
criteria ana therefore is .not the most
effective vehicle for revising either die
methodologies or the actual criteria.
18. Comment: Several common tars
objected thai applying criteria as
standards when the criteria are below
analytical detection limits is
unreasonable because this may iorce tha
imposition of unreasonable permit
limits and "false positive" indications
of non-compliance. Others suggested
that it was.not clear how detection
limits affect jwrmit limits and
compliance. There were-also comments
supporting EPA's position as described
in the proposal.
Response: In consideration of
statutory requirements that water
quality standards are to be protective of
designated.stream uses, EPA has -
determined that consideration of
analytical detectability would not.be an
appropriate .factor to consider when
calculating the water quality criteria
component of water quality standards.
This has been the Agency's position
since the inception of the water quality
standards program in 1965.
Although the sensitivity of analytical
methods are not.appropriate Ibr setting
water quality criteria, they may be
appropriate in determining .compliance
with permit limits based water quality
standards. It-shouldalso be notsathat
by the time standards are converted into
permit limitations «ftar-r«lnilnting total
maximum daily load and wasteland
allocations, the actual permit limit may
be in the range of stanaard.analytical
methods cited by EPA in 40 CFR part
136.
EPA's criteria development methods
for aquatic life are generally based on
laboratory bioassays with sensitive
aquatic life. The results from these tests
are analyzed by mathematical
procedures outlined in EPA's criteria
methodology guidelines. EPA human
health criteria are developedirom
protocols generally using toxicity
studies on laboratory nnimwis such as
mice and rats. Thus, EPA's criteria are
effect-based without regard to chemical
analytical methods or techniques.
Because water quality standards
developed pursuant to section 303(c) nf
the Clean Water Act are not self-
enforcing, the measurement nfihese
chemicals in a regulatory sense is
generally in the context of an NFDES
permit limitation. The permit issuing
authority, either a State or EPA. in
conjunction with the permittee
establishesthe analytical methodology
to be used in determining compliance
with the permit limit.
As "notHdin footnote 3 of.this
preamble, EPA basissued guidance cm
how constituents-with"water nuality
criteria specified at less thanme
sensitivity of official analytical methods
(i.e., those listed in 40 CFRjart 136) are
established in permits.
EPA's water quality-standards
regulation at 40 CFR 131.11 requires
that criteria be adopted by States at
concentrations-necessary to-protect
designated uses. The criteria
promulgated today meet that
requirement while EPA's "policy "with
respect'to regulatory compliance takes
analytical sensitivity and "precision into
consideration.
B. Aquatic Life
19. Comment: A few comments
questioned the role ofbiological criteria
in the standards program with one
commenter suggesting that establishing
numeric limits-is contrary to achieving
the biological goals of the Clean Water
Act.
Response: Together, chemical and
physical characteristics and biological
integrity define the overall ecological
integrity ofan aquatic ecosystem. State
regulatory agencies should strive to
fully integrate all three approaches since
each has its-respective capabilities and
limitations. EPA's position isthat each
approach as-represented by whole
effluent toxicity testing, chemical
specific criteria, and bioassessment
approaches is independently applicable
(see Policy on Use of Biological
Assessments and Criteria in the "Water
Quality Program, U.S. EPA, May 1991).
A description of the integration of these
approaches along with a detailed
analysis of the.capabilities and
limitations of earn approach may be
found in the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control, March 1991. SeeTSD
Section 1.5.beginning on page 20, and
references cited therein.
20.	Comment: A commenter argued
that EPA's proposed national aquatic
life criteria will be overprotecuve for
many surface waters because they do
not account for site-specific conditions.
At a.minimum, any federal water
quality criteria must take into account
broad aquatic life categories.
flesponse: The development of EPA's
criteria is based on a broad aquatic lifiB
data.set. The "1985 guidelines
recommend that eight species from eight
separate families be used in the
development of the freshwater and
saltwater criteria. While it is always
beneficial to have more data, EPA's peer
reviewed guidelines establish that ¦
criteria developed from this minimum
data set adequately protect aquatic
communities (1985 Guidelines, see
section III, p. 22). The apparent level of
protectionris different lor each kind of
effect .(acute or chronic toxicity to
animals, toxicity to plants, etc.) because
of the quality and quantity of
information. An attempt was made to
tnlca into account such things as the
importance of the effect,.the quality of
the available Hnta, and the prohahle
ecological.relevanceof tbe test methods.
The present approach to aquatic toxicity
allows conclusionsio bejnade about the
ability of a substance to adversely, affect
amiatic organisms and their uses
wnenever (he minimum data set are
satisfied. See also the discussion on
metals spetiati on in Section F-7 andthe
response to comment below.
21.	Comment:One commenter
asserted thatXPA has incorrectly
concluded that the Section 304(a)
criteria are.appropriatB for most waters
because there nave been few occasions
where site-specific water quality criteria
have been applied.
Response: EPA's determination that
Section 304(a) criteria are generally
applicable is "not based on a lack of site-
specific criteria modification studies a3
asserted by the commenter. EPA has
conducted a series of field ajjplicability
studies "to determine the correlation
between t&emical specific criteria and
receiving water impacts. (Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control, March, 1991 at;p.
2). These testiesults indicate a good
correlation between the laboratory
concentrations and expected field
results. The water quality criteria are
not threshold values. One should not
expect that once these values are
exceeded, the result is a measurable
impact on aquatic life. The aquatic life
criteria embody conservative
assumptions so that small excursions
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday,. December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60877
i'oove the criteria will not result in
adverse impacts. The data indicate that
if ambient water quality criteria are met.
organisms in the receiving water are
protected from adverse impacts.
22. Comment: Comment was received
that EPA should clarify that the aquatic
lite water quality criteria for arsenic are
based on the trivalent form of arsenic.
Response: The arsenic criteria
promulgated today are applied on total
recoverable inorganic arsenic. The 1385
arsenic criteria document is derived
from data on Arsenic (HI). However,
because there is no readily available or
practical analytical method to quantify
the various fonns of arsenic in
monitoring applications for aquatic life.
EPA has concluded that it is reasonable
to quantify environmental arsenic
concentrations as total recoverable
inorganic arsenic. (EPA Methods 206.2,
206.3, 206.4. 206.5.)
In addition, EPA reevaluated the
acute and chronic toxicity data on the
two most prevalent forms of arsenic in
aquatic systems (trivalent and
pentavaient arsenic) in the Arsenic
criteria document. These data show that
, arsenic (III) and arsenic (V] toxicity is
similar for both sensitive freshwater and
saltwater species. For five of the six
freshwater species and all of the
saltwater species used in the arsenic
calculation where there was comparable
information on acute end chronic
toxicity, values were within a factor of
two or three. Certain plants, for example
Selenastrum capricornutum (alga), are
45 times more sensitive to arsenic (V)
than to arsenic (ID). Therefore, it is
reasonable to combine forms of arsenic
to specify the criteria. The measurement
of total recoverable arsenic has both
toxicological and practical advantages
and appropriately represents the aquatic
life toxicities of arsenic compounds.
23. Comment; Several commenters
asserted that criteria based on laboratory
tests are overprotectiva when applied in
the field. Another commenter quoted
laboratory study reports stating that the
results are applicable only to the
particular water tested.
Response: EPA agrees that waters
used for laboratory toxicity testing are
generally cleaner than many natural
systems. In cases where ambient waters
contain constituents which alter the
toxicity of chemicals, an increase in
accuracy may be provided by rerunning
the toxicity tests in site water. (For
example, the water-effect ratio approach
for metals promulgated today.) In most
instances, this correction will be smell.
(TSD, March 1991, p.2). Therefore,
applying the criteria values developed
from laboratory testing provides an
acceptable level of accuracy, and this
approach is used by most States. In the
context or this rula it represents a
technically acceptable approach to
cover a variety of waters, and the only
feasible one. (See also the response to
comments for the 1980 Guidelines, Nos.
17 and 19,45 FR 79359, November 28.
1980.)
In response to the second comment,
the scientist running the specific
toxicity test referenced by the comment
noted that its accuracy is only
guaranteed for the specific water tested.
However, applying these tests to other
waters is an acceptable approximation.
(See response to public comments tor
the 1980 Guidelines. 45 FR 79359-
79360, comment #20 and #21.)
Additionally, laboratory toxicity testing
is the most reasonable and practical way
to develop a database which is large
enough to develop criteria, and diverse
enough in species, which generally
represent a larger source of variability.
VVhile most States have not chosen to
perform site-specific toxicity tests, any
State may develop site specific-criteria.
These, criteria will be more appropriate
and tailored to the site for setting
NPDES permit limits than EPA's
national criteria. Because they are
amended water quality standards, site
specific criteria are subject to EPA
review. Other than the water-effect ratio
for metals which is promulgated today,
State developed site specific-criteria do
not replace the criteria promulgated in
today's rule unless the site specific-
criteria are approved by EPA as meeting
the requirements of the Act and EPA
amends the rule adopted today.
24. Comment; Comment was received
that the proposed rule includes some
aquatic life criteria computed using the
1980 guidelines methodology and others
were computed using the 1985
guidelines methodology. It was asserted
that the simplistic approach of the 1980
methodology ignores the scientific
improvements of the 1985 guidelines.
The commenter urged that these criteria
should be updated to provide consistent
methodology and adherence to the
statutory requirement of section 304(a).
Response : As the commenter noted,
some of the aquatic life criteria in this
rule are based on 1980 guidelines. EPA
reviewed the data base for these criteria
end determined that in general they
could not be recalculated by the 1985
guidelines because of differences in data
base requirements between the two
guidelines used species specific
requirements whereas the 1985
guidelines expanded this to broader
taxonomic categories.) EPA believes that
the data used in the 1980 criteria
document are sound. As a practical
matter, a reasonable approximation to a
criteria maximum concentration can be
obtained by simply dividing the final
acute values in the matrix by 2. The
criteria in the matrix in today's rale
were not changed from the results of the
respective 1S80 and 1935
methodologies. Therefore, EPA has
reconsidered these aquatic life criteria at
the commenter's request and considers
them to be within the acceptable range
based on uncertainties associated with
computing watBr quality criteria. These
criteria are protective of aquatic life and
are scientifically sound.
The development of aquatic life
criteria is a dynamic process which
responds to the influence of improved
science. It is expected that this science
will be constantly evolving as new
analytical techniques become available
and new studies are evaluated. To this
end, EPA is also reviewing the current
methodology for developing aquatic life
criteria. The current methodology will
be reviewed, and if needed, revised to
incorporate the latest concepts of
aquatic toxicology.
25. Comment: A commenter asserted
that the proposed aquatic life criteria
may be underprotective since they fail
to account for synergism and additivity
and fail to consider wildlife impacts.
Response; EPA agrees that the aquatic
life criteria do not deal with
simultaneous exposure to more than one
pollutant. This is largely because few
data are available, the data which are
available do not allow for development
of useful principles and there are so
many possible combinations of
pollutants present to prevent
development of appropriate guidance.
EPA has considered the effects of
multiple toxics discharged into
receiving waters. (Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control; March 1991.) The
studies cited in the TSD indicate that
the median combined effect of a mixture
of acutely toxic pollutants in receiving
water is additive. EPA recommends,
that in the absence of site-specific data,
Tegulatoryfiuthorities consider
combined acute toxicity to be additive.
Thus, the combined acutely lethal
toxicity to fish and other aquatic
organisms is approximately the simple
addition of the proportional
contribution from each toxicant
However, available data do not
indicate additivity for chronic toxicity.
EPA further recommends that chronic
toxicity not be considered additive, and
that each toxic be considered
individually.
Synergism has not been demonstrated
to be an important factor in the toxicity
of effluents. Field studies or effluent
toxicity and laboratory tests with
-------
SGS78 Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulation!
specific chemicals support an inference
that synergism is a rare phenomenon
(See TSD, page 24.} (See also response
to comments in the 1980 Guidelines,
Comment #9, 45 FR 79358, November
28,1980.) Theoretically, antagonism is
just as likely to occur, which might
suggest that the criteria are overly
protective in an environment exposed to
contaminant mixtures.
EPA considers the critena, when
applied with the appropriate frequency
and duration of exposure, to adequately
protect wildlife. Three of the aquatic life
criteria in this rulemaking axe based on
wildlife toxicity and exposure,
(Selenium, DDT and Polychlorinated
Biphenyls). EPA is in the process of
developing a wildlife criteria
development methodology to provide
further guidance for wildlife concerns.
Once this tool is developed. EPA will
have a method of focusing criteria on
wildlife issues.
26.	Comment: Several commenters
argue that the criteria do not apply to
semi-arid ecosystems. None of the
guidance issued to date expressly
address the means to apply those
criteria to semi-arid ecosystems.found
in Ari2ona. Ephemeral streams and
effluent dominated waters are distinct
classes of waters that should be
regulated to protect the aquaticsperies
that typically inhabit them.
Response: Water quality criteria are
toxicity based values, usually chemical
specific. The criteria are based on toxic
effects to a.broad taxonomic group and
do not consider the types of water
bodies, such as semi-arid ecosystems,
they may be applied to. Aquatic life
criteria, when implemented as part of
water quality standards, are maantto be
protective of aquatic life. These
standards are applied to specific
waterbodies through designated uses.
For this rulemaking, EPA assumes that
States correctly define designateduses
and the specific waterbodies to which
those uses apply. EPA agrees that
ephemeral streams and effluent
dominated waters are distinct classes of
waters. If a State feels an aquatic life use
designation is appropriate ior these
waterbodies, then the aquatic lifia
criteria will apply to protect that use. If
not, than they will not apply. EPA is not
promulgating designated uses for .State
waters. EPA is only applying
appropriate aquatic life criteria to
waters that States designated for aquatic
life protection.
27.	Comment: Comment was made
that EPA should allow an alternate
methodology for calculating the Final
Acute Value when dealing with small
data sets.
Response: EPA has considered
alternate methods for calculating the
Final Acute Value (FAV). The present
methodology was developed by the
Agency's guidelines committee,
subjected to outside peer and public
review, and is a reasonable technique.
EPA develops a Final Acute Value on as
large a data set as available. The
guidelines-g9neraily require eight
separate families for derivation of acute
values (1985 Guidelines, p. 23). EPA
considers this to be an adequate data set
for calculation of the FAV. As the data
set grows it only provides additional
confidence of the scientific basis for
calculating the Final Acute Value. The
present methodology has been reviewed
both within and outside the EPA ior
scientific merit EPA considers the
present methodology to be sound. The
guidelines ere presently under review.
The method suggested by the
commenter is relatively new, and it and
other statistical bases for criteria
development are being reviewed in ihe
Agency's current effort in reviewing the
criteria development guidelines. It is
intended that tiieguidelines reflect the
best science and to that end EPA will
consider all aspects to continueito
provide a sound and scientifically based
methodology.
28.	Comment.- CommenfwBsieceivad
that'the aquatic lifecriteriaand
guideline methodology, contrary to
EPA's assertions, have not undergone
sufficient scientific peer review.
Response: EPA does jont agree. The
criteria and underlying methodology
guidelines were widely distributed to
interested parties. These drafts were
made available to-and.thoroughly
discussed with experts within EPA,
industry, flmH aranflmTfl- Thi&o
interactions havepravided mHny useful
comments and information which
greatly rmprovadthe scientific basis of
the criteria and mathodologies. The
methodologies were furtherreviewed by
an independent Science Advisory Board
which EPA considers "to -constitute
external peer review. fSAB Water
Quality Criteria, .A Report of the Water
Quality Criteria Subcommittee, April
1985). The SAB-noted thatsinca-EPA's
initial .efforts in developing water
quality xriteria, the process has
undergone considerable evolution. "The
SAB felt that each revision represented
a more sophisticated and realistic
approach. EPA encourages and makes
every reasonable attempt-to Include as
much of the scientific community as
practical in carrying out its
responsibility under the Clean Water
Act
29.	Co/n/iieiii.- Comment was-received
that EPA states in the proposal that the
methodology for developing aquatic life
criteria have been appravsaby the
Science Advisory Board.(SAB); however
this approval was not unqualified.
Response: In its comments on EPA's
1985 guidelines, the SAB committee
noted that EPA had developed a lucre
scientifically sophisticated and~realistic
set of guidelines. (SAB Water Quality
Criteria, A Report of the Water Quali ty
Criteria Subcommittee, April 1985.) It
noted approvingly that EPA considers
such issues as mode of exposure, laval
of proractiveness and ecosystem
protection. It further noted that the
guidelines took advantage of advances
in recent scientific research. The report,
being a.critique, did note areas where
the guidelines couldbe-tanpraved and
areas where'additional research might
be helpful. Overall the SAB report was
supportive of the Agency's aquatic life
criteria development guidelines.
30. Comment: Numerous.commen.ts
were received with, regard to the .metals
criteria.Jt wasnotadtbat the draft:rule
did not make clear what-analytical
method was to be used for
implementation and that metals"criteria
should nothe intecprated in terms of
total recoverable oraddsoluhlemetaL
It was asserted that .dissolved criteria
would be mora appropriate, and in
manyxaafls-effluent limitBtbased an
dissolved metals onlywould.bemare
appropriate-Many commenters airgad
that tnarmln ahnnlri impltmnmt thfl
metals-criteria using the site-specific
water-effect ratio, in order to target .the
bioavailable fraction ofpollutant
Moreover, it "was assarted that the
COppeT'criteria HncmmmfctatPB-ttiflt
otganic carbon has a strong-affect in
reducing. coppertoxicity, and that "the
copper xritarian shnuld.be -recalculated
far "waters :haviiig TOC greater than 2-
3 mg/L. Furtbarmnre,.it was.argira&d, the
toxicity of severalmstals are related to
pH, total organic carbon (TOC),
spedation, as well as-theiiardiiess.
The cuiumentBTS asserted that .the
criteria are overly protective when
applied to the frem,.and are overly
protective because they are not. site-
specific.
AnotheroannnentBr argued thatthe
criteriaare jindarprotective because
they do not accountfor synergism or
additive effects.
Response: These diverseand
recurring comments have been
aggregated above because they deal in
large measure with the phenomenon
that the-same metal concentration may
cause different toxicity from place to
place due to chemical differences from
place to place. In natural waters metals
may exist in a variety of dissolved and
particulate forms. As discussed
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60879
elsewhere in the preamble, the
bioavailability and toxicity of a metal
depends strongly on its exact physical
and chemical form. See Section F.7. It
also depends on the site-specific
chemistry of the water, and on the other
materials contained in the water.
Because of (a) the complexity of
metals speciation. (b) the varying
degrees of bioavailability and toxicity of
the many forms and complexes, and (c)
the additive, synergistic, and
antagonistic influences of other
materials in the water, there is no one
chemical method that can assure that a
unit of concentration measured in the
field would always be toxicalogically
equivalent to a unit of concentration
occurring in the laboratory toxicity tests
underlying the criteria. Consequently,
simply choosing a particular chemical
method (such as total recoverable metal
or dissolved metal) to measure
attainment of the metals criteria would
not assure the appropriateness of the
criterion for the water chemistry of the
various sites at which the criteria apply.
La response to comments, EPA is
implementing the criteria in terms of
total recoverable metal while calculating
the criteria value using the water
chemistry adjustment provided by the
"water-effect ratio" procedure for
certain metals as described and
reocmmended in its current Guidance
on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals, May
1992. This approach takes into account,
directly, water characteristics such as
total organic carbon, pH, metals
speciation and hardness, as suggested
by the commenter.
The water-effect ratio approach
compares bioavailability and toxicity of
a specific pollutant in receiving waters
and in laboratory test waters. It involves
running toxicity tests for at least two
species, measuring LC50s for the
pollutant using (a) the local receiving
water collected from the site where the
criterion is being implemented, and (b)
laboratory toxicity testing water made
comparable to the site water in terms of
chemical hardness. Because the water-
effect rado procedure, described in the
above referenced guidance, provides a
biological measure of differences in
water chemistry, the rado between site
water and lab water LCSOs is used to
adjust the national acute and chronic
criteria to site-specific values.
Because the water-effect ratio is a
comprehensive measure of differences
in bioavailability and toxicity, including
the differences between dissolved and
particulate bioavailability, it will
produce a more appropriate criterion
than simply expressing the criteria as
dissolved metal. Some metals, such as
copper and silver, can exist in a variety
of dissolved forms that differ gready in
toxicity. The water-effect ratio is the
best procedure EPA currently has for
measuring such differences.
The water-effect ratio is also a
reasonable method now available for
accounting for synergistic and additive
effects of pollutants. Regardless of
whether a value less than or greater than
one is measured for the water-effect
ratio, synergistic and additive effects of
other pollutants in the site water are
working against the antagonistic effects
of any metal binding agents present.
EPA recognizes that the
comprehensive qualities of the water-
effect raUo do come at a cost. The
procedure will yield results that are
locally the most appropriate, but it is
more difficult and expensive than a
purely chemical approach.
Consequently, performing such an
analysis is not mandatory. In the
absence of acceptable data, the rule
assigns the ratio a value of 1.0, which
yields no change in the national criteria.
The rule also stipulates that the water-
effect ratio cannot be set at a value
different than 1.0 unless such value
protects the water body from the toxic
effects of the pollutant, and is derived
from suitable tests on samples
appropriately representative of the
water body. Consequentiy,
inadequacies, uncertainties, or
ambiguities in the data will also result
in the water-effect ratio being set at 1.0.
The type of specific data needed to
implement the method is described in
guidance: The 1992 Guidance oh
Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals, and the
1983 Water Quality Standards
Handbook. As discussed in Section 7 of
the preamble, EPA is currentiy
developing more specific procedures
and methods to assist States in
implementing the water-effect ratio
approach.
31. Comment: A commenter asserted
that laboratory tests using artificial
testing conditions have little or no
direct applicability to actual discharges
and receiving water situations, therefore
the criteria are overprotective.
Response: Laboratory tests are not
conducted in pure water and pollutants
are not solely in a free ionic form
(complexed by nothing but water). (For
example, laboratory waters are
described in some detail in various
standard protocols for doing toxicity
testing, e.g., American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM), Standard
E729, "Practice for Conducting Acute
Toxicity Tests with Fishes,
Macroinvertebrates and Amphibians.")
Laboratory waters have low,but still
significant, levels of organic carbon and
suspended particles that are in the range
of a significant number of receiving
waters. In the case of heavy metals, for
example, certain particulate forms mav
be partially bioavailable and particulate
forms in effluents may become
dissolved after discharge into receiving
waters. It is not appropriate to attnbute
toxicity solely to a particular form of
metal: This has never been clearly
demonstrated for any metal, being only
questionably inferred under very
restrictive conditions. (See response to
public comment for the 1980
Guidelines, comment nos. 17. 19. & 20,
45 FR 79359.)
Because water quality criteria are
derived to be protective in almost all
situations, they may be overprotective
in some situations. Moreover, site water
effects may be most prevalent for heavy
metals, this rule thus provides for site-
specific determination of criteria values
for metals based on local water-effect
ratios.
32. Comment: EPA's aquatic life
criteria for metals do not take into
account the effect that water chemistry
and metals speciation has on toxicity.
EPA should withdraw criteria (such as
zinc and copper), and provide criteria
that vary with pH, total organic carbon
(TOC), and other factors that affect
speciation and toxicity.
Response: While it is true that
speciation and site water chemistry can
modulate toxicity and that the national
criteria do not account for most of these
factors, we do not agree with the
comment that we should withdraw the
criteria. There is inadequate data on
enough species and conditions to adjust
for all important factors in the national
criteria, although current work is trying
to address this situation. However, this
uncertainty is insufficient reason to not
issue and apply criteria; criteria are
sufficiendy applicable without
modification to most receiving waters
and can be appropriately adjusted for
other waters by the water-effect ratio
approach. The purpose of water effect
calculation is to provide a means for
setting the value appropriate for the site-
specific water chemistry, where
sufficient data are available. By
providing for such a calculation in the
rule, the criteria thereby appropriately
incorporate such factors.
33. Comment: EPA's aquatic life
criteria do not take into account
acclimation. As a result, the criteria are
overly protective.
Response: Acclimation is the ability
of organisms to tolerate higher
concentrations or pollutants or other
conditions, developed through an
exposure to such chemical or condition
-------
60880 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
without apparent adverse erf acta.
Studies with fish have not documented
large changes in sensitivity because of
acclimation effects, the typical factor
being about two. Furthermore,
significant changes nave usually been
reported under very restrictive and
unusual exposure conditions—a
prolonged exposure in a narrow
concentration ranae near chronic
toxicity values followed by a sharp rise
to acutely toxic concentrations.
Acclimation of individuals under most
exposure conditions would be less and
does not persist for long ones exposures
drop significantly below toxic levels. To
try to account for such conditions in
nationally applicable criteria is not
feasible. Adaptation of populations can
occur due to natural selection, but is not
well described; in any event, it cannot
fce accounted for in any generally
applied presumptive standard but only
documented on a site specific basis.
34. Comment: Severed commenters
asserted that the metals criteria are
below natural background levels, as
shown by EPA's own studies. Thus,
such criteria are overprotective and
invalid.
Response: EPA studies which
examine USGS data, appear to indicate
that the natural background
concentrations in undisturbed
watersheds at times exceed the criteria
for copper, lead, zinc, iron, and
aluminum. However, recent work by
USGS and by others (for example,
Windom et al. in Environ. Sci. Technol.
Vol. 25,1137} indicates that much of
this data, that is the copper, lead, and
zinc data, are not valid. The measured
concentrations of these metals are
largely artifacts of external
contamination of the sample during
collection and processing. At this time
USGS has suspended collecting data on
these metals nationwide, until improved
methods can be implemented in their
central laboratories.
EPA notes that USGS generates a large
portion of the data available for the
nation's ambient waters, and that the
federally approved protocols are used
by a variety of other agencies that
collect ambient data. Consequently, it
appears likely that many waters may be
improperly determined not to be
attaining the metals criteria.
Based on USGS results, the data for
the metals on the priority toxic
pollutant list most likely to be affected
by external contamination are arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, copper, mercury,
lead, and zinc. The nickel data is
unlikely to be affected. USGS suspects
that filtering artifacts, rather than
contamination, may produce anomalies
in dissolved data for other metals not in
today's rule. USGS has not yet
ascertained auaiity of its selenium and
silver data. Moreover. EPA has reviewed
the data used in establishing the EPA
nr.etais criteria and does not beiieve
these criteria are affected by the
analytical problems noted by USGS.
(Erickson, 1992, persctnel
communication, in EPA's record).
To assure the reliability of the data in
the lower microgram per liter range,
priority toxic pollutant metals should be
sampled and analyzed using protocols
that involve ultra-clean reagents, ultra-
clean Teflcn or polyethylene labware,
and ultra-clean laboratory
environments.
EPA is not aware of reliable analytical
data showing excursion of aquatic life
criteria by natural background
concentrations of the metals covered by
this rule.
35. Comment: Commenters asserted
that the acute and chronic averaging
periods are unnecessarily restrictive,
and were set in an arbitrary manner. As
the acute criteria are derived from 48-
96 hour tests, the EPA's one-hour
averaging period for acute criteria
cannot be correct. As the chronic
criteria are derived from 30-360 day
tests, the EPA's four-day period for
chronic criteria cannot be correct
Pollutant specific averaging periods
should be used, based on the latest
scientific information, including the
1983 work of Mandni (Water Res. 17:
1355), which dealt with the effects of
time varying concentrations.
Response: The quality of ambient
water typically varies in response to
variations in effluent quality, stream
flow, and other factors. Organisms in
the receiving water are not experiencing
essentially constant exposure as in
laboratory bioassays, but fluctuating
exposures which may include short
periods of high concentrations
potentially causing adverse effects.
EPA's criteria formulations therefore
include an exposure period for
concentration averaging which must be
sufficiently short to limit elevated
concentrations that might cause harm to
aquatic life.
The 1-hour average exposure for the
. criteria maximum concentration (CMC)
was derived to protect against the effects
of fast acting toxicants like ammonia
and cyanide. Thus, short-term spike
increases in certain of these toxicants
have been observed to cause toxic
effects. (See 1991 Technical Support
Document, appendix D.)
The 4-day averaging period for the
criteria continuous concentration (CCC)
is based on the shortest duration in
which chronic effects are sometimes
observed for certain species and
toxicants. The most important
consideration in establishing duration
criteria is how long the exposure
concentrations can exceed the criterion
without affecting the endpoint of tha
test (e.g., survival, growth or
reproduction). EPA believes 4 days
should be fully protective even for the
fastest acdng toxicants.
Tha approach of Mancini (or similar
modeling cited in Chapter 2 of EPA's
Technical Support Document) is
certainly a promising one for
establishing averaging periods. It and
similar methods are being evaluated for
incorporation as options into new water
quality criteria guidelines. However, the
validity and applicability of these
methods are still not completely
resolved. Applying Mancini's model to
available toxicity data forces an analyst
to immediately deal with problems of
delayed mortality and limitations on
observation times. The fit of the model
to data is also only approximate and
requires professional judgment in
appropriated applying it
Because of sucn considerations, EPA's
current approach remains reasonably
protective and is therefore appropriate.
36. Comment: Commenters asserted
that the three-year return interval it too
stringent for marginal excursions of
water quality criteria. As a result the
criteria are overprotective. It is argued
that EPA's Technical Support
Document has cited information on
recovery from severe or catastrophic
acute stresses as the basis for its -
recommended return interval for both
acute and chronic criteria; EPA's
criteria, however, are intended to avoid
even slight stresses; and cites on EPA
draft staff analysis showing that a three-
year return interval for slight excursions
results in a billion-year return interval
for a severe stress.
Response: EPA is promulgating its
proposed general rules of applicability
(40 CFR 131.36(c)(2)) for the return
interval based on guidance contained in
chapter 2 and appendix D of the TSD.
As discussed In the TSD, EPA expects
the three-year return interval to provide
"a very high degree of protection" (TSD
at page 36). The three-year return
Interval approximates the same degree
of protection as a once-in-tsn-year
seven-day average low flow design
condition (7Q10), the use of which has
historical precedent and is in many
State water quality standards. [Id.)
Given the state of the science, and the
limitations of available data, EPA as a
matter of policy, takes the position that
it should assure adequate protection and
takes a conservative approach. This
policy is also consistent with and
recognizes historic program practices
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60882
and procedures used by both the
Agency end the States in implementing
the water quality standards and related
implementation programs. (Guidelines
for Developing or Revising Water
Quality Standards, April 1973, p-7.)
The draft EPA staff analysis referred
to by the commenter was prepared
solely as background information for
discussions by the committee reviewing
the methodological guidelines. EPA
neither confirms or rejects the
calculations.
37. Comment: The Guidelines
indicate that criteria may be denved
using data that have not undergone
formal peer review, but the Guidelines
do not offer meaningful guidance to
determine the acceptability of test
results. Inappropriate data are used to
derive criteria.
Response: Toxicity tests methods
have changed over time to improve
precision and accuracy. This requires
use of judgment in evaluation of test
acceptability and results. EPA utilizes
the Guidelines and professional
judgment to reject unacceptable data
{see Unused Data sections of Criteria
Documents). Reservations about data are
considered when judging acceptability
of results in the context of criteria
development. EPA also receives public
comments on the criteria documents.
EPA's criteria for accepting or
rejecting data do not depend on whether
the data were published in peer-
reviewed journals. The guidance
provided in the 1985 Guidelines is
predicated on more explicit review
considerations than may be provided by
most publishers of peer-reviewed
journals addressing toxicity tests with
aquatic organisms. EPA has observed
that the public comments have also
raised specific technical issues
regarding the validity of peer-reviewed
results.
Occasionally values in publications
are not used because they are not
biologically important or statistically
different In addition, recalculation of
authors raw data may occur. This is part
of the judgment required by criteria
document preparers.
All published and unpublished
references cited in aquatic life criteria
documents are on file at EPA's Duluth
or Narragansett laboratories.
38. Comment: A commenter asserted
that analysis indicates that databases
that have tew genus mean acute valves
(GMAVs) produce significantly more
restrictive final acute valves (FAVs).
The commenter asserts that EPA needs
to increase the size of such databases to
avoid promulgation of excessively
restrictive water quality criteria.
Response: This comment summarizes
hypothetical calculations in which thB
effect of the number of tested genera on
the FAV were examined. It concludes
that because the FAV changes as this
number changes, the database size is
insufficient.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's
interpretation of the analysis. The
commenter studied the effect of
database size by changing the
insensitive species while keeping the
four most sensitive species the same
(Commenter number 133, Appendix A.,
page 28). It is therefore quite expected
ana proper ihat the FAV would change
as indicated. The FAV is designed to
protect the fifth percentile in the
sensitivity of organisms (see 198S
Guidelines, section IV. p. 26) (aiso SO
FR 30784, at pg. 30794; July 29.1985).
Using available suitable tests as
representative of the species that are to
be protected is the most reasonable
feasible approach to establishing criteria
values. If the sample size is 8, the four
most sensitive values must be
considered representative of half of the
species that are to ba protected and the
fifth percentile would be expected to be
somewhat below the lowest valuB. If the
sample size is 32, the four most
sensitive values are representative of the
lowest 12.5% of the species and the fifth
percentile would be expected to be near
the middle of these values. And it is not
just the fifth percentile that is expected
to change but the entire distribution—
for a sample size of 8 the mean will be
near the highest of the four most
sensitive values; for a sample size of 32
the mean would be far above the tour
most sensitive values (near the sixteenth
most sensitive value).
Therefore, the response of the FAV
cited in this comment is fully expected
and appropriate; it in no way indicates
a deficiency in the procedure or the
database requirements. Similarly, the
response of the FAV cited in site-
specific calculations is also reasonable.
If site calculations are based on fewer
species and if these species tend to be
more sensitive on average than the total
dataset, the FAV should be lower.
39. Comment: A comment was
received that most of the data used to
derive the criteria were not developed
for that purpose.
Response: The reason a toxicity test
was originally conducted is not
important. If the data are considered to
be pertinent, of.acceptable quality, and
meet our protocols and other data
requirements in the 1985 Guidelines,
they should be used in the derivation of
water quality criteria. Moreover, as
stated in the 1985 Guidlines, p. 28,
"confidence in a criterion usually
increases as the amount of pertinent
data increases."
40. Comment: A commenter asserted
that since EPA has acknowledged that
species can exhibit a significant
substance tolerance range and inter-
laboratory variability, the databases for
many of the criteria must be
significandy improved before they can
be considered suitable for use in the
promulgation of water quality
standards. The commenter cited
Schimmel, S.C., 1981. Results;
Interlaboratory Comparison—Acute
Toxicity Tests Using Estuarine
anisms (EPA-oOO/4-81-001).
esponse: Inter- and intra-laboratcry
variation is expected and unavoidable.
Variation that causes imprecision is
undesirable, but is not nearly as
undesirable as is Brror that causes bias
(Lemke. A.E.; 1981: Inter-Laboratory
Acuta Testing; EPA 600/3-37-005).
More data are always desirable, and
EPA welcomes the submission of
additional high quality pertinent data,
whether or not they have been peer-
reviewed. The guidelines for deriving
water quality criteria for aquatic life
specify minimum data requirements
that are intended to ensure reasonable
confidence in the appropriateness of the
resulting criteria.
The Science Advisory Board review
referenced earlier at comment 29
accepted the EPA aquatic life 1985
Guidelines which permit the use of a
single test to fulfill the minimum data
base requirement. The results cited by
the commenter when referring to a
study conducted by Schimmel, 1981,
were used by the Agency in developing
the revised aquatic life guidelines in
1985. The guidelines specifically allow
the use of a single-species test to fulfill
the requirement for a species mean
acute value. (1985 Guidelines, p. 29.)
41. Comment: A commenter asserted
that very few of the studies used to
develop the criteria cited any
assessment of precision or accuracy and
there was no standardization of testing
protocols. Consequently, the commenter
believes that the data are inadequate for
the promulgation of water quality
standards; and that only data from
current testing protocols should be
used.
Response: There is no way to fully
assess the accuracy of a toxicity test
because the "real" toxicity of the test
material cannot be known. Various lines
of evidence including results of toxicity
tests and correlations between species
and between test materials can help
increase confidence in an estimate of
toxicity. Studies of inter- and intra-
laboratory variation are conducted to
allow assessments of precision. Very
-------
60882 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
few, if any, studies are perfect even if
they exactly followed a "current testing
protocol"; the acceptability of each
study must bo judged individually.
Studies that follow apprcved
methodology ara more likaiv to be high
quality, but some are not; soma studies
that deviate from approved
methodology do provide useful
information.
42.	Comment: A commentar suggested
that EPA provided no data to support its
contention chat acute-chronic ratios are
similar in fresh and salt water.
Response: As quoted by the
commenter. the 1385 Guidelines, p. 15.
states that "When data are available to
indicate that these ratios and factors are
probably similar, thay are used
interchangeably." The guidelines do not
contend that acute-chronic ratios ara
similar: the guidelines state that the
ratios should be considered similar only
when data are available to support the
decision of similarity. Ratios are usually
considered to be dissimilar if the range
is greater than a factor of 10 (198S
Guidelines, p. 45).
43.	Comment: A commenter asserted
that EPA should establish a separate
warm-water cadmium criterion, because
the national criterion is set based on
rainbow trout, a cold-water Ssh.
Response: The commenter
misconstrues EPA's criteria
development protocol. EPA's aquatic
life guidelines require data for the
family Salmonidae as one of the
minimum eight species required to
calculate a water quality criterion (1985
Guidelines, Section m, p. 23). EPA did
not base its criteria for cadmium solely
on rainbow trout data. (Rainbow trout is
a member of the family Salmonidae.)
EPA used this data to meet one of the
requirements for tested species required
by the guidelines (Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Caamium-1984,
Table 2, p. 6). Moreover, a review of
toxicity data in EPA's criteria document
does not indicate that the sensitivities of
so-called coldwater for warmwater
species differ significantly (Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium-
1984, Table 2, pp. 46-47). EPA had no
scientific basis to develop separate
cadmium criteria based cn the division
of aquatic species into coldwater or
warmwater types.
44.	Comment: A commenter argued
that because EPA did not follow its own
Guidelines, EPA should withdraw the
lead criteria document, update and
complete the species database, and
recalculate an appropriate freshwater
lead criterion.
Response: EPA recognizes that the
lead criterion is based on seven rather
than eight freshwater acute tests as
recommended in the aquatic life
guidelines. UFA has determined that the
criteria are vaiid and that an additional
test would not cause a sufficiently large
change in the criteria (in the
computation formula {see page 97,
appendix 2 cf the Aquatic Life
Guidelines] increasing N, the number of
species tested, by one with an LC50
value that is higher than the four most
sensitive values only increases the acute
criterion from 34 to 37 tig/1, at a
hardness of 50). (See Memorandum to
the Record, Kennard Potts. March 12,
1992.) This change does not warrant
withdrawing the current criteria. This
decision to establish the criterion baaed
on seven tests is consistent with Section
12—Final Review, paragraph B, page 57
of the Guidelines, which allow "On the
basis of all available pertinent
laboratory and field information,
determine if the criterion is consistent
with sound scientific evidence. If it is
not, another aiterion, either higher or
lower, should be derived using
appropriate modifications of these
Guidelines."
45. Comment: A commenter asserted
that there is a significant error in the
lead saltwater acute database, and it has
implications on the validity (or lack
thereof) of the saltwater acute-chronic
ratio for lead.
Response: EPA recognized the error in
the ambient water quality criteria
document for lead in the genus mean
acute value (GMAV) for Fundulus and
corrected that error in the criteria matrix
included in the proposed rule. The
result of this correction was to increase
the criteria maximum concentration
(CMC) to 220 iig/1 and criteria
continuous concentration (CCC) to 8.5
tig/1-
The use of the acute-chronic ratio
(ACR) of 51.29 for lead is reasonable,
given the available information (see p. 9,
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Lead). The GMAV for Mysidopsis
included in the criteria document for
lead (p. 26), is ranked 7th of the 11
genera tested for lead toxicity.
Therefore, Mysidopsis might be
considered among the less sensitive
genera as suggested by the commenter.
However, the GMAV for Mysidopsis is
less than 10 times the value for Mytilus
suggesting the acute sensitivities of two
genera are not greatly different [Ibid.)
Other factors are more important than
species sensitivity in selecting the final
acute to chronic ratio (FACR) for lead.
EPA did not believe that the data from
chronic tests with freshwater species
clearly demonstrated that acute-chronic
ratios changed with acute sensitivity for
the following reason. Acute values for
the copepod Mcart/a), amphipod
[Ampelisca] and dungensss crab
f Cancer) ara within a factor of less than
2 times the value for Mytilus. EPA then
assumed that Lbs ratio was not related
to acute sensitivity. Evan if an ACR of
2.0 could be justified for larval molluscs
and lead, this value should not be
applied to crustaceans when an
experimentally derived value for
Mysidopsis and Daphnia are available.
See Table 3, Ambient Water Quality
Criteria fcr Lead.
The commentar felt EPA was
inconsistent in its use of ACR values
from toxicity tests and the ACR of 2.0,
when the most acutsiy sensitive
organism is larval molluscs. EPA used
acute-chronic ratios from toxicity tests
for lead and silver and the value of 2.0
for copper (see ambient watBr quality
criteria documents for lead and copper,
and the draft water quality criteria
document for silver, 55 FR19988, May
14,1990. The reason experimental ACR
values were selected for lead instead of
the value of 2.0 are described above.
46. Comment: A commenter suggested
that the saltwater silver criterion is not
valid and submitted test results to
support this claim.
Response: Same of the data presented
by the commenter (Number 80) to show
problems in the silver data base actually
supports its validity. Acute and chronic
values for Mysidopsis are within the
range reported by others. Silver's acute
toxitity to sheepshead minnows is at
silver's solubility. This probably
accounts for the large range in reported
silver toxicity. For these species only
flow-through tests with measured silver
concentrations were used. The data
submitted in the public comment did
not include information on the test
conditions, and would not be used in
criteria derivation without that
information. See Ambient Water Quality
Criteria Document for Silver, 1980; see
also draft criteria document referenced
in 55 FR 19988, May 14.1990.
Results from silver tests from Car din
(1986) where control mortalities
exceeded 10% were not used. In tests
with copepods and larval silversides
and flounder, control mortality of <20%
is judged acceptable by those who
conduct tests with fragile life stages of
these species. Control survival
requirements for chronic tests (ASTM
protocol) are more liberal than those for
acute tests.
EPA's rapid chronic toxicity protocols
are not appropriate test methods for
deriving chronic values for water
quality criteria derivation because they
are not true chronic tests. Only early
life-stage tests with fish and partial and
entire life-cycle tests with Bakes and
invertebrates are acceptable as prodded
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 I Rules and Regulations 60883
•or in the 1985 Guidelines, section VI.
part E, pages 37-39.
47.	Comment: Comment was received
that the proposed silver numeric
standards should be revised to apply to
the free silver ion. The commenter
asserted that available information
demonstrates that only the free silver
ion is highly toxic to aquatic organisms
while most other common forms of
silver, whether soluble or insoluble, are
several orders of magnitude less toxic
Response: It would be appropriate to
interpret the criterion in terms of the
free silver ion only if ail the silver that
was included in the measured or
nominal concentrations of silver in the
pertinent toxicity tests would have been
measured as free silver ion. Some silver
would be complexed by such things as
chloride, hydroxide, or carbonate in
acute toxicity tests. .Moreover, the
feeding of the organisms in the chronic
tests would result in complexation of at
least some silver. This has been
postulated as the explanation as to wby
(a) the addition of food to an acute
toxicity test raises the EC50 for
daphnids and (b) silver has appeared to
be more toxic to daphnids in some acute
toxicity tests than in comparable
chronic tests. Absent a criterion that
correctly applies to the free silver ion.
the water-effect ratio procedure
incorporated into today's rule is an
appropriate means to deal with
differences in toxicity caused by silver
speciation.
48.	Comment: A comment was made
that the numeric silver standards should
not be proposed until EPA's May 14,
1990 proposed revisions to the current
ambient silver water quality criteria are
finalized to reflect comments about the
current science as submitted for the
record of that proposal.
Response: EPA agrees with some of
the comments on the May 14. 1990
proposed silver criteria. As a result,
additional testing is planned and a
revised document for silver will be
prepared, but this is not anticipated in
the near future. With thisTule, EPA is
promulgating its 1980 criteria for silver,
because the Agency believes the criteria
is protective and within the acceptable
range based on uncertainties associated
with deriving water quality criteria. In
addition, the water-effect ratio
promulgated in this rule offers
development of appropriate site-specific
criteria.
49.	Comment; A commenter asserted
that in the studies of Calabrese and
Nelson 1974, Calabrese et al 1973, and
Coglianese 1982, the properties of the
dilution water significantly affected the
metals toxicity.
Response: EPA agrees that there may
be differences in metals toxicity
between laboratory test waters and
ambient waters. For this reason, EPA
has incorporated use of water-effect
ratios in this rule (see Section F-7 of
this preamble and an earlier response to
public comment).
50.	Comment: A comment was made
that EPA should cot use the metals
toxicity data from Dinnel et al. 1983.
who were evaluating alternative
conditions in order to refine the testing
protocol.
Reponse: EPA disagrees. Valid
toxicity data can come from tests used
to develop test methodologies and EPA
determined that the Oinnei, et al.
toxicity data was valid toxicity data. For
example, see draft Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Silver, September
24, 1987.
51.	Comment: A commenter argued
that the metals toxicity data from Eisler
1977 are not valid because they involve
168-hour static tests. The currently
recommended maximum duration for
such tests is 48 hours.
Reponse: EPA disagrees. Most values
reported in criteria documents are 96-
hour LC50s for adult clams. EPA
considers the Eisler data to be from
valid and reliable tests even though they
were based on other than 96-hour tests.
52.	Comment: Comment was received
that the 20-2S degree Celsius
temperatures and 12:12 hour light cycle
used to obtain the metals toxicity data
of Lussier 1985, do not match current
mysid protocol's 26-27 degree Celsius
temperature and 18 hour light:8 hour
dark light cycle.
Response: The submitted comments
provided no data to show the effect of
temperature or lighting on the chronic
value. EPA does not consider Lussier's
results to be artifacts because test
conditions duplicate conditions found
in nature.
53.	Comment: The zinc and
chromium toxicity data of Nelson 1972
should not be used because it involves
an endpoint not recognized by EPA
approved protocols.
Reponse: EPA disagrees. The test
endpoint (the development of a hinge
after 48 hours) is the same as that of the
American Society for Testing Materials
(ASTM), which is a standard,
recognized protocol.
C. Human Health Criteria
The guideline references in the sub-
section refer to Guidelines and
Methodology Used in the Preparation of
Health Effect Assessment Chapters of
the Consent Decree Water Quality
Criteria Documents. 45 FR 79347,
November 28,1980. The short reference
in this sub-section is "the 1S80
Guidelines."
54.	Comment: A comment was
received that use of the harmonic mean
flow is a new technique and is not
consistent with the way sampling is in
fact done.
Response. Harmonic mean flow
determinations have been adopted
because the underlying hydrology
support this analytical procedure. Such
flows are applied only to human health
criteria where human exposure is
expected over a long period of time. It
is derived by analyzing the pollutant
mass a consumer would received by, for
example, consuming a uniform amount
ef water everyday from a natural
waterbody-receiving a uniform mass
loading of a pollutant.
Theoretical development as shown in
the reference cited in footnote 2 of the
preamble of the-proposed rule (56 FR
58438) demonstrates that actual human
exposure is best ascertained by using
harmonic mean flow to account for
concentration variation in computing
the actual exposure to a pollutant.
55.	Comment: The exposure
assumptions used by EPA in developing
human health criteria do. not account for
the variability of the population nor the
consideration of exposure to more than
one chemical and more tfian one
exposure route.
Response: The EPA assumed exposure
model was based on estimates or
measures of national norms (see
preamble discussion on human health
criteria, Section F-3 and 1980
Guidelines, 45 FR 79347. Nov. 28,
1980). EPA has suggested in these and
other documents that States select more
appropriate fish and other aquatic life
consumption rates for local populations.
Some States have done so.
EPA's risk calculations aim to protect
individuals exposed at an average level
(Ibid). Thus, EPA does the calculation
for average daily consumption of 2 liters
of water and 8.5 grams of aquatic life for
a 70 kg size individual over a 70-year
lifetime. Then the Agency selects a
conservative risk level (e.g., 10-6 or 10-5)
for such an average person.
People who do not fit this norm are
subjected to more or less exposure to the
pollutants of concern. For example,
assuming a criterion based on a 10""4 risk
level, a person who consumes 65 grams
of contaminated aquatic life per day
from ambient water at the criterion level
would be protected at the 10~3 risk level,
still well within EPA's desired risk
).
e effects of multiple toxicants is a
more difficult problem. The science of
toxicology has not developed generic
ways to combine multiple risks. For
-------
60884 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
specific chemicals, analysis would focus
on whether the same orean and mode of
toxicity were implicated. For example,
it may ba more significant if two
chemicals both caused liver cancer as
compared with a situation where one
chemical was carcinogenic and the
ether caused other systemic effects.
Thus, a case-by-case approach is
currently the only feasible approach
available.
EPA has clearly delineated the human
health models it uses. That is, one for
systemic toxicity and one for
carcinogenicity. The Agency's accepted
factors are available in the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) and in
the section 304(a) water quality criteria
documents, and in the 1980 Guidelines,
page 79353. Locally specific risk can be
estimated using the readily available
information based on monitoring data
for local public water supplies or fish
tissue analysis for specific chemicals.
However, in a rule affecting large
areas of the country, EPA's view is that
it should focus on the average exposure,
as a protective basis for this rule. States
may take subsequent action to provide
the means to account for specific cases.
This rule attains that goal.
56.	Comment: Since EPA is
undertaking a dioxin reassessment it
should not be included in this rule.
Response: We believe there are sound
reasons for proceeding to promulgate
ciioxin criteria. First, the dioxin criteria
are within the range of scientific
defensibility. EPA's action will also
encourage and support the fourteen
States now considering adopting a
dioxin criterion to complete their
action. Most of those States are relying
on the same data used by EPA to derive
its criterion. Individual Control
Strategies developed under section
304(1) of the Act contain limits on
dioxin as appropriate, so there will be
no immediate impact torn this
promulgation. It is too early in the
process of scientific reassessment to
support major changes in either the
substance or timing of regulatory
decisions related to dioxin.
It should also be pointed cut that 42
states and territories have adopted
criteria or translator procedures for
dioxin; EPA approved *0 of those
actions.
57.	Comment: Several commenters
raised questions concerning the
methodology used to develop the
human health criteria. Some stated that
the CWA methodology did not reflect
changes in risk assessment and therefore
was obsolete. Some commenters notad
the differences between the risk ranges
under the CWA and the SDWA and
argued that the acceptable range of
cancer risk shouid be the same under
both statutes. Several commenters
discussed specific contaminants and
argued that the regulatory levels under
the CWA and SDWA should be the
same. On9 commenter provided a list of
contaminants where drinking water
standards were more stringent than the
proposed criteria and urged that criteria
should be established equal to drinking
water MCLs.
Response: EPA has developed risk
assessment methodologies to protect
human health from contaminants in
drinking water and ambient waters. .
Althougn there are some differences in
the methodologies, both are
scientifically defensible. Both
methodologies stem from Agency risk
assessment values for noncancer effects
(the Reference Dose or Rfd) and for
cancer effects (the cancer potency factor.
31*). See Water Quality Criteria
ocuments (the 1980 Guidelines), 45 FR
793180 (November 28,1980) and 56 FR
3526 (January 30,1991) (SDWA Phase II
regulations).
Both methodologies follow the
Agency's Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment (the Cancer
Guidelines). 51 FR 33992 (September
24.1986). Under both programs, the
Agency takes the position that there is
no threshold for carcinogenic effect
unless there is convincing evidence to
the contrary. Both programs therefore
recommend that contaminant
concentration for carcinogens should be
zero based on this "no threshold"
presumption. See SDWA Phase Q
regulations at 56 FR 3533 and the 1980
Guidelines at 45 FR 79324.
The nature of the human exposure to
contaminants is somewhat different in
the two programs, and the assumptions
used in the methodologies reflect those
differences. Under the SDWA, it is
protection from exposure to
contaminants in drinking water that is
the concern. The maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) reflect
the level of contamination where "no
known or anticipated adverse effects on
the health of persons occurs and which
allows an adequate margin of safBty." 42
U.S.C. 300g—1(b)(4). For those
contaminants that are not suspected of
posing carcinogenic risk for drinking
water, the Agency bases the MCLG on
noncancer effects and adjusts the RfD to
reflect drinking water consumption of
an average of two liters of tap water per
day by a 70 kg adult This value is
further adjusted by exposure
assumptions; the key assumption in the
drinking water program Is that
significant exposure to a contaminant
comes from sources other than drinking
water (e.g., ingestion of food,
inhalation), and it is prudent to allow
for the contingency that other exposure
may occur. Whili EPA uses actual
exposure data where they are available,
the Agency assumes, as a default
position, that drinking water contributes
20%-80% of the total exposure to a
contaminant. 56 FR 3532. MCLs can
also be adjusted for non-health reasons,
such as treatability and detectability.
Under CWA section 304(a), EPA'
developed human health criteria to
protect for exposure to ambient water
contaminants. In this case, exposure
comes from ingestion of surface water
ana consumption of aquatic organisms
which are assumed to have
bioconcentrated pollutants from the
water in which they live. Accordingly,
the 1980 Guidelines assumes the
consumption of two liters of water and
the ingestion of 6.S grams of fish per
day, and the bioconcentration potential
of a contaminant in fish tissue may be
a significant factor in the human health
criteria value. The exposure assumption
in the 1980 Guidelines differs from that
in the drinking water program. If data
were available on exposure to a
contaminant from other media such as
air or non-aquatic diet, such data could
be used in setting criteria. Absent such
data, EPA assumes, as a default
position, that ambient water (i.e.,
aquatic exposure and organism
ingestion) contributes 100% of the
exposure to a contaminant 1980
Guidelines, 45 FR 79323. EPA considers
both methods to be protective of human
health for their respective exposure
scenarios.
EPA agrees with commenters that the
Agency has chosen somewhat different
risk levels in the two programs for
determining MCLs and criteria for
carcinogens, but does not agree that the
different levels indicate major scientific
differences. Under the SDWA, it is EPA
policy to establish MCLs at a range
associated with excess risks of one in
ten thousand (10"*) to one in one million
(10"®}. In the CWA water quality criteria
documents, the Agency presents a range
of concentrations corresponding to
incremental cancer risks of one in one
hundred thousand (10~5) to one in ten
million (10"7); the risk ranges are
presented only as information. Under
the usual process in which States
develop water quality criteria, the risk
management decision on an appropriate
risk level is made by euch State. In these
circumstances, States have the
flexibility to choose a risk level as long
as the decision is well documented, was
subject to public notice and comment,
and protects water uses. In this
rulemaking, EPA proposed criteria with
an incremental cancer risk level of one
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 50835
.n a million (10^) for carcinogens.
Today's action promulgates a risk level
for each Slate to reflect the Slate's nsic
management decision where such a
decision is discemable. See discussion
in section F-5 of the preamble. In the
Agency's view, the considerable overlap
between the risk rang9s in the two
programs indicates that they are not
significantly different.
Accordingly, EPA does not agree with
commenters' arguments that the Agency
must have identical risk assessments
under the CWA and SDWA. At the same
time, the Agency is studying the extent
to which both methodologies might start
with the same presumptions. If any
changes to the methodologies seem
appropriate, the changes would be
proposed for public comment In the
meantime, because both methodologies
stem from the same Agency risk
assessment values, RID and ql*. they
are considered appropriate for deriving
human health criteria for water'
contaminants. Therefore, as a general
matter, EPA does not intend to revise
the human health criteria unless and
until there are changes in the 304(a)
methodology.
One commenter urged the Agency to
establish human health criteria equal to
MCLs when the 304(a) methodology
resulted in less stringent criteria. The
commenter provided a list of
contaminants for which the proposed
criteria are less stringent than proposed
or promulgated drinking water
regulations for the contaminants
(MCLs), and recommended that EPA
promulgate water quality criteria equal
to the MCLs for antimony, cadmium,
nickel, selenium, silver, thallium,
cyanide, ethylbenzene, toluene, 1.1,1-
trichloroe thane, benzylbutylphthalate,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, and 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene. EPA notes that there
are five other contaminants in this
proposed rulemaking for which the
SDWA regulatory levels (either final or
proposed) are more stringent than the
proposed human health criteria; these
are chromium, lead, chlorobenzene,
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and o-
di chlorobenzene.
The fact that the numeric standards
for these contaminants are different
under the two programs is not a
sufficient basis for replacing the
proposed human health criteria with
criteria equal to the MCLs. As discussed
above, the methods used to derive the
human health values under both the
SDWA and the CWA are generally
considered protective of human health.
The differences that occur in the
regulatory standards under the two
statutes result from the assumptions
used in their respective methodologies.
particularly the default values chosen to
estimate exposure. These assumptions
are reasonaole policy choices for
implementing the statutory directives of
the two programs. Since the CWA
section 1980 Guidelines are adequately
protective of human health, EPA does
not consider it necessary to undertake a
large scale revision of the proposed
criteria in this rule to make them
correspond to the SDWA standards.
Moreover, EPA does not agree that
MCLs are an appropriate value for a
human health criterion since MCLs are
partially based on feasibility
considerations, including the
evailability of technology to achieve the
regulator/ level and the cost of such
treatment. It is the MCLG that reflects
solely health considerations.
Accordingly, the Agency will not
promulgate criteria equal to MCLs in
lieu of less stringent proposed human
health criteria. Except as noted below,
the human health criteria are
promulgated as proposed.
The Agency does find it necessary to
withdraw the proposed human health
criteria for seven contaminants pending
further consideration. In the case of
three contaminants—1.1,1-
trichloroethane, methyl chloride, and
lead—there is currendy an insufficient
basis for calculating human health
criteria. For cadmium, chromium,
selenium, and beryllium, the proposed
criteria are no longer scientifically
defensible. EPA is withdrawing the
criteria while it evaluates all relevant
data regarding the toxicity of these
contaminants. The Agency's basis for
deferring action on the human health
criteria for these contaminants is
discussed furtherbelow. For several of
these contaminants, the Agency is today
promulgating aquatic iifis criteria that
are more stringent than the proposed
human health criteria. However, the
Agency recognizes that in limited
circumstances, there might be regulatory
voids in the absence of promulgated
human health criteria. To minimize this
potential problem, the Agency has
added a footnote, footnote n, to the table
setting out the criteria in § 131.36(b) that
directs permit authorities to specifically
address these contaminants in NPDES
permit actions using the States' existing
narrative "free from toxicity" criteria.
(A). 1.1,1-Trichloroethane
No public comments were received on
the proposed human health criteria for
this contaminant. However, in response
to other comments, EPA evaluated the
proposed criteria and has decided not to
promulgate human health criteria. EPA
proposed the human health criteria
using an RfD based on inhalation data.
However, the Agency has withdrawn
that RiD from the LRIS database since it
is generally not appropriate to use
inhalation data to estimate oral risk. As
noted above, EPA bases the proposed
criteria on Agency-wide RfDs in IRIS.
Since no such RfD currently exists,
there is no basis to support the proposed
values.
(B).	Methyl Chloride
S3. Comment: A commenter stated
that the criteria should not be based on
carcinogenicity but on systemic toxicity.
Another commenter stated that it is
inappropriate to establish criteria for
methyl chloride based on the
carcinogenicity for chloroform.
Response: EPA agrees there are now
data available on methyl chloride itself,
and it is no longer scientifically
defensible to rely on surrogate data for
chloroform. EPA is currently evaluating
a ql* and RfD for methyl chloride for
developing an RfD. In view of the
availability of chemical specific data
and the ongoing risk assessment
process, EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to promulgate human health
criteria for methyl chloride at this time.
(C).	Selenium
59. Comment: One commenter noted
that in the case of selenium, EPA
proposed a human health criterion of
100 ug/1 even though the current MCL
for selenium if SO ug/1 (the same as the
MCLG). The commenter believes the
numbers should be the same and urged
EPA to set the human health criterion at
the MCL
Response: As discussed above, EPA
does not intend to replace proposed
criteria with criteria equal to the MCL
solely because the latter is the more
stringent level. However, in the case of
selenium, the Agency has determined
¦ that further consideration should be
given to recent data on selenium befoi-e
setting the human health criteria.
Selenium is an essential nutrient in
humans and plays a vital roie in cell
metabolism. See Health Criteria
Document for Selenium. (May 1989). In
such instances, the Agency must
evaluate evidence of the compound's
essentiality as well as evidence of
toxicological effects. The Agency's
Science Advisory Board has noted that
synergistic effects—the interaction
between selenium and other inorganic
chemicals—are an important
consideration in determining regulatory
standards. Moreover, there are
individuals who. whether from diet or
supplements, consume significantly
more selenium than EPA estimates of
average consumption levels.
-------
60886 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992. / Rules and Regulations
During the development of drinking
water regulations for selenium, the
Agency discussed naw epidemiological
data that were "decerning available. See
56 FR 3526 at 3538-39 (January 30.
199'i). In view of these new data, the
numerous complex issues concerning
essentiality, the consumption of
elevated leveis by some members of the
population, and the need to ensure a
protective level, EPA is unable to
determine the scientific defensibility of
the human health criteria, and therefore
will not promulgate human health
criteria for selenium at this time.
(D). Beryllium
60. Comment:One commenter stated
that EFA's beryllium criterion is too low
U.3., 0.0077 ug/i). The ccmmenter
alleged three serious flaws in the
proposed criterion for beryllium. These
are: (1) Beryllium does not pose a
carcinogenic risk by ingestion; (2) EPA's
use of animal inhalation and injection
data i.o support a cancer risk by human
ingestion is arbitrary and capricious and
is not consistent with EPA's
methodology in setting human health
criteria for other metals; and (3) the
proposed criteria are less than natural
ambient leveis as well as EPA's
proposed drinking water standards and
would have very significant and
unwarranted economic impacts.
The commenter further argued the
defects in the data upon which EPA
relies are so fundamental that the
classification of beryllium as a Group B2
substance is unreasonable; and the EPA
should classify beryllium in Group D for
purposes of its potential ingestion
carcinogenicity, and should adopt a
human health criterion for beryllium of
1.6 mg/1, based upon a no-observed
adverse effects calculation for a non-
carcinogenic substance. Information on
the Agency's classification system for
carcinogens is included in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 1986, Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment. 51 FR 33992,
September 24,1986.
Response: EPA does not agree with
the commenter's argument that the
Agency's weight of eyidence
classification of beryllium as a B2
carcinogen is incorrect. There is clear
evidence of carcinogenicity through
inhalation or injection in monkeys, rats
and rabbits, and animal studies showing
tumors at sites different from the route
of exposure. On this basis, the Agency
has concluded that the overall weight of
evidence in beryllium studies proves
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to
support a B2 classification. Drinking
Water Criteria Document for Beryllium,
September 1991. However, the Agency
has determined that it is necessary to
give further consideration to the toxicity
and carcinogenicity of beryllium
through ingestion before promulgating
human health criteria. In the final
drinking water rulemaking regarding
beryllium (soe 57 FR 31776, July 17,
1992), Agency analysis of the ingestion
route of exposure failed to provide
definitive evidence that correlates
ingestion with tumor appearance.
Drinking Water Criteria Document at I-
7. The Agency has determined that
these ingestion analyses an relevant in
this rulemaking and therefore the
proposed criteria are not scientifically
defensible. The Agency will give
additional consideration to the question
of whether beryllium in water could
pose a carcinogenic risk to humans
before issuing criteria and accordingly,
will not promulgate criteria for
beryllium.
(£). Lead
61.	Comment: A commenter noted
that EPA proposed a 50 ppb iaad human
health criteria for consumption of water
and organisms. The commenter argued
that a 50 ppb criteria is not compatible
with EPA's overall lead control strategy
reflected under the drinking water
standards, and recommended a 5 ppb
lead health criteria.
Response: As noted above, differences.
in the proposed human health criteria
and regulatory levels under the SDWA
methodology are not, in themselves
sufficient basis for revising the criteria.
In this case, the original basis for the
1980 Guidelines and, in turn, the
proposed criteria was however the MCL.
In 1991, EPA promulgated a zero MCLG
and treatment technique for lead in
drinking water, which will, when
effective, replace the current MCL The
treatment technique includes a 15 ppb
lead action level at the tap.
In view of drinking water regulatory
action, EPA has determined that it is not
appropriate to promulgate a human
health criteria based on a drinking water
MCL that no longer reflects the Agency's
position. The Agency has given
preliminary consideration to other
numeric values but has not yet reached
a consensus on an appropriate human
health criteria. Accordingly, EPA is not
promulgating human health criteria for
lead at this time.
(F). Cadmium
62.	Comment: A commenter noted
that EPA had proposed~criteria for
cadmium that were less stringent than
the MCLs. The commenter urged EPA to
set the criteria at the MCL level.
Response: As noted above, differences
in the two regulatory levels is not a
sufficient basis for using the more
stringent MCL. However, the Agency
has determined thai it is necessary to
give further consideration to the toxicity
of cadmium from exposure to water in
terms of the bioconcentration potential
of this contaminant. As discussed
earlier, one of the factors used to
calculate the human health criteria is
consumption of aquatic organisms. It is,
therefore, particularly important that the
Agency ensure that he criteria
adequately reflect the bioconcentration
of cadmium. EPA is currendy
addressing this issue in other regulatory
actions (e.g., sewage sludge ana the
Great Lakes initiative) and expects that
the data and analyses being developed
in these efforts will be of value in
further examination of the human
health criteria. Accordingly, the
proposed criteria are not scientifically
defensible and EPA will not promulgate
human health criteria for cadmium.
(G).	Chromium
63.	Comment: A commenter noted
that in the case of chromium with
valences of plus VI and m, EPA
proposed human health criteria of 170
and 33,000 fig/1, but that the Agency had
promulgated a total chromium MCL of
100 pg/1. The commenter urged the
Agency to take a similar position here.
Response: As noted above, the fact
that the numeric values for CWA and
SDWA regulatory actions are different is
not a sufficient basis for revising the
CWA criteria. However, in this instance,
EPA has determined that the proposed
criteria are not scientifically defensible.
New information concerning the
conversion of chromium III to a more
toxic chromium VI during the
chlorination process should be
considered in setting the criteria as well.
(See 56 FR 3526 at 3737, January 30,
1991). Accordingly, EPA. will not
promulgate the proposed human health
criteria for chromium.
For other reasons, proposed human
health criteria were withdrawn for four
pollutants.
(H).	Silver
64.	Comment: Several co mm enters
stated that silver should no longer be
classified as a toxic pollutant for human
health concerns and that no further
regulation for silver is appropriate.
Commenters also addressed the issue
that the proposed silver criteria should
be revised to delete human health as a
toxicity-based criterion to be consistent
with the recent deletion of the MCL for
silver under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. (56 FR 3526, January 30,1991.)
Response: EPA deleted the human
health criteria for silver, because the
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 24& / Tuesday, Decamber 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations, 80887
aniy potential adverse effect from
sxTJOsuie to silver in drinking water i3
argyria (a discoloration of the skin). EPA
considers argyria a cosmetic effect since
it does not impair body function.
However, free silver ion is highly toxic
:o fish. Thereibr*, to protect aquatic life,
silver will be regulated with, aquatic life
criteria as promulgated in today 's rule.
(I). Ac9nap'nthylene, Phenanthrene,
Benzo(g,h,i)Peryiene
65. Comment: Several comments were
rBcaivad which stated that (1) the EPA
has expanded the list of polvnuciear
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds *o be regulated as
carcinogens. Specifically, the
comments** do not agree with the
Agency that acenaphthylene,
phenanthrene, benzofg,h.i)perylene. and
chrysene should be treated as
carcinogens, and (2) the proposed rale
establishes human health criteria for a
diverse- class of compounds (such as
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons)
based solely on structural similarity,
and the assumption that all of the
compounds are of equal toxicity to the-
mosr potent compound within the
"class."
Response: The Agency agrees with the
several~commenfcs that the. water quality-
criteria for acenaphthylene ..
phenanthrene, and benzo(g,h4;perylene
should be based on nnn-rarr-inngffntr-
effects of these chemirnia gjnrn
inadequate toxicity data are anrailahla to
assess carcinogenic potential of these
chemicals. However, there are
insufficient toxicity data available ta
provide risk assessment for these three
compounds at this time. Therefore, thay
have been, deleted from this rule.
The Agency does not agree with, the-
comment regarding chrysene. Chrysene
has shown carcinogenicity in several
animal studies. (U.S. EPA» 1991.
Drinking WaterCriteriaDocument for
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAH's) Office of Water.) Chrysene
produced tumors (as did other PAHs
included in this rule) in several mouse
strains when applied topically in assays
for complete skin carcinogenicity or in
imtiationypromotion protocols. Several
early studies employing intramuscular
or subcutaneous injection of mice and
rats produced negative or equivocal
results. Three studies wherein neonatal
mice of two strains were exposed
intraperitoneal^ reported increased
tumor incidence in liver and other sites
[ibid). Chrysene produced mutations in
Salmonella and chromosome
aberrations and morphologic
transformation in mammalian cells.
The Agency recognizes that
carcinogenicity of various PAHs vary
with each PAH. however,
Benzo(a)pyrena being the most potent
carcinogen of this class, was used to
develop criteria for ail the PAHs.
(J). Other Pollutants
66. Comment: A commenter requested
thai EPA explain the origin of the use
of safety (uncertainty} factors.
Response: The safety factors (now
referred to as unnennintv factors 1UF!)
used in calculation of the Acceptable
Daily Intake (now referred to as the
Reference Dose [RfDl} were developed
from the National Academy of Science
guidelines. (1977) with modification by
the EFA. These factors are similar to
those used by the World Health
Organization (Food Chemistry
Toxicology, VoL 27, No. 4, pp. 273-274,
1989). The EPA is presently working on
new approaches to calculation
(estimation) of a Rfl} (ADD.
The term "safety factor" (now UF)
was initially used by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). They used no-
effect levels (in mg/kg of diet] Etom
chronic animal feeding studies and
divided by 100 to get an Acceptable
Daily Intake (ADI) laveL For less-than-
lifetime (or sub-chronic) studies, they
divided the no-affect level by 1000. The
National Academy of Science
recommended that EPA, use a similar
approach and outlined the use. of 10-
fold UFs foi intra- and interspecies
variation. An additional 10-foIdUF is
also included to calculate a lifetime
number from a less-than-Lifetime study.
The term "RfD (Reference Dose]"" is now
used by the EPA instead of the ADLThe
above referenced information is
included in the Agency's Risk.
Assessment Guidelines published at 51
FR 33992, September 24.1986.
67. Comment: A.commentar stated
that EPA. should not use Structure-
Activity Relationships (SAR). techniques
to regulata chemicals* such as methyl
chloride, when data on the specific
chemical are available.
Response: The EPA. uses SAR only
when data on specific chemicals of a
chemical group are lacking (see 198(1
Guidelines, SectionD, page 793551. SAR
is a technique used to compare the
toxicity of individual chemical in the
group with the known-toxicity of one
member of the group based on chemical
structural similarities.Fat example.
SAR was used in criteria development
for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAiisJ, polychlorinated bi-phenyls
(PCBs). and tri-halomethanes (THMs)
because the EPA does not have adequate
health data on most of the chemicals in
the class under review. For a detailed
discussion on methyl chloride, see
previous comment.
68.	Comment: A commenter stated
that the toxicities of inonaxuc arsenic
(As) and the organic arsenic derivatives
present in fish may ha quite different.
RespanserEPA agrees with the
commeniar—the organic arsenic farms
are known to be less acuieiy toxic then
inorganic arsenic forms ("Threshold
Carcinogenicity Using Arsenic as an
Exampia," Advances In Mccern
Environmental Toxicology,. 15:133-153.
1988). In addition, since the organic
forms found in fish appear to be
excreted as the parent molecules, iey
are likeLy to have less long-term toxicity.
A footnote has been added to section
131.36(b) stating that the criteria for
arsenic refers to die inorganic form cniv.
69.	Comment: A commenter stated
that the arsenic standard is based on En
IRIS recalculation that has never been
open for public inspection-
Response: The 0.018 pg/L (water and
aquatic life consumption) and 0.14 \i%!
1 (aquatic life consumption) criteria
were calculated from the unit risk factor
of 5xl0_s (^g/ljr1-. Theunit risk factor of
5x10-3 (tig/l)"1 is on IRIS and available
for public inspection. Although EPA
incorrectly indicated in the proposal
that the criterion was calculated using
an addendum to the prior criteria,
document and not IRlS. in fact the
addendum incLuded the IRIS
information and this, information was in
the record. There is an IRIS submission
desk for puhlic comments. Moreover,
this rulemaking provided an
opportunity for puhlic comment.
70.	Comment: A commenter claims
that the EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) is critical o£EPA.rs criteria for
arsenic.
Response:The SAB stated thai"at
doses belnw 2Q0 ta 25Q (ig As?"}/parsan/
day there- is a passible detoxication
mechanism" and recommended that
EPA "develop a revised risk assessment
based on estimates of the delivered dose;
on nan-detoxified arsenic." (EPA-SAB1-
EHC—89-038. Letter from SAB to
William Reilly, September 28,1989.)
Since it is not known exactly when
and how arsenic can be considered to be
detoxified, EPA cannot, at present,
calculate this "delivered nnnr
detoxified" dose. It has been postulated
by Marcus andRispin ("Threshold
carcinogenicity using arsenic as an
example" Adv. Modern Environ.
ToxicoL 15:133-158,I968> that
methylation is a detoxification process.
While methylation certainly decreases
the acute lethality of arsenic, vye do not
have enough toxicity data to regard the
mono- and dimethylated methoboliies
as "non-toxic".
71.	Comment: A commenter noted
that no significant health effects from-'
-------
60888 Federal Register / Vcu. 57, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
arsenic exposure has been found in the
U.S., as compared to the effects seen in
Taiwan.
Response: The cancer potency for
arsenic is calculated using standard
Agency methods. The available U.S.
epidemiology studies are small and do
net have the statistical power to state
whether the effects and risks in the U.S.
are dissimilar to those that have been
reported in Taiwan.
72.	Comment: A commenter
uestioned the effects of arsenic at low
ose and states that a threshold for
arsenic may exist The Marcus and
Rispin paper is cited as justification.
(Threshold Carcinogenicity Using
Arsenic as an Example", "Advances in
Modem Toxicology, 15:133-158,1988.)
Response: There are no adequate data
on whether arsenic exerts the same
effects at low doses that it does at higher
doses. To extrapolate to low dose
effects, the EPA uses the linearized
multistage model. At the present time,
there is no substantial database which
demonstrates that arsenic has a
threshold for adverse effects. Marcus
and Rispin theorized that there is a
threshold for arsenic. However, there is
no adequate proof that such a threshold
exists. In addition, it should be noted
that there is not an adequate
epidemiology study on U.S.
populations. Accordingly, at the present
time, there is no way to establish the
presence or absence of a threshold level
for arsenic.
73.	Comment: Arsenic causes skin
cancer, and not all forms of skin cancer
are equally lethal.
Response: The EPA knows that the
form of skin cancer induced by Arsenic
is treatable and agrees with the
commenter that not all forms of cancer
are equally lethal. HoweveT, the EPA is
aware of data showing that arsenic can
cause internal cancer and is reluctant to
change the ride assessment based on
skin cancer until the recent data can be
evaluated (the Taiwan data).
74.	Comment: EPA assumes that all
forms of arsenic are equally
carcinogenic and therefore the proposed
criteria are overly conservative.
Response: The Agency does not
consider all forms of arsenic to be
equally carcinogenic and has clarified
this issue by adding footnote "b" to the
matrix in this rule.
75.	Comment: Several commenters
stated that the exposure assumptions or
models used to generate ambient water
quality criteria are extremely
conservative for the following reasons:
(1) 6.5 g/d reflects consumption of both
contaminated and non-contaminated
fish, (2) given the mobility of the
population, drinking water from the
same source over an average lifetime is
extremely remote, (3) the supposition
that a person will be drinking water
from a surface stream in the first place
is questionable, and (4) criteria assume
that the same person would actually be
consuming "contaminated" water
which should have been prohibited
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Response: The EPA exposure model
was based on estimates or measures of
national averages (Seafood consumption
data analysis, U.S. EPA. 1980—see
Guidelines, page 79356). Data indicate
that fish consumption rates for
recreational and subsistence anglers can
exceed 8.5 g/dey. EPA has suggested
that States select more appropriate fish
and other aquatic life consumption rates
for local populations. Some States have
done so. (See TSD, p.37.) The
commenter is correct that the 6.5 grams
data reflects consumption ofboth
contaminated and non-contaminated
fish. The 5.5 grams is the quantitative
daily aquatic life consumption used by
EPA. However, EPA's methodology
assumes that the 6.5 grams per day of
aquatic life were taken from waters
meeting the criteria level (see 1980
Guidelines, Section A. page 79348).
In EPA's view, the assumption that an
individual may drink from the same
surface water for their lifetime is
reasonable and meets the goal of the
CWA. Drinking water directly from
surface supplies is not always regulated
under the SDWA: There are many
circjjmstanoes which are not regulated
by the SDWA. SDWA regulations are
only applicable to public water supplies
serving populations of 25 people or
more or in which there are 15 or more
service connections.
76.	Comment: Several commenters
questioned the fish and water
consumption rates of humans as related
to the dioxin criteria.
Response: The Agency is reviewing
the scientific basis for the human fish
consumption factor used in the
derivation of dioxin criteria. (56 FR
50903; October 9,1991.) When these
reviews are completed and the findings
critically evaluated, the Agency will
initiate a process to determine whether
the criteria for dioxin should be revised.
77.	Comment: Bioconcentration
factors (BCFs) should be based on the
proportion and type of organisms that
would be non-migratory and likely to be
caught and consumed by recreational
fishermen.
Commenters disagreed with the way
the BCF's were derived for 8 chemicals:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Selanium
Thallium
Response: BCFs for all of the criteria,
including the above cited metals were
supplied by EPA's Duluth laboratory
and were used to calculate the
promulgated criteria (i.e., from the list
above, antimony, arsenic, mercury and
thallium which are still in today's rule.
The other four metals have been
deleted. See comment number 57). (See
1980 Guidelines, pp. 79348-49.) EPA
has suggested that States may select
mors appropriate fish species such as
non-migratory and recreational species
in developing BCF values which would
more appropriately reflect local
conditions and aquatic speciss (see
response to comment earlier regarding
BCFs and the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001:
March. 1991 at pp. 36—41.) Some States
have chosen to do so.
78. Comment A commenter stated
that EPA utilized a high degree of
overprotection in developing criteria for
antimony. The commenter requested
EPA to update the IRIS and Health
Effects Assessment Summary Tables by
using available data to provide toxicity
information for various antimony
compounds that more appropriately
reflects such factors as differences in
gastrointestinal absorption rates.
.Response: In developing a criteria for
antimony the Agency relied upon the
available data which is very limited for
antimony compounds. The greatest
volume of information in terms of
chronic exposures to antimony salts was
for potassium, antimony tartrate. This
compound is also the most toxic
antimony compound tested. In order to
be protective of antimony in all its
possible forms, organic and inorganic,
the Agency relied upon data from
potassium antimony tartrate. Therefore,
the IRIS-listed reference dose (RfD) for
antimony tartrate is used in the criteria
development
It is true that this criterion may be
conservative in some cases. EPA is
promulgating this antimony criterion
because the criteria must protect human
health and it has not been established
which antimony compounds may be
produced under natural conditions in
ambient waters.
79. Comment A commenter stated
that EPA should establish separate
criteria for the less soluble and
commercially more important antimony
oxides. The IRIS database indicates a
much higher NOAEL for antimony
tiioxide than for antimony tartrate.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday;. December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 50889-
Response: As stated above, tha
Agency is setting criteria which would
resuit in protection from ail soiuhle
forms of antimony, ant just the most
common farms. ILis true that antimony
oxide is much lass toxic than potassium
antimony tartrate. However, the- Agency
is taking a conservative approach and
assuming that there is the potential £br
toxic organic antimony compounds,
such as the tartrate compound, tn form
under ambient water conditions. Far
this reason, the Agency chosa the mare
stringent of the two RfDs listed on IRIS
for antimony compounds. (See 1980
Guidelines discussion, p. 79355J
80.	Comment: A-commenter stared
thai EPA should use a less conservative
application of uncertainty factors in
developing the RfD forantimony.
Response-. The RfD for antimony,
based on the lifetime rat study by
Schroedfir at aL cited in IRIS (1992),
includes an uncanainty factor of 100Q
since the study resulted in a Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect Laval (LOAEL).
A No Observed Adverse Effect Lave I
(NOAEL) could not be. determined from
this study. It is Agency policy to assign
an uncertainty factor ol 1000 to a
LOAEL from an animal study of lifetime
duration. If there, had been a higher
degree of certainty that this LOAEL was
indeed close to an observed NOAEL,
then the uncertainty factor assigned may-
have been reduced. However, given the
paucity of data on antimony, the Agency
assigned the full 1000 uncertainty factor
in developing an RfD. (See discussion is
the 1980 Guidelines, pp. 79353-54.)
81.	Comment: A. commenter stated
that EPA should use the revised
bioconcentraiicn factor (BCF) of 0.5
recently developed by EPA for antimony
instead of the outdated BCF (1.0) used
in calculating the criteria.
Response: it is not true that the BCF
for antimony has been officially revised
since tha 1980 ambient water quality
criteria (AWGC) was developed. There
are draft updated BCF* under
develoomyut by tha Agency. However,
the Agency has not provided the public
an opportunity for comment on the new
BCF as it has for the revised RfD values
which were derived from IRIS.
Information on IRIS is-considered
public information, easily accessed and
open to public review. The Agency
decided it would be unfair to include
revised BCF values into this- rulemaking
without giving all interested parties ft
chance to comment on them. For this
reason the Agency has presented criteria
with 1980 BCF values. EPA will revise
the criteria for human health once a
revised methodology is developed. At
tnat time we will also include all
updated BCF values.
32. Comment Several commantars
stated thai tha paiychlorinatBd
biphenyis (PCBsl criteria needed
revisions. These included: (1) Revising
the cancer potency factor estimated by
EPA, (2) setting criteria fox each of tha
Aroclor mixtures separately rather than
for a singie Arociot mixture, (3)
translating the animal evidence af
carcinogenicity into human risk values.
In support of their argument
concerning the cancer patency of PCBs,
the commanters cited from the report,
"Reassessment of Liver Findings in PCB
Studies in Rats by Pathology Working
Group" prepared by the institute for
Evaluating Health Risk (IEHRL Tha
report reviewed five chronic studies in
rats using Aroclor 1260, Aroclor 1254,
Clop'nen A-60 and Clophen A-30. PCBs
with chlorine content of less than 60%
i.e., Aroclor 1254 and Clophen A-30
had little or no evidencsor
carcinogenicity. With respect to Aroclor
12SQ study, the commenter
recommended that the EPA should use
a cancer potency factor of either 5.1 or
1.8 (mg/kg/day)-1. The EPA potency
factor of Aroclor 12&Q is 7 J? (mg/kg/
day'r1- The cancer potency factor of 5.1
(mg/kg/day)-1 wa» calculated from the
same study (Norbaclrand Wellman) as
used by the EPA. Use of geometric
means of all the studies-with chlorine
content of &0% resulted in ±e cancer
potency iiactor of 1.8 (mg/kgrday)-1.
- The commenter argues since there is
no evidence that the PGBs with chlorine
content of less than 6G%, are
carcinogenic, the Agency should set a
separate criterion for each cf the
mixtures i.e., Arodor 1242, Aroclor
1254, etc.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter concerning the cancer
potency calculations using geometric
means of several studies resulting in
value of 1.9 (mg/kg/dayj"1. Utilization of
a geometric means-approach for the
calculation of potency estimates from
the available studies is not reasonable
because different animal strains and age
levels were used in these studies. In
addition, the study of Norback and
Wellman, cited in IRIS (19%), from
which EPA calculated its potency- factor
of 7.7 frng/kg/day)"*, was much superior
in its design and conduct than the other
studies. Therefore, the Norback and
Wellman study ia expected to provide a
more precise criterion. The re-
examination of slides from the Norback
and Wellman study by a group of
private pathologists and the use of the
revised data is alleged to a yi eld cancer
potency factor of 5.1 (mg/kg/day)-1. This
potency factor is not very different from
that calculated by the Agency.
The Agency believes that it is not
reasonable to develop a criterion £cr
each of the PCS Aroclor mixtures. PCBs
are mixtures of chlorinated biphenyis.
Each mixture may contain up to 209;
possible individual compounds. These
mixtures are prepared by treating
biphenyis and chlorine under alkaline
conditions and are characterized by tha
chlorine contents of the mixtures. For
example Aroclor 1242.1254 and 1260
contain 42,5+and 60 percent chlorine
contents respectively. These mixtures
are not characterized by the occurTencs
of each passible compound in the
mixture. Each of the mixtures would be
expected to contain ail com'ninaticma of
chlorinated compounds even though
some of tham in small or trace amounts.
In summation, all tha Arociors Are
expected to contain chlorinated
carcinogenic PCB isomers. Besides
expecting carcinogenic compounds in
each mixture, these-mixtures cannot
adequately be analyzed with commonly
available methods^
The Agency believes that the evidence
of carcinogenicity observed in Animals
can be used to estimate-risk values. Tha
Agency has used this approach in this
regulation based on the existing Agency
1980 Guidelines (51 FR 33992}.
83.	Comment: One commenter noted
that there is a marked range of
carcinogenic patencies between the
various nitrosamines with some
nitrosamines exhibiting no carcinogenic
activity. The commenter argued that
reliance cm structural similarity
methodology could therefore result in
misclassification errors as to- whether
specific compounds should be treated as-
carcinogens.
Response EPA agrees that there is a
marked range at carcinogenic potencies
between the various nitrosoaminas with
some nitrosoaminas exhibiting no
carcinogenic activity. If there are-
adequate data available for a specific
nitrosoanrine, EPA uses such data- in
evaluating the health risks-that such a
chemical may present. However, such
data are often not available. As a
consequence, EPA must, as a practical
matter, infer the toxicity of one
compound from the toxicity of a
chemically similar analogue.
84.	Comment: A commenter
submitted a document entitled,
"Biological Risk Assessmentof K-
Nitrosodfmethylamine." While this
document does not recommend a
specific human health criteria for N-
nitroso dnnethy lamine (NDMAl, it does
conclude that: 0.0044 iig NDMA/kg/day
will present the puhlic with a lifetime
10-5 risk level of cancer.
Respanser It is not at all clear how the
authorfs) of "Biological Risk Assessment
-------
60890 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
of N-Nitiosodirnethy lamina" arrived at
the 0.0044 ^ig NDMAVkg/day with 10~5
risk level. Assuming the Ingestion of 2
L of water/day by a 70 kg adult, 0.0044
lig NDMA/kg/day is equivalent to a level
of NDMA in drinking water of 0.28 |ig
NDMA/L Based on the same data. IRIS
concluded that the 10""5 risk level for
NDMA in drinking water is 0.007 ng/L
(i.e. 1/40 the value of "Biological Risk
Assessment of N-Nitrosodimethyl-
amine"). Thus, EPA disagrees with the
comment since inadequate data and
analysis were provided.
85. Comment: A commenter noted
that the human health criteria presented
in the table (in parentheses) are for
pollutants which had no health based
criteria in the 1980 criteria documents
(45 FR 7931B). The commenter urged
EPA to not include these criteria in the
final rulemaking.
Response: The proposed rule
indicated these values presented with
parentheses in the matrix were not
being proposed as regulatory criteria but
were presented as notice for inclusion
in future State triennial reviews. So as
not to confuse these values with the
criteria being promulgated today, those
values were deleted from the matrix and
presented below.
Compound
Water
and oraa-
ntsms V
L)
Orga-
nisms
onh^Jtig/
Cooper	 		
1300

1,2-Olchloroofopaoa 			
0.52
39
1.2-Trans-Olchloroettiytane.
700
				
2-CWorophsnoi		
120
400
2.4-Clnwnytptieno)	-
540
2300
Acenaphtene		
1200
2700
Butyl Banana Ptitfialata ....
3000
5200
2-Chk>ronaohthaJene ...	
1700
4300
n-NltrosodkvPropytamk)a ..
0.005
1.4
3. Economics
86. Comment: Many commenters
objected to the Agency's decisions not
to develop detailed cost estimates and
not to conduct a comprehensive
Regulatory Impact Analysis. The
objections were presented in terms of (a,
EPA's obligation pursuant to Executive
Order 12291 to conduct an analysis; (b)
the need to use benefit-cost analysis to
make effective public policy decisions,
and (c) EPA's error in relying on the
difficulty of the task as a reason for not
conducting the analysis.
Response: EPA's decision not to
rovide detailed cost estimates was
asad on the unusually complex
characteristics of this rule with respect
to projecting the burden on dischargers.
Section I of this preamble includes a
discussion of EPA's effort-to estimate
costs for the rule. As a very brief
summary, cost estimates for compliance
with water quality-based permits wouid
be based on numerous assumptions;
results are sensitive to these
assumptions; and consequently, the
results would not provide meaningful
information to the rulemaking process.
For the final rule, the Agency has
undertaken a cost assessment to express
a range of compliance costs for several
combinations of industries and
pollutants. The Agency has also
estimated and/or described a range of
health and ecological benefits for the
rule. While this information about costs
and benefits does not constitute a
comprehensive Regulatory Impact
Analysis, the assessment provides
descriptive information about the types
of costs that might be incurred as new
water quality standards are translated
into specific NPDES permits. Also, the
ranges illustrate the uncertainties
inherent in any estimate of costs.
In addition to the compliance costs to
dischargers, other types of cost impacts
may occur as a result of EPA-imposed
numeric criteria in State water quality
standards. For example, nonpoint
sources of pollution may incur costs to
the extent that best management
practices need to be modified to meet
water quality standards. In addition.
States may incur increased monitoring
costs, but only if there is some
reasonable expectation that the
pollutants are manufactured or actually
used in the State.
Several commenters, representing the
interests of industrial and municipal
dischargers, provided cost estimates;
others provided cost data for various
compliance strategies. These cost
estimates cannot form the basis of an
economic impact analysis. Insufficient
information is presented in the
comments to determine whether these
costs reflect the most cost-effective
means of achieving the required
pollutant reductions. Similarly, EPA
cannot confirm whether the cost
estimates reflect the incremental cost to
comply with water quality-based
standards beyond the cost to comply
with technology-based regulations. It is
the incremental costs that are relevant to
this assessment In addition, the
information supplied in the comments
is not sufficient to measure the impact
of these costs on the financial condition
of the dischargers (whether industrial or
households).
Due to the uncertainties, a Regulatory
Impact Analysis would not alter the
Agency's decision to fulfill its statutory
responsibilities and promulgate numeric
criteria for toxic pollutants. The same
conclusion applies to detailed
compliance cost estimates.
U.S. Government Standard Form 83.
Request for OMB Review, includes a
section for OMB to waive the
requirements to conduct a Regulatory
Impact Analysis, so OMB does have
such authority.
87.	Comment: Several commenters
asserted that EPA has not demonstrated
that the costs and operating
inefficiencies of complying with federal
criteria are commensurate with
environmental benefits.
Response: The provisions in the Clean
Water Act covering water quality
standards and specifically, establishing
numeric water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants, do not include consideration
of costs or benefit-cost comparisons. As
explained above in section J, economic
factors are considered at some points in
the process (such as establishing water
body use classifications), but not as a
component of adopting water quality
criteria. The statutory requirements
covering watar quality criteria focus
instead of protection of human health
and the environment.
EPA has considered the ability and
value of estimating the benefits
associated with revised water quality
criteria. A summary of the human
health and ecological benefits is
included in Section J of this preamble.
Briefly, the Agency finds that reduced
pollutant discharges are feasible at
reasonable costs for several examples. In
addition, the national toxics rule nas the
potential to reduce excess cancer cases.
Other ecological benefits, such as
protection of wildlife and aquatic
organisms, are also projected as an
outcome of States adopting numeric
pollutant criteria in their water quality
standards.
88.	Comment: Several commenters
argued that EPA should conduct a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis because
not to do so is a violation of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and an
agency cannot abrogate its statutory
duty by pleading hardship.
Response: EPA finds thet meaningful
results from extensive cost and
regulatory impact analyses for this rule
are unlikely to be achieved. The same
conclusion applies to a detailed analysis
conducted in response to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Briefly, the numerous
assumptions and analytical difficulties
that are inherent to this rulemaking
yield information about the scope of
costs, but not detailed cost estimates for
specific groups of discharges, such as
small entities. Nonetheless, as described
above, EPA's evaluation does not find
that there will be a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities;
therefore, a final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 246 ! Tuesday. December 22, 1992 I Rules and Regulations 60891
39. Comment: Several commenters
asserted thai EPA should consider
current economic conditions in
determining" whether to- promulgate
Federal criteria.
Response: While EPA. acknowledges
that prevailing economic-conditions
affect individual business decisions
concerning investment in pollution
rontrol, Congress clearly interidea the
Agency to move expeditiously when
Federal action is warranied. In
compliance with congressional intent.
EPA is promulgating these criteria at
this time.
In addition, it is not clear which,
"current economic conditions" should
be taken into account in establishing
federal criteria. The Limitation of toxic
discharges is intended to he a
continuing, process, with this rule a part
of tha cn-going control process. Since
the criteria will ba in. effect during all
phases of business cycles, current
conditions cannot ba tha sola
determinant of economic conditions
when analyzing the economic impact of
a regulation. Likewise-,, the impact of
this rule will not be incurred
immediately because the criteria will be
written into new discharge permits as
the current permits expira.
90.	Comment: Several commenters.
representing industrial and municipal
dischargers, asserted that tha economic
impacts of complying withEPA-
imposed criteria will be substantial and
will ba burdensome.
Response: While it is likely that some
dischargers will incur compliance costs
when tha EPArimposed numeric toxic
pollutant criteria ar» translated into
specific NPDES permits, it is not certain
that such costs or their impacts will be
unreasonable. For several industries, as
described is the Agency's cost
assessment, large segments of tha
discharging community will not be
affected by this rule because, foe
example, costs to comply are very small,
or technology-based limitations are a
sufficient basis for effluent control that
will also control pollutants to tha level
needed to comply with rn-stream water
quality criteria.
91.	Comment: Commenters
representing municipal interests stated
that EPA is incorrect in the assumption
that industrial sources-are the primary
source of toxics discharges by POTWs.
Response: EPA recognizes that there
are several sources of toxic pollutant
contributions to POTWs. Industrial
indirect dischargers, while not the only
source, are often tha primary source,
and the toxic influent from these
sources can often ba controlled through
pretreatment programs.
92. Comment: Several commenters
stated that promulgation o; Federal
criteria removes the flexibility to reduce
impacts that States would have had by
adopting their own standards. Further,
they argue. EPA is incorrect in its
assumption that impacts are no different
than what wouid occur if States had
acted to adopt their own standards.
Response: States continue to have the
opportunity to adopt their own
standards that include numeric criteria
for toxic pollutants. As they adopt and
EPA approves their water quality
standards, the flexibility provided in tha
standards-implementation and permit-
writing phases of the standards process
will return to th,» States. For a
discussion of tha effect of this
promulgation on various
implementation questions, including
flexibility, see subsection 4 of this
section.
In the cost assessment, EPA has
investigated tha potential incremental
effects of EPA setting standards instead
of States. Briefly, EPA finds that for
certain dischargers, incremental costs
may ba incurred in States where toxic
pollutant criteria are adopted at EPA's
levels. If a State ware to adopt less
stringent criteria, it is possible that tha
impacts would be reduced. It is
important to consider that in senna of
tha examples, EPA.'s criteria did not
result in incremental costs..
As discussed elsewhere- in this
preamble, EPA encourages States ta
adopt their awn standards and maka use
of site-specific criteria as appropriate.
4. Implementation
93. Comment;Tha Aganey received
substantial comment oa 4Q U K
131.36(c) which described tha proposed
implementation, procedures for priority
toxic pollutant criteria. Comments
divided on whether such factors should
be included or left to tha discretion of
the Slates.
Response: For reasons stated in the
preamble to the proposed rule (56 FR
58437, section 3, Applicability), EPA
believes that baseline application
conditions must be included in order to
provide the intended environmental and
human health protection of the criteria.
These criteria consist of mora than
quantitative concentrations. EPA "a
section 304fa) criteria methodology
clearly presents the criteria as criteria
maximum concentrations [CMC) and
criteria continuous concentrations
(CCC1 which contain averaging periods
and return frequencies. Tha
implementing nydrological conditions
merely provide minimum conditions to
meet these definitions. The salinity
conditions delineating when and where
the freshwater and saltwetar criteria
appiv are also necessary. EPA must
specify where each of these- sets of
criteria apply. Likewise the hardness
limitations for applying the metals
criteria.Each of these paragraphs will b«
discussed in more detail below hut are
mentioned here to demonstrate their
necessity for implementation of the
criteria. Without these generic
application conditions NPDES permit
writers, the principal users of the
criteria, would be unable to develop
conditions and limits for inclusion in
NPDES permits within the requisite
ranges of consistency ana predictability.
94. Comment: The ability of Stales to
develop site-specific criteria and to
grant variances and exceptions to
standards received several comments
generally indicating that EPA should
not constrain the ability of States to use
such implementation orocadures.
Response: The development of site-
specific criteria and the use of variances
to standards are optional procedures
made available to States thpr adopt State
criteria (4
-------
60892 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
represent certain probabilities of
occurrence. Likewise the criteria for the
priority toxic pollutants are denned
with duration and frequency
components. Dynamic modeling
techniques explicitly predict the effects
of variability in receiving water, effluent
flow, and pollutant concentration. EPA
has recommended and described three
dynamic modeling techniques for
performing waste load allocations in
section 4.5 of the 1991 Technical
Support Document: Continuous
simulation, Monte Carlo simulation and
lognormal probability modeling. These
procedures allow for calculating
wasteload allocations that meet the
criteria for priority toxic pollutants
without using a single, worst-case
concentration based on a critical
condition.
Thus, EPA believes that either
dynamic modeling or steady State
modeling can be used to implement the
criteria adopted today.
96. Comment: Several commenters in
addressing implementation conditions
argued that EPA should defer entirely to
State discretion including the applicable
design flows. Other commenters urged
removal of design flows from the rule
and rely on the guidance in the TSD
and/or other EPA guidance. Another
commenter agreed that flow
requirements were necessary but that
the harmonic mean flow requirement
was flawed.
Response. As noted in the preamble to
the proposed rule, implementation
requirements that include limitations on
flow values are required in order to
achieve the intended environmental and
human health protection. The
applicable discussion of this issue is
found in the preamble to the proposed
rule on pages 58437-58438 and
footnotes 1 and 2. The hydrological or
biological basis for the proposed low
flows were taken directly from EPA's
Technical Support Document for Water-?
Quality-based Toxics Control. (See TSD.
Appendix D for aquatic life and section
4.6 for human health.)
The argument by the commenter on
the harmonic mean flow was in reality
a disagreement on EPA's assumed long-
term dose assumption for toxics. The
commenter believes short-term effects
are more relevant, and therefore requires
a different flow, especially for
bioaccumulative pollutants. However,
EPA continues to support the human
health protocol used in the proposed
rulemaking and notes that it explicitly
accounts for bioaccumulation in the
criteria development protocols. For such
long-term human assumed consumption
of water and aquatic life from such
waters containing a pollutant, EPA's
best scientific judgment is that the
harmonic mean flow is the correct flow
to apply in order to correctly estimate
the exposure dosage of the average
exposed individual.
97.	Comment: One commenter
questioned the applicability of the
specified design flows in waters
downstream from impoundments which
have minimum release rates specified,
as for example hydroelectric dams.
Responss: EPA's proposed role in
§ 131.36(c)(2)(ii) specifies that the low
flows are applicable to "waters suitable
for the establishment of low flow return
frequencies." Thus, free flowing streams
and rivers wer9 the types of receiving
waters contemplated. In cases where
legally specified low flows exist, as for
example under FERC licenses, these
become the applicable minimum flows.
In future State water quality standards
reviews, EPA encourages the States to
take into account these specified flows
and adjust the criteria appropriately to
provide equivalent protection of human
health and the environment to that
applied in today's rule.
98.	Comment: One commenter noted
that "rules" 5(a) and (b) are inconsistent
with "rule" 8 in the "Assumptions and
Rules Followed by EPA in Writing the
proposed § 131.36(d) Requirements for
All Jurisdictions." (See the appendix at
page 5B451 in the proposed rulemaking
package.)
Response: "Rules 5(a), 5(b) and rule
8" as stated in the appendix are correct.
An incorrect statement of "rule 8" is
contained in the preamble to the
proposed rule at page 58432. Briefly
stated, these rules provide:
—Rule 5(a) applies appropriate human
health criteria to all waters in a State
classified for either public water
supply or for minimal aquatic life
protection:
—Rule 5(b) provides that where a State
has determined the specific segments
where aquatic life are caught and
consumed, the human health fish
consumption only criteria (Column
D2) are being applied to those specific
segments;
—Rule 8 provides that where drinking
water uses are designated, and even
though the State has determined that
no potential fish consumption uses
exist, the human health criteria for
"water + fish" in column Dl are
applied. EPA applies these criteria
because no "water only" column is
available in the section 304(a) criteria
methodology and drinking water uses
must be protected.
99. Comment: Several commenters
claimed that EPA was applying the
criteria too broadly; that is, to waters
wheie aquatic life propagation or public
water supply uses were either not
designated or did not constitute existing
uses. In contrast, another commenter
urged EPA to apply the criteria to all
waters of the State where an EPA-
approved use attainability analysis did
not exist.
Response: Water quality standards
contain both a designated use and the
criteria necessary to support those
designated uses. In this rulemaking EPA
is not addressing the designated use
component at all, but only the criteria
component for the priority toxic
pollutants. EPA has relied entirely on
the existing State water quality
standards to determine the waters to
which the criteria apply.' In § 131.36(d)
EPA refers to all waters within
particular designated use classifications.
Because EPA is not addressing the
State designated uses here, EPA has not
attempted to review State application of
designated use classification through
use attainability analyses or the other
requirements of 40 CFR 131.10. Any
identified deficiencies will be handled
during the State triennial water quality
standard review process with any
necessary Federal actions being taken
on a State by State basis.
. 100. Comment: One commenter
objected to EPA specifying that EPA-
approved State mixing zone regulations
could be applied to the priority toxic
pollutant criteria promulgated today.
Others stated that EPA should include
procedures to define appropriate mixing
zones, that EPA should allow mixing
zones in all States and that EPA should
require mixing zones in all States.
Response: Mixing zones are one of the
general discretionary policies —
specifically authorized for State
adoption by EPA's water quality
standards regulation at 40 CFR 131.13.
Mixing zones have most recendy been
defined by EPA in the revised TSD (see
page "xx") as "an area where an effluent
discharge undergoes initial dilution and
is extended to cover the secondary
mixing in the ambient waterbody. A
mixing zone is an allocated impact zone
where water quality criteria can be
exceeded as long as acutely toxic
conditions are prevented." Although
mixing zones are discretionary for the
States, they are part of the State's water
quality standards and therefore subject
to EPA review and approval pursuant to
CWA section 303(c) and 40 CFR 131.
Mixing zones recognize ambient water
dilution and therefore larger mixing
zones generally would reduce the
stringency of discharge permit limits
established to meet ambient water
quality criteria. It would be inconsistent
with CWA section 501 (33 U.S.C. 1370)
-------
Federal Kegister f Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 80893
for EPA to impose a less stringent
mixing zone policy in a State than is
currently authorized. Therefore, in this
rulemaking EPA recognizes State mixing
zones %nd provides for their application
in implementing the criteria
promulgated by this rule. However it
does not impose mixing zone
requirements cn States which do not.
have such policies.
101. Comment: Comments were
received that the Federal toxics criteria
are not viable because they have never
been subject to public comment and
review and that the criteria should be
subject to continuing peer review and
study in order to ensure technical
viability. Comrn enters stated that it is
improper to require development of
permit limitations on tha basis nf
technically flawed criteria which may
not be relaxed in tha future dua to the
anti-back,sliding requirements of the
OVA and regulations, and that EPA
must find that criteria changes which
result from peer reviews constitute new
information which, qualify as an
exemption from, tha anti-backaiiding
requirements.
Response: We disagree with the
premise of this, comment that provision
for public review and comment cat the
federal toxics criteria has: been
inadequate. The criteria methodology
and documents were the subject at
public review when issued. See tha
discussion, of this issue in die preamble
to the proposed rule as well as
discussion of EPA's plana to revise
criteria guidelines in the future and
solicit public comment. 56 FR at 58433.
(See also Section: F of this praambl&>To
the extent we received specific
information concerning the criteria in
this rulemaking, we have> reviewed and
responded to that information. Indeed,
certain of the promulgated criteria have
been changed to reflect public
comments. EPA rejects the assertion that
the criteria are "technically flawed."*
EPA believes-the criteria are
scientifically defensible and would not
promulgate criteria that were
technically flawed regardless of the anti-
backs li ding implications. With respect
to the comment that revised criteria
resulting from peer reviews should
constitute "new information" which is
exempt from the anti-becksliding
requirements, that is not an issue to be
decided in this rulemaking. EPA is
developing proposed amendments to
the NPDES regulations that will
interpret ana implement the provisions
of section 402(e). The commenter's
concerns can be addressed in that
rulemaking or possibly in a prior permit
proceeding if the issue is relevant.
102. Comment: Cne commenter
argued that tha rule will adversely affect
implementation of the NPDES program
by diverting resources to deal with
permitting and enforcement issues
arising from tha use of unscientific
water quality criteria. It is argued
further that no discharger 'Anil accapt
permit conditions that are unreasonable,
have no scientific basis, and do not
reflect the naturally occurring
environmental conditions in the
receiving water.
Response': Federally promulgated
¦water quality criteria will be
implemented in NPDES permits issued
by EPA Regional Offices or authorized
States. Dischargers are free to challenge
requirements implementing federally
promulgated criteria contained in
modified, reopened, or reissued permits
according to established NPDES permit
appeal procedures and as permitted by
law. EPA, however, disagrees that the
federally promulgated criteria lack a
scientific basis and has explained in the
preamble ta this rule and elsewhere in
response to comments why
promulgation of the criteria as provided
in this rule is necessary to meet the
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B). We
anticipate that many dischargers will
accept permit requirements based upon
the federally promulgated criteria*.
Dischargers may be. permitted ta
backslide from water-quality based
permit limitations where revised criteria
are developed if they meet the
requirements- of CWA sections 402(a) or
303(d)(4). for allowing backsliding in
attained and non-attained waters.
103. Comment: Comments were
received that either tha proposed
Federal or State standards should
provide for a schedule of compliance so
that permittees affected by the new
federal criteria could have sufficient
time to-come into compliance.
Response: The proposed rule did not
directly provide for a schedule of
compliance, however, it alsa did not
change existing applicable State and
EPA provisions related to permit
issuance or reissuance. EPA agrees with
the commenters that some compliance
implementation time may, In certain
situations, be necessary and appropriate
for permittees to meet new permit limits
based on the new standards. EPA has
not removed this flexibility in the
permitting; process by this rulemaking.
Under the Administrator's April 16,
1990 decision in an NPDES appeal
(Star-Kist Caribe Inc., NPDES Appeal
No. 8S-5L the Administrator stated that
the only basis in which a permittee may
delay compliance after July 1,1977 (for
a post July 1977 standard), is pursuant
to e schedule of compliance established
in the permit which is authorizsa by ths
State in the water quality standard it3ei:
or in other State implementing
regulations. (This decision did cot affect
compliance schedules Ln individual
control 3trate$es issued under section
304(e) cfthaCVVA.)
Standards are made applicable to
individual dischargers through NPDES
permits which reflect the applicable
Federal or State water quality standards
When a permit is issued, a schedule of
compliance far water quality-based
limitations may be included, as
necessary, and EPA assumes this is the
case for permits issued to meet these
new Federal criteria where States do not
have existing statutes, regulations or
policy prohibiting compliance
schedules. SPA notes that some permits
contain a "reopener" clause which may
be exercised by the permitting agency
on a case-by-case basis to control toxics
earlier than the normal re-issuance
cycle. However, EPA does not generally
contemplate nor does it intend to ask
States ta undertake permit reissuance
related to these new criteria for toxics
through anything other than.tha normal
permit reissuance cycle, except in rare
instances.
104.	Comment: EPA's secdon 304(a)
criteria may not be appropriate when
applied to non-conventional discharge
situations such as storm water
discharges and discharge ta ephemeral
streams.
Response: EPA's criteria for priority
toxic pollutants were developed to-
protect heneficial designated uses. The
criteria are independent of
considerations aoaut kinds of
dischargers whether point or non point
sources. If a State Ends that the criteria
for the current ambient water designated
uses are inappropriate, then EPA's water
quality standards regulations provide
for a use attainability analysis and
establishment of appropriate designated
uses. Thus the commenter's concerns
are misplaced and focus on the wrong
part of the water Duality standard.
105.	Commentr Two comments
addressed the salinity and eSects on
determining which criteria apply at
particular locations in estuaries. One
commenter, a State agency,, supported
the concept of clarifying, the salinity
ranges within which the various
freshwater and marine water criteria
apply. The Kate was concerned because
the salinity ranges selected by EPA were
different from those the State had
recently placed in sediment standards.
The second commenter asserted that the
proposed rule created an untanahle
situation where fresh and salt waters
mix This commenter suggested that
rather than using the more stringent of
-------
60894 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
the fresh or saltwater criteria, EPA
should interpolate between the two on
the basis of salinity.
Response: The range of salinities
incorporated into this rule at 40 CFR
131.36(c)(3) are appropriate, especially
in light of the guidance for the
applications of the metals criteria
addressed elsewhere in this package.
EPA's proposed rulemaking on
salinity, however, was silent on the
percentage of the time that the proposed
salinity limits could be exceeded but the
respective fresh or saltwater criteria still
apply. It could be inferred that EPA
intended 100% of the time as the
appropriate limit It is EPA's position
that a reasonable exceedence should be
specified or otherwise the intermediate
brackish water zone becomes
unnecessarily large. It is EPA's
judgment that a factor of 95% of the
time provides reasonable cut off points.
Thus, for the freshwater criteria to
apply, the salinity should be less than
1 ppt 95% of the time. Likewise for the
marine water criteria to apply the
salinity should be greater than 10 ppt
95% of the time.
EPA recognizes that judgment is
required in.providing guidance on the
appropriateness of freshwater and
saltwater water quality criteria across a
salinity gradient This is because a
fundamental understanding is lacking of
metals form, bioavailability and toxicity
along with the relative sensitivities at
appropriate salinities of species that
occupy this gradient EPA's
recommendations are reasonable given
that (1) the database for most metals
includes tests with saltwater and
freshwater species that tolerate these
salinities; (2) that salinities at a
particular location change daily with
tide and wind and seasonally; and (3)
that at low salinities, freshwater and
saltwater species mix. It is reasonable
that the presence of both types of
species in this transition zone require
application of both freshwater and
saltwater water quality criteria. Given
the temporal variability of salinity in
both the short and long term and the
judgmental basis for EPA's
recommendations, knowledge of the
kinds of organisms at a site of concern
will be particularly helpful in being
confident that the appropriate criterion
has been applied to the site.
The second comroenter's suggestion is
not supported by data or professional
experience of EPA's scientists. For many
metals, toxicity to saltwater species
increases at low salinities. Therefore,
underprotection would result from the
use of an interpolation approach that
would result in higher criteria at low or
intermediate salinities.
5. Timing and Process
106.	Comment: EPA should delay
Federal promulgation until current State
efforts to adopt water quality standards
have been completed.
Response: Without sufficiently
protective and defensible water quality
standards, EPA and the States cannot
effectively control discharges of toxic
pollutants. While the Clean Water Act
clearly gives primary authority for
adopting water quality standards to the
States. Congress clearly signaled its
frustration with State delays in adopting
criteria for toxics in the 1987 Clean
Water Act amendments. Since the 19S7
amendments, the States have had over
five years to meet the statute's
requirements for adopting water quality
standards for toxic pollutants. Further
delay is unacceptable. It is now time for
EPA to exercise its oversight authority
to ensure that human health and the
environment are adequately protected.
107.	Comment: Several comments
were received relating to the general
subject of State action during or
subsequent to this rulemaking and on
the processes EPA would use to
withdraw Federal criteria applicable to
a State. A related comment was that
EPA should clarify that partial
withdrawals are possible. Another
comment questioned which criteria
would apply in a situation where EPA
approves State standards subsequent to
the Federal promulgation.
Response: EPA is fully aware that
several States are actively involved in
reviewing and possibly revising their
standards to meet the requirements of
the Act simultaneously with the
Agency's action to promulgate Federal,
standards. It is an objective of the
Federal action to spur State action to
complete their own administrative
procedures so as to obviate the need for
Federal promulgation. However, for the
reasons stated earlier in the preamble as
the basis for this rulemaking, EPA
believes States have already had more
than adequate time to respond to the
statutory requirement and that EPA has
. a responsibility to act to put standards
in place to serve as a basis for
environmental control programs.
Nevertheless, EPA encourages States to
continue to adopt their own standards
and thereby enabling themselves to
make use of the flexibility inherent in
the program through use of the various
implementation processes even if such
action will not be completed until after
promulgation of this rule. EPA is
committed to timely withdrawal of the
Federal standards after State adoption
and EPA approval of State standards.
The assertion that upon adoption of
standards by the State, EPA's Federal
criteria are no longer applicable within
the State is not correct The Federal
criteria will continue to be the
applicable water quality standards until
withdrawn. Where the State standards
are less stringent than the Federal
standards, the Federal standards will be
controlling until final action is taken to
withdraw the Federal standards. In this
situation, the permitting agency must
use the more stringent standards in
issuing permits. As a practical matter, it
is assumed that permit holders would
seek a stay of permit requirements
pending the final decision of the Federal
standards. While there may be a period
in which there are both State ana
Federal standards in effect, the most
stringent standards (either the State's or
EPA's) would be controlling.
As described earlier in the preamble,
EPA will act to withdraw this rule as
applicable to a State, if the State
completes action on adopting standards
that adequately protect their
waterbodies from toxic contamination
and EPA approves those standards. The
standards do not necessarily have to be
exactly as those promulgated by EPA
but they must meet the requirements of
the Act and 40 CFR 131.11.
Many comments were received that
EPA should not be required to receive
comment and execute a rulemaking in
order to withdraw State-adopted and
EPA-approved standards that are less
stringent than those promulgated by
EPA. As described in Section E-3 of this
. preamble, EPA withdrawal action
differs depending upon whether the
State standards are equal to or more or
less stringent than those promulgated in
this rule.
While it would be administratively
less cumbersome not to provide notice
and comment in withdrawing a more
stringent Federal water quality standard,
EPA, however, is constrained by the
provisions of the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 551 (4)
and (5) which we believe preclude the
Agency from withdrawing a rule as
suggested by the commenters. EPA will
take timely action to withdraw the
Federal rule in these cases. EPA has had
experience in withdrawing the Federal
rule covering each situation, i.e.
standards equal to or more-or less
stringent than the Federal rule (51 FR
11581, April 4,1986; 47 FR 53372,
November 26,1962; 56 FR 13592, April
3,1991). It has not proven to be a
practical problem. Consistent with the
water quality standards guidance and
historical operating policies, EPA
confirms that partial approval of State
standards and partial withdrawal of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60895
Federal rale is allowable. (See generally.
Chapter 2. VVat9r Quality Standards
Handbook. December 1983)
There is an exception to this process.
If a State adopts a 10~5 risk level when
EPA promulgated 10"6, the rule can be
withdrawn without notice and comment
because we raised the possibility of
different risk levels in the proposal and
we have accepted both risk levels as
meeting the requirements of the Act.
108. Comment: EPA received
comment that there is no procedural
necessity for this rule because Congress
did not set a specific deadline for State
action to comply with section
303(cK2jCE).
Response: For the reasons set forth
elsewhere in this preamble, EPA has the
requisite statutory authority to
promulgate these criteria and that such
criteria are necessary as a basis for water
quality-based control programs designed
to protect the public health and the
environment.
Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Act
recjuiies States action to address toxic
pollutants "whenever a State reviews
water quality standards pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection * *
Paragraph (1) refers to the requirements
to review and revise, if necessary,
standards at least once each three year
period—the triennial review cycle for
standards.
Notwithstanding arguments
concerning timeliness of EPA and State
actions, the Agency has made a decision
that toxics criteria for priority toxic
pollutants should be in place. The
Administrator's action has started the
process described in CW-A section
303(c)(4) for Federal promulgation.
Thus, because-of the Agency's action,
the comment at this point is moot.
109. Comment: EPA received
numerous comments concerning the 30-
day public comment period. Some
industries and municipalities expressed
concern that the rulemaking was too
extensive to allow meaningful comment
within 30 days. Some commenters
requested extensions up to six
additional months. Several commenters
noted that EPA had never before
promulgated a final water quality
standards rule within 90 days of
proposal.
Response: EPA appreciates that 30
days is a short comment period but
believes that it is fully consistent with
section 303(c)(4) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4))
which requires EPA to promulgate a
final regulation within 90 days of
proposal. The fact that EPA only met
this requirement once in its nine final
promulgation actions does not change
the statutory requirement.
In most of those previous cases (and
in 2 cases today ) the Agency was in fact
superseding a State rule. Pursuant to the
Agency's regulation at 40 CFR 131.21(c)
the State ruie stayed in effect until
EPA's final rule took effect. Today's
action is different Here, by and large,
there are no State criteria for priority
toxic pollutant in place and EPA is
acting to fill that void. This EPA action
has a greater sense of urgency and
justifies the Agency's effort to meet the
90 day statutory time schedule in CWA
section 303(c)(4).
The addition of section 303(c)(2)(B) to
the Clean Water Act was a clear and
unequivocal signal from Congress that it
was dissatisfied with the siow pace at
which States were adopting numeric
criteria for toxic pollutants. This intent
is made clear in the legislative history
of that provision. It is the only time in
the 26-year history of the program that
Congress explicitly directed the States
to address certain pollutants in their
standards. Moreover, section 303(c)(4),
which authorizes Federal promulgation
has explicit deadlines and
Congressional directives to act
promptly. The intent of the Federal
promulgation section of the Act is to
accelerate human health and ecological
protection by establishing water quality
standards as a basis for pollution control
-programs. To achieve these objectives
and meet the statutory deadline, we
need sufficient time to review public
comments and make any necessary
revisions.
Although the State end pollutant
coverage of this final rule is large, the
issues involved are neither new nor
numerous. The primary focus of this
rule is the narrow issue of whether a
State has adopted sufficient water
quality criteria for toxic pollutants in
State standards as necessary to support
water quality-based control programs.
EPA alerted the public to its
intentions and the planned contents of
the proposal on April 19,1990, in an
announcement in the Federal Register.
In addition, we notified the
administrators of the State agencies
responsible for the water quality
standards program of each potentially
affected State of our plans on April 9.
1990. In the April 19,1990, notice, EPA
described what would be in the
proposal, including: Which pollutants,
which States, the cancer risk level, and
EPA's intention to update criteria using
publicly available information in the
Integrated Risk Information System.
Since that notice, EPA has apprised the
public of its intentions and status of its
action through State and Regional
meetings and quarterly newsletters on
the criteria and standards program. EPA
through both its Headquarters and
Regional Offices have met with the
States, and the regulated community
individual and public meetings and
public hearings to discuss EPA's plans
ana progress. This lengthy lead time has
allowed potential commenters to
repare for the proposal and should
ave facilitated preparation and
submission of meaningful comments
within the 30-aay public comment
period.
As discussed previously in this
preamble and the preamble to the
proposed rule, the methodology used to
develop the criteria and the criteria
themselves have previously undergone
scientific peer ana public review and
comment and were revised as
appropriate. Soma human health criteria
were updated by recalculating the
criteria using revised reference dose
information contained and publicly
available in the Agency's Integrated Risk
Information System. Information in this
system was peer reviewed within EPA
and, as a matter of policy, is the
information which was recommended to
the States for their use. Most of these
reviews occurred before 1987. Congress
acted to amend the Act with full
knowledge of the EPA process for
developing criteria and the Agency's'
recommendations under section 3G4(a).
EPA believes it is consistent with
Congressional intent to rely on existing
criteria rather than engage in a time-
consuming revaluation of the
underlying basis for water quality
criteria. At some point in the standards
setting process the States and EPA must
act recognizing that scientific research
leading to improved water quality
information is an ongoing process. In
the case of this rulemaking. EPA affirms
that in addition to all the
environmental, programmatic, and
statutory factors supporting the rule, the
basic criteria methodologies are
scientifically sound as are the resulting
criteria.
In the five years since the February
1987 enactment of section 303(c)(2)(B),
most States have worked extensively to
adopt water quality standards for toxics
pollutants. The issues in this proposal
are the same ones that States,
dischargers, public interest groups, and
EPA have discussed and debated in-
depth during those deliberations. The
comments prepared for State and EPA
meetings and hearings are to a great
extent the same as those to be made on
this Federal action and made it easier
for the commenters to prepare
submissions on this rule. The arguments
presented in the public comments that
EPA's action is new or that the States
are not in compliance because they are
-------
60896 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
carefully reviewing their standards ail
l»r d to ignore the fact that many of the
criteria ware available as early as 1980.
Because of a lack of State action, EPA
made it a priority emphasis in the
revision to the water duality standards
regulation in 1983 and. most
importantly of all. that section
303(c)(2)(B) was not the start of the
process but the signal from Congress
that delays had to cease. It is now
eleven years after the criteria were first
mads available to the States, five years
after Congress specifically directed the
States to Act. Given this background, 30
days was sufficient for commenters to
prepare and submit meaningful
comments. The extensive nature of the
comments submitted support this
position. Further delay in the process is
totally unwarranted for all of the above
programmatic, health, ecological, and
statutory reasons.
110. Comment: EPA should
promulgate criteria only for those
pollutants clearly shown to be
interfering with designated uses.
flesponse.-The record supporting this
proposal contains extensive data on the
toxic pollutant problem in each State. It
shows the presence of numerous toxics
in State waterbodies and it also contains
information on impaired waterbodies.
Earlier in this preamble, in section E-2
of this preamble, we described that
rationale for why EPA could not
undertake extensive studies in each
State.
In responses to previous comments
earlier in this section, we described
EPA's legal authority to undertake this
promulgation action including why it is
not necessary for EPA to promulgate
standards pollutant-by-pollutant,
waterbody-by-waterbody. In summary:
(1) EPA has sufficient data to indicate
the widespread presence of toxic
pollutants, (2) administratively, given
the statutory schedule for promulgation.
Congress clearly never intended EPA to
conduct in-depth State analysis, (3)
EPA, in its Dei»mber 1988 guidance on
options to meet the statutory
requirement of section 303(c)(2)(B)
indicated a policy position that"* * *
the presence or potential construction of
facilities that manufacture or use
priority toxic pollutants or other
information indicating that such
pollutants are or maybe discharged
strongly suggests that States should set
standards since such pollutants have the
potential to or could be interfering with
attaining designated uses", (4) neither
the Act nor EPA's regulation limits the
establishment of standards to a
waterbody-by-waterbody, pollutant-by-
pollutant approach. (5) as a matter of
public policy to protect human health
and the environment, it is the Agency's
position that a more conservative
approach is warranted, and (6) actual
dischargers of such pollutants should
expect to have control limits placed in
their permits for such pollutants while
other dischargers will not be affected.
111. Comment: Since EPA published
a range of risk levels in its water quality
criteria documents, it should allow a
range in this rule or allow States to
select tha appropriate risk level.
Response: EPA's publication of a
range of risk levels in individual water
quality criteria documents was simply
an illustration of how the criteria
recommendations would be affected by
adopting various risk levels. It was not
intended to nor did it, in fact, establish
a policy on risk levels.
Consistent with recognizing the
primary authority of States to adopt
water quality standards and that Agency
policy allows States to select an
appropriate risk level within the general
range of 10-4 to 10"®, EPA modified this
final rule to apply the human health
criteria at the risk level adopted or
proposed by the State for all or a
majority of toxic pollutants under
applicable State water quality standards
regulations, or in the case of Idaho,
Nevada, and Rhode Island, on an
expression of State preference. EPA
notes that in a majority of cases, the 10-6
risk level is the one adopted by the
States. In order for the human health
criteria to be implemented in water
quality programs, a single risk level
must be chosen so that a specific
numeric Hmit is established for a
pollutant. The rationale for EPA's
choice of a risk level for each State in
this rule is contained in section G-l of
this preamble.
Any State adopting its own standards
that meet the requirements of the Act
may adopt a risk level other than that
used by EPA in this rule. The ability of
a State to select an alternative risk level
is one of the reasons EPA encourages
each State to adopt its own water
quality standards rather than rely on
Federal promulgation.
6. State Issues
Alaska, Washington, and Idaho
112. Comment: Alaska, Washington
and Idaho have noted errors in the
proposed rules. In some cases these '
errors were improper citations, or the
inclusion of, or failure to include,
certain criteria.
Response: EPA sought comments on
the interpretation it had made of the
various State water quality standards
that were potentially affected by the
proposed rulemaking. EPA expected
and received comments on the
appropriateness of the individual
criteria groups applied to the State
beneficial use designations.
In deciding whicn changes it can
make to the proposed rules EPA notes
that the preamble to the proposed rule
laid out the intent and purposes of this
action extensively. Beginning on page
58431 of the preamble to the proposed
rule, EPA described the 12 "rules" or
logic used to derive the criteria
applicable to States judged not in
compliance with CWA section
303(c)(2)(B). The gist of this rationale
was for EPA to apply aquatic life criteria
to State-defined designated uses
providing even minimal support to
aquatic life survival: and human health
criteria to State-defined "designated uses
providing for public water supply and/
or aquatic life consumption. Moreover,
EPA provided in the matrix in proposed
40 CFR 131.36(b) all of the numeric
levels that it proposed for application to
the designated uses. Thus, EPA believes
that sufficient notice was provided as to
the purpose of the proposed rule, the
types of affected State designated uses
and the identification and stringency of
the section 304(a) criteria to provide the
Agency some latitude in deleting and
adding criteria, especially when these
changes are made because of comments
made by the affected States and are
necessary to correct unintended
mistakes.
After discussing this comment with
the State of Alaska, it was agreed that
the following changes to the rule were
necessary. These changes occur in 40
CFR 131.36(d)(16)(ii).
The State's current water quality
standards (WQS) reference "Gold Book"
criteria for all uses included in the rule
except secondary contact recreation.
Because the promulgated numbers are,
in essence, revised Gold Book criteria,
to be consistent with State WQS, EPA
applied aquatic life and human health
numbers to all uses except secondary
contact Secondary contact recreation is
included because it is defined in the
State's standards as including fishing.
D1 criteria are applied to the drinking
water use. D2 criteria are applied to all
uses except drinking water for both
fresh and marine waters. All acute
aquatic life criteria are included in this
rule. (See correspondence between the
State and EPA in the record.) Also, all
human health criteria for carcinogens
based on the. fact that the State has not
adapted a risk level and therefore,
cannot calculate or apply appropriate
criteria for carcinogens. The chronic
aquatic life criterion for selenium as it
has been updated since publication of
the Gold Book and made more stringent.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60897
The seafood processing use (2)(A)(ii)
was deleted from nila because it is an
industrial use category to which the
criteria promulgated today do not
approDiiaieiv apply.
Additionally, in 40 CFR
131.36(lC)(iii), the risk ievel for
carcinogens was changed to 10~5 to
reflect the State's Juiy 1992, proposal to
amend its water quality standards and
to reflect an indication oi State poiicy
preference received on November 16.
1992.
The following changes were made
with respect to the State of Washington.
After discussion with the State, EPA has
assigned appropriate criteria to use
categories rather than to classes. The
rule was revised as follows (see 40 CFR
131.36(d)(17)):
(22)(i) Fish and Shellfish
Fish
Water Supply (domestic)
Recreation
(22)(ii) Fish and Shellfish; Fish
Bl and B2—#2,10
Cl—#2.10
CZ—42, 6.10,14
Water supply (domestic)
Dl—All
Recreation
D2—All marine waters
D2—freshwaters not protected for
domestic water supply
The following changes were made
with respect to the State of Idaho. After
discussion with the State, EPA
renumbered the use classifications to
reflect the reorganization of the State
standards and made the following
changes in the criteria assigned (see 40
CFR 131.36(d)(18)):
l.h Domestic Water Supplies
Remove cyanide and asbestos
3.a Primary Contact Recreation
Remove Bl—All
Remove B2—All
Add Dl—All
3.b Secondary Contact Recreation
Remove Bl—Ail
Remove E2—All
Alaska
113. Commeht: EPA has incorrectly
included CMC (acute) aquatic life
criteria for freshwater and saltwater for
Alaska in the proposed rule.
Response: EPA's inclusion of CMC
aquatic life criteria in the rule is
appropriate. Alaska's water quality
standards state that, "Substances shall
not • * • exceed criteria cited in EPA,
Quality Criteria for Water." Whether or
not the State has adopted both acute am
chronic criteria by reference is
ambiguous and requires clarification
through this rulemaking, especially in
light of language included in the
following three documents issued by the
State:
1.	The State's Water Quality
Standards Workbook, published in July
1991, and wideiy distributed in order to
"understand what water quality
standards and criteria are, how to
interpret the Alaska water quality
standards regulation * * * states that,
"* • * EPA has developed a two-
number criterion for acute and chronic
conditions. The state adopts only the
chronic criterion."
In the same state WQS workbook.
Table 1, "Alaska's Water Quality
Criteria for Toxic Substances in
Freshwater and Saltwater", is said to
"represent the toxic substances criteria
adopted by reference in the AWQS."
This table does not include any acute
values for the priority toxic pollutants.
2.	An August 30.1991 letter from
John A. Sandor, Commissioner of ADEC.
to Harold Geren, Chief of EPA Region
10's Water Permits and Compliance
Branch, states, "The Department affirms
its decision to continue to use "Gold
Book" chronic criteria to establish
receiving water criteria and effluent
limits in NPDES permits." (emphasis
added)
114.	Comment: Alaska was not
informed of EPA's intention to include
acute criteria in this rulemaking.
Response: On November 4,1991, EPA
Region 10's Water Division Director sent
via fax and hard copy, a letter to ADEC's
Chief of Water Quality Management,
notifying the State of EPA's intention to
include acute criteria in this .
rulemaking. The letter stated. "These
letters affirm Alaska's use of "Gold
Book" chronic criteria for freshwater
and marine systems and have convinced
us that Alaska is in compliance * * *
with the following exceptions: * * *
Acute aquatic life criteria for all
pollutants * * V
115.	Comment: The statement
included in the rule that, "Alaska is
included in today's proposal because
although the State hod previously
adopted all section 304(a) criteria by
reference, the State Attorney General
has decided that the adoption by
reference is. invalid", is in error and
should be deleted from the final rule.
Response: EPA concurs that the
statement was in error and no such
statement is included in this final rule.
Arkansas
116.	Comment: Any promulgation of
human health criteria for the State of
Arkansas should be withdrawn from the
rulemaking because the state has
adopted such criteria.
Response: A State's standard must be
reviewed and approved by EPA before
the State can be removed from the n
Arkansas formally submitted their w V:er
quality standards containing human
health criteria to EFA on December 17,
1991. EPA's review found that the
human health criteria were supportive -
of designated uses and therefore no
human health criteria are promulgated
in this rule. The State's criteria to
protect human health were aDprcvedby
EPA on January 24,1992. EPA aiso
disapproved Arkansas' water quality
standards for failing to adopt the criteria
for priority pollutants to protect aquatic
life as required by section 303(c)(2)(B).
Necessary aauatic life criteria are
promulgated today and include the
following: Cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,
silver, rinc. and cyanide.
117. Comment: Arkansas is not
required by the Act to adopt numeric
criteria for metals because it has not
been established that the metals listed
"could reasonably be expected to
interfere with those designated uses
adopted by the State."
Response: EPA's poiicy is that the
presence of any Section 307(a)
pollutants raises an issue as whether
they could reasonably be expected to
interfere with designated use3. The
presence in ambient waters and the
discharge of metals is documented in
several databases, including the Toxic
Release Inventory, STORET, and
discharge monitoring reports. The State
could have submitted supporting
documentation that demonstrates that
the presence or discharge of these
metals is not expected to interfere with
designated uses. The State submitted no
such information. In the absence of any
demonstration to the contrary, EPA
must conclude that the metals can
reasonably be expected to interfere with
designated uses.
118.	Comment: The documentation on
which EPA based its assertion that
designated uses "could reasonably be
expected to be interfered with" should
be provided under this rulemaking
process.
Response: The documentation that
showed the widespread occurrence of
metals in Arkansas' waters in
concentrations exceeding EPA's
recommended levels was part of the
record for this rulemaking and was
available for review at the Region 6
office as well as at EPA headquarters.
119.	Comment: Ail pertinent data
developed by EPA under the 304(1)
process should be made available
without special request to ensure its
availability to potentially affected
parties.
Response: The material developed by
the States with respect to section 304(1)
-------
60898 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
was publicly available at the time the
list was compiled. A complete
discussion oi the relationship between
the 304(1) list and today's rule is
included earlier in this section.
Moreover, because EPA did not rely on
the State's section 304(1) materials for
this rulemaking, it was unnecessary to
place such materials in the record.
California
120. Comment: A commenter urged
that the national rule should clarify that
no criterion continuous concentration
for selenium less stringent than S jig/1
will be allowed in California's San
Francisco Bay. Commenters suggested
that the National Rule should direct
Region IX to develop site-specific
criteria for selenium in San Francisco
Bay It was further suggested that the
National Rule should state that the 5
Ug/1 selenium criterion (B2) applies only
to fish and aquatic invertebrates, not to
more sensitive uses such as wildlife.
The narrative standards should govern
for the more sensitive uses.
Response: This rule promulgates
EPA's freshwater criteria for selenium of
a CCC of 5 jig/1 (4 day average) and a
CMC of 20 |ig/l (1 hour average) for San
Francisco Bey and Delta. In EPA's
November 6,1991 approval letter on
California's Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
Plan. EPA approved California's
decision to allow regional water quality
control boards (Regional Boards) to
determine where in an estuary it is
appropriate to apply freshwater or
saltwater criteria. Although most
Regional Boards have not yet specified
the appropriate standard, EPA generally
agrees with this process. However, the
EPA standards approval letter
specifically found that utilization of the
saltwater criteria for selenium in the
San Francisco Bay/Delta would be
inappropriate. This finding is based.on
substantial scientific evidence that there
are high levels of selenium
bioaccumulation in San Francisco Bay
and the saltwater criteria fails to
account for food chain effects.
Accordingly, in the absence of Regional
Board action consistent with EPA's
approval letter. EPA is promulgating the
freshwater criteria for selenium for the
San Francisco Bay/Delta. EPA's criteria
for selenium in freshwater are derived
from laboratory and field data on the
effects of selenium on aquatic
vertebrates, Invertebrates and plants and
should be protective of aquatic
organisms under most conditions. The
selenium criteria were not developed
with the intent to address protection of
wildlife such as waterfowl. EPA is in
the process of developing wildlife
criteria for selenium. Recent studies and
analyses have enhanced our
understanding of avian exposure to
selenium in the field and have clarified
the importance of food chain
biomagnification and low level toxic
effects on avian reproduction. Such
information is, for the most part, new
information available after the Water
Quality Criteria for Selenium was
published in 1987. EPA supports the
efforts of the State to develop selenium
criteria based upon food chain
biomagnification. However, in the
absence of a final wildlife criteria
document, or other sufficient
information, EPA is unable to
promulgate a criterion more stringent
than 5 (jLg/1 as part of this rulemaking.
The purpose of this rule is to establish
Federal criteria for all waters that do not
have EPA-approved state criteria. It is
not appropriate to use this Federal rule
as a mechanism for directing
promulgation efforts of a region.
Further, EPA's regulations, guidance
documents, and the Preamble to the
Federal rule clearly specify the steps to
be taken when a state wishes to adopt
site specific criteria. EPA believes that
it is already clear that both the numeric
and the narrative standards apply in all
cases. This information is contained in
EPA's guidance documents and does
need not be reiterated in this
rulemaking.
121. Comment EPA should
promulgate freshwater selenium criteria
in California for the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, the inland surface waters
including the San Joaquin River, and the
Central Valley Wildlife refuges.
Response: The draft rulemaking
proposed the national selenium criteria
for all water bodies in California and
included those listed above. On
November 6,1991, EPA approved
California's Inland Surface Waters Plan
which adopted EPA's selenium criteria
for freshwater bodies with the exception
of Salt Slough, Mud Slough, and the
upper San Joaquin River. EPA approved
the State's selenium criteria but did not
approve these exceptions. Accordingly,
the final national rule promulgates die
EPA freshwater criteria for selenium for
Salt Slough, Mud Slough, and the upper
San Joaquin River. The State's
freshwater selenium criteria will apply
elsewhere in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and San Joaquin River.
The California Inland Surface Waters
Plan also included a selenium criterion
of 2 ppb for the inflow to Grasslands
Area Wildlife Refuge in the Central
Valley that is more protective than
EPA's criteria. This selenium criterion
was approved by EPA and, therefore,
today's promulgation will not apply to
the inflow to Grasslands Valley Wildlife
Refuge.
122. Comment: Several commenters
asserted that: (1) Past efforts to develop
site specific objectives for San Francisco
Bay demonstrate the technical
difficulties, costs, and uncertainty of
developing site specific criteria and; (2)
those difficulties make site-specific
criteria ineffective in amending
inappropriate national criteria.
Response: EPA approved the water
quality criteriaadopted by California in
the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan on
November 6,1991. EPA has revised
today's rule so that it does not include
pollutants covered by those state-
adopted, EPA-approved criteria, except
for selenium as described in the
previous comment and response. The
San Francisco Bay is a highly complex
estuarine system. In such cases,
developing site specific criteria may be
difficult. In October 1991, EPA made
technical comments on the site specific
objectives proposed for San Francisco
Bay. The site specific criteria for San
Francisco Bay have not yet been
adopted by the State and, therefore, it is
premature to evaluate their
effectiveness. EPA has approved site
specific criteria in several States and
recommends that site specific criteria be
developed where physical or chemical
characteristics of the site alter the
biological availability of the chemical or
where species at the site are more or less
sensitive than those species used in the
development of national criteria. Please
see Science and Implementation under
general comments.
123.	Comment: A commenter
indicated that Region DC has placed
impediments on the adoption of site-
specific criteria which make future
adoption of site-specific criteria an
unrealistic alternative.
Response: There is no indication what
"impediments" the commenter refers to,
or the action by which Region 9
allegedly created such impediments.
Please see Implementation under
general comments about requirements
for site-specific criteria.
124.	Comment: EPA also received
comments that the proposed rule would
establish inappropriate and technically
unsupported criteria for copper, nickel,
lead, and mercury for South San
Francisco Bay.
Response: The final rule has been
amended to reflect EPA's November 6,
1991 action on California's Enclosed
Bays and Estuaries Plan and does not
include criteria for copper, nickel,
mercury or lead for San Francisco Bay.
EPA generally approved California's
approach directing regional boards to
choose between two sets of criteria
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60899
(freshwater or sait'-vater) in an estuary.
California's saltwater and freshwater
criteria are approved by EPA. At this
point, EPA does aot have sufficient
information to conciude that this
approach of allowing Regional Boards to
r.boose between the two sets cf cntana
is inappropriate for copper, nickel, lead,
and mercury In the South 3ay.
Therefore, criteria for these metals are
not included in this final rule.
125. Comment: Several commenters
questioned the appropriateness of
promulgating EPA criteria for special
water bodies such as ephemeral streams,
constructed agricultural drains, effluent-
dominated streams, irrigation-flow
dominated streams, or evaporation
ponds.
Response: The criteria contained in
this rule apply to all "waters of the
United States" as defined in the Clean
Water Act and implementing
regulations except where State-adopted/
EPA-approved criteria apply. Waters of
the U.S. may include human-
constructed water bodies. Waters of the
U.S. does not include waters that fall
under EPA's waste treatment system
exemption. California deferred adopting
water quality standards for certain
effluent-dominated streams and
irrigation-flow dominated streams. This
deferral was disapproved by EPA in its
letter dated November 6,1991 on the
basis that it did not protect the water
bodies from toxics that are reasonably
expected to interfere with designated
uses. EPA Region IX agrees with
California that site specific criteria
would be appropriate for many waters
in these categories. If California adopts
and EPA approves site-specific criteria
that protect the designated uses, criteria
for those waters will be removed from
this final rule.
126.	Comment: Several commenters
found it impossible to comment on the
proposed rule in the short comment
period provided. Specifically,
commenters noted that the thirty-day
comment period is unreasonable and
unfair for California given Region IX's
delay in acting on California's own
water quality standards.
Response: Commenters had more that
five weeks to review Region IX's
November 6,1991 action, including
thirty days to compare it to the
proposed Federal rule. Also, please see
general comments under Timing and
Process.
127.	Comment: EPA was not
mandated to propose standards for
California at this time, especially in
light of Region IX's November 6,1991
action, on California's standards. The
Clean Water Act contains no specific
deadline for EPA to propose standards
and does r.ot require standards to be
proposed for the entire nation at once.
California couid be separated from other
states in crder to allow reasonable time
to evaluate both actions.
Response: Ca Novwnber 6,1991,
Region IX disapprovod California's
failure to adopt numerical criteria fcr all
307(a) pollutants for all "waters of the
U.S." in California. According to EPA's
water quality standards regulations (40
CFR part 131). the State has a 90-day
opportunity to correct any deficiencies
and EPA may then approve adequate
corrections. If the State does not adopt
the necessary corrections (or additions)
within that period, then EPA must
"promptly" proposa and promulgate
Federal standards in place of those
deficient State standards. (Clean Water
Act, section 303(c)(4)(A); 40 CFR
131.22.) In this instance. Federal
promulgation occurred more than 90
days after November 8,1991, and took
into account any and all changes
adopted by the State during those ninety
days. To further delay promulgation for
California when EPA is prepared to act
on California's standards concurrent
with other States is unnecessary. As to
the adequacy of time to evaluate both
actions, see response to preceding
comment.
.128. Comment: California commenters
stated that it is unclear whether Federal
or State criteria would apply to waters
which California exempted, since EPA
disapproved this exemption.
Response: California, by exempting
certain waters from its 303(c)(2)(B)
criteria, failed to adopt such criteria for
those waters. EPA's disapproval of the
exemptions did not bring about an
adoption which the State never made.
With this rulemaking, EPA adopts
criteria for all 307(a) priority pollutants
for those exempted waters which are
Waters of the U.S. See additional
comments below.
129. Comment: It is unclear which of
California's use classifications are
considered aquatic life or human health
classifications. The proposed rule
equates aquatic life protection with
aquatic life consumption and states that
waters with any aquatic life designation
must meet human health criteria. A
commenter indicated-that assigning fish
consumption for any aquatic life
segment is equivalent to Federal
promulgation of new designated uses
and should not be done in this
rulemaking.
Response: California's basin plans
identify specific aquatic life and human
health uses that are to be protected in
a particular waterbody. EPA has no
intention of changing designated uses in
this rulemaking. As stated in the
proposed rulemaking. States may
remove the human ceaith use
classification for wetars which uava
aquatic life but no existing aquatic ufo
consumption uses. California, howevor.
applies human health protection for fish
ronsumption statewida to ail navigabie
waters through the Inland Surface
Waters Plan, Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries Plan, and Ocean Flan.
Therefore, the Federal rule is based on
the presumption that, for all navigable
waters of the Stite, aquatic life is
present, fish or other aquatic life are
being caught and consumed, and human
health protection for fish consumption
is necessary. It is consistent with EPA's
established water quality standard
regulations to require States to include
all uses identified in Section 101(a) of
the Act for all waters unless removed
through an approved use attainability
analysis. (See 40 CFR 131.1G(j)). In this
rulemaking EPA has not included the
human health criteria (based on fish
consumption) for any segments for
which a State has conducted, and EPA
has approved, a use attainability
analysis to remove fish consumption as
a use. Please see Legal Authority under
general comments.
130.	Comment: EPA's claim on 56 FR
58422 at p. 58431 that comprehensive
Federal promulgation of standards place
"no undue or inappropriate burden on
States or dischargers" is unsubstantiated
and believed to be untrue in California.
The economic impacts of complying
with Federal criteria are believed to be
enormous particularly for publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) and
are likely to discourage water
reclamation projects.
Response: The commenter provides
no explanation as to why complying
with Federal criteria will discourage
weter reclamation projects. EPA is
unconvinced that this would be the
case. Please see Economics under
general comments in response to
economic impact concerns. -
131.	Comment: The commenter is
concerned about the use of 10-6 risk
level criteria as opposed to MCLs for
protection of drinking water.
Response: California does not have
any water bodies where drinking water
is the sole exposure pathway. Therefore,
MCLs may not be sufficient to protect
human health from exposure to toxics
from combined drinkicg water and fish
consumption pathways. See section F-
5 for a more detailed discussion of risk
levels included in this rulB.
132.	Comment: The commenter is
concerned that State schedules of
compliance will not apply to Federal
criteria.
-------
60900 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, i992 / Rules and Regulations
Response: Federal criteria will be
implemented in accordance with
existing state adopted compliance
schedules. For a detailed discussion of
this subject see a response to comment
in subsection 4 of this section.
133.	Comment: A commenter asserted
that EPA did not do enough to educate
the State early on of th9 303(c)(2)(B)
requirements and that EPA's final
303(c)(2)(B) guidance was not
transmitted to the States until December
12.1988, almost two years after the
1987 amendments. This delay left
California with inadequate time to adopt
criteria on a pollutant-by-pollutant and
water body-specific basis, and consider
the scienunc uncertainties relating to
the Federal data and methodologies.
Response: As stated in the Preamble
to the proposed rule, the December.
196? guidance was not substantially
different from earlier drafts which were
available for review by the states. That
guidance proposed a pollutant-by
pollutant and waterbody specific
approach as an acceptable option. While
recommending certain approaches, the
guidance also made it clear that States
retained flexibility to implement their
own preferred approaches. Please see
Science and Timing and Process under
general comments.
134.	Comment: One commenter stated
that Region IX's requirement that
California adopt criteria for all priority
pollutants is erroneously based on
statements in California's Functional
Equivalent Documents and is
inconsistent with national guidance.
Another commenter stated that this
requirement was unfounded.
Response: Region DC has consistently
advised California that it must adopt
criteria for all pollutants for which EPA
has section 304(a) criteria
recommendations, with the exception of
any pollutants which cannot reasonably
be expected to interfere with designated
uses. Omission of any such pollutant
must be based on evidence concerning
the presence and effect of that pollutant
in any given waterbody. This policy is
consistent with national guidance, the
history of which is set forth in Part B2
of the Preamble of November 19.1991.
None of the guidance options has aver
allowed the exclusion of any such
pollutant from the requirements of
section 303(c)(2)(B) without a factual
scientific basis. In the absence of such
scientific basis, EPA relied on
California's draft Functional Equivalent
Document which stated that "it is likely
that priority pollutants not covered in
this plan Will be found [in the State] in.
a more extensive analytical survey."
This statement is sufficient basis for
EPA to have determined that all priority
pollutants would reasonably be
expected to interfere with designated
uses in all waters of the State.
135.	Comment: The Federal criteria
are more stringent than necessary for
some water bodies in California.
Response: Without specific
information about which pollutants and
which water bodies the commenter is
referencing, EPA has difficulty
responding to this comment, in the
absence of such specific information,
EPA determined that it was appropriate
to adopt EPA's section 304(a) criteria for
all "waters of the U.S." that lack State-
adopted, EPA-approved criteria. If,
based on further scientific information,
the State adopts site-specific criteria
which are less stringent than the Federal
criteria but, in EPA's judgment, fully
meet the requirements of the Act. EPA
will undertake a rulemaking to remove
the affected pollutants from the Federal
ruie. For additional information, please
see Science under general comments.
136.	Comment: Major wastewater
dischargers in California have filed a
petition in State court to restrain the
State from utilizing its section
303(c)(2)(B) standards for inland waters,
bays, and estuaries. They filed the
petition out of concern over significant
economic impacts caused by blanket
imposition of the [EPA] criteria. The
filing of the petition illustrates the
concerns of many public agencies over
use of EPA criteria as national
standards.
Response: The petition referred to in
this comment is a challenge to section
304(a) criteria which have been adopted
by the State. It is a pending proceeding
in State court and does not affect today's
rulemaking. The commenter states that
this matter reflects a widespread
concern over adoption of section 304(a)
criteria as national standards. That
concern is apparent in the comments
received from several entities,
particularly in California, and they are
addressed in the Economics under
general comments.
137.	Comment: A commenter stated
that "only marine criteria should be
selected for enclosed bays in California
since these are, by definition,
indentations along the coast which
enclose an area of oceanic water. It is
not appropriate to apply freshwater
criteria to these water bodies." The
commenter also indicated that States
should be given the discretion to
determine when freshwater or salt water
criteria should apply in an estuary.
Response: State standards in
California's Inland Surface Waters and
Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plans have
been approved for most of the priority
toxic pollutants. These standards
include both freshwater and saltwater
uses and leave the selection of
appropriate criteria to the regional
boards. EPA approved the two sets of
criteria on November 6,1991. The
Federal rule has been amended to reflect
this epproval. The final Federal rule
applies to those parameters and also to
water bodies where State standards are
lacking or not protective. The regional
boards shall determine for both State
and Federal criteria whether freshwater
or saltwater criteria are appropriate at
the confluence of the water bodies with
different water quality objectives.
District of Columbia
138. Comment: The adequacy of new
human health criteria has not been
proven to be germane to (he District of
Columbia.
Response: As a general proposition,
EPA is applying criteria for all priority
toxic pollutants not addressed by
approved State criteria for those States
not in full compliance with section
303(c) of CWA. EPA's reasoning behind
this approach (and the exceptions) are
discussed fully in the preamble.
However, two reasons deserve repeating
here. First, existing data sources
indicate the discharge, potential
discharge or presence of substantial
numbers of priority toxic pollutants in
most States. With the failure of some
States to adopt toxic criteria in a timely
fashion, coupled with the evidence of
the discharge or potential presence of
priority toxic pollutants for which the
State has failed to adopt criteria, the
Agency believes there is a need for
numeric criteria for most priority toxic
pollutants in most States. Second, the
support of each criterion on a state-by-
state and waterbody-by-waterbody basis
by EPA would be an enormous
administrative burden on EPA and
would be contrary to the statutory
scheme and Congressional directive for
swift action. Congress directed EPA to
accomplish the promulgation within 90
days and EPA has made every effort to
expedite this rulemaking. Providing the
adequacy for all criteria for all States
would take years and would be counter
to the directive of swift action.
Florida
139. Comment: One commenter stated
that, since the State of Florida adopted
numeric criteria on December 7,1990
based on Option II of EPA's section
303(c)(2)(B) guidance, the Federal rule
should not include criteria for all
priority toxicpollutants.
Response: Since the time that the
proposed rulemaking was published,
Florida formally requested EPA's review
of the criteria adopted by the State on
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60901
December 7,1990. EPA approved these
criteria, with, the exception of the
absenca of criteria for 2,3.7,8 TCDD (i.e.,
dioxin) on February 25,1992. Therefore.
SPA has only included criteria for
2.3,7,8 TCDD for the Stats of Florida in
the final rulemaking.
Kentucky
140. Comment: One commenter stated
that Kentucky has proposed ana
adopted a revision to 401 KAR 5-.C21
which deletes the previously adopted
numeric human health criteria for
dioxin. A request was made by the
comment9r that EPA's determination of
full compliance for Kentucky for the
section 303(cJ{2)(3) requirement be
considered and a Fedoral water quaiity
criteria be promulgated through tins
Federal rulemaking. Alternatively, a
request was made that such criteria be
established as an interim final rule in a
separate rulemaking.
Response: At the time EPA published
the pro Dosed rulemaking, the State-
adapted criteria for 2,3,7,8, TCDD for
the State of Kentucky was in effect as
part of 401 KAR 5:031 (Surface water
standards). EPA is aware that the
proposed deletion of 2,3,7,8 TCDD
criteria was put into effect on January
29,1992. EPA's position on Kentucky's
proposed deletion of the State-adopted
dioxin criteria was transmitted to
Kentucky by letter dated November 21.
1991. In that letter, EPA's Region IV
Water Management Division Director
stated, "Should the State complete
adoption of the proposed amendment
without replacing the adopted dioxin
criteria with approvable criteria values,
I will recommend to the Regional
Administrator that the dioxin criteria, or
absence of dioxin criteria, be
disapproved by EPA. If the State does
not adopt criteria within 90 days of
EPA's disapproval action, EPA will
initiate a promulgation of Federal water
quality criteria for dioxin for the State."
This continues to be EPA's position on
this issue.
Louisiana
141. Comment; EPA should not
promulgate dioxin standards for
Louisiana.
Response: Louisiana submitted to
EPA criteria to protect human health for
dioxin on December 18,1991. EPA's
review found that the criteria adopted
by the State were scientifically
defensible and supported the designated
uses. EPA approved the State standard
on January 24,1992. Therefore,
Louisiana is not included in today's
rule.
Nevada
142.	Comment: A Nevada commenter
suggested that Column Dl criteria
should apply only at the point of intake
of any municipal or domestic suppiy.
Response: Column Dl criteria are to
apply to all waters designated by the
Stars or Nevada for municipal or
demesne supply. In the case of Lake
Mead, that is the entire Lake except for
the segment at the end of Las Vegas Bay
recognizing that Las Vegas Wash enters
there. All of L&ka Mead is subject to
human consumption of water either
diraciiy from the kka or downstream.
143.	Comment: It was stated that the
State cf Nevada has already considered
and rejected criteria similar to the
proposed amendments, and Nevada's
decision is not contrary to the
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Response: The State excluded criteria
similar to those in the proposed
rulemaking from the water quality
standard amendments considered for
adoption by the Nevada State
Environmental Commission (SEC). The
Stats did not provide an adequate
justification for this exclusion;
therefore, on January 16,1991, EPA
disapproved this portion of the SEC
action as being inconsistent with section
303(c)(2)(B). Without substantive
justification (such as evidence of lack of
presence of particular pollutants in
waters of the State) for excluding any of
the priority pollutants from State
standards, all of them must be added.
144. CommenL- A Nevada commenter
stated that Las Vegas Wash should be
excluded from any human health
protection for consumption of aquatic
organisms under the Federal rule.
Response: The general issue of the
applicability of column D2
(consumption of aquatic organisms)
criteria is discussed in the preamble and
in the Science portion of general
comments. Human health protection is
required where a fishery, or other
aquatic life that can be consumed, is
present. Las Vegas Wash has been
designed by die State for the use of
"Propagation of aquatic life, excluding
fish." State regulations clarify that this
designation does not preclude the
establishment of a fishery. Although the
commenter offers anecdotal information
that no one fishes in (or eats any kind
of aquatic organism from) Las Vegas
Wash, no evidence is provided
supporting that anecdotal information.
No use attainability analysis has been
conducted to justify removal or
amendment of this use. Also, the Stata
has already adapted (and EPA
approved) standards for protection of
aquatic life in Las Vegas Wash. Because
of the existing aquatic life use and ths
potential for consumption of aquatic
organisms, EPA has aopiied column D2
criteria to Las Vegas Wash.
145. Comment: A Nevada commsnter
stated that tha proposed rule does not
provide sufficient notice as to why
certain criteria were included and
othars excluded from the proposed
rulemaking for Nevada.
Response: The rulemaking includes
criteria only for parameters that Nevada
did net adopt, or, if tha State did adopt
criteria for a parameter, for parameters
that were specifically disapproved. This
information was all part of tha
administrative record associated with
Nevada's adoption of numeric standard,
for toxics in May 1990 and EPA's
approval/disapproval on January 16.
1991 and was available to the public
prior to the notice of EPA's proposed
rule, and during the public comment
period for the proposed rule.
New Jersey
146.	Comment: A commenter arguas
that New Jersey is in compliance with
section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water
Act because the State incorporates
section 304(a) criteria, by reference, in
their Water Quality Standards
Regulation for actions involving the
development of water quality based
effluent limitations for point sources.
Response: While the State Water
Quality Standards Regulation does
incorporate section 304(a) criteria by
reference, the standards do not specify
tha application factors necessary to
implement criteria (e.g., a risk level for
carcinogens). Further, the reference in
the water quality standards regulation
limits application of these criteria to
actions involving the development of
water quality-based controls for point
sources while water quality standards
must serve as the basis for controls on
all sources, point and nonpoint.
147.	Comment: A commenter noted
that water quality criteria were' not
proposed in the promulgation far New
Jersey waters classified as PL
(Pinelands), or as mainstem Delaware
River and Delaware Bay (zones 1C-6).
Response: EPA agrees that, due to
EPA oversight, criteria were not
proposed In tha promulgation for New
jersey waters classified as PL
(Pinelands) or as-mainstsm Delaware
River and Delaware Bay (zones 1C-6).
Appropriate criteria for Now Jersey
waters classified as PL (Pinelands), and
as mainstem Delaware River and
Delaware Bay (zones lC-6) are now
included in this final rule.
-------
60902 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Puerto Rico
148.	Comment: A commenter stated
that EPA's proposed rule presents
serious problems regarding its
implementation, specifically in
determining the waters to which such
criteria would be applicable in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Response: The Puerto Rico Water
Quality Standards Regulations is clear
regarding the designated uses of all
waters of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. EPA is assigning necessary and
appropriate criteria to support those
uses in order to satisfy the requirements
of section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean
Water Act.
149.	Comment: A commenter stated
that the Puerto Rico Water Quality
Standards Regulation, which establishes
the classifications and designated uses,
does not comply with the Federal Water
Quality Standards Regulation in terms
of the adoption of subcategories of uses,
the need to conduct use attainability
analyses when standards are exceeded,
the adoption of a variety of uses for a
single waterbody. and in considering
the social and economic needs of the
Commonwealth.
Response: While the Federal Water
Quality Standards Regulation authorizes
the adoption of subcategories of uses.
States are not required to adopt
subcategories of uses in the
establishment of standards. States are
not required to complete use
attainability analyses (UAAs) when
designated uses are not met Section
131.10(j) of the water quality standards
regulation requires that States must
complete UAAs when removing
designated uses that are not existing
uses, or when specifying uses
inconsistent with the goals of the Clean
Water Act. States may not remove
designated uses if they are existing uses.
In the establishment of water quality
standards and water body
classifications, including requisite
public participation, Puerto Rico has
taken social and economic needs of the
Commonwealth into consideration, as
well as the inherent differences in levels
of protection and water quality required
by the various designated uses.
Notwithstanding this discussion, the
rule only addresses appropriate criteria
for priority toxic pollutants. Other
elements of State water quality
standards are not addressed.
150.	Comment: It was commented that
the Puerto Rico Water Quality Standards
Regulation does not recognize the uses
of waterbodies that are actually attained.
Response: Designated uses of
waterbodies are not required to only
reflect those uses that are actually
attained. While the Puerto Rico Water
Quality Standards Regulation defines
Class SD waters as surface waters
intended for use as a raw water source
for public water supply and the
preservation and propagation of
desirable species, not all Class SD
waters presently meet these goals.
Designated uses need not be existing
uses. Consolidation of various uses (i.e.,
fishing and swimming) into one
classification is an acceptable approach
for designating uses of waterbodies, and
a necessary one in order to meet the goal
of the Clean Water Act Federal
regulations require that waters have
designated uses that provide for
fishable/swimmable water quality
where attainable. When establishing
criteria to protect these various
designated uses, criteria may be
specified to protect each use.
Washington
151.	Comment: The term "water
supplies" should be deleted from the
Class AA listing in (22)(i) because it is
incorrect
Response: EPA concurs, it was a
misprint.
152.	Comment: Comments were
received that EPA should not
promulgate criteria for dioxin in the
State of Washington. The commenters
expressed concerns that EPA's actions
would be disruptive and unnecessarily
interfere with ongoing State
administrative and judicial actions
involving Department of Ecology's
decisions in establishing effluent
limitations in permits issued to
numerous pulp and paper mills. The
Department of Ecology had established
the permit effluent limitations based on
the State's existing narrative water
quality criterion. The commenters urged
EPA to defer action pending the
conclusion of the ongoing State actions
challenging the State's authority to
establish permit limitations based on its
narrative criterion. In addition
commenters said that the current State
regulations met the requirements of
section 303(c)(2)(B) and that the State's
regulations were equivalent to another
- State's water quality standards that an
EPA region had approved as being in
compliance with section 303(c)(2)(B).
Response: EPA carefully considered
the comments on this issue and has
decided to exercise its discretionary
authority under section 303(c)(4)(B) to
promulgate human health criteria for
dioxin and the other toxic pollutants to
be applicable to waters in the State of
Washington This action will ensure
that there are numeric water quality
criteria applicable in the State as
required by section 303(c)(2)(B).
EPA's review of the current
Washington water quality standards for
toxic pollutants indicates that those
standards do not include the necessary
water quality criteria to satisfy the
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B).
While WAC 173-201-047(1) includes
numeric aquatic life criteria, protection
of human health is only addressed
through a narrative criterion that
provides that toxic substances not be
introduced at levels which "adversely
affect public health, as determined by
the department * * WAC 173-201-
047(4). EPA believes that this limited
narrative criterion does not satisfy the
requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B).
EPA acknowledges that the
Department of Ecology relied upon iu>
narrative criterion to establish effluent
limitations for dioxin in State NPDES
permits. EPA supported the
Department's reliance in its narrative
criterion in developing necessary
effluent limitations for the control of
discharge of dioxin. EPA encourages ali
States to have narrative criteria for
Erotection of aquatic life, wildlife and
uman health in instances when the
State does not have an applicable
numeric criterion. However, section
303(c)(2)(B) is clear in its directive that.
States adopt numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants if EPA has issued section
304(a) guidance and the discharge or
presence of such pollutants could
reasonably be expected to interfere with
designated uses in the State.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
EPA discussed the basis for its decision
to include Washington in the rule. 56
FR at 58477. The absenca-of any
numeric criteria for human health and
the acknowledged discharge and
presence of toxic pollutants being
expected to interfere with designated
used supported inclusion of Washington
in the rule. With respect to dioxin, the
issuance of permits with discharge
limitations was further evidence that the
discharge or presence of dioxin could
reasonably be expected to interfere with
designated basis.
EPA does not believe that
promulgation of numeric criteria for the
State of Washington should be delayed
pending resolution of the ongoing
litigation challenging the Department of
Ecology's authority to establish effluent
limitations based on the State's
narrative criterion. The State's narrative
criterion, while it may be the basis for
deriving effluent limitations, is not
adequate to satisfy the requirements of
Section 303(c)(2)(B). Some commenters
argued that Washington had in effect
incorporated by reference EPA's Section
304(a) water quality criteria guidance as
the basis for interpreting and
-------
Federal Register / Vol; 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules-and Regulations 60903
implementing the State's narrative
cxiterian. The Washington water quality
standards, however, merely provide that
for toxic substances not listed in the
standards, concentrations shall be
determined "^consideration of
USEP.Vs Qualify Criteria for Water.
1986, and as revised, and other relevant
information." WAC 173-201-047(3).
Tha State standards neither require use
of EPA's criteria nor limit the State's
decision to use of such criteria.
Therefore, even a decision by the
Washington Supreme Court that the
Department of Ecology is authorized to
use its narrative criterion to develop
permit effluent limitations would not
address the specific requirement of
secticn 303(c)(2)(B) that the Stata adopt
numeric criteria.
In response to the comments that the
cunent Washington regulations are
equivalent to regulations adopted by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts which
is not included in today's rulemaking.
EPA believes there is a important
difference between the two State
regulations. The Massachusetts
regulations provide that in deriving
criteria for unlisted pollutants, the State
"shall use the recommended limit
published by EPA pursuant to section
304(a) * * Code of Massachusetts
Regulations, Title 314, section
4.05 (5)(e). Pursuant to an
Implementation Policy adopted on
February 23,1990, Massachusetts stated
that it would use a risk management
goal of 10-6 for individual chemicals
and 1Q-J for mixtures of chemicals in
deriving criteria for carcinogens. The
regulations contain a specificity
regarding what the applicable criteria,
will be that is not present in the
Washington regulations. EPA's Region 1
determined that the Massachusetts
regulations complied with section
303(c)(2)(B) and approved those
regulations on December 20,1990. See
56 FR 56452.
EPA's decision to promulgate
appropriate human health criteria for
the State of Washington is consistent
with the Agency's prior statements
regarding the status of Washington's
compliance with Section 303(c)(2)(B). In
the Federal Register notice of April 17,
1990, EPA identified Washington as not
being in compliance with section
303(c)(2)(B). 55 FR 14350. By letter
dated March 27,1990, from the
Department of Ecology to EPA. the
Department listed the adoption of
human health criteria as an action for its
triennial review that had been requested
by EPA. By letter dated March 21,1991,
from EPA to.the Department of Ecology,
EPA explained that the State would
remain in noncompliance under section
303(c)(2)(B) for human health criteria
even if the State proceeded to adopt
aquadc life criteria and a human health
risk level. These documents are in the
record of this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12291
1. Introduction and Rationale for
Estimating Casts
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
to prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis
for major regulations, which are defined
by certain levels of costs or impacts. For
example, the Executive Order specifies
that a regulation imposing an annual -
cost to the economy of $100 million or
more is considered major. According to
the Executive Order, the Regulatory
Impact Analysis should contain
descriptions of both potential costs and
benefits. While the Executive Order
calls for an estimate of costs, tha Statute
mandating today's rule does not allow
cost to be a consideration in setting
water quality criteria. The following
discussion describes the Agency's
consideration of costs in the rulemaking
and decision process even though cost
considerations are not included in the
development of numeric criteria for
toxic pollutants.
In developing the proposed rule, EPA
considered various perspectives
regarding the potential incremental
costs that might be incurred as a result
of the Agency promulgating numeric
criteria for individual States. The
Agency concluded that the costs
incurred by individual dischargers as a
result of complying with water quality-
based permits might be large enough to
designate the rule as "major," according
to the definitions included in Executive
Order 12291. The Agency did not
include a quantitative estimate of the
costs due to the uncertainties of such an
estimate, but instead, described the
types of costs that were expected.
There are certain characteristics of the
rule that make the estimation of costs
particularly complicated and difficult
Since the rule imposes requirements
only until the State submits, and EPA
approves, the State's own numeric
standards, the cost estimates should be
calculated on a per State and per
pollutant basis, so that State/pollutant
combinations nan be removed as
numeric standards are approved
Additionally, an analysis of the
incremental costs attributed to the rule
should reflect information on specific
impaired stream segments and the
dischargers on those segments.
Because a detailed analysis of all
affected stream segments is not practical
given the available resources, the
development of compliance cost
estimates for this rule would require
numerous assumptions about pollutant
loadings, impacts of technology-based
regulations on loadings, combinations of
pollutants handled by a given treatment
approach, and the costs of each
treatment train. The many sources of
uncertainty associated with estimating
the costs would produce an estimate
with limited value for evaluating the
merits of the rule. In addition, the rule
does not remove the responsibility of
States to adopt numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants. As the remaining States
submit their own standards and EPA
approves those standards, the costs
attributed to the rule will decline.
Hence, EPA, with the concurrence of
OMB, proceeded with the proposed
rulemaking without a quantitative
estimate of compliance costs.
2. Overview of Projected Costs
EPA acknowledges that there will be
a cost to some dischargers for complying
with new water quality standards as
those standards are translated into
specific NPDES permit limits. The
addition of Federally promulgated
criteria for toxic pollutants could affect
the wasteload allocations developed for
each waterbody segment in affected
States to the extent the pollutant is
discharged into the stream. Revised
wasteload allocations may result in
adjustments to individual NPDES
permit limits for point source
dischargers, and these adjustments
could result in increased wastewater
treatment costs or other pollution
control activities such as recycling or
process changes. The magnitude of
these costs depends on the types of
treatment or other pollution control, the
number and type of pollutants being
treated, and the level of control that can
be achieved by technology-based
effluent limits for each industry.
Similar sources of costs and the
variables affecting costs may also apply-
to indirect industrial dischargers to the
extent that the industrial discharger is a
source of toxic pollutants discharged by
the FOTW. The POTW may incur costs
for expansion, operational changes,
additional treatment, modified
pretreatment programs, and increased
operator training..
Nonpoint sources of toxic pollutants
may also incur increased costs to the
extent that best management practices
need to be modified or applied to more
sources to reflect the revised water
quality standards. Although there is no
Federal permit program fomonpoint
sources comparable to that for point
sources, there are State regulatory
programs to control nonpoint source
discharges.
-------
€<0904 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Monitoring programs are another
source of potential incremental costs to
dischargers and States. Monitoring
programs to generate information on the
existing quality of water and the types
and amount of pollutants being
discharged are potentially affected by
the imposition of EPA criteria. The
addition of Federal criteria for toxic
pollutants does not require the State to
engage in a program to monitor ambient
waters for such pollutants. Unless there
is some reasonable expectation that the
pollutants are manufactured or actually
used in the State with the likelihood
that those pollutants will be discharged
into surface waters. NPDES permittees
also would not have to monitor for these
pollutants.
3. Comments and EPA's Response
EPA received numerous comments
regarding the potential cost impacts of
the rule; most of these comments
contend that a Regulatory Impact
Analysis is required. Specifically, many
commanters asserted that EPA should
estimate the costs that dischargers
would incur and include such cost
estimates in all decision-making aspects
of the rule. Some of-these comments
argued the qualitative discussion of
costs did not fulfill the requirements of
E.0.12291.
EPA does not concede that its
rationale for not estimating costs was
flawed. Rather than appear
nonresponsive, however, the Agency
recognizes that further discussion is
warranted and has undertaken an
assessment of potential costs that might
be incurred for several types of
dischargers.
This cost assessment is not a
Regulatory Impact Analysis, nor is it a
comprehensive cost analysis. The
following discussion is intended to
describe the scope and range of costs
that might occur. Many analytical
assumptions were necessary to conduct
this cost assessment, which is presented
in the form of four examples. Each
example was conducted independently
with no common data sources. The
examples are not intended to represent
an estimate of the total costs of the rule.
The Agency "maintains that a
comprehensive analysis of costs would
not provide enough additional
information to assist Agency
management with decisions concerning
the rule. A complete analysis of costs for
this rule would likely include
differential costs to comply with various
levels of regulatory control. Similarly,
an R1A would likely evaluate alternative
options for structuring the rule, where
the options might reflect various level of
stringency. Due to the complexities of
analyzing the impacts of this rule,
however, a meaningful cost estimate
would be extremely difficult and costly,
and it is uncertain whether an RIA
would lend reliable information to the
decision-making process.
4. Scope of Cost Impacts
Since this rule directly affects only
those States that have not adopted their
own numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants, the cost impacts are limited
to dischargers in those States. The cost
impacts are further limited by several
other factors. First, the potential impact
of the rule is limited to treating
discharges of only those pollutants
included in the rulemaking for each
State. In other words, if today's rule
imposes criteria for only one pollutant
(assuming criteria were adopted and
approved for all other pollutants—a
situation which occurs for several
States), the number of dischargers in
that State that might incur compliance
costs are limited to dischargers for
which that single pollutant drives the
treatment needed to comply with their
NPDES permit. This situation
significantly reduces the number of
dischargers with a cost impact. The
number of pollutants that could be the
basis for additional treatment may be
reduced from the number actually
included in the rule due to the overlap
of controls for groups of pollutants. For
example, discharges of several of the
metals can be reduced by a single
treatment system (generally lime
precipitation and clarification) without
additional treatment for each additional
pollutant in that group.
In some cases, the controls in place—
whether installed to comply with
technology-based limitations or to
comply with a discharge permit issued
pursuant to section 304(1) of the Clean
Water Act—may be sufficient to provide
compliance with water quality criteria.
In other cases, controls implemented to
meet whole effluent toxicity permit
requirements may preclude the need to
implement additional controls to reduce
a toxic pollutant discharge covered by
the rule.
Finally, flow levels, receiving stream
conditions, and wasteload allocations
are likely to cause variation in the need
to install additional treatment
technology. For all of these reasons, the
Agency believes that the number of
dischargers with potential incremental
costs is significantly lower than the total
number of dischargers in the controlled
States.
An estimate of the number of point
sources that could be affected begins
with the major dischargers from the 14
States included in today's rule.5 The
focus on major dischargers (where the
term "major" refers to the distinction
used in the NPDES program for facilities
with the potential for a significant
impact on water quality) is consistent
with the rulemaking's focus on toxic
pollutants. Any.point source with a
significant discharge of toxic pollutants
is likely to be included in this category.
The number of major facilities for the
18 States is 2,055. (See Footnote 5.) This
is a subset of the approximately 7,000
major dischargers in the entire country
(3,000 industrial, 4,000 municipal). Of
these, 229 facilities already have
Individual Control Strategies (ICS) that
were established in response to section
304(1) of the Clean Water Act. These
facilities have effluent limitations for
toxic pollutants sufficient to achieve
water quality standards in the receiving
water. Thus, the number of major
facilities that potentially could be
subject to incremental requirements is
1,826. The exact number is likely to be
lower because of the number of
regulated pollutants in each State and
the current discharges of the facilities.
All of the analytical difficulties
described above, such as estimating
pollutant loadings and compliance
costs,' would need resolution to
accurately estimate the cost impects for
this group of dischargers. In place of
attempting to estimate total costs, the
following four examples illustrate the
range of costs likely to be incurred in
specific situations, and some of the
problems involved in developing
potential compliance costs for this rule.
5. Example: Regulating Dioxin for the
Pulp and Paper Industry
As an erample of the range of costs
that could be associated with the
imposition of EPA's numeric criteria,
we considered the pulp and paper
Industry and the pollutant dioxin.
Dioxin (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD, listed as
Compound *16 at § 131.35(b) of the
proposed rule) is a likely by-product
from chlorine bleaching of chemically-
pulped wood. Chlorine bleaching is
used by approximately 100 pulp mills
in the United States. Of those bleach
mills; 22 are located in States that had
not adopted human health criteria for
dioxin as of the date of the proposed
' Whan this assessment urn prepared, tha Agency
contemplated that IS Statas would be Included la
tha rul a. Thui, the astlmatad coats deaaribed la this
preamble an bared on i "universe" of 18 Statas.
Since then, four Statas have adopted and EPA has
approved priority toxic pollutant criteria. In tha
examples that follow, tha tisessment has sot been
revised from 18 States to 14 States because tha
objective of tha issesamant—to describe the scope
and range of Impacts—Is met even with the higher
number of States.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 ( Tuesday. December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60905
rule. (See Footnote 5.) Thus, this rule
could potentially serve as the basis for
establishing dioxin limitations in the
NPDES permits for those facilities. Of
the 22 bleach mills in "unapproved"
States, however, 13 already have dioxin
limitations in their discharge permits,
established in response to section 3040)
of the Clean Water Act. Only foi; the
remaining nine facilities, then, will this
rule be a potential reason for
establishing dioxin limitations in the
discharge permits.
For those nine facilities, however, the
effluent levels of dioxin, as reported by
the facilities, are all equal to or less than
10 parts per quadrillion (ppq}.a This
effluent data nas important implications
for projecting costs and impacts.
Today's rale will result in water quality
standards that contain EPA's human
health criteria of 0.013 ppq for dioxin at
a 1Q~® incremental risk level (or 0.13
ppq for States that have expressed a
preference for a 1 Q~s incremental risk
level). This value would than be
reflected in the permits for the facilities
that discharge dioxin. after conducting a
wasteload allocation and accounting for
stream dilution. If the resulting permit
limitation is less than ID ppq,
compliance with the permit is likely to
be determined at 10 ppq, because that
is level of detection for dioxin for the
EPA analytical method.
The practical interpretation of the
effluent data for these nine facilities is
that promulgation of this rule is
unlikely to affect the need for treatment
and thus, the costs of compliance for
water quality-based permits.
These conclusions are vary much a
function of the laboratory analytical
methods and their levels of detection for
dioxin. If more precise and reliable
measurement becomes available and is
incorporated into the monitoring
requirements in the permits for these
facilities, the small differences between
their effluent levels and the mare
stringent water quality-based limitations
could present the need for additional
treatment or revised production
processes.
The Agency has collected extensive
Information about the pulp industry's
efforts to reduce dioxin discharges from
chlorine-bleaching facilities. The
industry has responded to the need to
reduce dioxin (and related chemicals)
discharges with a variety of
technological advancements. These
include process refinements, such as
•US. Environmental Protection Agency.
Engineering and Analyali Division, "1990 National
Cenatu of Palp, Paper, and Papetboard
Manufacturing F«mbHe»—Preliminary Summary
Report of Questionnaire Respotuet for Mills Which
Bleach Oiamlral Pulp*." October 31,1991.
changing input chemicals or altering the
bleaching process. These types of
changes are not necessarily prohibitive
in terms of investment cost or operating
costs. Substantial dioxin reductions
have been achieved at little or no
incremental compliance costs by
changing certain process chemicals. For
example, a change to dioxin precursor-
free brownstock defoamers has been
successful in reducing dioxin discharges
at virtually no change in chemical cost
and with no additional equipment.
Other process chemical changes,
however, can result in increased costs.
For example, increased chlorine dioxide'
substitution. which is often
accompanied by increased chlorine
dioxide generation on-site, has been
adopted by various facilities at on
investment cost of approximately $20
million each. At the costly extreme,
dioxin discharge reductions at other
facilities reflect major renovations, not
only to reduce dioxin discharges, but to
modernize or otherwise restructure the
facility. For example, a facility might
choose to rebuild its bleach plant and
adopt an entirely new bleaching
process. Costs for this type of rebuilding
may reach S100 million.
In summary, the costs associated with
meeting an EPA-hnposed dioxin limit
can be estimated amy. with information
on the bleaching process currently used
at each facility, its wastewater
characteristics, the characteristics of the
receiving stream, md the level of
control mandated by a new water
quality-based permit Based on reported
effluent levels, however, this rule is
unlikely to be the bagis for any
incremental compliance costs for Pulp
and Paper mills to reduce dioxin
discharges.
6. Example: Regulating Copper in the
Metal Finishing Industry
As a second example of the range of
costs that might be incurred as a result
of complying with water quality-based
permits issued in response to the
imposition of EPA's criteria for toxic
pollutants, we considered the metal
finishing category for the control of the
pollutant copper.
Effluent guidelines limitations and
standards, which an technology-based
regulations developed by the Agency
pursuant to section 304 of the Clean
Water Act, were promulgated for this
industry in July 1983. Briefly, the
effluent guidelines for the metal
finishing industry set national standards
for all dischargers to surface waters and
to wastewater treatment plants
(sometimes called publicly-owned
treatment works, or POTW). The
effluent guidelines for the metal
finishing industry include numeric
limitations for copper, based on the Errs;
Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT), for direct
dischargers. The limitations for copper,
as promulgated, are a daily maximum of
3.38 mg/1 and a monthly average of 2.07
mg/1. The technology basis for these
limitations is generally lime
precipitation and clarification.
When the Agency promulgated
effluent guidelines for this industry, the
estimated number of direct dischargers
subject to the regulation was
approximately 2,900. In the Agency's
permit compliance database, which
reflects a more recent assessment, there
are approximately 4,000 metal finishing
direct dischargers. The higher, and more
conservative number (in terms of
projecting the number of affected
facilities) is used in this assessment.
Of the IB States included in this
assessment, only six will receive EPA's
aquatic criteria for copper; the
remainder have already adopted aquatic
criteria for copper in their standards.7
(See Footnote 5.) Approximately 530 of
the direct dischargers are located in
these six States (where two States
account for 93 percent of the facilities).
The number of potentially affected
facilities is further reduced for several
reasons. First, the number of facilities
that would actually be considered for
water quality-based permits could be
lower, after subtracting any facilities
that have, individual control strategies
(ICSs) to control the discharge of
copper. In addition, the Agency has
provided a formula in today's rule to
allow the permitting authority to
determine a water-effect ratio to account
for metals speciation. The practical
result is that, where determined, the
water quality criteria for copper in
certain wateibodies is likely to increase.
This adjustment will have the effect of
bringing the water quality-based
limitation closer to the "BAT limitation;
for some facilities, this water-effect
adjustment could eliminate the need for
incremental treatment
Finally, depending on rite-specific
conditions at each facility, suai as die
actual discharge concentration of
copper, treatment-in-place, and the
dilution provided by the receiving
stream, complying with the in-etreem
concentration specified in the rule
could be achieved by merely complying
with BAT limitations. Alternatively,
7 For matal pollutants, such at copper, the aquatic
criteria tend to be mora (txingsnt thim the criteria
based on protecting human health. For puipotei of
thla aaaeannent. ETA la estimating Impactt talatad
to the aquatic lift protection criteria becaaaa tboaa
atteiia am nan relevant Cot Mtabllihlng water
quality itandardi
-------
60906 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday. December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
since the in-stream water quality criteria
is more stringent than the discharge
limitation established by BAT. it is
possible that a facility complying with
BAT would need additional treatment to
comply with a water quality-based
limitation.
For purposes of this assessment, EPA
investigated whether BAT would be
sufficient to meet water quality criteria.
Many simplifying assumptions are
incorporated into the following
discussion. The investigation focused
on metal finishing facilities with water
releases of the metal pollutants
(including, but not limited to copper] as
reported in the Toxic Release
Inventory.8 The facilities included in
this assessment were limited to those for
which plant and stream flow data were
readily accessible. While the number of
facilities meeting all of these criteria
was small; the results were indicative of
both scenarios described above. In
Connecticut (which is used for
illustrative purposes only because it is
not included in the final rule). EPA has
identified a facility for which BAT will
be sufficient for controlling discharges
of copper to the level needed to comply
with a water quality-based limitation for
copper, assuming EPA's criteria leveL
At tnat site, the stream dilution is such
that meeting the BAT limitation at the
discharge point will also likely meet the
water quality criteria within the stream.
We have also identified another facility
in Connecticut for which BAT will not
be sufficient—that is, the effluent levels
needed to comply with the water quality
criteria in the stream are lower than the
level that BAT will provide. Thus,
additional treatment controls, and
incremental compliance costs, are
potentially needed for the second
facility.
Without a detailed water quality and
stream dilution analysis for all
dischargers, the number of facilities
where BAT will be sufficient to also,
meet water quality criteria is unknown.
For purposes of this assessment, the
distribution of facilities where
additional treatment may be necessary
is assumed to be between 25 and 75
percent Additionally, the distribution
of facility- and stream characteristics for
metal finishers in Connecticut is
assumed to be representative of the
distribution of characteristics in the
other States. Using these simplifying
•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic
Raleaie Inventory. 1989. A teerch ot the Inventory
for direct discharger! in the metal finishing
Industry in the six States yielded 41 facilities. Two
ot the six States.have zero facilities matching that
description. The comparisons of BAT and water
quality criteria are drawn from that subset of the
Inventory.
assumptions, EPA estimates that 130 to
400 facilities are potentially subject to
additional treatment requirements.
During the development of the
effluent guidelines for this industry,
EPA considered several treatment
technologies that control pollutant
discharges. In addition to the
precipitation and clarification
technology that was used as the basis for
effluent limitations, EPA investigated
and published information about
effluent filtration, which provides more
stringent control of copper discharges.'
Filtration was not selected as the basis
for BAT because of its high cost when
considered on a nationwide basis.10 The
removal efficiency for filtration is
substantially higher than that for
precipitation and clarification. Based on
engineering judgment, if filtration were
installed at a facility in addition to the
technology used as the basis for BAT,
meeting the in-stream water quality
criteria for copper would be
technologically feasible. Hence, the
incremental costs for filtration are used
here to estimate the range of costs that
might be attributable to this rule.
During development of BAT, the
Agency estimated total annual costs to
add filtration to precipitation and
clarification for various sizes of
facilities. The incremental cost
estimates used here reflect one of
several combinations of manufacturing
processes and conditions. The costs are
likely to be an overestimate because
they reflect the upper bound of each
flow size range. The potential
incremental total annual costs used to
estimate the compliance burden for
meeting a water qualfty-based permit
are approximately $20,000 for small
plants. $43,000 for medium.plants, and
$146,000 for large plants. To estimate
the costs that might be incurred by the
dischargers potentially affected by the
rule, we assume that the distribution of
facility sizes for those dischargers is the
same as the distribution used for BAT
development. While specific cost
estimates depend on many site-spedfic
factors, the range of costs that could be
expected for 130 to 400 facilities are
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent
Guidelines Division, Development Document for
Effluent l.imltiHons Guidelines and Standard* for
the Metal Finishing Point Source Category. June
1983.
"When establishing BAT. the Clean Water Act
requires specific consideration of cost and
economic achlevabillty; such consideration U not
required when establishing water quality standards.
This is not to say that economic considerations are
completely outside of the water quality standards
process, but that such factors are considered at
other points in the process, such as establishing
waterbody use classifications. Hare, the focus is
adopting water quality criteria that are protective of
human health and the environment.
approximately $7 million to $20
million.
It is likely that the assessment
presented here for copper will include
meeting aquatic criteria for other metals
due to the similarity in treatment
technology. Thus, the cost impacts
estimatedhere will likely provide
sufficient treatment to comply with the
aquatic criteria for most of the metals.
Another means of considering the
potential costs is to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of the additional
treatment, where cost-effectiveness is
defined by the ratio of incremental cost
to incremental pollutant removal. The
cost-effectiveness of filtration for those
facilities projected to need additional
treatment is based on the cost estimates
shown above and the pollutant removals
for not only copper, but five additional
metals that will oe removed by
filtration. Cost-effectiveness ratios are
expressed as "dollars per pound-
equivalent removed," where a pound-
equivalent is a pound of pollutant
weighted by the relative toxicity of that
pollutant. The cost-effectiveness of
filtration for these facilities is $22 per
pound-equivalent removed. This result
suggests that filtration is a cost-effective
technology.
In summary, the actual burden to
dischargers in the metal finishing
industry ranges from no impact, where
BAT is sufficient to protect the receiving
stream, to an incremental cost impact of
'5 to 13 percent above the cost of BAT,
where filtration is needed. In addition,
treatment to comply with more stringent
standards appears to be cost-effective.
7. Example: Regulating Priority
Pollutants in the Organic Chemicals,
Synthetic Fibers, and Plastics Industry
A third example of the range of costs
that might be incurred as a result of
complying with EPA's criteria for toxic
pollutants is based on several segments
of the organic chemicals manufacturing
industry, where EPA considered the
control of all priority pollutant
discharges.
Technology-base effluent limitations
guidelines and standards were
promulgated for this industry in
November 1987. The Agency is still
engaged in rulemaking activities for this
industry in response to litigation and
court remands. The following
discussion is based on the regulation
and supporting documentation from the
1987 final rulemaking.11
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Industrial Technology Division. Development
Document for	Guideline* and Standards for
the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers Point Source Category. Volume I. EPA 440/ .
1-87-009. October 1987.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 ! Rules and Regulations 60907
During development of the anlitanl
guidelines for the organic chemicals
industry, the Agency considered the
potential for pollutant discharges frcn
ail of the priority pollutants.
Approximately half of lh9 priority
pollutants were detected in effluents
from chemical manufacturing facilities,
and the effluent guidelines for this
industry include limitations fcr most of
these pollutants. The technology basis
for establishing BAT varies by pollutant
and by industry subcategory, but for
many subcategory/pollutant
combinations is steam stripping and/or
biological treatment.
The promulgated affluent guidelines
for the organic chemicals industry ware
expected to control discharges from
more than 700 facilities. Of these. 275
are located in the 13 States used in this
assessment to analyze the economic
impacts of EPA's human health criteria.
(See Footnote 5.) The human health
criteria are likely to be the more
significant values (compared to aquatic
life criteria) for purposes of controlling
organic pollutant discharges. The
number of direct dischargers in the IS
States is estimated to be 90. based on
the total industry proportion of direct
dischargers. These dischargers are
potentially subject to incremental
requirements as a result of today 's rale.
The kev question for estimating the
effect of the role is whether BAT is
sufficient to protect water quality to the
levels that would he mandated by.
imposition of the criteria promulgated
today. Water quality modelling results
suggest very few exceed an ces of the
water quality criteria, after the
imposition of BAT requirements.
The level of control provided by the
effluent guideline reflects the analytical
laboratory level of detection for nearly
half of the regulated pollutants. While
the maximum monthly average
expressed in the effluent guidelines may
be higher than the detection limit (to
account for variability), the level of
detection corresponds to the long-term
average of the treatment's removal
efficiency. No water, quality*
excee dances were projected among the
pollutants that are regulated at levels
higher than the detection limit.
The practical^ effect of the BAT
limitations, combined with levels of
detection and water quality
assessments, is that this rule is unlikely
to affect the behavior of chemical
manufacturers in terms.of pollution
control investments. By complying with
BAT limitations, the facilities are likely
to also comply with more stringent,
water quality-based limitations. Even
though EPA's human health criteria
suggest that permit requirements for
same dischargers will be lower than the
level of detection, a facility that cannot
demonstrate compliance with the lower
permit value is unlikely to add
treatment or change processes in
response to the revised permit.
In summary, BAT requirements for
this industry control nearly half of the
regulated pollutants to the level of
detection for each pollutant. It is
unlikely that the rule will result in
incremental economic impacts for direct
dischargers in the organic chemicals,
plastics, and svntheuc fibers industry.
3. Example: Regulating Priority
Pollutant far POTWs
The final example cf the range of
costs that might be incurred as a result
of EPA-impcsed numeric-criteria is for
POTWs. An important aspect of
regulatory impact for sewage treatment
plants is that increases in investment
and operating costs are often passed on
to consumers in the form of user fees or
taxes. For purposes of this assessment,
however, we have not extended the cost
impacts to household burden.
For POTWs, the choice of treatment
technology is dependent on many
factors; one of the most important is the
pollutant (or group of pollutants) of-
concern and the source of that pollutant
For example; different technologies are
recommended if the pollutants of
concern are dissolved organic
compounds as opposed-to suspended-
solids. For this assessment, We relied on
summary cost information presented in
comments the Agency received during
development of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative and on summary
information from a rulemaking that
focused on the incremental cost for
POTWs to upgrade wastewater
treatment.13 The pollutants of concern
and levels of control in those sources
are similar to the additional controls
that might be imposed by compliance
with water quality standards following
adoption of EPA's numeric criteria for
priority toxic pollutants.
Several comments to the proposed
rule contended that reverse osmosis is
needed to comply with EPA's criteria
for metals. According to coarnienters,
this technology is likely to be very
expensive when Applied' to the high
Sows found at many POTWs. EPA
believes that POTWs often have
alternatives to installing this type of
treatment technology. These alternatives
may be attractive from an overall water
quality perspective because they
prevent pollution at the source. For
u Bett CcnvenUotul Pollutant Control
Technology; Effluent Limitations Caldsllnw; Ftaai
Rule, SI FR 24974, July 9,1806.
sxampie, it may be less expensive for a
small number ci indirect dischargers to
reduce thair metals contribution to the
POTWs wastestream than for the POTW
to treat ail of its effluent.
Copper discharges are another
potential source of difficulty for POTWs
in meeting water quality criteria. Many
drinking watsr systems use copper to
control algae growth. The copper is then
discharged to the POTW and man to the .
receiving stream. Other algae controls,
such as potassium permanganate, may
be effective for some drinking water
systems. This example of an alternative
would reduce the copper loading to the
POTWs receiving stream without
requiring expensive treatment such as
reverse osmosis at the POTW. Reverse
osmosis was not used in either of the
cost sources noted above; nor is it used
here. The pollution control technology
selected for a POTW depends on various
engineering judgments and site-sped 5c
conditions. .The incremental costs used
in this assessment are based on
activated carbon for some POTWs end
on polymer addition for others.
Engineering judgment suggests that
many of the organic and metal
compounds of concern, will be removed
in. the final effluent with, these types of
treatment technologies.
The following cost assessment is
likely to be an overestimate due to the
simplifying assumptions used in-this
procedure. The number of POTWs that
possibly could be subject to incremental
costs that are attributable to this rule is
first limited to POTWs in those-States
that had not adopted their own numeric
criteria by the time of the proposed
rulemaking. A total of IB States was
used to project the number of POTWs
(See Footnote 5.) Of the approximately
15,000 POTWs in the U.S., 3,942 are
identified as "majors" in the Permit
Compliance System. Of these, 952 are
located in the 18 States. Even as of the
proposed rule, however, this number of
POTWs is an overestimate of the
number that might incur increased costs
because it includes all States projected
to receive any pollutant criteria. In fact,
many of the 18 states need only a
limited number of pollutant criteria (for
some States, is few as one).
The number of POTWs that might be
subject to new or more stringent permit
requirements is further reduced because
some portion of those permits already
include limitations for soma of the
pollutants of concern. Such permit
limitations and the ICSs were
established in response to section.30411
of the Clean Water Act. Another factor
that may eliminate the need for
additional treatment by the POTW is the
use of whole effluent toxicity limits,
-------
69909 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
which are possibly already controlling
toxic discharges. In addition, existing
treatment ana pretreatment may obviate
the need for more stringent permit
requirements. Other site-specific
analyses, such as wasteload allocations
and dilution studies are likely to affect
the reasonable expectation that a
pollutant is discharged. Also, as
mentioned earlier, the water-effect ratio
calculation is likely to eliminate the
need for incremental treatment in
certain waterbodies.
For purposes of this assessment, the
number of POTWs that will need
additional treatment has been estimated
by focusing on the results of section
304(1) reviews. During each State's
review of dischargers to identify sources
that were discharging toxic pollutants at
a level that could potentially causa
water quality impairments, less than 5
percent of the major municipal
dischargers were listed. Applying this
proportion to the number of municipal
dischargers covered by today's rule
yields an estimated 46 POTVVs that
could potentially cause water quality
criteria violations. The provisions of
section 304(1) required States to respond
to these projected violations by
developing individual Compliance
Strategies and permit limitations for
toxic pollutants.
The Agency acknowledges that the
discharger reviews conducted in
response to section 304(1) were not
comprehensive and probably
undercounted the number of
dischargers, including POTVVs, that
were discharging toxic pollutants. Some
of the reasons for undercounting
include the lack of monitoring
information, quickly-conducted,
reviews, varying methodologies amon$
States, and out-of-date discharge
information. For purposes of this
assessment, the number of sources that.
potentially cause water quality criteria
problems is assumed to be three times
the number actually listed; in other
words, the number of POTVVs subject to
additional controls is conservatively
estimated to be triple the 46 actually
Identified, or 138 POTWs.
As mentioned, there are various
alternatives that an individual POTW
might undertake to comply with more
stringent permit requirements. While
the most costly alternatives involve
additional pollution control equipment
to the POTW. there are other
mechanisms to improve the quality of
the POTW's effluent. For example, a
pretreatment program could require an
Industrial discharger to reduce or
aHminnta its contribution of toxic
pollutants to the POTW's waste stream.
Alternatively, nonpoint sources could
undertake better management practices
to reduce naiofL Many of these
alternatives have little or no incremental
cost impact to the POTW. While some
of the alternatives involve a shift in
costs, the overall effect is likeiy to be a
lower cost than if incurred solely by the
POTW. Zven with the availability of
alternatives for compliance, this
assessment assumes that half of the
POTT/Vs will install additional
treatment. Hence. 50 percent, or 69. of
the potentially affected POTWs are
assumed to incur additional compliance
costs.
The costs of additional pollution
controls are derived from the two
sources mentioned above. The cost
calculations for activated carbon
include capital costs. O&M costs, source
centrals, and studies (such as mitring
zone demonstrations, toxicity testing,
monitoring, and fish bio-uptake tests).
For purposes of this assessment,
simplifying assumptions were then
applied to those cost calculations to
estimate total annual costs for various
sizes of POTVVs. The incremental total
annual costs for activated carbon are
estimated to be $0.4 million for a small
POTW, $1.4 million for a medium
POTW, and $12U) million for a large
POTW. The cost estimates for improved
secondary treatment by polymer
addition include annualized capital
costs and O&M expenses. The
incremental total annual costs for »>»«
technology are estimated to be less than
$0.1 million for a small POTW, $0.4
million for a medium POTW, and $1-5
million for a large POTW.
Based on engineering judgment, 75
percent of the POTWs are assumed to
rely on chemical addition to meet
permit limits. The remaining 25 percent
are assumed to rely on activated carbon
adsorption. To estimate costs for each
group of POTWs, the facilities are
categorized according to flow groups,
assuming that the size distribution of
the POTWs in the affected States is the
same as those used in each cost source.
Then, the incremental costs for each
type of treatment are applied to the
number of POTWs in eadi size category.
This procedure results in an
incremental cost estimate of
approximately $30 million.
To summarize, some POTWs may be
subject to additional treatment
requirements as a result of this rule. The
number of POTWs and the types of
treatment are dependent on many site-
specific conditions and on the
pollutants included in today's rule. For
many of the POTWs that are major
discharges in the States that will need
to adopt new water quality standards,
there is likely to be no incremental cost
Using a conservative estimate of the
remaining POTVVs. the upper bound of
an incremental cost estimate is
approximately $30 million for POTWs
to comply with new discharge permit
requirements.
9. Conclusions ofEPA's Cost
Assessment
Today's rule establishes a legal
minimum standard where States have
failed to comply with the statutory
mandate to adopt numeric criteria for
toxic pollutants. The impacts to
dischargers are difficult to estimate
because of the numerous assumptions
and unknowns. While the Agency
acknowledges that soma dischargers
may incur compliance costs due to new
water quality standards, a meaningful
cost estimate that covers the entire rule
is not feasible.
In the absence of a cost estimate, per
se, the Agency has described the types
of costs that may be incurred by various
types of dischargers. In addition, this
cost assessment includes four examples
of potential compliance cost scenarios:
reducing dioxin discharges from pulp
mills, reducing copper discharges for
metal finishing, controlling priority
pollutant discharges for organic
chemical manufacturing, and reducing
discharges from POTWs.
EPA finds that the cdsts to comply
with toxic pollutant criteria may be lesb
than anticipated at the time the rule was
proposed. Many States have adopted
their own numeric criteria and are
therefore excluded from today's
rulemaking. In addition, for some point
source categories, where technology-
based controls have been established,
more stringent water quality-based
controls will result in no incremental
compliance costs. Further, EPA
concludes that additional analysis is not
warranted because the uncertainty of
such an analyses would not provide
enough reliable information to assist
decision-makers in evaluating the
regulatory strategy for this statutorily-
mandated rule.
10. Introduction to Benefits Assessment
The numeric criteria for toxic
pollutants promulgated in today's rale
are essential in implementing toxics
controls and protecting human health
and aquatic ecosystems. Under this
Rnle, a total of 15 States and Territories
will receive criteria Cat human health
and aquatic life (14 for human health
and 13 for aquatic life). The adopted
standards will result in decreased toxic
pollutant loading discharges which will
result in improved protection of human
health and aquatic lifa.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 f Tuesday, December 22, 1992 I Rules and Regulations 60909
The Agsncy did not include a
quantitative estimate of the benefits in
the proposed rule for reasons similar to
those cited above for not including a
detailed cast estimate. The
environmental benefits associated with
this promulgation are difficult to assess
and quantify. A comprehensive analysis
of human health and ecological benefits
is not practical given the available
resources and inherent limitations such
as (1) assuming a linear relationship
between pollutant loading reductions
and benefits attributed to the clean-up
of surface waters; (2) underestimating
the benefits or reducing toxics due to
the complexity of assessing impacts on
aquatic ecosystems; and (3) the
uncertainty in estimating the magnitude
of intermedia transfers of pollutants.
Such uncertainties limit the value of
using such estimates to evafuate the net
benefits of this rule. However, the
Agency has undertaken a preliminary
assessment of potential human health
and ecological benefits that might be
accrued through promulgation of the
rule.
11. Human Health Assessment Scope
The potential benefits to human
health of establishing toxic criteria
include: (1) Reducing the potential
health risks to persons eating fish
contaminated with toxic pollutants, (21
reducing the potential health risks to
persons drinking contaminated drinking
water, and (3] reducing (he potential
health risks to surimmers from dermal
expostfte to contaminated surface
waters. EPA's qualitative assessment is
limited to assessing (I) potential
benefits from reducing pollutant levels
in fish that may be caught by sport and
subsistence fishermen and subsequendy
consumed by them and their families;
and (2) potential benefits that may also
result from lowering pollutant levels in
commercially caught fish consumed by
the general population. This assessment
is limited to assessing only the potential
reduction in cancer risk; no attempt has
been made to assess potential
reductions in risks due to reproductive,
developmental, or other chronic and
subchronic toxic effects.
12:Ecological Assessment Scope
Some of the ecological benefits are
difficult to assess due to the complexity
of ecological interactions, the limited
amount of ecological risk information
available,-and the lack of an established
methodology for evaluating ecological
benefits. In addition, difficulties arise in
estimating the exposure of aquatic
ecosystems due to the large size of
ecosystems, wide geographical
distribution, heterogeneous
characteristics and the wide range of
populations with differing sensitivities
to impacts. While the benefits of
promulgating this rule were not
quantified due to such uncertainties and
limitations, the potential benefits of
establishing toxic criteria for the
protection of aquatic Ufa can be
described qualitatively.
The most recent National Water
Quality Inventory indicates that one-
third of monitored river miles, lake
acres, and coasted waters have elevated
levels of toxic pollutants. After
evaluating these data, the Agency
concluded that the data most likely
understate the presence or discharge of
toxic pollutants because of the limited
am aunt of monitoring data for some
States and inconsistencies among the
States in bow the data were generated.
Thus, it is likely that significant
portions of water bodies in some States
exceed water quality criteria for the
protaction of aquatic life. These criteria
were developed to protect most aquatic
organisms, as well as wildlife that
consume aquatic organisms, from acute
and chronic toxic effects that adversely
affect survival, growth or reproduction.
These effects will vary due to the
diversity of species with differing
sensitivities to impacts. For example,
lead exposure can cause spinal
deformities in rainbow trout. Nickel
exposure can affect spawning behavior
of shrimp. Nickel, mercury, and copper
exposure can affect the growth activity
of algae. In addition, copper, mercury,
and cadmium can be acutely toxic to
aquatic life including finfish. These
types of ecological effects are expected
to be reduced because this rule should
reduce ambient pollutant levels. In
addition, this rule will reduce
continuous discharges of toxics which
will allow for a natural recovery of the
ecosystemt.
13. Qualitative Benefits Assessment
Human health benefits that can be
attributed to this rule ere expressed in
terms of the reduction in cancer risk.
The analysis performed was limited to
assessing only the potential reduction in
cancer risk; no assessment of potential
reductions in risks due to reproductive,
developmental, or other chronic and
subchronic toxic effects was conducted.
However, given the number of
pollutants, there could be; (1) Decreased
incidence of systemic toxicity to vital
organs such as liver and kidney; (2)
decreased extent of learning disability
and intellectual impairment due to the
exposure to such pollutants as lead; and
(3) decreased risk of adverse
reproductive effects and genotoxicity.
The ecological benefits that can be
expectad from today's rule include
protection of both frssh and salt vs'pt
organisms, as well as wildlife that
consume aquatic organisms. Today's
ruie will result in a reduction in the
presence and discharge of toxic
pollutants in the water bodies of these
States thereby protecting those aquatic
ecosystems currently under stress,
providing the opportunity for the
reestablisnment of productive
ecosystems in damaged weter bodies,
and protection of resident endangered
species.
' In addition, the rule would result in
the propagation and productivity of fish,
and oiher organisms, maintaining
fisheries for both commercial imii
recreational purposes. Recreational
activities such as boating, water skiing,
and swimming would also be preserved
along with the maintenance of an
aesthetically pleasing environment.
Both recreational and commercial
activities contribute, in turn, to the
support of local and State economies.
K. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.. Pub. L. 9S-354)
requires EPA to assess whether its
regulations create a disproportionate
effect on small entities. Among its
provisions, the Act directs EPA to
prepare and publish an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis at the time a rule is
proposed if the rule will have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
discussed the possibility that the rule
could result in treatment costs to some
dischargers to comply with water
quality standards that incorporate new
criteria for toxic, pollutants. The Agency
did not conclude, however, that the rula
would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities due
to the uncertainties associated with
sstimating total casts and impacts. The
difficulties of cost estimation for
specific groups of dischargers (such as
small businesses or governments) were
described in the preambla section that
outlined EPA's response to Executive
Order 12291. Similarly, in today's final
rulemaking, the details of EPA's
findings concerning the costs and
impacts of this rule ere presented in
section I, above.
Briefly, the complexities and
difficulties associated with estimating
costs for purposes of economic or
regulatory analysis similarly apply to
estimating impacts to small entities. For
purposes of this rulemaking, small
entities are small dischargers, whether
industrial or municipal. Regardless of
-------
60910 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 1 Rules and Regulations
the parameters used to define small
dischargers (for example, discharge
flow, number of employees, population
served), EPA's expression of costs and
impacts for this rulemaking is limited to
the descriptions in section J. EPA does
not find that there will be a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because impacts on specific
dischargers cannot be predicted with
certainty, and based on several
examples in the cost assessment, it
appears that potential impacts will not
be concentrated among small
dischargers.
In addition. EPA again finds that the
impacts on small entities are best
considered'during standards
development and implementation when
site-specific costs can be estimated, and
any resulting impacts can be minimized
or alleviated as part of writing the
discharge permit. It is not the Agency's
intent to ignore the consequences of
incorporating toxic pollutant criteria,
but instead, that these consequences are
more appropriately defined and
accounted for in the permit-writing
context. The water quality standards
regulation provides several means (such
as adjusting designated uses, setting
site-specific criteria, or granting
variances} to consider costs and adjust
standards to account for the impacts on
small dischargers.
While the imposition of EPA's
numeric criteria for toxic pollutants may
limit the flexibility that States will have
to use these procedures to modify
standards, EPA's expectation is that
impacts will not be concentrated on
small dischargers. Although there can
be site-specific cases of water quality
violations due to toxic discharges from
low-flow point sources, EPA generally
finds that priori ties fot NPDES permits
focus on major dischargers. Small
entities are less likely to be included in
this group.
Other requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act ore fulfilled in other
sections of this preamble. Specifically,
the Agency's explanation for taking this
action and the legal basis for the rule are
found in section E. The number of small
entities that will be affected by the rule
is not estimated for the reasons
expressed above. The projected
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are discussed in Section L.
There is no anticipated duplication,
overlap, or conflict with other Federal
rules, except to the extent that
technology-based standards (such as
BAT) are sufficient to also meet water
quality standards. Alternatives to the
final nile include any of the
opportunities that States had to adopt
their own standards, incorporating any
of the procedures to limit the
compliance burden: these alternatives
are discussed in Sections B and C.
The Agency concludes that this
rulemaking, per se, wilUnot result in a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
L. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. These requirements will not
be effective until OMB approves them
and a technical amendment to that
effect is published in the Federal
Register. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 0988.04) and
a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Fanner. Information Policy Branch;
EPA; 401 M St., SW. (PM-223Y);
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740.
Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 725 hours per response,
including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief. Information Policy Branch. PM-
223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs;
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20S03, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
Comments must be submitted by
January 21,1993.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131
Water pollution control. Water quality
standards. Toxic pollutants.
Dated: December 1,1392.
William K. Xeiily,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble title 40, chapter I, part 131 qi
the Code of Federal Regulations 'is
amended as follows;
PART 131—WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
1.	The authority citation for par. l J-
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U-S.C. 125.1 et s«q.
Subpart D—{Amended]
2.	Section 131.36 is added to subpart
D to read as follows:
8131.36 Toxics criteria for those states-
not complying with Clean Wat* Act section
303{cX2)(B).
(a)	Scope. This section is not a general
promulgation of the section 304(a)
criteria for priority toxic pollutants but
is restricted to specific pollutants in
specific States.
(b)(1)	EPA's Section 304(a) Criteria for
Priority Toxic Pollutants.
Btuim cooe
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60911
ccKPCUkC
ct.%
Kunbe r

C." i ter icr.
!«a* imLT".
Cone. <2
(ug/L)
31	
Cn tenon
Continuous
Cane. 
-------
60912 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
FRESHWATER
S » L T U A I E R
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
(«) COMPOUND
CAS
Wuitoer
Criterion	Criterion
Maxi nun	Continuous
Cone, d	Cone, d
(ug/U	(ug/l)
Criterion Criterion
Max i mm
Cone, d
(ug/L)
Continuous
Cone.' d
Cug/L)
For Consumption of:
Water &	Organisms
Organisms

28
1,1-Oichloroethane
'
75343 |
O '
" i

V.C
v ¦
UC
29
1,2-Oichloroethane
107062




0.38 a,c
99 a.c
30
1,1-Dichloroethylene
75354 j




0.057 a,c
3.2 a.e
31
1,2-Diehtoropropane
78875 |






32
1.J-OiehlorooroDvlene
54 2756 !




10 a
1700 a
33
Ethylbeniene
100414 ;




3100 a
29000 a
34
Methyl Bromide
74839 |




48 d
4000 a
35
Methyl Chloride
74873 |




n
n
36
Methylene Chloride
75092 j




U.7 a,c
1600 a.c
37
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
79345 !




o
Ql
o
11 a.c
38
Tetraehloroethylene
127184 J




0.8 c
8.85 c
39
Toluene
108883 |




6800 a
200000 a
40
1,2 - T r ans - 0 i cM oroet hy I ene
156605 I






41
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71556 J




n
n
42
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
790O5 !




0.60 a.c
42 a.c
43
Trichloroethylene
79016 |




2.7 c
81 :
44
Vinyl Chloride
75014 ;




2 c
525 :
45
2-Chlorophenol
95578 |






46
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120832 J'




93 a
790 a,
47
2.4-0imethvlDhenol
105679 1






48
2-Methyl-4,6-0initrophenol
534521 |




13.4
7"65
49
2,4-Dinftrophenol
51285 !




70 a
14000 a
50
2-Ni trophenol
88755 I


¦



51
4-Ni trophenol
100027 ,






52
3-Methyl-4-ChloroDhenol
59507 !






53
Pentaehlorophenol
87865 J
20 f
13 f
13
7.9
0.28 a.c
8.2 a c
54
Phenol
108952 !




21000 a
4600000 a,j
55
2,^,6-Tnchlcropherol
88062 !




2.1 a,c
6.5 a,c
56
Acenaphthene
83329 |






-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 i Rules and Regulations 60913

1
1
s
r
D


J t a e s «
1
U A 1 t S
J 1A11JATE5
1
S U 2 A U *
1 TO " M&K 4or
E A L 1 rt
carcinogens ^
#5 :o»hju«-b
! Criterion
MJMTUn
US tone, d
fcurawr lug/L)
! B1
Criter ion
Cont i nuoiis
Cone, d
lug/U
82
j Criterion Criterion
»a»ir«ji< Cent i "XOI.-I
Care, d Cone, d
lug/15 Jug/L)
! d r:
for Cor.sir®i>on ct:
& Qrgams."*s
Organises Only
*u9/L) *og/L>
W 32
57 AcenaoMKylene-
205963 ;

1
1


58 Ar.t bracer*
120127 ;

I
t
$600 a
110000 a
59 Seniidine
92275 \

t
0.DC012 a.c
0.0025* *.=
60 8eniola)»ntrvracere
56553 ;

1
0.C02S -
0.031 -
tl 3enzo(e)Pv?'-«
5C228 1

1
0 0028 r
D.031 c
62 8enzo[b)f 1 uoranttiers
205992 j

1
1
0.0023 c
O.031 c
63 5emo(9hi)Peryler*
191242 ;

1
1


64 BereollOHuoraf.:tie»»e
207089 |

1
1
0.0029 c
0.D31 c
65 gisC2-Chloroctho«y)"ei,-cirie
in?11 ;

1
I


66 SistZ-ChlorfK-rnuMEther
111444 !

»
0.031 e c
1.4 O.C
67 8ist2-CMoroiSOprocyL JEther
108601 !

1
»
UOO A
170000 a
66 BisJ2-Ethyihe*yi )Pf>tS8iate
117317 J

u
i
1.3 a.c
5.9 arc
69 N-BrqntpphenyI Phenyl Ettier
101553 1

1 -
t


70 Butytbemyl Ph'tJielaie
"5687 |

>
I


7V Z-CM6iioneoMKeie»>e
91587-!

1 t


72 4-Chloropfc«nyt-Ptienyl Ethfer
7005723

»
1


73 qirysere
?ifi019, !

»
r
0.0028 c
C.031 c
74 DiberaoH'.tOAnihracene
53703 1

r
0.0028 c
0.031 c
75 1.2-DichloroBeniene
O5501 |

•i
i
2700 a
17000 a
76 1.3-Oichloreeen:eT>e
541731 !..

i
400
2600
77 1,4-picniarooeniene
106*67 .J

i
i*
400
2600
^8 3,3'-Dicfvioroeeniicine
f
93941 |

i
i
0.04 a.c
0.077 a.c
TV- Dlettiyl Phthalirte,*
84662 ;

i
i
21000 a
120000 a
SO- DimeMiyl .phtftaiate
131113 J

f
i
313000
2900000
81 Di-n-Butyl Phttiaiate
84742 !

»¦
2700 a
12000 a
82 2,4-Dimtrototu«r>e ~
121142 !•

!
0.11 c
*.1 c
B3-- '2,6-DvnvtrMoluene
6O6202-|.

»
t


84 Di-n-Octyl Phthalatq
VI7840- \

u
1


85' l.f-Diptienylh'ydrazSrie
122667 .!

*
~4
O.W0- a,c
.0.54 a.c
-------
60914 Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rulei and Regulations
(I) COMPOUND
CAS
Nuofcer
B
I
FRESHWA1ER j	SAL [WATER	j
I	t
Criterion Criterion J	Criterion Criterion	!
Maxima Continuous !	Maximjn Continuous	: Water I
Cone, d Cone, d	Cone, d Cone, d	{ Organisms
(ug/L) (ug/L)	(ug/L) (ug/L)
81 _82		CI	C2
N U H A * HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
for Consumption of:
Organisas
Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
SI	D2
£6
Fluorantiiene
206440 |





300 a
370 a
87
Muorene.
86737 j





1300 a
14000 a
88
Hexacniorobenzene
118741 J





0.30075 i,c
0.00077 a.c
89
HexachIorobut aaiene
87683 !





0.44 a.c
50 a.c
90
He«achtorocvctooent»diene
77474 !





240 a
17000 a.f
91
mxachloroethane
67721 |





1.9 a.c
8.9 a.c
92
IndenoCI.2,3-ca)Pyrene
193395 |





0.0028 c
0.031 c
95
1 soph or one
78591 |





8.4 a.c
600 a.c
94
sapnttialene
91203 |







95
Nitrobenzene
98953 !





17 a
1900 a.i
9S
N-N i trosodimethylamino
62759 |





0.00069 a.c
8.1 a.c
97
K-Hitrosodi-n-Propy*amine
621647 !







98
M-M itrosodiphenylamine
86306 !





5.0. a.c
16 a.c
99
Phenanthrene
85016 }







10»
Pvrene
129000 !





960 a
11000 a
101
1,2,4•TriehIorobenzene
120821 !







102
Aldrin
309002 I
3 g

1.3
g

0.00013 a.c
0.00014 a.c
103
alpha-BHC
319846 |





0.0039 a.c
0.013 a.c
104
beta-BHC
319857 |





0.014 a.c
0.046 a.c
105
oamma-9HC
58899 !
2 a
0.08 a
0.16
9

0.019 e
0.063 c
106
delta-BHC
319868 !







107
Chlordane
57749 |
2.4 g
0.0043 g
0.09
g
0.004 * ;
0.00057 a.c
0.00059 a.c
103
4-4'-DOT
50293 !
1.1 g
0.001 g
0.13
g
0.001 g ;
0.00059 a.c
0.00059 a.c
109
4,4'-ODE
72559 J





0.00059 a.c
0.00059 a.c
110
4.4'-000
72548 !





U.0O083 a.c
0.00084 a.c
111
Oieldrin
60571 ;
2.5 g
0.0019 g
0.71
g
0.0019 g ;
0.00014 a.c
0.00014 a.c
112
alpha-Endosulfan
959988 J
0.22 g
0.056 g
0.034
g
0.0087 g ;
0.93 a
2.0 a
113
beta-Endoml fan
33213659 |
0.22 g
0.056 g
O.OJ4
9
u.'JOa/- g ;
0.93 a
2.0 a
-------
Federal Register / Vol 57. No. 246 / Tuesday .December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60915

A


B

i
0




FRESH
WATER
S A I T U
ITER |
1
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
<»)
COMPOUND
CAS
Nurtoer
Cri terion
Haxinun
Cone, d
(ug/L)
B1
Cri terion
Continuous
Cone, d
(ug/L)
82
Cri terion
Maxinua
Cone, d
(ug/L)
CI
Criterion j
Continuous
Cone. d
(ug/L)
cz !
For Consmption of:
Uater t -Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
01 02
•U
Endosulfan Sulfate
103107a




0.93 a
2.0 a
115
Endnn
72208
0.18 g
0.0023 g
0.037 g
0.0023 g
0.76 a
0.81 a.]
lit
Endrin Aldehyde
7421934




0.76 a
0.81 a, j
117
Heptachlor
7644A
0.52 9
0.0038 g
0.053 g
0.0036 g
0.00021 a.e
0.00021 a.c
118
Heotachlor Eoowde
" 1024573
0.52 q
0.0038 q
0.053 Q
0.0036 q
0.00010 a.e
0.00011 a.c
•19
PCS-1242
53469219

0.014 g

0.03 g
0.000044 a,e
0.000045 a.c
120
PCB-1254
11097691

0.014 g

0.03 g
0.000044 a,e
0.000045 a.c
"21
PCB-1221
11104262

0.014 g

0.03 g
0.000044 a,c
0.000045 a,c
122
PCS-1232
11141165

0.014 g

0.03 g
0.000044 a,c
0.000045 »,e
1?T
PCB-1248
12672296

0.0H q

0.03 q
0.000044 a.e
0.000045 a.c
124
PCS-1260
11096826

o.oi4. a

0.03 g
0.000044 a,c
0.000045 a,c
125
PCS-1016
12674112

0.0U g

0.03 g
0.000044 »,e
0.000045 a.c
126
Toxaphene
800135-
0.73
Q.QQQ2
0.21
Q.00Q2
0.00073 a,e
0.00075 a,c
*otal No. cf Cr'iter'a- (h

24
¦ 29
23
27
91
90
MX
MS COOE 8M0-80-C







-------
60916 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22. 1992 7 Rules and Regulations
Footnotes:
a.	Criteria revised to reflect current agency
q,' or RiD, as contained in the Integrated
Ri3k Information System (IRIS). The fish
tissue bioccncen (ration factor (3CF) from the
1980 criteria documents was retained in all
cases.
b.	The criteria refers to the inorganic form
only.
c.	Criteria in the matrix based on
carcinogenicity (10-6 risk). For a risk level of
10"'. move the decimal point is the matrix
value one place to the right
d.	Criteria Maximum Concentration (QvlC)
= the highest concentration of a pollutant to
which aquatic life can be exposed for a short
period of time (1-hour average) without
deleterious effects. Criteria Continuous
Concentration (CCC) =¦ the highest
concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic
life can be exposed for an extended period
of time (4 days) without deleterious effects.
ug/L = micrograms per liter
e.	Freshwater aquatic life criteria for these
metals are expressed as a function of total
hardness (mg/L), and as a function of the
pollutant's water effect ratio, WER, as
defined in § 131.36(c). The equations are
provided in matrix at 5131.36(b)(2). Values
displayed above in the matrix correspond to
a total hardness of 100 mg/L and a water
effect ratio of 1.0.
f.	Freshwater aquatic life criteria for
pentachlorophenol are expressed as a
function of pH, end are calculated as follows.
Values displayed above in the matrix
correspond to a pH of 7.8.
CMC = exp(1.00S(pH) - 4.830) CCC =
exp(1.005(pH) - 5.290)
g.	Aquatic life criteria for these compounds
were issued In 1980 utilizing the 1980
Guidelines for criteria development. The
acuta values shown are final acute values
(FAV) wbich by the 1980 Guidelines are
instantaneous values as contrasted with a
CMC which is a one-hour average.
h.	These totals simply sum the criteria in
each column. For aquatic life, there are 30
priority toxic pollutants with some type of
freshwater or saltwater, acute or chronic
criteria. For human health, there are 91
priority toxic pollutants with either "water +
flsh" or "fish only" criteria. Note that these
totals count chromium as one pollutant even
though EPA has developed criteria based on
two valence states. In the matrix. EPA has
assigned numbers Sa and Sb to the criteria for
chromium to reflect the fact that the list of
126 priority toxic pollutants includes only a
single listing for chromium.
i.	If the CCC for total mercury exceeds
0.012 ug/L more than once in a 3-year period
in the ambient water, the edible portion of
aquatic species of concern must be analyzed
to determine whether the concentration of
methyl mercury exceeds the FDA action level
(1.0 mg/kg). If the FDA action level is
exceeded, the State must notify the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator,
initiate a revision of its mercury criterion in
its water quality standards so as to protect
designated uses, and take other appropriate
action such as issuance of a fish consumption
advisory for the affected area.
j. No criteria for protection of human
health from consumption of Bquatic
organisms (excluding water) was presented
in the 1980 criteria document or In the 1986
Quality Criteria for Water. Nevertheless,
sufficient Information was presented in the
1980 document to allow a calculation of a
criterion, even though the results of such a
calculation were not shown In the document
(2) Factors for Calculating Metals Criteria
CMC-WER exp(mA[ln(hardn83s))+bA) CCOWER exp{mc(ln(hardness)!+bc}
k. The criterion for asbestos is tha MCL (St
FR 3526, January 30.1991).
1. This letter not used as a footnote,
m. Criteria for these metals are expressed
as a function of the water effect ratio. WER.
as defined in 40 CTR 131.36(c).
CMC " column B1 or Cl value x WER
CCC - column B2 or C2 value x WER
n. EPA is not promulgating human health
criteria for this contaminant. However,
permit authorities should address this
contaminant in NPDES permit actions using
the State's existing narrative criteria for
toxics.
General Notes:
1.	This chart lists all of EP.Vs priority toxic
pollutants whether or not criteria
recommendations are available. Blank spaces
indicate the absence of criteria
recommendations. Because ohvariations in
chemical nomenclature systems, this listing
of toxic pollutants does not duplicate the
listing in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423.
EPA has added the Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) registry numbers, which
provide a unique identification for each
chemical.
2.	The following chemicals have
organoleptic based criteria recommendations
that are not included on this chart (for
reasons which are discussed in the
preamble): copper, zinc, chlorobenzene. 2
chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol.
acenaphthene, 2,4-dlmethylphenol, 3-
methyi-4-chlorophenol.
hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
pentachlorophenol. phenol
3.	For purposes of this rulemaking,
freshwater criteria and saltwater criteria
apply as specified in 40 CFR 131.36(c).

b*
mc
Cadmium	
Copper	
Chromium (III)	
Lead	
Nickel 			
Silver			
"Zinc	
1.128
0.9422
0.8190
1.273
03460
1.72
0.8473
-3*28
-1.404
3.688
-1.460
3J812
-6.52
OJJ804
0.78S2
0.85*5
04)190
1.273
04460
0.8473
-&490
-1.46S
1.561
-4.705
1.1645
~ 07814
Note 7h« (am nprwma t* btM • •JQontntfcl hinctlon.
(c) Applicability, (l) The criteria in
paragraph (b) of this section apply to the
States' designated uses cited in
paragraph (d) of this section and
supersede any criteria adopted by the
State, except when State regulations
contain criteria which are more
stringent for a particular use in which
case the State's criteria will continue to
apply.
(2) The criteria established in this
section are subject to the State's general
rules of applicability in the same way
and to the same extent as are the other
numeric toxics criteria when applied to
the same use classifications including
mixing zones, and low flow values
below which numeric standards can be
exceeded in flowing fresh waters.
(i)	For all waters with mixing zone
regulations or implementation
procedures, the criteria apply at the
appropriate locations within or at the
boundary of the mixing zones;
otherwise the criteria apply throughout
the waterbody including at the end of
any discharge pipe, canal or other
discharge point.
(ii)	A State shall not use a low flow
value below which numeric standards
can be exceeded that is less stringent
than the following for waters suitable
for the establishment of low flow return
frequencies (I.e., streams and rivers):
Aquatic Lilt
Acuta criteria (CMC) 1Q JO or 1 B 3
Chronic critaria (CCC) 7 Q 10 or 4 B 3
Human Health
Non-carcinogens	30 Q J
Caicino3«u	Haraonic mean How
Where:
CMC—criteria maximum concentration—
the water quality criteria to protect against
acute e Sects in aquatic life and is the highest
instream concentration of a priority toxic
pollutant consisting of a one-hour average
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60917
not to be exceeded more then once every
three years on the average;
CCC—criteria continuous concentration—
the water quality criteria to protect against
chronic effects in aquatic life is the highest
mstream concentration of a priority toxic
pollutant consisting of a 4-day average not to
be exceeded more than once every three
years on the average;
1 Q10 is the lowest one day flow with an
average recurrence frequency of once in 10
years determined hydrologically-.
1 B 3 is biologically based and indicates an
allowable exceedence of once every 3 yean.
It is determined by EPA's computerized
method {DFLOW model};
7 Q10 is the lowest average 7 consecutive
day low flow with an average recurrence
frequency ot once in 10 years determined
hydrolegicaily,
4 5 3 la biologically based and indicates an
allowable exceedence for 4 consecutive days
once every 3 veers. It is determined by EPA's
computerized method (DFLOW model);
30 Q 5 Is the lowest average 30 consecutive
day low flow with an average recurrence
frequency of once in 5 yean determined
hydrologicaily; and the harmonic mean flow
is a long term mean flow value calculated by
dividing the number of daily flows analyzed
by the sum of the reciprocals, of those daily
flows.
(iii) If a State does not have such a
low flow value for numeric standards
compliance, then none shall apply and
the criteria induded in paragraph (d) or
this section herein apply at all flows.
(3) The aquatic life criteria in. the
matrix in paragraph (h) of this section
apply as follows:
(i)	For waters in which the salinity is
equal to or less than 1 part per thousand
95% or more of the time, the applicable
criteria are the freshwater criteria in
Column B;
(ii)	For waters in which the salinity is
equal to or greater than 10 parts per
thousand 05% or mora of the time, the
applicable criteria are the saltwater
criteria in Column C; and
(iii)	For waters in which the salinity
is between 1 and 10 parts per thousand
as defined in paragraphs (c)(3) (i) and
(ii) of this section, the applicable criteria
are the mora stringent of the freshwater
or saltwater criteria. However, the
Regional Administrator may approve
the use of (he alternative freshwater or
saltwater criteria if scientifically
defensible information and data
demonstrate that on a site-specific basis
the bi&logy of the wateibody is
dominated by freshwater aquatic life
and that freshwater criteria are mora
appropriate; or conversely, the biology
saltwater aquatic life and that saltwater
criteria are more appropriate.
(4) Application of metals criteria, (i)
For purposes of calculating freshwater
aquatic life criteria for metals from the
equations in paragraph (b)(2) cf this
section, the minimum hardness allowed
for use in those equations shall not be
less than 25 mg/1, as calcium carbonate,
even if the actual ambient hardness is
less than 25 mg/1 as calcium carbonate.
The mariiniim hardness value for use in
those equations shall not exceed 4O0
mg/1 as calcium carbonate, even if the
actual ambient hardness is greater than
400 mg/1 as calcium carbonate. The
same provisions apply for calculating
the metals criteria for the comparisons
provided for in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of
this section.
(ii)	The hardness values used shall be
consistent with the design discharge
conditions established in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section for flows and
mixingzones.
(iii)	The criteria for metals
(compounds #1-413 in paragraph (b) of
this section) are expressed as total
recoverable. For purposes of calculating
aquatic life criteria far metals from the
equations in footnote M. in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
and the equations in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, the water-effect ratio is
computed as a specific pollutant's acute
or chronic toxicity values measured in
water from the site covered by the
standard, divided by the respective
acute or chronic toxicity value in
laboratory dilution water. The water-
effect ratio shall be assigned a value of
1.0, except where the permitting
authority assigns a different value that
protects the designated uses of the water
body from the toxic effects of the
pollutant, and is derived from suitable
tests on sampled watte representative of
conditions in the affected water body,
consistent with the design discharge
conditions established in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. For purposes of
this paragraph, the term acute toxicity
value is the toxicity test results, such as
the lethal concentration of one-half of
the test organisms (i.e., LC50) after 96
hours of exposure (e.g., fish toxicity
tests) or the effect concentration to one-
half of the test organisms, (i.e., EC50)
after 48 hours of exposure (e.g., daphnla
toxicity tests). For purposes of this
paragraph, the tennchronic value is the
result from appropriate hypothesis
testing or regression analysis of
measurements of growth, reproduction,
or survival from life cycle, partial life
cycle, or early life stage tests. The
determination of acute and chronic
values shall be according to current
standard protocols (e.g., those published
by the American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM)) or other comparable
methods. For calculation of criteria
using site-specific values for both the
hardness and the water effect ratio, the
hardness used in the equations in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be
as required in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this
section. Water hardness shall be
calculated from the measured calcium
and magnesium ions present, and the
ratio of calcium to magnesium shall be
approximately the same in standard
laboratory toxicity testing water as in
the site water.
(d) Criteria for Specific Jurisdictions—
(1) Rhode Island. EPA Region 1. (i) All
waters assigned to the following use
classifications in the Water Quality
Regulations for Water Pollution Control
adopted under Chapters 46-12, 42-17.1,
and 42—35 of the General Laws of Rhode
Island are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(l)(ii) of this section,
without exception:
6.21 Freshwater
Gass A.
Gasa B .
GassC .
6.22 Saltwater:
Class SA
Gas* SB
Class SC.
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(l)(>) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
These classifications
are assigned the
criteria in:
Onhtrnn D1—all
Gass A
Gass B waters where
water supply use
is designated
Gass B waters where
water supply use
is not designated;
Gass C;
Gass SA;
Gass SB;
Gas* SC	Each of these classi-
fications is as-
signed the criteria
in:
Column DZ—all
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the 10~5 risk level,
consistent with the State policy. To
determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the
criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(2) Vermont. EPA Region i. (i) AH
waters assigned to the following use
classifications in the Vermont Water
Quality Standards adopted-under the
authority of the Vermont Water
Pollution Control Act (10 V.S-A.,
Chapter 47) are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section,
without exception:
Class A
Class B
Class C
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
-------
60918 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Use classification Applicable criteria Use classification Applicable criteria
Qass A
Class B waters where
water supply use
is designated
Qass B waters where
water supply use
is not designated
Qass C
This classification is
assigned the cri-
teria in:
Column Bl—all
Column 32—all
Column Dl—all
These classifications
are assigned the
criteria in:
Column Bl—all
Column B2—all
Column D2—all
PL (Freshwater
Pinelands). FW2
PL. (Saline Water
Pinelands), SEl.
SE2. SE3. SC
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10"*
risk leveL
(3) New Jersey, EPA Region 2. (i) All
waters assigned to the following use
classifications in the New Jersey
Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:9-4.1
et seq., Surface Water Quality
Standards, are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section,
without exception.
N.J.A.C. 7:9—4.12(b): Qass PL
N.J.A.C. 7:9—4.12(c): Qass FW2
N.J.A.C. 7:9—4.12(d): Class SEl
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.12(e): Qass SE2
N.J.A.C. 7:9—4.12(f): Class SS3
N.J.A.C 7^—4.12(g): Class SC
N.J.A.C. 7:9—4.13(a): Delaware River Zones
1C, ID, and IE
N.J.A.C. 7:9—4.13(b): Delaware River Zone 2
N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.13(c): Delaware River Zone 3
N.J.A.C 7:9—4.13(d): Delaware River Zone 4
N.J.A.C 7:9—4.13(«): Delaware River Zone 5
N.J.A.G 7:9—4.13(f): Delaware River Zone 6
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Delaware River
zones 1C, ID. IE,
2. 3, 4, 5 and
Delaware Bay
zone 6
Column Dl—all at a
10"4 risk level ex-
cept *23, 30. 37, 38.
42. 68. 89. 91. 93.
104, 105: »23. 30.
37, 38. 42. 68, 89.
91. 93.104.105. at a
10*' risk level.
Column D2—all at a
10-4 risk level ex-
cept *23, 30. 37, 38.
42. 68. 89. 91. 93,
104,105: *23. 30.
37, 38. 42. 68, 89.
91. 93.104.105. at a
10~s risk leveL "
These classifications
are each assigned
the criteria in:
Column CI—all
except *102.
105.107.108,
111. 112, 113.
115, 117. and
118.
Column C2—all
except *105,
107,108.Ill,
112,113,115,
117,118,119,
120. 121.122,
123. 124, and
125.
Column D2—all at
a 10-4 risk level
except *23. 30.
37,	38,42. 68.
89. 91, 93.104.
105; *23. 30, 37.
38,	42, 68. 89.
91, 93,104,105.
at a 10"3 risk
leveL
These classifications
are each assigned
the criteria in:'
Delaware River
zones 3, 4, and 5.
and Delaware
Bay zone 6
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in: Column
Bl—all except *102.
105.107,108, 111,
112, 113,115,117,
and 118.
Column B2—all except
*105,107,108, 111.
112.113,115.117.
118,119,120.121,
122.123,124, and
125.
These classifications
are each assigned
the criteria in:
Column Cl—all.
Column C2—alL
Column D2—all at
a 10-4 risk level
except *23, 30,
37,	38. 42. 68.
89,91,93, 104,
105: #23. 30. 37,
38.	42. 68. 89.
91. 93. 104, 105.
at a 10"5 risk
leval.
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10-6
risk level for EPA rated Class A, Bj, and
B2 carcinogens; EPA rated Class C
carcinogens shall be applied at 10~5 risk
level. To determine appropriate value
for carcinogens, see footnote c. in the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(4) Puerto Rico, EPA Region 2. (i) All
waters assigned to the following use
classifications in the Puerto Rico Water
Quality Standards (promulgated by
Resolution Number R-33-5-2) are
subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(4)(ii) of this section, without
exception.
Article 2.2.2—Qass SB
Article 2.2.3—Class SC
Article 2.2.4—Qass SD
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(4)(t) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Column Bl—all.
Column B2—all.
"Column Dl—all at
a 10"4 risk level
except *23, 30.
37.38. 42. 68, "
89,91.93, 104.
105: *23, 30, 37.
38, 42. 68. 89,
91.93. 104.105,
at a 10"J risk
leveL
Column D2—all at
a 10-* risk level
except *23, 30.
37.38. 42, 68.
89, Bl, 93, 104.
105: *23. 30. 37.
38. 42. 68. 89.
91,93.104,105.
at a 10~J risk
leveL
Qass SD
Qass SB, Qass SC
This Qassification is
assigned criteria in:
Column Bl—all,
except: 10,102,
105,107,108,
111, 112.113,
115,117, and
128.
Column B2—all,
except: 105.
107.108.112,
113,115, and
117.
Column Dl—all.
except: 6.14.
105.112.113,
and 115.
Column D2—all.
except 14,105,
112,113, and
115.
These Classifications
are assigned criteria
In:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 12, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60919
Use classification Applicable criteria
Column Cl—all,
except: 4, 5b, 7.
8. 10,11, 13.
102,105. 507,
108, 111, 111,
113, 115,117,
ana 126.
Column C2—all,
except: 4, 5b.
10, 13, 108.112,
113,115. end
117.
Column D2—ail.
except: 14,135,
112.113, and
115.
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10"'
risk level. To determine appropriate
value for carcinogens, see footnote c, in
the criteria matrix in paragraph (bHD of
this s&ciion.
(5) District of Columbia, EPA
Region 3.
(i)	Ail waters assigned to the
following use classifications in chapter
11 Title 21 DCMR, Water Quality
Standards of the District of Columbia
are subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(5)(ii) of this section, without
exception:
1101.2 Class C waters
(ii)	The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classification identified
in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
identified in paragraph (d)[6)(i) of this
section:
Q ass ii
Cass III (marine)
Cass tG (freshwater]
Class C	This classification is
assigned the ¦addi-
tional criteria in:
Column B2—*10,
118,126.
Column Dl—#15,
16, 44,67, 68,
79, 80, 81, 88,
114,116,118.
Column D2—all.
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the.State-adopted to-6 risk
level.
(6) Florida, EPA Region 4.
(i)	All waters assigned to the-
following use classifications in Chapter
17-301 of the Florida Administrative
Coda (i.e., identified in Section 17-
302.600) are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(6)(ii) of this section,
without exception:
~ass I
Class ~
Class m
(ii)	The following criteria from the
matrix paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
Use classification Applicable criteria
Cass I	This classification is
assigned the cri-
teria in:
Coinrr.n Dl—916
This classification is
assigned the cri-
teria in:
This classification is
assigned the cri-
teria in:
Column D2—*16
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-adopted 10"* risk
level.
(7) Michigan, EPA Region 5.
(i)	All waters assigned to the
following use classifications in the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Commission General Rules, R
323.1100 designated uses, as denned at
R 323.1043. Definitions: A to N, (i.e.,
identified in Section (g) "Designated
use") are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(7)(ii) of this section,
without exception:
Agriculture
Navigation
Industrial Water Supply
Public Water Supply at the Point of Water
Intake
Warmwater Fish
Other Indigenous Aquatic life and Wildlife
Partial Body Contact Recreation
(ii)	The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Public Water sup-
ply.
All other designa-
tions
This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column B1—all.
Column B2—all.
Column 01—all.
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in:
Column B1—all.'
Column B2—all,
and
Column D2—alL
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-adopted 10-3 risk
level. To determine appropriate value
for carcinogens, see footnote c in the .
criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(8) Arkansas, SPA Region 6.
(i) All waters assigned to the
following,use classification in section
4C (Waterbody uses) identified in
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology's Regulation No. 2
as amended and entitled, "Regulation
Establishing Water Quality Standards
for Surface Waters of the State of
Arkansas" are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(8)(ii) of this secrion,
without exception:
Extraordinary Resource WateTS
Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody
Natural and Scenic Waterways
Fisheries:
11) Trout
(2)	Lakes and Reservoirs
(3)	Streams
(a) Ozark Highlands Ecoregion
To) Boston Mountains Hearsgicn
(c) Arkansas River Valley Sccregicn
Id) Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion
le) Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion
If) Spring Water-iailuenced Guif Coastal
Ecoregion
(g)	Le&st-aitewd Delta Ecoregion
(h)	Chsnaei-aitered Deifa Ecoregion
Domestic Water SuDpiy
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classification identified
in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Extraordinary Re-
source Waters
Ecologically Sensitive
Waterbody
Natural and Scenic
Waterways
Fisheries:
(1)	Trout
(2)	Lakes and Res-
ervoirs
(3)	Streams
(a)	Ozark High-
lands Ecoregion
(b)	Boston Moun-
tains Ecoregion
(c)	Arkansas River
Valley
Ecoregion
(d)	Ouachita
Mountains^
Ecoregion
(e)	Typical Gulf
Coastal
Ecoregion
(f)	Spring Water-
In financed Gulf
Coastal
Ecoregion
(g)	Least-altered -
Delta Ecoregion
(hi Channel-al- rhese uses are
tend Delta	each assigned
Ecoregion	the criteria in—
Column B1—
#4,5a, 5b, 6,
7,8.9,10,
11.13,14
Column B2—
#4. 5a, 5b, 6
7, 8, 9.10,
13,14
-------
60920 Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Kansas, EPA Region 7.
(i)	All waters assigned to the
following use classification in the
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment regulations, K.A.R. 28-1&-
28b through K.A.R. 2&-16-28f. are
subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(9)(ii) of this section, without
exception.
Section 28-16-28d
Section (2)(A)—Special Aquatic Lift Use
Waters
Section (2)(B)—Expected Aquatic Life Use
Waters
Section (2)(C1—Restricted Aquatic Life Use
Waters
Section (3>i-Oomesdc Water Supply
Section (6Hc)—Consumptive Recreation
Use.
(ii)	The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
Sections (2)(A),
(2)(B), (2)(q.
(6)(q
These classifications
are each assigned all
criteria inr
Use classification Applicable criteria
Column Bl, all"ex-
cept *9,11.13.
102.105,107,
108,111-113,
115,117, and
126;
Column B2. all ex-
cept *9, 13.105,
107, 108,111-
113,115,117,
110-125, and
126; and
Column D2. all ex-
cept #9, 112,
113, and 115.
Section (3)	This classification is
assigned all criteria
in;
Column Dl, ell ex-
cept #9, 12.112,
113, and 115.
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed 10~*
risk level.
(10) California. EPA Region 9.
(1) Ail waters assigned any aquatic life
or human health use classifications in
the Water Quality Control Plans for the
various Basins of the State ("Basin
Plans"), as amended, adopted by the
California State Water Resources
Control Board ("SWRCB"),. except for
ocean waters covered by the Water
Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters
of California ("Ocean Plan") adopted by
the SWRCB with resolution Number 90-
27 on March 22,1990, are subject to the
criteria in paragraph (d)(10Xii) of this
section, without exception. These
criteria amend the portions of the
existing State standards contained in the
Basin Plans. Mora particularly these
criteria amend water quality criteria
contained in the Basin Plan Chapters
specifying water quality objectives (the
Stats equivalent of federal water quality
criteria) for the toxic pollutants
identified in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this
section. Although the State has adopted
several use designations for each of
these waters, for purposes of this action,
the specific standards to be applied in
paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this secdon an
based on the presence in all waters of
some aquatic life designation and the
presence or absence of the MUN use
designation (Municipal and domestic
supply). (See Basin Plansfor more
detailed use definitions.)
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the water and use
classifications defined in paragraph
(d)(10)(i) of this section and identified
below.
Water and use classification
Waters of the State defined as bays or estuaries except the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
and San Francisco Bay
Waters of the Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta and waters of the State defined as Inland
(La., all surface waters of the State not bays or estuaries or ocean) that Include a MUM
use-designation
Waters of the State defined as Inland without an MUN use designation
Waters of the San Joaquin River from the mouth of the Merced River to Vernaiis
Applicable criteria
These waters are assigned the criteria in:
Column Bl—pollutants 5a and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
Column Cl—pollutant 14
Column C2—pollutant 14
Column D2—pollutants 1,12,17,18,21,
22. 29. 30, 32. 33. 37. 38, 42-44. 46.
48. 49. 54, 59, 66. 67. 68. 78-82, 85.
89. 9a 91.93.95,96, 98
These waters are-assigned the criteria in:
Column Bl—pollutants 5a and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
Column Dl—pollutants 1,12,15,17,18.
21,	22, 29. 30, 32. 33, 37, 38, 42-48,
49. 59, 66, 68. 78-82. 85. 89. 90. 91.
93. 95. 96. 98
These waters are assigned the criteria in:
Column Bl—pollutants 5a and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
Column D2—pollutants 1,12,17,18,21,
22,	29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46,
48. 49. 54. 59. 66. 67, 68> 78-82, 85.
89.90,91, 93,95,96,98
In addition to the criteria assigned to these
waters elsewhere in this rule, these waters
are assigned the criteria In:
Column B2—pollutant 10
-------
Federal Register I Vcl. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60921
Watar ana use classification
Atjolicable criteria
Waters of Salt Slough. Mud Slough (north) and the San Joaquin River. Sact Dam to the
mouth of the Merced River
Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Samxaento-
San Joaquin Delta
All inland waters of the United States or enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the
United States that Include an MUN use designation and that the Stats has either ex-
cluded or partially excluded from coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for In-
land Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or its Water Quality Control Plan for
Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicability of
those tables. (Category (a), (b), and (c) waters described on page 8 of Water Quality Con-
trol Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of Us Water Quality Control
Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.)
Ln addition to the criteria assigned to these
waters elsewhere Ln mis rule, these waters
are assigned the criteria in:
Column Bl—pollutant 10
Column B2—pollutant 10
These waters are assigned the criteria in:
Column Bl—pollutants 5a, 10* and 14
Column B2—pollutants 5a, 10* and 14
Column CI—pollutant 14
Column C2—pollutant 14
Column D2—pollutants 1, 12, 17, 18, 21,
22. 29, 30. 32. 33. 37, 38, 42-44. 46,
48, 49, 54, 59. 66. 67, 68, 78-82, 85,
89, 90. 91. 93, 95. 96, 98
All inland waters of the United States that do not include an MUN use designation and
that the State has either excluded or partially excluded from coverage under its Water
Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has de-
ferred applicability of these tables. (Category (a), (b), and fc) waters described on page 6
of Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California.)
These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
lutants for which the State does not apply
Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria axe:
Column Bl—all pollutants
Column B2—all pollutants
Column Dl—all pollutants except #2
All enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the United States and that the State has
either excluded or partially excluded from coverage under Its Water Quality Control Plan
for inland Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or its Water Quality Control Plan
for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicabil-
ity of those tables. (Category (a), (b), and (c) waters described on page 8 of Water Quality
Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of its Water Quality Con-
trol Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.)
These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
lutants for which the State does not apply
Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria are:
Column Bl—all pollutants
Column B2—all pollutants
Column D2—all pollutants except >2
*The trash water selenium criteria are Included for the San Francisco Bay estuary w
-------
60922 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 I Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Water and use classification
Waters that the Stat* has included in NAC 445.1339 where Munici-
pal or doinestic supply is e designated use
V/aters that the State has included in NAC 445.1339 where Munici-
pal or domestic supply is not a designated use
Applicable criteria
These waters are assigned the criteria id:
Column Bl—pollutant #118
Column B2—pollutant #118
Column Dl—pollutants #15. 16. 18. 19. 20, 21. 23. 26, 27, 29,
30, 34, 37, 38. 42. 43, 55, 58-62, 64. 56. 73, 74. 78, 82, 85.
87-69. 91. 92, 96. 98, 100, 103.104. 105. 114.116, 117,118
These waters are assigned the criteria in:
Column Bl—pollutant #118
Column B2—pollutant #118
Column D2—all pollutants exceot 32
(iiij The human health criteria shall
be applied at the 10~8 risk level,
consistent with State policy. To
determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the
criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(12) Alaska, EPA Region 10.
(i) All waters assigned to the
following use classifications in the
Alaska Administrative Code (AAC),
Chapter IB (Le., identified in 18 AAC
70.020) are subject to the criteria in
paragraph (d)(12)(ii) of this section,
without exception:
70.020.(1) (A) Freshwater
70.020.(1) (A) Water Supply
(i) Drinking, culinary, and food processing,
(iii) Aquaculture;
70.020.(1) (B) Water Recreation
(i)	Contact recreation.
(ii)	Secondary recreation:
70.020.(1) (O Growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and
wildlife
70.020.(2) (A) Marine Water
70.020.(2) (A) Water Supply
(i) Aquaculture.
70.020.(2) (B) Water Recreation
(i)	contact recreation,
(il) secondary recreation:
70.020.(2) (C) Growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and
wildlife:
70.020^2) (D) Harvesting for consumption
of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic lib.
(ii)	The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(l2)(i) of this
section:
Use classification Applicable criteria
(1)(A) l
Column Bl—all
Column B2—110
Column Dl
#'8 2.16.18-21, 23.
26. 27. 29, 30, 32.
37, 38. 42-44,53.
55. 59-62, 64,66,
68. 73. 74. 78,82.
85, 88, 89. 91-93,
96.98.102-10S.
107-111.117-126
Use classification Applicable criteria
(11(A) iii	Column Bl—all
Column B2—*10
Column Dl
*'s 2.14. 16.18-21.
22. 23, 26. 27, 29.
30, 32. 37. 38, 42-
44. 46, 53. 54.55,
59-62, 64, 66. 68.
73. 74. 78. 82. 85.
88-93. 95. 96, 98.
102-105.107-111,
115-126
(1)(B)i.	(l)(B) U. Column Bl—all
(1)(C)	Column B2—110
Column D2
#'s 2.14.18.18-21,
22.	23. 26. 27. 29,
30, 32, 37, 38, 42-
44, 46. 53. 54. 55.
59-62, 64. 66. 68,
73,	74. 78. 82. 85.
88-93, 95. 96. 98.
102-105.107-111,
115-126
(2)(A)	l. (2)(B)i. and Column CI—all
(2)(B)ii,	(2)(C), Column C2—#10
(21(D) Column D2
#s2,14,16.18-21,22,
23.	26. 27, 29, 30,
32, 37, 38. 42-44.
46. 53, 54, 55. 59-
62. 64, 66. 68, 73,
74.	78, 82. 85, 88-
93, 95. 96. 98,102-
105,107-111,115-
126
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State-proposed risk
level of 10~s. To determine appropriate
value for carcinogens, see footnote c in
the criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(13) Idaho, EPA Region 10.
(i) All waters assigned to the
following use classifications in the
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act
(1DAPA). Chap.er 16 (i.e.. identified in
IDAPA 18.01.2100.02-16.01.2100,07)
are subject to the criteria in paragraph
(d)(13}(ii) of this section, without
exception:
16.01.2100.01.b.	Domestic Water Supplies
16.01.2100.02.a.	Cold Water Biota
16.01.2100.02.b.	Warm Water Biota
16.01.2100.02cc. Salmonid Spawning
16.01.2100.03.a.	Primary Contact Recreation
16.01.2100.03.b Secondary Contact
Recreation
(ii) The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(13)(i) of this
section:
Use classi-
fication
Ol.b
02 m
02.b
02cc.
03.a
03 .b
Applicable criteria
This classification is as-
signed the criteria in:
Column Dl—all except
#14 and 115
These classifications are as-
signed the criteria in:
Column Bl—all
Column B2—all
Column D2—all
rhis classification is
signed the criteria in:
Column D2—all
This classification is
signed the criteria In:
Column D2—all
as-
as-
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the 10~* risk level,
consistent with State policy.
(14) Washington. EPA Region 10.
(i)	All waters assigned to the
following use classifications in the
Washington Administrative Code
(WAC), Chapter 173-201 (l.e., identified
in WAC 173-201-045) are subject to the
criteria in paragraph fd)(14)(ii) of this
section, without exception:
173-201-045
Fish and Shellfish
Fish
Water Supply (domestic)
Recreation
(ii)	The following criteria from the
matrix in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
apply to the use classifications
identified in paragraph (d)(14)(i) of this
section:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 22, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 60923
Use classification Applicable criteria Usa classification Applicable criteria
Fish and Shellfish:
Fish
Water Supply (do-
mestic)
Column Dl—all
Recreation	This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column DZ—Ma-
rine waters and
freshwaters not
protected for do-
mestic water
supply
(iii) The human health criteria shall
be applied at the State proposed risk
level of 10"6
|FR Doc. 92-30611 Filed 12-21-92: 8:45 ami
BILUMQ CODE IMO-U-U
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in:
Column 31 and
B(2>—¦«, to
Column Cl—-2,
:o
Column C2—^2, 6
10.14
Column D2—all
These classifications
are assigned the cri-
teria in:
~ u.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTINC OFFICE: I9M - 5IH-738/M7M
-------
Water Quality Standards Academy
Participant Evaluation Form
Name (optional):	
Occupation: 	
Title: 	
Organization: 	
=^^== ^=====
Please place a "x" in the appropriate box.
1.	How do you rate the overall training program?
Q Excellent Q Good Q Adequate Q Poor
2.	What is your opinion of the teaching aids (e.g., vugraphs, slides, case-
studies) used?-
Q Excellent I Good Q Adequate Q Poor
3.	How do you rate the presentation of technical information? (Was it
presented in an understandable and usable fashion?)
Q Excellent Q Good Q Adequate Q Poor

-------
Please provide a Siief response to the following questions.
4. Were the issues and topics you were concerned with addressed during the
Academy; if not, what issues do,you believe need to be addressed?
5. What section(s) of the Academy did you consider the most beneficial?
6. What section(s) of the Academy did you consider the least beneficial?
7. Do you have any suggestions on how the training module presentations could
be enhanced? Are there any teaching methods that should be incorporated?
8. Are there any aspects of the Academy thatire greater emphasis?
»
-------
Please use'the rest of the space to provide additional comments or suggestions.
TSvLj U) OA/m ^l/dsLS* ixjez-e, NCff J/
it;
4a v«oJt' - SP
-Or- kis/c 4k Sc_S3yWiT

v
-------