Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Second Edition
Second Edition
August 1994
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
HANDBOOK
SECOND EDITION
September 1993
Contains update # 1
August 1994
READER RESPONSE CARD
The U.S. Environmental Protection A&ency is trying bard to be responsive to the needs of our customers. We would
appreciate knowing if this document has been belpful 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: I.. 2 3 4 5
Somewhat Quite Very
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
) 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
8. UPDATES. If you would like to be added to the mailing list to receive updates of this publication. please check here anJ
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 Cataloz 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 cornpl ete box 1110 below.
Address:
Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the hack and mai I It to us. Thanks for your assistance.
Dear Colleague:
The following document entitled Warer Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition pn ivides guidance
issued in support of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 eFR 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 pn:viously issued oy 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 tound.uion fur State and
Tribal water quality standards programs. The Handbook also presents some uf the evolving program concepts
designed to reduce human and ecological risks, such as endangered species protection: cr iter ia III protect wildlife.
wetlands, and sediment quality; biological criteria to better define desired oilllllgl-:al communities in dtJuati~
ecosystems; and nutrient criteria.
This Handbook is intended to serve as a "living document." subject to future revtsruns as the water quality
standards program moves forward, and to reflect the needs and experiences of EPA anJ the Staks Til this end.
the Handbook is published in a loose leaf format designed to he placed in three ring hinders. 'I11is L'OPy (If the
Handbook includes updated material for 1994 (see Appendix Xi. and EPA anticipates puhhshmg additional
changes periodically and providing them to Handbook recipients. To ensure that )'1 III \\ ill receive these updates.
please copy the reader response card in Appendix Wand mail II til the address on the reverse.
The Handbook also contains a listing. by title and dare. of the guidance l:-:-ut.'d sinL'e the Handbook was
first publ ished in 1983 that is incorporated in the Second Ed iti,In Cop ies of th e:-e dPL'U ment-, ;lIe a\ ail able upon
request.
The Waler Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition provides guidance IH1 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 qual it)' standards prllgr :1111, and apr reciates
questions on th is guidance as well as suggestions and comments tor imp roverncnt Ouest iunx or ~ll mments may
he directed to the EPA regional water quality standards coordinators or Ill:
(8/15/94 ) 111
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
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 Waler Quality Standards Handbook·
Second Edition retains all the guidance in the 1983 Handbook unless such guidance was specitically
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 and material added
to the Second Edition by periodic updates since 1993 is summarized in Appendix X. 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:
I) 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.
Robert S. Shippen
Editor
IV (8/15/94)
Table of Coniesu»
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . III
Table of Contents v
Glossary . . . . . . . GLOSS-l
Introduction INT-I
(8/15/94) v
Water Quality Standards Handt-nok - S~... ond Edition
Chapter b - Procedure ... tor Review and ReVISIOn uf Water Quality Standards
(40 (TR 131 Subpart C)
o •• 0 • , •• 0 •• , • 0 0 , , 0 • 0 0 • 0 ' • 0 • 0 REF-I
VI (8'15/94)
Table of Contenu
Appendices:
C - Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Walers, April 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.
M - Reserved.
0- Reserved.
Q - Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines lor States and Eligible
Indian Tribes - April 1989.
R- Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Crill'ria in the Waler Quality
Program. May 1991.
S - Reserved.
(8/15/94) VII
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
W - Update Request Form for Warer Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition.
X - Summary of Updates
Vlll (8/15/94)
GLOSSARY
SECOND EDITION
Glossary
GWSSARY
The "Act" refers to the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500, as amended (33 USC 1251, ~.) (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.)
"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 oy an aquatic organism, both from
water and through food (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Bioaccumulation factor" (BAY) 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, 199Ia.)
"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-l
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" (RCF) is the ratio of a substance's concentration in tissue versus its
concentration in water, in situations where the food chain is DQt 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.)
"Cancer potency slope factor" (qt-) is an indication of a chemical's human cancer-eausing 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 000-
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 (9/1S/93)
Glossary
"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" (CCe) 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.)
"Critical species" is a species that is commercially or recreationally important at the site, a species that
exists at the site and is listed as threatened or endangered under section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act, or a species for which there is evidence that the loss of the species from the site
is likely to cause an unacceptable impact on a commercially or recreationally important species,
a threatened or endangered species, the abundances of a variety of other species, or the structure
or function of the community (USEPA, 1994a.)
"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" (Ee) 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.)
(8/1S/94) GLOSS-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"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" (FA V) 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.)
"Frequency" is how often criteria can be exceeded without unacceptably affecting the community
(USEPA, 1991a.)
"Harmonic mean now" 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 C FR 131. 3.)
"Inhibition concentration" (Ie) 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.)
"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.)
"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 lone" 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.)
GLOSS-4 (8/15/94)
Glossary
"Navigable waters" refer to the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas (33 USC
1362.)
"Nonthreshold effects" are associated with exposure to chemicals that have no safe exposure levels.
(i.e., cancer) (USEPA, 1991a.)
"Pollution It 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 mgll (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" (RID) 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. )
"Site-specific aquatic life criterion" is a water quality criterion for aquatic life that has been derived
to be specifically appropriate to the water quality characteristics and/or species composition at
a particular location (USEPA, 1994a.)
(8/15/94) GLOSS-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"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.)
"Sublethal" refers to a stimulus below the level that causes death (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 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., l00/LC 50) (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., IOO/NOEC)
(USEPA. 199Ia.)
GLOSS-6 (8/15/94)
Glossary
"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. lO(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.)
(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;
(3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams).
mudflats, sandtlats, 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;
(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.II(m) which also
meet the criteria for this definition) are not waters of the United States. (40 CFR 232.2.)
(8/15/94) GLOSS-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"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
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.)
"Whole-effiuent toxicity" is the total toxic effect of an effluent measured directly with a toxicity test
(USEPA. 1991a.)
GLOSS-8 (81l5/94)
lntroduaion
INTRODUcnON
(9/15/93) INT-I
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
(5) The process is described for EPA review of published, if the presence of these pollutants is
State standards that might ultimately result in likely to adversely affect the water body's use.
the promulgation of a superseding Federal Guidance on these changes is discussed in detail
rule in cases where a State's standards are in section 3.4 of this Handbook. Additionally,
not consistent with the applicable for the first time, the Act explicitly recognizes
requirements of the CWA, or in situations antidegradation (see section 303(d)(4) of the Act).
where the Agency determines that Federal
standards are necessary to meet the
requirements of the Act. Regulatory History
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, EPA first published a water quality standards
including the major 1977, 1981, and 1987 regulation in 1975 (40 CFR 130.17, promulgated
Amendments are commonly referred to as the in 40 F.R. 55334, November 28, 1975) as part of
"Clean Water Act" (the Act or CW A). EPA's water quality management regulations,
mandated under section 303(e) of the Act. The
On February 4, 1987, Congress enacted the Water first Water Quality Standards Regulation did not
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4), making specifically address toxic pollutants or any other
substantial additions to the Clean Water Act and criteria. It simply required "appropriate" water
directly affecting the standards program. quality criteria necessary to support designated
Congress concluded that toxic pollutants in water uses.
constitute one of the most pressing water pollution
problems. The Water Quality Act provided a new In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the public and
approach to controlling toxic pollutants by Congress raised concerns about toxic pollutant
requiring ". . . States to identify waters that do control. EPA realized that promulgating effluent
not meet water quality standards due to the guidelines or effluent standards under section 307
discharge of toxic substances, to adopt numerical of the Act would not comprehensively address
criteria for the pollutants in such waters, and to toxic pollutants. So, EPA decided to use the
establish effluent limitations for individual statutory connection between water quality
discharges to such water bodies" (from Senator standards and NPDES permits provided by section
Mitchell, 133 Congressional Record 5733). As 301(b)(I)(C) to effectively control a range of toxic
now amended, the Clean Water Act requires that poll utants from point sources. To best accomplish
States adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants this process, the Agency decided to amend the
listed under section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act Water Quality Standards Regulation to explicitly
for which section 304(a) criteria have been address toxic criteria requirements in State
~/////IIIII11/111I/llIf)/Iff!%f:fflif)///II////I/////////IIIIIII'.' /I//;
----
.. ,'1'11111//111111//
. -------
.. - -_.
.- - - ... ~ _ .. ~-- ~ :".- -- .... _~ - ~ .. _'", r.": .~---~._. ._.:_-
--
.----:-- -~~- -:. - ~_. -- _ - ----- ~----"
..
.. ..
JI1' - . ~ --- ~..... -., -... .,-f'" Oil ._.~ "II~
.-
'l. _a ,;,:::.:"'· _ .._ ..,._ - - .. "a _-.
- • , V
INT-2 (9/15/93)
lntroduction
standards. Other legal and programmatic issues EP A's approach to controlling toxics included
also necessitated a revision of the Standards both chemical-specific numeric criteria and
Regulation. The culmination of this effort was biological testing in whole-effluents or ambient
the promulgation of the present Water Quality waters. More detailed programmatic guidance on
Standards Regulation on November 8, 1983 (54 the application of biological testing was provided
F.R. 514(0). in the Technical Support Document for Warer
Quality-based Taxies Control (EPA 44/4-85-032,
The present Water Quality Standards Regulation September 1985). This document provides the
(40 CFR Part 131) is a much more comprehensive information needed to convert chemical-specific
regulation than its predecessor. In subpart B, the and biologically based criteria into permit limits
Regulation addresses both the designated use for point source dischargers.
component and the criteria component of a water
quality standard. Section 131.11 of the State water quality standards reviews submitted
Regulation requires States to review available began to show the effects of EPA's efforts. More
information and ". . . to identify specific water and more numeric criteria for toxics were being
bodies where toxic pollutants may be adversely included in State standards as well as more
affecting water quality . . . and must adopt aggressive use of the "free from toxics" narratives
criteria for such toxic pollutants applicable to the in setting protective NPDES permit limits.
water body sufficient to protect the designated However, because of perceived problems in
use." The Regulation provides that either or both adopting numeric toxic pollutant criteria in State
numeric and narrative criteria may be rulemaking proceedings, many States were
appropriately used in water quality standards. reluctant to adopt numeric toxics criteria. Thus,
in 1987, Congress responded to the lack of
Since the middle of the 1980's, EPA's annual numeric criteria for toxic pollutants within State
program guidance to the States reflected the standards by mandating State adoption of such
increasing emphasis on controlling toxics. States criteria.
were strongly encouraged to adopt criteria in their
standards for the pollutants listed pursuant to In response to this new congressional mandate,
section 307(a) of the Act, especially where EPA EPA redoubled its efforts to promote and assist
has published criteria guidance under section State adoption of water quality standards for
304(a) of the Act. priority toxic pollutants. EPA's efforts included
the development and issuance of guidance to the
State reaction to EPA's irnuauve was mixed. States on December 12, 1988, which contained
Several States proceeded to adopt large numbers acceptable implementation procedures for several
of numeric toxic pollutant criteria, although new sections of the Act, including sections
primarily for the protection of aquatic life. Other 303(c)(2)(B).
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.
(9/15/93) INT-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
INT-4 (9/15/93)
lntroducuon
In December, 1983, EPA published its first Waler promulgating this regulation, to establish a
Quality Standards Handbook. The 1983 mechanism to resolve unreasonable consequences
Handbook was designed to help States implement that may result from an Indian Tribe and a State
the Water Quality Standards Regulation as revised adopting differing water quality standards on
in November 1983 (48 F.R. 51400). Since then, common bodies of water. EPA promulgated a
Congress enacted the Water Quality Act of 1987 final regulation on December 12, 1991 (56 F.R.
(Public Law 100-4), making substantial additions 64875). Guidance on water quality standards for
to the Clean Water Act (CWA) directly affecting Indian Tribes is contained in chapter I.
the standards program. In response to the Water
Quality Act of 1987, and as a result of Federal Other EPA Guidance
promulgation actions, EPA amended the Water
Quality Standards Regulation several times (see Since 1983, EPA also developed additional
Appendices A and B). Since 1983 EPA also policies and guidance on virtually all areas of the
issued additional guidance to assist in the WQS Regulation. Following is a complete list of
implementation of the WQS Regulation. Water these guidance documents.
Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
incorporates all the WQS guidance issued since State Water Quality Standards Approvals: Use
the 1983 Handbook was published. A summary Attainability Analysis Submittals (USEPA,
of these guidance documents are as follows. 1984d), clarifies EPA policy on several
issues regarding approval of water body use
EPA Guidance on the Water Quality Act of designations less than the
1987 fishable/swimmable goal of the CWA. See
section 6.2 for a discussion of this topic.
On February 4, 1987, Congress enacted the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4), making Interpretation of the Term "Existing Use"
substantial additions to the Clean Water Act (USEPA, 1985e), expands on EPA's
directly affecting the standards program. Section interpretation of when a use becomes an
303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act requires "existing use" as defined by the WQS
States to adopt numeric criteria for toxic Regulation. Discussion of "existing uses" is
pollutants listed under section 307(a) of the Clean contained in section 4.4.
Water Act for which section 304(a) criteria have
been published, if the presence of these pollutants Selection of Waler Quality Criteria in State Waler
is likely to affect a water body's use. EPA Quality Standards (USEPA, 1985f),
published Guidance for State lmplemenuuion of established EPA policy regarding the
WQS for CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) on December selection of appropriate water quality criteria
12, 1988 (USEPA, 1988b). This guidance is for toxic pollutants in State water quality
incorporated into this Handbook at section 3.4. I. standards. This guidance preceded both the
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
The 1987 Act also added a new section 518, Water Quality Criteria for the for the
which requires EPA to promulgate a regulation Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
specifying how the Agency will authorize Uses (USEPA, 1985b), and the 1988
qualified Indian Tribes to administer CWA guidance on section 303(c)(2)(B) of the
programs including section 303 (water quality CWA, discussed above. Both of these later
standards) and section 401 (certification) documents expand upon the February 1985
programs. Section 518 also requires EPA, in guidance, but the policy established therein
(9/15/93) INT-5
Water Quality StaDdard8 Handbook - Secood EditioD
has not been substantively changed. Nonpoitu Source Conirols and Walt'r Quality
Adoption of criteria for toxic pollutants is Standards (USEPA, 1987d), provides further
discussed in section 3.4. guidance on nonpoint sources pollution and
water Quality standards reflecting the
Varianas in Waler Quality Standards (USEPA, requirements of section 319 of the CWA as
1985g), reinterprets the factors that could be added by the 1987 CW A amendments.
considered when granting water quality
standards variances. Variances are discussed EPA Designation of OU/standing Naiional
in section 5.3. Resource Warl'rs (USEPA, 1989t) , restates
the basis for EPA's practice of not
Antidegradanon, Wastl' loads, and Permits designating State waters as Outstanding
(USEPA, 1985h), clarifies that the National Resource Waters (ONRW) where a
antidegradation policy is an integral State does not do so. ONRWs are discussed
component of water Quality standards and in section 4.6.
must be considered when developing waste
load allocations and NPDES permits. Guidance for the Use of Conduionai Approvals
Antidegradation is discussed in chapter 4. for Stare WQS (USEPA, 1989g), provides
guidelines for regional offices to use in
Questions and Answers on Atuidegradation granting State water Quality standards
(Appendix G), provides guidance on various approvals conditioned on the performance of
aspects of the antidegradation policy where specified actions by the State. Conditional
Questions had arisen since the 1983 approvals are discussed in section 6.2.3.
Regulation and Handbook were published.
Application of Anudegradasion Policy to the
Anudegradation Policy (USEPA, 1985i), Niagara River (USEPA, 1989c) , provides
reiterates the need for all States to have: (1) guidance on acceptable interpretations of the
an antidegradation policy that fuJly complies antidegradation policy to help attain the
with the Federal requirements, and (2) a CWA objective to "restore and maintain" the
procedure for consistently implementing that integrity of the Nation's waters.
policy.
Designation ofRecreation Uses (USEPA, 1989h),
Answers to Questions on Nonpoitu Sources and summarizes previously issued guidance, and
WQS (USEPA, 1986e) , responded to two outlines a number of acceptable State options
Questions on nonpoint source pollution and for designating recreational uses. The use
water Quality standards. The relationship designation process is discussed in chapter 2.
between nonpoint source pollution and water
Quality standards is discussed in section 7.
Biological Criteria: Nasional Program Guidance
Determinaiion of "Existing Uses- for Purposes of for Surface Waters (Appendix C), provides
Warer Quality Standards lmplemenuuion guidance on the effective development and
(USEPA, 1986f), responds to concerns application of biological criteria in the water
expressed to EPA on the interpretation of Quality standards program. Biological
when a recreational use becomes an criteria are discussed in section 3.5.3.
"existing use" as defined by the Regulation.
Discussion of "existing uses" is contained in Naiional Guidance: Warer Quality Standards for
section 4.4. 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 the antidegradation policy in 40 CFR
(USEPA, 1991h), clarifies the range of 131.12(a)(2) as it relates to nonpoint
water quality standards elements that States sources. Antidegradation and nonpoint
need to apply when making CWA section sources are discussed in Section 4.6.
401 certification decisions. Section 401 of
the CWA is discussed in section 7.6.3. Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of
water-Effect Ratios for Metals (Appendix
Technical Support Document for Water Quality- L), provides interim guidance concerning the
based Toxics Control, (USEPA, 199Ia), experimental determination of water-effect
provides technical guidance for assessing and ratios (WERs) for metals and supersedes all
regulating the discharge of toxic substances guidance concerning water-effect ratios and
to the waters of the United States. the Indicator Species Procedure in USEPA,
1983a and in USEPA, 1984f. It also
Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and supersedes the guidance in these earlier
Criteria in the Water Quality Program documents for the Recalculation Procedure
(USEPA, 1991i), provides the basis for for performing site-specific aquatic life
EPA's pol icy that biological surveys shall be criteria modifications. Site-specific aquatic
fully integrated with toxicity and chemical- life criteria are discussed in Section 3.7.
specific assessment methods in State water
quality programs. Further discussion of this The guidance contained in each of the above
policy is contained in section 3.3. documents is either incorporated into the text of
the appropriate section of this Handbook or
Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands attached as appendices (see Table of Contents).
(Appendix E), evaluates EPA's numeric The reader is directed to the original guidance
aquatic life criteria to determine how they documents for the explicit guidance on the topics
can be applied to wetlands. Wetland aquatic discussed. Copies of all original guidance
life criteria are discussed in section 3.5.6. documents not attached as appendices may be
obtained from the source listed for each document
Endangered Species Act Joint Guidance in the Reference section of this Handbook.
(Appendix F), establishes a procedure by
which EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife The Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second
Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Edition is reorganized from the 1983 Handbook.
Service will consult on the development of An overview to Water Quality Standards and
water quality criteria and standards. Water Quality Management programs has been
added, and chapters I through 6 are organized to
Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on parallel the provisions of the Water Quality
Interpretation and Implementation ofAquatic Standards Regulation. Chapter 7 briefly
Life Metals Criteria (USEPA, 1993t), introduces the role of water quality standards in
transmits Office of Water (OW) policy and the water quality-based approach to pollution
guidance on the interpretation and control.
implementation of aquatic life criteria for the
management of metals. Section 3.6 The Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second
discusses EPA's policy on aquatic life metals Edition retains all the guidance in the 1983
criteria. Handbook unless such guidance was specifically
revised in subsequent years.
Interpretation of Federal Antidegradauon
Regulatory Requirement (USEPA, 1994a),
provides guidance on the interpretation of
(8/15/94) INT-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
A water quality standard defines the water quality State water quality standards submission (section
goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by 131.6).
designating the use or uses to be made of the
water, by setting criteria necessary to protect the On December 12, 1991, the EPA promulgated
uses, and by preventing degradation of water amendments to Subpart A of the Water Quality
quality through antidegradation provisions. States Standards Regulation in response to the CWA
adopt water quality standards to protect public section 518 requirements (see 56 F.R. 64875).
health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, The Amendments:
and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
• establish a mechanism to resolve
"Serve the purposes of the Act" (as defined in unreasonable consequences that may result
sections 101(a), 101(a)(2), and 303(c) of the Act) from an Indian Tribe and a State adopting
means that water quality standards: differing water quality standards on common
bodies of water (section 131.7); and
• include provisions for restoring and
maintaining chemical, physical, and • add procedures by which an Indian Tribe can
biological integrity of State waters; qualify for the section 303 water quality
standards and section 401 certi fication
• wherever attainable, achieve a level of water programs of the Clean Water Act (section
quality that provides for the protection and 131.8).
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,
and recreation in and on the water The sections of Subpart A are discussed in chapter
("fishable/swimmable"); and 1.
• consider the use and value of State waters Establishment of Water Quality Standards -
for public water supplies, propagation of fish (Subpart B)
and wildlife, recreation, agriculture and
industrial purposes, and navigation. Subpart B contains regulatory requirements that
must be included in State water quality standards:
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act provides designated uses (section 131.10), criteria that
the statutory basis for the water quality standards protect the designated uses (section 131. 11), and
program. The regulatory requirements governing an antidegradation policy that protects existing
the program, the Wafer Quality Standards uses and high water quality (section 131.12).
Regula/ion, are published at 40 CFR 131. The Subpart B also provides for State discretionary
Regulation is divided into four subparts (A policies, such as mixing zones and water quality
through D), which are summarized below. standards variances (section 131. 13).
General Provisions (40 CFR 131 - Subpart A) Each of these sections is summarized below and
discussed in detail in chapters 2 through 5
Subpart A includes the scope (section 131.1) and respectively.
purpose (section 131.2) of the Regulation,
definitions of terms used in the Regulation Designation of Uses
(section 131.3), State (section 131.4) and EPA
(section 131.5) authority for water quality The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires
standards, and the minimum requirements for a that States specify appropriate water uses to be
INT-8 (9/15/93 )
lturoduction
achieved and protected by taking into attainability analysis is required when designating
consideration the use and value of the water body uses that include those specified in section
for public water supply, for propagation of fish, 101(a)(2) of the Act.
shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreational,
agricultural, industrial, and navigational purposes. Criteria Development and Review
In designating uses for a water body, States
examine the suitability of a water body for the States adopt water quality criteria with sufficient
uses based on the physical, chemical, and coverage of parameters and of adequate stringency
biological characteristics of the water body, its to protect designated uses. In adopting criteria to
geographical setting and scenic qualities, and the protect the designated uses, States may:
social-economic and cultural characteristics of the
surrounding area. Each water body does not • adopt the criteria that EPA publishes under
necessarily require a unique set of uses. Instead, section 304(a) of the Act;
the characteristics necessary to support a use can
be identified so that water bodies having those • modify the section 304(a) guidance to reflect
characteristics might be grouped together as site-specific conditions; or
supporting particular uses.
• use other scientifically defensible methods.
Any water body with standards not consistent with
the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act must be Section 131. II encourages States to adopt both
reexamined every 3 years to determine if new numeric and narrative criteria. Numeric criteria
information has become available that would are important where the cause of toxicity is
warrant a revision of the standard. In addition, known or for protection against pollutants with
the Regulation requires that where existing water potential human health impacts or potential for
quality standards specify designated uses less than bioaccumulation. Narrative toxic criteria, based
those which are presently being attained, the State on whole-effluent toxicity (WET) testing, can be
shall revise its standards to reflect the uses the basis for limiting toxicity in waste discharges
actually being attained. where a specific pollutant can be identified as
causing or contributing to the toxicity but there
When reviewing uses, States must perform and are no numeric criteria in the State standards or
submit to EPA a use attainability analysis if: where toxicity cannot be traced to a particular
pollutant. Whole-effluent toxicity testing is also
• either the State designates or has designated appropriate for discharges containing multiple
uses that do not include the uses specified in pollutants because WET testing provides a method
section 101(a)(2) of the Act; for evaluating synergistic and antagonistic effects
on aquatic life.
• the State wishes to remove a designated use
that is specified in section 10I(a)(2); or Section 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt
criteria for all section 307(a) toxic pollutants for
• the State wishes to adopt subcategories of which the Agency has published criteria under
uses specified in section lOl(a)(2) that section 304(a) of the Act, if the discharge or
require less stringent criteria than are presence of the pollutant could reasonably be
currently adopted. expected to interfere with the designated uses of
the water body. The section 307(a) list contains
States may adopt seasonal uses as an alternative to 65 compounds and families of compounds, which
reclassifying a water body or segment thereof to the Agency has interpreted to include 126
uses requiring less stringent criteria. In no case "priority" toxic pollutants for regulatory purposes.
may a State remove an existing use. No use If data indicate that it is reasonable to expect that
(9/15/93) INT-9
Water Quality Standards HandbooIr: - Secood Editioo
one or more of the section 307(a) toxic pollutants significance," i.e., those water bodies which are
will interfere with the attainment of the designated important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
use, or is actually interfering with the designated whose water quality, as measured by the
use, then the State must adopt a numeric limit for traditional parameters such as dissolved oxygen
the specific pollutant. Section 303(c)(2)(B) also or pH, may not be particularly high. Waters of
provides that where EPA-recommended numeric exceptional ecological significance also include
criteria are not available, States shall adopt waters whose characteristics cannot adequately be
criteria based on biological monitoring or described by traditional parameters (such as
assessment methods. wetlands and estuaries).
INT-IO (9/15/93)
lntroduction
appropriateness of a mixmg zone where a Water Quality Standards Review and Revision
substance discharged is bioaccumulative, Process - (Subpart C)
persistent, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or
teratogenic. The Clean Water Act requires States to hold a
public hearing(s) to review their water quality
Low-Flow Provisions standards at least once every 3 years and revise
them if appropriate. After State water quality
State water quality standards should protect water standards are officially adopted, a Governor or
quality for the designated and existing uses in designee submits the standards to the appropriate
critical low-flow situations. States may, however, EPA Regional Administrator for review. EPA
designate a critical low-flow below which reviews the State standards to determine whether
numerical water quality criteria do not apply. the analyses performed are adequate. The
When reviewing standards, States should review Agency also evaluates whether the designated uses
their low-flow provisions for conformance with and criteria are compatible throughout the water
EPA guidance. body and whether the downstream water quality
standards are protected. After reviewing the
Waler Quality Standards Variances standards, EPA makes a determination whether
the standards meet the requirements of the law
As an alternative to removing a designated use, a and EPA's water quality standards regulations. If
State may wish to include a variance as part of a EPA disapproves a standard, the Agency indicates
water quality standard, rather than change the what changes must be made for the standard to be
standard across the board, because the State approved. If a State fails to make the required
believes that the standard ultimately can be changes, EPA promulgates a Federal standard,
attained. By maintaining the standard rather than setting forth a new or revised water quality
changing it, the State will assure that further standard applicable to the State.
progress is made in improving water quality and
attaining the standard. EPA has approved State- State Review and Revision
adopted variances in the past and will continue to
do so if: States identify additions or revisions necessary to
existing standards based on their 305(b) reports,
• the variance is included as part of the water other available water quality monitoring data,
quality standard; previous water quality standards reviews, or
requests from industry, environmental groups, or
• the variance is subjected to the same public the public. Water quality standards reviews and
review as other changes in water quality revisions may take many forms, including
standards; additions to and modifications in uses, in criteria,
in the antidegradation policy, in the
• the variance IS granted based on a antidegradation implementation procedures, or in
demonstration that meeting the standard is other general policies.
not feasible due to the presence of any of the
same conditions as if the State were Some States review parts of their water quality
removing a designated use (these conditions standards every year. Other States perform a
are listed in section 131.1O(g) of the comprehensive review every 3 years. Such
Regulation); and reviews are necessary because new scientific and
technical data may become available.
• existing uses will be fully protected. Environmental changes over time may also
necessitate the need for the review.
(9/15/93) INT-ll
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
INT-12 (9/15/93)
lnsroduction
State water quality standards playa central • making decisions involving CW A section
role in a State's water quality management 401 certification of Federal permits or
program, which identifies the overall mechanism licenses; and
States use to integrate the various Clean Water
Act quality control requirements into a coherent • issuing NPDES permits for all point source
management framework. This framework discharges. Permits are written to meet
includes, for example: applicable water quality standards.
• setting and revising standards for water The Act provides the basis for two different kinds
bodies; of pollution control programs. Water quality
standards are the basis of the water quality-based
• Water Quality Assessments to determine control program. The Act also provides for
attainment of designated uses; technology-based limits known as best available
treatment technology economically achievable for
• CWA section 305(b) water quality industry and secondary treatment for publicly
monitoring to provide information upon owned treatment works. In some cases,
which water quality-based decisions will be application of these technologically based controls
made, progress evaluated, and success will result in attaining water quality standards.
measured; Where such is not the case, the Act requires the
development of more stringent limitations to meet
• calculating total maximum daily loads the water quality standards.
(fMDLs), waste load allocations (WLAs)
for point sources of pollution, and load Regulations, policy, and guidance have been
allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources of issued on all the activities mentioned in this
pollution; section. Chapter 7 contains a brief discussion of
how water quality standards relate to many of
• developing a water quality management plan, these activities in the water quality-based
certified by the Governor and approved by approach to pollution control, but additional
EPA, which lists the standards and details on these other programs is beyond the
prescribes the regulatory and construction scope of this Handbook. For further information,
activities necessary to meet the standards; see the EPA guidance documents referenced in
chapter 7.
• preparing section 305(b) reports and lists
that document the condition of the State's
water quality;
(9/15/93) INT-13
Water Quality StaDdarck Handbook - SecoDd Edition
Since the 1960's, the water science program has protection and propagation of fish,
moved from solving a limited set of problems in shellfish, and wildlife . . . to protect
a limited set of waters to one that is solving a the water of the United States (section
broad range of complex problems in categories of 101(a)(2».
U. S. waters and addressing cross-media aspect! of
water quality decisions. Initial efforts focused on The breadth of this authority is also reflected in
the more visible sources of pollution such as specific EPA mandates such as those in section
organic loadings. solids, oil, and grease, and then 304(a):
shifted to toxics and more complex mixtures of
pollutants. [EPA] shall develop and publish
criteria for water accurately reflecting
Developments in two areas have significantly the latest scientific knowledge (A) on
affected the scientific underpinnings of the water the kind and extent of all identifiable
program. First is the science of risk assessment effects on health and welfare . . . (B)
used to estimate risk to human health and the on the concentration and dispersion of
environment from exposure to contaminants. pollutants . . . through biological,
Second is our ability to measure pollutants in the physical, and chemical processes; and
environment at an increasing level of precision. (C) the effects of pollutants on
The evolution of methods and capabilities within biological community diversity,
these two scientific disciplines has significantly productivity, stability . . . including
advanced the sophistication of scientific analyses eutrophication and rates of
used to manage the water program. sedimentation . . . (CWA section
304(a)(1»; and
As the water science program moves toward the
21st Century, we must provide technical [EPA] shall develop and publish
information and tools that allow States, the information (A) on the factors
regulated community, and the public to necessary to restore and maintain the
understand and apply the methods, criteria, and chemical, physical, and biological
standards to environmental systems. This integrity . . . (B) on the factors
includes updating science and adapting necessary for the protection and
technologies as appropriate to keep the foundation propagation of shellfish, fish, and
of our program solid as well as employing or wildlife . . . and to allow recreational
modifying these approaches when appropriate for activities in and on the water . . . ".)
new problems. (304(a)(2»(CWA section 304(a)(2»
The CW A provides broad authority through its EPA has traditionally focused on criteria for
goals and policy, such as: chemical pollutants, but has also developed
criteria for a limited number of physical (e.g.,
. . . to restore and maintain the color, turbidity, dissolves solids) and biological
chemical, physical, and biological (bacteria, "free from" nuisance aquatic life)
integrity of the Nation's waters (section parameters (NAS/NAE, 1973; USEPA, 1976).
101(a»; and However, as EPA's water quality protection
program has evolved, it has become apparent that
. . . wherever attainable . . water chemical criteria alone, without the criteria for the
Quality which provides for the biological and physical/habitat components of
INT-14 (9/15/93)
lnsroduaion
water bodies, are insufficient to fully achieve the sensitive populations whose daily diet includes
goals of the CWA. large quantities of fish.
Future directions in the criteria and standards In an expanded effort to protect ecology, there
program will focus on providing scientific and will be increasing emphasis on the watershed
technical tools to aid regional, State, and local approach by assessing all potential and actual
environmental managers in (1) implementating the threats to a watershed's integrity. Risk
standards program, and (2) developing new assessment of the watershed and setting priorities
science and technology that will reduce human based on those risks will become increasingly
and ecological risks resulting from exposure to important in future program efforts in criteria and
unaddressed contaminants and prevent pollution standards as supporting elements to the watershed
from point and nonpoint sources. approach.
Setting future national program priorities will be Over the next few years, there will be more
based on the consideration of risk assessment; emphasis on developing effective risk reduction
statutory and court-mandated obligations; the strategies that include both traditional and non-
expressed needs of regional, State, and local traditional controls and approaches.
environmental managers and the regulated
community; and the potential effectiveness of a Future program directions in criteria development
program to influence real environmental and then adoption and implementation of water
improvement. quality standards will be based on the principle of
ecological and human health risk reduction
EPA will be developing methodologies and through sound and implementable science.
criteria in areas beyond the traditional chemical-
specific type criteria of the past. Areas of Endangered Species Act
scientific examination and potential regulatory
controls include criteria to protect wildlife, An important consideration in future criteria and
wetlands, and sediment quality; biological criteria standards development will be the conduct of the
to better define desired biological communities in consultation provisions of the Endangered Species
aquatic ecosystems; and nutrient criteria. EPA Act (ESA) and the implementation of any
has also moved in the direction of the physical revisions to standards resulting from those
and habitat components of water quality protection consultations. Section 7 of the Endangered
in other water quality programs. For example, Species Act requires all Federal agencies, in
the CWA section 404(b)(l) Guidelines (40 CFR consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
230) evaluate physical characteristics (such as and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the
suspended particulates, flow, and hydroperiod), Services) to assure that any action authorized,
and habitat components (such as food web funded, or implemented by a Federal agency does
organisms, breeding/nesting areas, and cover). not jeopardize the existence of endangered or
Implementation of these various types of criteria threatened species or result in the destruction or
will be influenced by the environmental concerns adverse modification of their critical habitat. The
in specific watersheds. definition of a Federal action is very broad and
encompasses virtually every water program
To protect human health, program emphasis will administered by EPA.
shift to focus on the human health impacts of
pathogenic microorganisms in ambient waters that The responsibility for ensuring that consultation
cause illness in humans, and will address concerns occurs with the Services lies with EPA, although
about the risk that contaminated fish may pose to in fulfilling the requirements a non-Federal
representative may be designated for informal
(9/15193) INT-15
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
consultation. (Note: Consultation may be formal group to develop a more extensive joint
or informal; the latter form is the most prevalent.) agreement. This group was charged with the
Protection of threatened and endangered species responsibility of reviewing the July 1992
and their habitat is a critical national priority, and agreement, making appropriate revisions to the
the criteria and standards programs can be water quality criteria and standards sections, and
effective tools to meet this national priority. All adding a new section discussing the consultation
aspects of standards, including aquatic life procedures to be followed for the NPDES permit
criteria, uses, antidegradation, and implementation program. When the revised agreement is
actions related to the standards are subject to approved by the Agencies, it will replace the
consultation. All future revised aquatic life agreement included in this Handbook as Appendix
criteria, sediment, wildlife, and biological criteria F.
will be subject to the consultation requirements as
will their adoption into enforceable standards. Both the current agreement and the proposed
revision seek to ensure a nationally consistent
To form an effective partnership between the consultation process that allows flexibility to deal
Services and EPA in creating a framework for with site-specific issues and to streamline the
meeting the responsibilities under section 7 of the process to minimize the regulatory burden. The
Endangered Species Act and applicable EPA overriding goal is to provide for the protection
regulations, the Services and EPA entered into a and support of the recovery of threatened and
joint guidance agreement in July 1992 (see endangered species and the ecosystems on which
Appendix F). This agreement sets forth the they depend.
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 CW A
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.
---.-
.JI~'
-_ --- -_ ---
_ ~_\. __ - - -~"'-
._-- ----~
........
-'-
....-.-.......--
~.-
- .. ..'
-'-
--.... ':..-..
- . ........
--~.
~
-~--'
- ----
--'
- _ w - . - -- -4---
- .... --
-" -'-
_~.--4.
--- ----- - -
"
1·- ~--
. __ -- -- ..- - -
GENERAL PROVI~IONS
Table of Contents
1.6 Requirements for Water Quality Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6 . . . . . . . .. 1-4
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
Endnotes 1-21
Chapter J - General Provisions
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR • Achieve a level of water quality that
131) describes State requirements and procedures provides for the protection and propaga-
for developing, reviewing, revising, and adopting tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
water quality standards (WQS) , and EPA for recreation in and on the water,
requirements and procedures for reviewing, where attainable.
approving, disapproving, and promulgating water
quality standards as authorized by section 303(c) • Restore and maintain the chemical,
of the Clean Water Act. This Handbook serves physical, and biological integrity of the
as guidance for implementing the Water Quality Nation's waters.
Standards Regulation and its provisions.
(9115/93 ) 1-1
Water Quality Standards Handbook. - Second Edition
Water Quality Standards Regulation contains no wetland portions of riparian areas that meet the
definition of "waters of the United States," regulatory definition. Of course, States may, at
although this term is used in the definition of their discretion, choose to adopt water quality
"water quality standards." The phrase "waters of standards or other mechanisms to protect other
the United States" has been defined elsewhere in riparian areas.
Federal regulations (e.g., in regulations governing
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and section 404 programs (40
[0 State Authority - 40 CFR 131.4
CFR sections 122.2, 230.3, and 232.3,
respectively). This definition appears in the States (including Indian Tribes qualified for the
glossary of this Handbook and is used in purposes of water quality standards) are
interpreting the phrase "water quality standards. " responsible for reviewing, establishing, and
revising water quality standards. Under section
The definition of "waters of the United States" 510 of the Act, States may develop water quality
emphasizes protection of a broad range of waters, standards more stringent than required by the
including interstate and intrastate lakes, streams, Water Quality Standards Regulation.
wetlands, other surface waters, impoundments,
tributaries of waters, and the territorial seas. Under section 401 of the Act, States also have
authority to issue water quality certifications for
EPA believes that some States may not be federally permitted or licensed activities. This
providing the same protection to wetlands that authority is granted because States have
they provide to other surface waters. Therefore, jurisdiction over their waters and can influence
EPA wishes to emphasize that wetlands deserve the design and operation of projects affecting
the same protection under water quality standards. those waters. Section 401 is intended to ensure
For more information on the application of water that Federal permits and licenses comply with
quality standards to wetlands, see Appendix D of applicable water quality requirements. including
this Handbook. 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. • the State submission meets the requirements
(For example, EPA-issued penn its for point included in section 131.6 of the Water Quality
source discharges under section 402 and Standards Regulation.
discharges of dredged and fill material under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for EPA reviews State water quality standards to
activities in navigable waters that may affect ensure that the standards meet the requirements of
navigation under sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers the Clean Water Act. If EPA determines that
and Harbors Act (RHA); and licenses required for State water quality standards are consistent with
hydroelectric projects issued under the Federal the five factors listed above, EPA approves the
Power Act). Section 401 certifications are standards. EPA disapproves the State water
normally issued by the State in which the quality standards and may promulgate Federal
discharge originates. standards under section 303(c)(4) of the Act if
State-adopted standards are not consistent with the
States may deny certification, approve factors listed above. Section 510 of the Act
certification, or approve certification with provides that the States are not precluded from
conditions. If the State denies certification, the adopting requirements regarding control or
Federal permitting or licensing agency is abatement of pollution as long as such
prohibited from issuing the penn it or license. requirements are not less stringent than the
Certifications are subject to objection by requirements of the Clean Water Act. The
downstream States where the downstream State Agency is not authorized to disapprove a State
determines that the proposed activity would water quality standard on the basis that EPA
violate its water quality standards. [For more considers the standard to be too stringent. EPA
information on the 401 certification process, refer may also promulgate a new or revised standard
to Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities where necessary to meet the requirements of the
for States and Eligible Indian Tribes (USEPA, Act. In certain cases, EPA may conditionally
1989a).] approve a State's standards. A conditional
approval is appropriate only:
[ill EPA Authority - 40 CFR 131.5
• to correct minor deficiencies in a State's
Under section 303(c) of the Act, EPA is to review standards; and
and to approve or disapprove State-adopted water
quality standards. This review involves a • when a State agrees to a specific time schedule
determination of whether: to make the corrections in as short a time as
possible. Section 6.2 provides guidance on
• the State has adopted water uses consistent conditional approvals.
with the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
(9/15/93) 1-3
Wafer Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
EPA also has the authority to issue section 401 result of differing water quality standards that
certification where a State or interstate agency has may be set by States and Indian Tribes located on
no authority to do so. common bodies of water." EPA's primary
responsibility in response to this requirement is to
Requirements for Water Quality establish a practical procedure to address and,
Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6 where possible, resolve such disputes as they
arise. However, the Agency's authority is
The following elements must be included in each limited.
State's water quality standards submittal to EPA
for review: For example, EPA does not believe that section
518 grants EPA authority to override section 510
• use designations consistent with the provisions of the Act. EPA believes that the provisions of
of sections 101 (a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act; section 510 would apply to Indian Tribes that
qualify for treatment as States. Section 518(e)
• methods used and analyses conducted to and its accompanying legislative history suggest
support water quality standards revisions; that Congress intended for section 510 to apply to
Tribes as well as States. Were Tribes prohibited
• water quality criteria sufficient to protect the from establishing standards more stringent than
designated uses, including criteria for priority minimally approvable by EPA, there would be
toxic pollutants and biological criteria; little need for the dispute resolution mechanism
required by section 518(e)(2). Therefore, EPA
• an antidegradation policy and implementation does not believe that section 518 authorizes the
methods consistent with section 131.12 of the Agency to disapprove a State or Tribe water
Water Quality Standards Regulation; quality standard and promulgate a less stringent
standard as a means of resolving a State/Tribe
• certification by the State Attorney General or dispute.
other appropriate legal authority within the
State that the water quality standards were duly EPA also believes there are strong policy reasons
adopted pursuant to State law; and to allow Tribes to set any water quality standards
consistent with the Water Quality Standards
• general information to aid the Agency in Regulation. First, it puts Tribes and States on
determining the adequacy of the scientific equal footing with respect to standards setting.
bases of the standards that do not include the There is no indication that Congress intended to
uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act treat Tribes as "second class" States under the
as well as information on general policies Act. Second, treating Tribes as essentially
applicable to State standards that may affect equivalent to States is consistent with EPA's 1984
their application and implementation. Indian Policy. Third, EPA believes it would be
unfeasible to require Tribes to adopt "minimum"
EPA may also request additional information from standards allowed under Federal law. EPA has
the State to aid in determining the adequacy of the no procedures in place for defining a "minimum"
standards. level of standards for Indian Tribes. EPA
evaluates only whether the standards are stringent
Dispute Resolution Mechanism - 40 enough, not how much more stringent than any
CFR 131.7 Federal minimum.
1-4 (9/15/93)
Chapter I - General Provisions
1. 7.1 Responsibility Is With Lead EPA • the dispute is between a State and a Tribe
Regional Administrator (i.e., not between a Tribe and another Tribe or
a State and another State);
EPA's role in dispute resolution is to work with
all parties to the dispute in an effort to reach an • a reasonable effort has been made to resolve
agreement that resolves the dispute. The Agency the dispute before requesting EPA
does not automatically support the Indian position involvement;
in all disputes over water quality standards.
Rather, EPA employees serving as mediators or • the requested relief is within the authority of
arbitrators will serve outside the normal Agency the Act (i.e., not a request to replace State or
chain of command and are expected to act in a Tribe standards that comply with the Act with
neutral fashion. less stringent Federal standards);
The lead EPA Regional Administrator will be • the differing standards have been adopted
determined using OMB Circular A-95. The lead pursuant to State or Tribe law and approved by
Region is expected to enlist the aid of other EPA;
affected Regions in routine dispute resolution.
EPA Headquarters will also oversee the process to • a valid written request for EPA involvement
ensure that the interests of all affected Regions has been submitted to the Regional
are represented. Designation as the lead Region Administrator by the State or Tribe.
for resolving a dispute or programmatic issues
within EPA does not mean that the lead Region Although the Regional Administrator may decline
has a license to act unilaterally. Rather, to initiate a dispute resolution action based on any
designation as lead Region assigns the of the above factors, EPA is willing to discuss
responsibility to ensure that the process leading to specific situations. EPA is also willing to
a decision is fair to all parties. informally mediate disputes between Tribes
consistent with the procedures for mediating
The Regional Administrator may include other disputes between States (see 48 F.R. 51412).
parties besides Tribes and States in the dispute
resolution process. In some cases, the inclusion The regulation does not define "unreasonable
of permittees or landowners subject to nonpoint consequences" because:
source restrictions may be needed to arrive at a
meaningful resolution of the dispute. However, • it would be a presumptuous and unjustified
only the Tribe and State are in a position to Federal intrusion into local and State concerns
implement a change in water quality standards and for EPA to define what an unreasonable
are, thus, the only "necessary" parties in the consequence might be as a basis for a national
dispute resolution. rule;
1. 7.2 When Dispute Resolution May Be • EPA does not want to unnecessarily narrow
Initiated the scope of problems to be addressed by the
dispute resolution mechanism ~ and
The regulation establishes conditions under which
the Regional Administrator would be responsible • the possibilities of what might constitute an
for initiating a dispute resolution action. Such unreasonable consequence are so numerous as
actions would be initiated where, in the judgment to defy a logical regulatory requirement.
of the Regional Administrator:
Also, the occurrence of such "unreasonable"
• there are unreasonable consequences; consequences is dependent on the unique
(9115/93) 1-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook. - Second Edition
circumstances associated with the dispute. For 1.7.4 EPA Procedures in Response to Request
example, what might be viewed as an
unreasonable consequence on a stream segment in When the Regional Administrator decides that
a large, relatively unpopulated, water-poor area EPA involvement is appropriate (based on the
with a single discharge would likely be viewed factors discussed in section 1.7.2, above), the
quite differently in or near an area characterized Regional Administrator will notify the parties in
by numerous discharges and/or large water writing that EPA dispute resolution action is being
resources. The Regional Administrator has initiated and will solicit their written response.
discretion to determine when consequences The Regional Administrator will also make
warrant initiating a dispute resolution action. reasonable efforts to ensure that other interested
individuals or groups have notice of this action.
l. 7.3 Who May Request Dispute Resolution These "reasonable efforts" will include, and are
and How not limited to, the following:
Either the State or the Tribe may request EPA • written notice to responsible Indian and State
involvement in the dispute. The requesting party Agencies and other affected Federal Agencies;
must include the following items in its written
request: • notice to the specific individual or entity that
is claiming that an unreasonable consequence
• a statement describing the unreasonable is resulting from differing standards having
consequences; been adopted for a common water body;
• description of the actions taken to resolve the • public notice in local newspapers, radio, and
dispute before requesting EPA involvement; television, as appropriate;
• a statement describing the water quality • publication in trade journal newsletters; and
standards provision (such as the particular
criterion) that has resulted in the unreasonable • other appropriate means.
consequences;
1.7.5 When Tribe and State Agree to a
• factual data substantiating the claim of Resolution
unreasonable consequences; and
EPA encourages Tribes and States to resolve the
• a statement of relief sought (that is, the desired differences without EPA involvement and to
outcome of the dispute resolution action). consider jointly establishing a mechanism to
resolve disputes before such disputes arise. TIle
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 dispute resolution technique would be similar to
arbitration, but has been included as a separate
The dispute resolution mechanism included in the Regional Administrator option because arbitration
final "Indian Rule" provides EPA Regional generally refers to a process whereby all parties
Administrators with several alternative courses of participate voluntarily.
action. The alternatives are mediation,
non-binding arbitration, and a default procedure. The default procedure simply provides for the
Agency to review available information and to
The first technique, mediation, would allow the issue a recommendation for resolving the dispute.
Regional Administrator to appoint a mediator EPA's recommendation in this situation would
whose primary function would be to facilitate have no enforceable impact. The Agency hopes
discussions between the parties with the objective that public presentation of its position will result
of arriving at a State/Tribe agreement or other in either public pressure or reconsideration by
resolution acceptable to the parties. The mediated either affected party to continue resolution
negotiations could be informal or formal, public negotiations. Any written recommendation
or private. The mediator could also establish an resulting from this procedure would be provided
advisory group, consisting of representatives from to all parties involved in the dispute.
the affected parties, to study the problem and
recommend an appropriate resolution. EPA envisions a number of possible outcomes
that, individually or in combination, would likely
The second technique, non-binding arbitration, resolve most of the disputes that would arise.
would require the Regional Administrator to These actions might include, but are not limited
appoint an arbitrator (or arbitration panel) whose to, the following:
responsibilities would include gathering all
information pertinent to the dispute, considering • a State or Tribe agrees to revise the limits of
the factors listed in the Act, and recommending a permit to ensure that downstream water
an appropriate solution. The parties would not be quality standards are met;
obligated, however, to abide by the arbitrator's or
arbitration panel's decision. The arbitrator or • a State or Tribe agrees to permanently remove
arbitration panel would be responsible for issuing a use (consistent with 40 CFR 13l.lO(g»;
a written recommendation to all parties and the
Regional Administrator. Arbitrators or arbitration • a State or Tribe issues a variance from water
panel members who are EPA employees would be quality standards for a particular discharge;
allowed to operate independently from the normal
chain of commend within the Agency while • a permittee or landowner agrees to provide
conducting the arbitration process. Arbitrators or additional water pollution control;
arbitration panel members would not be allowed
to have ex pane communication pertaining to the • EPA assumes permit-issuing authority for a
dispute, except that they would be allowed to State or Tribe and re-issues a permit to ensure
contact EPA's Office of the General Counsel for that downstream water quality standards are
legal advise. met; or
EPA has also provided for a dispute resolution • EPA promulgates Federal water quality
default procedure to be used where one or more standards where a State or Tribe standard does
parties refuse to participate in mediation or not meet the requirements of the Act.
arbitration. The default procedure will be used
only as a last resort, after all other avenues of In some cases (last example, above), EPA
resolving the dispute have been exhausted. This recognizes that the Agency will have to act to
(9115/93) 1-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
resolve the dispute. An example would be where mediator or arbitrator for any reason (including
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System showing bias or unfairness or taking illegal or
(NPDES) permit for an upstream discharger does unethical actions).
not provide for the attainment of the water quality
standards for a downstream jurisdiction. The Arbitrators and arbitration panel members shall be
existing NPDES permitting and certification selected to include only individuals who are
processes under the Act may be used by the agreeable to all affected parties, are
downstream jurisdiction to prevent such knowledgeable concerning the water quality
situations. Today's rule does not alter or standards program requirements, have a basic
minimize the role of these processes in understanding of the political and economic
establishing appropriate permit limits to ensure interests of Tribes, and will fulfill the duties fairly
attainment of water quality standards. States and and impartially. These requirements are not
Tribes are encouraged to participate in these applicable to mediators. EPA did not provide for
permitting and certification processes rather than State or Tribe approval of mediators because EPA
wait for unreasonable consequences to occur. believes that such an approval process would
provide too great an opportunity to delay the
In these cases, EPA believes that the Agency has initiation of the mediation process and because the
authority to object to the upstream NPDES permit role of the mediator is limited to acting as a
and, if necessary, to assume permitting authority. neutral facilitator. There is no prohibition against
This authority was upheld in a case in which EPA the Regional Administrator consulting with the
assumed authority to issue a permit for a North parties regarding a mediator; there is just no
Carolina discharge that, among other factors, did requirement to do so.
not meet Tennessee's downstream water quality
standards. I Where one of the parties to the dispute believes
that an arbitrator has recommended an action to
Mediators and arbitrators may be EPA employees, resolve the dispute which is not authorized by the
employees of other Federal agencies, or other Act, the regulation allows the party to appeal the
individuals with appropriate qualifications. arbitrator's decision to the Regional
Because of resource constraints, EPA anticipates Administrator. Such requests must be in writing
that mediators and arbitrators will generally be and must include a statement of the statutory basis
EPA employees rather than consultants. for altering the arbitrator's recommendation.
Employees from other Federal agencies would be
selected where appropriate, subject to their 1. 7.7 Time Frame for Dispute Resolution
availability. EPA intends for mediators and
arbitrators to conduct the dispute resolution The regulation does not include a fixed time
mechanism in a fair and impartial manner, and frame for resolving disputes. While EPA intends
will select individuals who have not been involved to proceed as quickly as possible and to encourage
with the particular dispute. Members of parties to the dispute to resolve it quickly and to
arbitration panels will be selected by the Regional establish informal time frames, the variety of
Administrator in consultation with the parties. In potential disputes to be resolved would appear to
some cases, such panels may consist of one preclude EPA from specifying a single regulatory
representative from each party to the dispute plus time limit. EPA believes it is better to obtain a
one neutral panel member. Implicit in the reasonable agreement or decision than to
regulation is the sense that mediators and arbitrarily establish a time frame within which an
arbitrators will act fairly and impartially. agreement or decision must be made.
Although not specifically covered in the
regulation, EPA believes it is well within the
Regional Administrator's power to remove any
1-8 (9115/93)
Chapt~r J - General Provisions
. . . held by an Indian Tribe, held by the 1.8.1 Criteria Tribes Must Meet
U.S. in trust for Indians, held by a member
of an Indian Tribe if such property interest New section 131.8 of the Water Quality Standards
is subject to a trust restriction on alienation, Regulation includes the criteria Tribes are
or otherwise within the borders of an Indian required to meet to be authorized to administer
reservation . . . . the water quality standards and 401 certification
programs. These criteria are provided in section
518 of the Act. The Tribe must:
1I////////J//////II/~II!II////////I///I/IIIII//'"
... - .
(9/15/93) 1-9
Water Quality Standarda Handbook - Second Edition
• be federally recognized; EPA programs, but the Act does not grant
additional authority to Tribes. EPA recognizes
• carry out substantial governmental duties and that, in general, Tribes possess the authority to
powers over a Federal Indian reservation; regulate activities affecting water quality on the
reservation. The Agency does not believe,
• have appropriate authority to regulate the however, that it is appropriate to recognize tribal
quality of reservation waters; and authority and approve tribal administration of the
water quality standards program in the absence of
• be reasonably expected to be capable of verifying documentation. EPA will not delegate
administering the standards program. water quality standards program authority to a
Tribe unless the Tribe adequately shows that it
The first criterion requires the Tribe to be possesses the requisite authority.
recognized by the Department of the Interior.
The Tribe may address this requirement by stating EPA does not read the Supreme Court's decision
that it is included on the list of federally in Brendale' as preventing EPA from recognizing
recognized Tribes published periodically by the Tribes' authority to regulate water quality on fee
Department of the Interior, or by submitting other lands within the reservation, even if section 518
appropriate documentation (e.g., the Tribe is is not an express delegation of authority. 1be
federally recognized but not yet included on the primary significance of Brendale is its result,
Department of the Interior list). fully consistent with Montana v. United Star~s,4
which previously had held:
The second criterion requires the Tribe to have a
governing body that is carrying out substantial To be sure, Indian tribes retain inherent
governmental duties and powers. EP A defines sovereign power to exercise some forms of
"substantial governmental duties and powers" to civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their
mean that the Tribe is currently performing reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands.
governmental functions to promote the health, A tribe may regulate . . . the activities of
safety, and welfare of the affected population non-members who enter consensual
within a defined geographical area. Examples of relationships with the tribe or its members,
such functions include, but are not limited to, the through commercial dealing, contracts,
power to tax, the power of eminent domain, and leases, or other arrangements. . .. A tribe
police power. Federal recognition by the may also retain inherent power to exercise
Department of the Interior does not, in and of civil authority over the conduct of non-
itself, satisfy this criterion. Tribes must submit a Indians on fee lands within its reservation
narrative statement describing the form of tribal when that conduct threatens or has some
government, describing the types of essential direct effect on the political integrity, the
governmental functions currently performed, and economic security, or the health or welfare
identifying the sources of authorities to perform of the tribe.
these functions (e.g .. tribal constitutions, codes).
The ultimate decision regarding tribal authority
The third criterion, concerning tribal authority, must be made on a Tribe-by-Tribe basis, and EPA
means that EPA may authorize an Indian Tribe to has finalized the proposed process for making
administer the water quality standards program those determinations. EPA sees no reason in light
only where the Tribe already possesses and can of Brendale to assume that Tribes would be per se
adequately demonstrate authority to manage and unable to demonstrate authority over water quality
protect water resources within the reservation management on fee lands within reservation
borders. The Clean Water Act authorizes use of borders. EPA believes that as a general matter
existing tribal regulatory authority for managing there are substantial legal and factual reasons to
1-10 (9/15/93)
Chapter J - General Provisions
assume that Tribes ordinarily have the legal Whether a Tribe has jurisdiction over activities by
authority to regulate surface water quality within nonmembers will be determined case by case,
a reservation. based on factual findings. The determination as
to whether the required effect is present in a
In evaluating whether a Tribe has authority to particular case depends on the circumstances.
regulate a particular activity on land owned in fee
by nonmembers but located within a reservation, Nonetheless, the Agency may also take into
EPA will examine the Tribe's authority in light of account the provisions of environmental statutes.
the evolving case law as reflected in Montana and and any legislative findings that the effects of the
Brendale. The extent of such tribal authority activity are serious, in making a generalized
depends on the effect of that activity on the Tribe. finding that Tribes are likely to possess sufficient
As discussed above, in the absence of a contrary inherent authority to control reservation
statutory policy, a Tribe may regulate the environmental quality.' As a result, in making
activities of non-Indians on fee lands within its the required factual findings as to the impact of a
reservation when those activities threaten or have water-related activity on a particular Tribe, it may
a direct effect on the political integrity, the not be necessary to develop an extensive and
economic security, or the health or welfare of the detailed record in each case. The Agency may
Tribe. also rely on its special expertise and practical
experience regarding the importance of water
The Supreme Court, in recent cases, has explored management, recognizing that clean water,
several options to ensure that the impacts upon including critical habitat (e.g., wetlands, bottom
Tribes of the activities of non-Indians on fee land, sediments, spawning beds), is absolutely crucial to
under the Montana test, are more than de the survival of many Indian reservations.
minimis, although to date the Court has not
agreed, in a case on point, on anyone The Agency believes that congressional enactment
reformulation of the test. In response to this of the Clean Water Act establishes a strong
uncertainty, the Agency will apply, as an interim Federal interest in effective management of water
operating rule, a formulation of the standard that quality. Indeed, the primary objective of the
will require a showing that the potential impacts CW A "is to restore and maintain the chemical,
of regulated activities on the Tribe are serious and physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
substantial. waters" (section IOI(a)), and to achieve that
objective, the Act establishes the goal of
The choice of an Agency operating rule eliminating all discharges of pollutants into the
containing this standard is taken solely as a matter navigable waters of the United States and attaining
of prudence in light of judicial uncertainty and a level of water quality that is fishable and
does not reflect an Agency endorsement of this swimmable (sections 101(a)(1) and (2)). Thus the
standard per se. Moreover, as discussed below, statute itself constitutes, in effect, a legislative
the Agency believes that the activities regulated determination that activities affecting surface
under the various environmental statutes generally water and critical habitat quality may have serious
have serious and substantial impacts on human and substantial impacts.
health and welfare. As a result, the Agency
believes that Tribes usually will be able to meet EPA also notes that, because of the mobile nature
the Agency's operating rule, and that use of such of pollutants in surface waters and the relatively
a rule by the Agency should not create an small length or size of stream segments or other
improper burden of proof on Tribes or create the water bodies on reservations, it would be very
administratively undesirable result of checker- difficult to separate the effects of water quality
boarding reservations. impairment on non-Indian fee land within a
reservation as compared with those on tribal
(9/15/93) I-II
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
portions. In other words, any impairment that The Agency also believes that the effects on tribal
occurs on, or as a result of, activities on non- health and welfare necessary to support tribal
Indian fee lands is very likely to impair the water regulation of non-Indian activities on the
and critical habitat quality of the tribal lands. reservation may be easier to establish in the
This also suggests that the serious and substantial context of water quality management than with
effects of water quality impairment within the regard to zoning, which was at issue in Brendale.
non-Indian portions of a reservation are very There is a significant distinction between land use
likely to affect the tribal interest in water quality. planning and water quality management. The
EPA believes that a "checkerboard" system of Supreme Court has explicitly recognized such a
regulation, whereby the Tribe and State split up distinction: "Land use planning in essence chooses
regulation of surface water quality on the particular uses for the land; environmental
reservation, would ignore the difficulties of regulation. . . does not mandate particular uses
assuring compliance with water quality standards of the land but requires only that, however the
when two different sovereign entities are land is used, damage to the environment is kept
establishing standards for the same small stream within prescribed limits. ,,' The Court has relied
segments. on this distinction to support a finding that States
retain authority to carry out environmental
EP A also believes that Congress has expressed a regulation even in cases where their ability to
preference for tribal regulation of surface water carry out general land use regulation is preempted
quality to ensure compliance with CWA goals. by Federal law. 9
This is confirmed by the text and legislative
history of section 518 itself. The CW A Further, water quality management serves the
establishes a policy of "recogniz[ing], purpose of protecting public health and safety,
preserv[ing], and protect[ing] the primary which is a core governmental function whose
responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, exercise is critical to self-government. The
reduce, and eliminate pollution, [and] to plan the special status of governmental actions to protect
development and use (including restoration, public health and safety is well established. By
preservation, and enhancement) of land and water contrast, the power to zone can be exercised to
resources" (section 10l(b)). By extension, the achieve purposes that have little or no direct
treatment of Indian Tribes as States means that nexus to public health and safety. 10 Moreover,
Tribes are to be primarily responsible for the water pollution is by nature highly mobile, freely
protection of reservation water resources. As migrating from one local jurisdiction to another,
Senator Burdick, floor manager of the 1987 CW A sometimes over large distances. By contrast,
Amendments, explained, the purpose of section zoning regulates the uses of particular properties
518 was to "provide clean water for the people of with impacts that are much more likely to be
this Nation" (133 Congressional Record S 1018, contained within a given local jurisdiction.
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. "6
1-12 (9/IS/93)
Chapter 1 - GmuaJ Provisions
(9/15/93) 1-13
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
tribal water quality standards. EPA will also look 1.8.3 Procedure Regional Administrator Will
for evidence of historical budget allocations Apply
dealing with public health or environmental
programs along with any experience in monitoring The review procedure established in section 131.8
related programs. is the same procedure applicable to all water
programs. Although experience with the initial
The regulation allows a Tribe to describe either application in other programs indicated some
how it presently has the capability to manage an delay in the process, EPA believes that as EPA
effective water quality standards program or how and the Tribes gain experience with the
it proposes to acquire the additional administrative procedures, delays will be minimal.
and technical expertise to manage such a program.
EPA will carefully review for reasonableness any The EPA review procedure in paragraph 131.8(c)
plans that propose to acquire expertise. EPA will specifies that following receipt of tribal
not approve tribal capability demonstrations where applications, the Regional Administrator will
such plans do not include reasonable provisions process such applications in a timely manner.
for acquisition of needed personnel as well as The procedure calls for prompt notification to the
reliable funding sources. This requirement is Tribe that the application has been received,
consistent with other Clean Water Act programs. notification within 30 days to appropriate
Tribes may wish to apply for section 106 funds to governmental entities (e.g., States and other
support their water quality standards programs governmental entities located contiguous to the
and may include this source in any discussion of reservation and that possess authority to regulate
obtaining necessary funds. water quality under section 303 of the Act) of the
application and the substance and basis for the
If the Tribe has qualified to administer other Tribe's assertion of authority over reservation
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act waters, and allowance of 30 days for review of
programs, then the Tribe need only provide the the Tribe's assertion of authority.
information that has not been submitted
previously. EPA recognizes that city and county governments
which may be subject to or affected by tribal
Qualifying for administration of the water quality standards may also want to comment on the
standards program is optional for Indian Tribes Tribe's assertion of authority. Although EPA
and there is no time frame limiting when such believes that the responsibility to coordinate with
application may be made. As a general policy, local governments falls primarily on the State, the
EPA will not deny a tribal application. Rather Agency will make an effort to provide notice to
than formally deny the Tribe's request, EPA will local governments by placing an announcement in
continue to work cooperatively with the Tribe in appropriate newspapers. Because the rule limits
a continuing effort to resolve deficiencies in the EPA to considering comments from governmental
application or the tribal program so that tribal entities with Clean Water Act section 303
authorization may occur. EPA also concurs with authority, such newspaper announcements will
the view that the intent of Congress and the EPA advise interested parties to direct comments on
Indian Policy is to support tribal governments in tribal authority to appropriate State governments.
assuming authority to manage various water
programs. Authority exists for EPA to re-assert Where a Tribe's assertion of authority is
control over certain water programs due to the challenged, the Regional Administrator, in
failure of the State or Tribe to execute the consultation with the Tribe, the governmental
programs properly. Specifically, in the water entity challenging the Tribe's assertion of
quality standards program, the Administrator has authority, and the Secretary of the Interior, will
authority to promulgate Federal standards. determine whether the Tribe has adequately
1-14 (9115/93)
Chapter J - General Provisions
demonstrated authority to regulate water quality Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs,
on the reservation. Where the Regional and the Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian
Administrator concludes that the Tribe has not Affairs (Trust and Economic Development). EPA
adequately demonstrated its authority with respect will forward a copy of the application and any
to an area in dispute, then tribal assumption of the documents asserting a competing or conflicting
standards program would be restricted claim of authority to such designees as soon as
accordingly. If the authority in dispute were possible. For most applications, an EPA-DOl
focused on a limited area, this would not conference will be scheduled from I to 3 weeks
necessarily delay the Agency's decision to after the date the Associate Solicitor receives the
authorize the Tribe to administer the program for application. Comments from the Interior
the nondisputed areas. Department will discuss primarily the law
applicable to the issue to assist EPA in its own
The procedure allowing participation by other deliberations. Responsibility for legal advice to
governmental entities in EPA's review of tribal the EPA Administrator or other EPA decision
authority does not imply that States or Federal makers will remain with the EPA General
agencies (other than EPA) have veto power over Counsel. EPA does not believe that the
tribal applications for treatment as a State. consultation process with the Department of the
Rather, the procedure is simply intended to Interior should involve notice and opportunity for
identify any competing jurisdictional claim and States and Tribes because such parties are
thereby ensure that the Tribe has the necessary elsewhere provided appropriate opportunities to
authority to adm inister the standards program. participate in EPA's review of tribal authority.
EPA will not rely solely on the assertions of a
commenter who challenges the Tribe's authority; EPA will take all reasonable means to advise
EPA will make an independent evaluation of the interested parties of the decision reached
tribal showing and all available information. regarding challenges of tribal assertions of
authority. At least, written notice will be
When evaluating tribal assertions of authority, provided to State(s) and other governmental
EPA will apply the test from Montana v. United entities sent notice of the tribal application. In
States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and will consider the addition, the Water Quality Standards Regulation
following: requires EPA to publish an annual list of
standards approval actions taken within the
• all information submitted with the Tribe's preceding year. EPA will expand that listing to
assertion of authority; include Indian Tribes qualifying for treatment as
States in the preceding year.
• all information submitted during the required
3D-day comment period by the governmental Comments on tribal compliance with criteria
entities identified in 40 CFR 131.8(c)(2); and necessary for assuming the program is limited to
the criterion for tribal authority. The Clean
• all information obtained by the Agency via Water Act does not require EPA to provide public
consultation with the Department of the comment on the entire tribal application, nor does
Interior (such consultation is required where EPA believe that public comment will assist with
the Tribe's assertion of authority is EPA's decision- making regarding the other
challenged). criteria. (The other criteria are the recognition of
the Tribe by the Department of the Interior, a
EPA and the Department of the Interior have description of the tribal governing body, and the
agreed to procedures for conducting consultations capability of the Tribe to administer an effective
between the agencies. The procedure established standards program.) EPA believes that providing
as the Secretary of the Interior's designees the public comment on these three criteria would
(9/15/93) 1-15
Water Qua.lity SWldards Handbook - Second Edition
unnecessarily complicate and potentially delay the 1.8.6 Establishing Water Quality Standards on
process. Indian Lands
1.8.4 Time Frame for Review of Tribal Where Tribes qualify to be treated as States for
Application the purposes of water quality standards, EPA has
the responsibility to assist the Tribe in establishing
EPA has not specified a time frame for review of standards that are appropriate for the reservation
tribal application. The Agency believes it is and consistent with the Clean Water Act. EPA
impossible to approve or disapprove all recognizes that Tribes have limited resources for
applications within a designated time frame. development of water quality standards.
Because EPA has no reasonable way to
predetermine how complete initial applications EPA considers the following three options
might be, what challenges might arise, or how acceptable to complete the task of establishing
numerous or complex the issues might be, the water quality standards on Indian lands:
Agency deems it inappropriate to attempt to
establish time frames that might not allow • the Tribe may negotiate a cooperative
sufficient time for resolution. Similarly, EPA's agreement with an adjoining State to apply the
experience with States applying for various EPA State's standards to the Indian lands;
programs indicates that, at times, meetings and
discussions between EPA and the States are • the Tribe may incorporate the standards from
necessary before all requirements are met. The an adjacent State as the Tribe's own; or
Agency believes that the same communication
with Tribes w ill be important to ensure • the Tribe may independently develop and adopt
expeditious processing of tribal applications. standards that account for unique site-specific
conditions and water body uses.
1.8•.5 Effect of Regional Administrator's
Decision The first two options would be the quickest and
least costly ways for establishing tribal water
A decision by the Regional Administrator that a quality standards. Under option 1, the negotiated
Tribe does not meet the requirements for agreement could also cover requirements such as
administering the water quality standards program monitoring, permitting, certifications, and
does not preclude the Tribe from resubmitting the enforcement of water quality standards on the
application at a future date. Rather than formally reservation. Option 2 would make full use of
deny the Tribe's request, EPA will continue to information and data developed by the State which
work cooperatively with the Tribe in a continuing may apply to the reservation. Tribes, as
effort to resolve deficiencies in the application or sovereign governments, have the legal authority to
the tribal program so that tribal authorization may negotiate cooperative agreements with a State to
occur. EPA believes that the intent of Congress apply that State's standards to waters on the
and of EPA's Indian Policy is to support tribal reservation or to use State standards as the basis
governments in assuming authority to manage for tribal standards. These options do not suggest
various water programs. that the Tribe relinquishes its sovereign powers or
enforcement authority or that the State can
Where the Regional Administrator determines that unilaterally apply its standards to reservation
the tribal application satisfies all of the waters.
requirements of section 131. 8, the Regional
Administrator will promptly notify the Tribe that Option 3 would require more time and resources
the Tribe has qualified to administer the water to implement because it would require the Tribe
quality standards program. to create an entire set of standards "from
1-16 (9/15193)
Chapter 1 - ~raJ Provisions
scratch." EPA does not intend to discourage this and adopt appropriate standards for reservation
approach, but notes that Indian Tribes may want waters.
to make full use, where appropriate, of programs
of adjacent States. Tribes should use this Once EPA detennines that a Tribe qualifies to
Handbook as guidance when developing administer the standards program, tribal
standards. development, review, and adoption of water
quality standards are subject to the same
EPA emphasizes that the development of tribal requirements that States are subject to under the
water quality standards is an iterative process, and Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing
that the standards development option initially regulations.
selected by the Tribe can change in subsequent
years. For example, a Tribe may want to use Until Tribes qualify for the standards program and
option 1 or 2 to get the standards program started. adopt standards under the Clean Water Act, EPA
This does not preclude the Tribe from developing will, when possible, assume that existing water
its own water quality standards in subsequent quality standards remain applicable. EPA's
years. position on this issue was expressed in a
September 9, 1988, letter from EPA's then
Tribes establishing standards for the first time General Counsel, Lawrence Jensen, to Dave
should carefully consider which water body uses Frohnmayer, Attorney General for the State of
are appropriate. Once designated uses are Oregon. This letter states: "if States have
adopted, removing the use or adopting a established standards that purport to apply to
subcategory of use would be subject to the Indian reservations, EPA will assume without
requirements of section 131.10 of the Water deciding that those standards remain applicable
Quality Standards Regulation. until a Tribe is authorized to establish its own
standards or until EPA otherwise determines in
EPA expects that, where Tribes qualify to be consultation with a State and Tribe that the State
treated as States for the purposes of water quality lacks jurisdiction . . . ." This policy is not an
standards, standards will be adopted and assertion that State standards apply on
submitted to EPA for review within 3 years (a reservations as a matter of law, but the policy
triennium) from the date that the Tribe is notified merely recognizes that fully implementing a role
that it is qualified to administer the standards for Tribes under the Act will require a transition
program. This time frame corresponds to that period. EPA may apply State standards in this
provided to States under the provisions of the case because (1) there are no Federal standards
1965 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, when that apply generally, and (2) to ignore previously
the water quality standards program was created. developed State standards would be a regulatory
EPA believes that this is an equitable void that EPA believes would not be beneficial to
arrangement, and that the Tribes should be the reservation water quality. However, EPA will
allowed sufficient time to develop their programs give serious consideration to Federal promulgation
of water quality standards on Indian lands where
EPA finds a particular need.
(9/15/93) 1-17
Water Quality Standards Handbook. - Second Edition
standards issues, with one possible outcome being Adoption of Standards for Indian
the establishment of short-term cooperative Reservation Waters
working agreements pertaining to standards and
NPDES permits on reservations. This guidance recognizes that Tribes have varying
abilities to develop water quality standards. Some
1.8.7 EPA Promulgation of Standards for Tribes have more technical capability and
Reservations experience in drafting implementable regulations
than other Tribes and may be capable of adopting
If EPA determines that a Tribe possesses more complex standards. However, most Tribes
authority to regulate water quality on a may not have access to sufficient resources, either
reservation but the Tribe declines to seek in personnel or in contractor funds, to pursue this
authority to administer the water quality standards course. Moreover, EPA does not have the
program, EPA has the authority under section 303 resources to provide substantial technical
of the Act to promulgate Federal water quality assistance to individual Tribes to develop other
standards. EPA' s responsibility stems from the than basic water quality standards.
Act's directive to establish water quality standards
for all "navigable waters." Depending on the 1.9.1 EPA's Expectations for Tribal Water
circumstances, EPA may use the standards of an Quality Standards
adjacent State as a starting point for such a
promulgation. EPA will prioritize the Tribal water quality standards, initially at least,
promulgations based on various factors, not the should focus on basic contents and reflect existing
least of which is availability of Agency resources uses and existing water quality. The standards
to undertake the Federal rulemaking process. must be established for an inventory of "waters of
Because the Federal promu Igation process is slow the United States," including wetlands. The
and complex, EPA may promulgate water quality Tribes should focus on the basic structure of a
standards in conjunction with re-issuing permits water quality standards system: designated uses
on the reservations. for identified water segments, appropriate
narrative and numeric criteria, an antidegradation
The intent of the Clean Water Act is for States policy, and other general implementation policies.
and Tribes qualifying for treatment as States to How complex or sophisticated these elements need
have the first opportunity to set standards. Thus, to be depends upon the abilities of the Tribe and
EPA prefers to work cooperatively with States the environmental concerns affected by tribal
and Tribes on water quality standards issues and standards.
to initiate Federal promulgation actions only
where absolutel y necessary. EPA has consistently recommended to Tribes that
they use directly, or with slight modification, the
EPA's entire policy with respect to Federal standards of the adjacent States as a beginning for
promulgation is straightforward. EPA much tribal standards. Tribal water quality standards
prefers to work with the States and have them should be developed considering the quality and
adopt standards that comply with CW A designated uses of waters entering and leaving
requirements. Where Federal promulgation is reservations. It is important that the Tribes
necessary to achieve CW A compliance, however, recognize what the surrounding State (or another
EPA will act. This same philosophy will apply to Indian reservation) water quality standards are
Indian Tribes authorized 10 administer the even though there is no requirement to match
program. 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 rmmmum, tribal water quality standards Guidance for applying these policies are generally
should be established upstream and downstream available in either this Handbook or in the
from point sources where NPDES permits are Technical Suppon Document for WaJer Quality-
applicable. It is also desirable that water quality based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a).
standards be applied to waters where significant
nonpoint sources enter so that the effectiveness of 1.9.3 Tribal Submission and EPA Review
best management practices on the reservation's
waters can be evaluated. The initial submission of the tribal water quality
standards must contain the items listed in 40 CFR
Water quality criteria should be carefully selected 131.6 plus use attainability analyses for all waters
recognizing that making criteria more stringent in not classified "fishable/swimmable" (see section
subsequent water quality standards reviews is 2.9, this Handbook). In addition, it should
more feasible than attempting relaxation of contain identification of endangered or threatened
stringent criteria. While there is no mandatory aquatic species or wildlife subject to protection by
list of criteria, the following should be considered water quality standards. There should also be
the minimum: included a record containing information on the
regulatory and public participation aspects of the
• narrative" free froms"; water quality standards, public comments made,
and the Tribe's responses to those comments and
• dissolved oxygen; other relevant material required by 40 CFR
131.20.
• pH;
1.9.4 Regional Reviews
• temperature;
The Regions should carefully coordinate the
• bacteriological criteria (for recreational and reviews within the Water Management Divisions
ceremonial uses); and to ensure:
• toxies (including nonconventionals, e.g., • that the required items in section 131.6 are
ammonia and chlorine). [Use of option 1, included;
section 2.1.3, is recornmended.]
• that all waters with NPDES permits have water
1.9.2 Optional Policies quality standards; and
The Tribes must also specify which optional • that the tribal rulemaking meets the
policies they wish to use pursuant to 40 CFR requirements of 40 CFR 131.20.
131.13 (see chapter 6, this Handbook). These
include the following: In commenting on tribal water quality standards,
the Regions should identify situations where the
• mixing zones for point sources; dispute resolution mechanism in 40 CFR 131.7
may ultimately be called into play and should
• variances for point sources; attempt to de-fuse such situations as early as
possible in the standards adoption process. One
• design low-flow specification for the possibility is to encourage Tribes and States to
application of numeric criteria; and establish review procedures before any specific
problem develops as suggested in section 131.7(e)
• schedules of compliance for criteria In of the regulation.
NPDES, and permits.
(9115/93) 1-19
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
1-20 (9/15/93)
Chapter 1 - General Provisions
Endnotes
1. Champion Imemasional Corp. v. EPA, 850 F.2d 182 (4th Cir. 1988)
2. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe ofOklahoma, III S.Ct.
905, 910 (1991).
3. Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 492 U.S. 408, (1989)
5. See, e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. Debenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 476-77 and notes
6, 7 (1987).
6. [d.
7. 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. [d. at 587-89.
10. See e.g. Brendale, 492 U.S. at 420 n.5 (White, J.) (listing broad range of consequences of
slate zoning decision).
(9/15/93) 1-21
CHAPfER 2
DESIGNATION OF USES
Table of Contents
DESIGNATION OF USES
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 2
DESIGNATION OF USES
These sections of the Act describe various uses of 2.1.2 Protection and Propagation of Fish,
waters that are considered desirable and should be Shellfish, and Wildlife
protected. The States must take these uses into
consideration when classifying State waters and This classification is often divided into several
are free to add use classifications. Consistent more specific subcategories, including coldwater
with the requirements of the Act and Water fish, warm water fish, and shellfish. For example,
Quality Standards Regulation, States are free to some coastal States have a use specifically for
develop and adopt any use classification system oyster propagation. The use may also include
they see as appropriate, except that waste protection of aquatic flora. Many States
transport and assimilation is not an acceptable use differentiate between self-supporting fish
in any case (see 40 CFR 131.IO(a». Among the populations and stocked fisheries. Wildlife
uses listed in the Clean Water Act, there is no protection should include waterfowl, shore birds,
hierarchy. EPA's Water Quality Standards and other water-oriented wildlife.
Regulation emphasizes the uses specified in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act (first bullet, above). To more fully protect aquatic habitats and provide
To be consistent with the 101(a)(2) interim goal more comprehensive assessments of aquatic life
of the Act, States must provide water quality for use attainment/non-attainment, it is EPA's policy
the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, that States should designate aquatic life uses that
(9/15/93) 2-1
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
appropriately address biological integrity and least seasonally. However, States are encouraged
adopt biological criteria necessary to protect those to recognize and protect recreational uses that do
uses (see Appendix R). not directly involve contact with water, including
hiking, camping, and bird watching.
Option 2
2-2 (9/15/93)
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
(9/15/93) 2-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
2-4 (9/15/93)
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
federally permitted or licensed activities that may secondary recreation). However, the State must
result in a discharge to waters of the United be at least as specific as the uses listed in sections
States. The decision to grant or to deny 101(a) and 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.
certification, or to grant a conditional certification
is based on a State's determination regarding Subcategories of aquatic life uses may be on the
whether the proposed activity will comply with basis of attainable habitat (e.g., coldwater versus
applicable water quality standards and other warmwater habitat); innate differences in
provisions. Thus, States may deny certification community structure and function (e.g., high
and prohibit EPA from issuing an NPDES permit versus low species richness or productivity); or
that would violate water quality standards. fundamental differences in important community
Section 40 I also allows a State to participate in components (e.g., warm water fish communities
extraterritorial actions that will affect that State's dominated by bass versus catfish). Special uses
waters if a federally issued permit is involved. may also be designated to protect particularly
unique, sensitive, or valuable aquatic species,
In addition to the above sources for solutions, communities, or habitats.
when the problem arises between a State and an
Indian Tribe qualified for treatment as a State for Data collected from biosurveys as part of a
water quality standards, the dispute resolution developing biocriteria program may assist States
mechanism could be invoked (see section 1.7, of in refining aquatic life use classes by revealing
this Handbook). consistent differences among aquatic communities
inhabiting different waters of the same designated
[ill Use Subcategories - 40 CFR 131.10(c) use. Measurable biological attributes could then
be used to divide one class into two or more
subcategories (USEPA, 1990a).
States are required to designate uses considering,
at a minimum, those uses listed in section 303(c) If States adopt subcategories that do not require
of the Clean Water Act (i.e., public water criteria sufficient to fully protect the goal uses in
supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, section 10 I(a)(2) of the Act (see section 2.1,
recreation, agriculture and industrial purposes, above), a use attainability analysis pursuant to 40
and navigation). However, flexibility inherent in CFR 131. 1O(j) must be conducted for waters to
the State process for designating uses allows the which these subcategories are assigned. Before
development of subcategories of uses within the adopting subcategories of uses, States must
Act's general categories to refine and clarify provide notice and opportunity for a public
specific use classes. Clarification of the use class hearing because these actions are changes to the
is particularly helpful when a variety of surface standards.
waters with distinct characteristics fit within the
same use class, or do not fit well into any Attainability of Uses - 40 CFR
category. Determination of non-attainment in 13l.lO(d)
waters with broad use categories may be difficult
and open to alternative interpretations. If a When designating uses, States may wish to
determination of non-attainment is in dispute, designate only the uses that are attainable.
regulatory actions will be difficult to accomplish However, if the State does not designate the uses
(USEPA, I990a). speci fied in section 10 1(a)(2) of the Act, the State
must perform a use attainability analysis under
The State selects the level of specificity it desires section 131.1O(j) of the regulation. States are
for identifying designated uses and subcategories encouraged to designate uses that the State
of uses (such as whether to treat recreation as a believes can be attained in the future.
single use or to define a subcategory for
(81l5/94) 2-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
"Attainable uses" are, at a minimum, the uses primary contact recreational uses, and the
(based on the State's system of water use associated microbiological criteria, for only those
classification) that can be achieved I) when months when primary contact recreation actually
effluent limits under sections 301 (b)( I HA) and (B) occurs, and have relied on less stringent
and section 306 of the Act are imposed on point secondary contact recreation criteria to protect for
source dischargers and 2) when cost-effective and incidental exposure in the "non-swimming"
reasonable best management practices are imposed season.
on nonpoint source dischargers.
Seasonal uses that may require ~ stringent
Public Hearing for Changing Uses - 40 criteria are uses that protect sensitive organisms
CFR 131.10(e) or life stages during a specific season such as the
early life stages of fish and/or fish migration
The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires (e.g .• EPA's Ambient Waler Quality Criteria for
States to provide opportunity for public hearing Dissolved OXYRen (see Appendix I) recommends
before adding or removing a use or establishing more stringent dissolved oxygen criteria for the
subcategories of a use. As mentioned in section early life stages of both coldwater and warm water
2.2 above, the State should consider fish) .
extraterritorial effects of such changes.
Removal of Designated Uses - 40 CFR
~ Seasonal Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(0
131.10(g) and (h)
2-6 (8/15/94)
Chapter 2 - Designauon of Uses
Step 3
Is Use
Yes ~ May Not
Attainable Remove Use
?
Step 4
Any No May Not
131.10(g) factor .. Remove Use
met?
Step 5
Public Notice .. MayRemove
(9/15/93) 2-7
Water Quality Standards Handhook - Second Edition
section 4.4, this Handbook, for further discussion ( I) naturalIy occurring pollutant concentrations
of existing uses). However, uses requiring more prevent the attainment of the use;
stringent criteria may always be added because
doing so reflects the goal of further improvement (2) natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low-
of water quality. Thus, a recreational use for flow conditions or water levels prevent the
wading may be deleted if a recreational use for attainment of the use, unless these
swimming is added, or the State may add the conditions may be compensated for by the
swimming use and keep the wading use as well. discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges without violating State water
2.7.2 Step 2 - Is the Use Specifled in Section conservation requirements to enable uses to
IOl(a)(2)? be met;
If the State wishes to remove a designated use (3) human-caused conditions or sources of
specified in section 101 (a)(2) of the Act, the State pollution prevent the attainment of the use
must perform a use attainability analysis (see and cannot be remedied or would cause
section U 1. 1O(j». Section 2.9 of this Handbook more environmental damage to correct than
discusses use attainability analyses for aquatic life to leave in place;
uses.
(4) dams, diversions, or other types of
2.7.3 Step 3 - Is the Use Attainable? hydrologic modifications preclude the
attainment of the use, and it is not feasible
A State may change activities within a specific use to restore the water body to its original
category but may not change to a use that requires condition or to operate such modification in
less stringent criteria, unless the State can a way that would result in the attainment of
demonstrate that the designated use cannot be the use;
attained. (See section 2.4, above, for the
definition of "attainable uses. ") For example, if (5) physical conditions related to the natural
a State has a broad aquatic life use, EPA features of the water body, such as the lack
generally assumes that the use will support all of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth,
aquatic life. The State may demonstrate that, for pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to
a specific water body, such parameters as [chemical] water quality, preclude
dissolved oxygen or temperature will not support attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
trout but will support perch when
technology-based effluent limitations are applied (6) controls more stringent than those required
to point source dischargers and when by sections 301(b)(I)(A)and (8) and 306 of
cost-effective and reasonable best management the Act would result in substantial and
practices are applied to nonpoint sources. widespread economic and social impact.
2.7.4 Step 4 - Is a Factor from 131.10(g) Met? 2.7.5 Step 5 - Provide Public Notice
Even after the previous steps have been As provided for in section 131. lO(e), States must
considered, the designated use may be removed, provide notice and opportunity for public hearing
or subcategories of a use established, only under in accordance with section 131.20(b) (discussed in
the conditions given in section 131. IO(g). The section 6. I of this Handbook). Of course, EPA
State must be able to demonstrate that attaining intends for States to make appropriate use of all
the designated use is not feasible because: public comments received through such notice.
2-8 (9/15/93)
Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
Revising Uses to Reflect Actual States may also conduct generic use attainability
Attainment - 40 CFR 131.10(i) analyses for groups of water body segments
provided that the circumstances relating to the
When performing its triennial review, the State segments in question are sufficiently similar to
must evaluate what uses are being attained. If a make the results of the generic analyses
water body is designated for a use that requires reasonably applicable to each segment.
less stringent criteria than a use that is being
attained, the State must revise the use on that As defined in the Water Quality Standards
water body to reflect the use that is being Regulation (40 CFR 131.3). a use attainability
attained. analysis is:
(9/15/93) 2-9
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
section 306 of the Act for point source applicable to other similar water bodies or stream
dischargers, and (2) cost-effective and reasonable segments within a river basin. Using existing
best management practices for nonpoint source data and establishing representative conditions
dischargers. applicable to a number of water bodies or
segments should conserve the limited resources
2.9.1 Water Body Survey and Assessment - available to the States.
Purpose and Application
Table 2-1 summarizes the types of physical,
The purpose of this section is to identify the chemical, and biological factors that may be
physical, chemical, and biological factors that evaluated when conducting a UAA. Several
may be examined to determine whether an aquatic approaches can be used for conducting the
life protection use is attainable for a given water physical, chemical, and biological evaluations,
body. The specific analyses included in this depending on the complexity of the situation.
guidance are optional. However, they represent Details on the various evaluations can be found in
the type of analyses EPA believes are sufficient the Technical Support Manual: wtuerbody
for States to justify changes in uses designated in Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
a water quality standard and to determine uses Attainability Analyses, Volume I(USEPA, 1983c).
that are attainable. States may use aJternative A survey need not consider all of the parameters
analyses as long as they are scientifically and listed; rather, the survey should be designed on
technically supportable. This guidance the basis of the water body characteristics and
specifically addresses streams and river systems. other considerations relevant to a particular
More detailed guidance is given in the Technical survey.
Support Manual: waterbody Surveys and
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability These approaches may be adapted to the water
Analyses, Volume' (USEPA, 1983c). EPA has body being examined. Therefore, a close
also developed guidance for estuarine and marine working relationship between EPA and the States
systems and lakes, which is summarized in is essentiaJ so that EPA can assist States in
following sections. More detailed guidance for determining the appropriate analyses to be used in
these aquatic systems is available in the Technical support of any water quality standards revisions.
Support Manual. Volume 11, Estuarine Systems, These analyses should be made available to all
and Volume Ill. Lake Svstems (USEPA, 1984a,b). interested parties before any public forums on the
water quality standards to allow for full discussion
Several approaches for analyzing the aquatic life of the data and analyses.
protection uses to determine if such uses are
appropriate for a given water body are discussed. 2.9.2 Physical Factors
States are encouraged to use existing data to
perform the physical, chemical, and biological Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act recognizes
evaJuations presented in this guidance document. the importance of preserving the physical integrity
Not all of these evaluations are necessarily of the Nation's water bodies. Physical habitat
applicable. For example, if an assessment reveals plays an important role in the overall aquatic
that the physical habitat is the limiting factor ecosystem and impacts the types and number of
precluding a use, a chemical evaluation would not species present in a particular body of water.
be required. In addition, wherever possible, Physical parameters of a water body are examined
States also should consider grouping together to identify factors that impair the propagation and
water bodies having similar physical, chemical, protection of aquatic life and to determine what
and biological characteristics either to treat uses could be obtained in the water body given
several water bodies or stream segments as a such limitations. In general, physical parameters
single unit or to establish representative conditions such as flow, temperature, water depth, velocity,
2-10 IQ/15/93)
Chapter 2 - Designation of UU.5
·....
PHYSIC.'"
~
-..
- size (mean
FACTOIl.~
wldth/depth)
CRF.MlC,4I. FAcroll.~
• dissolved oxygeJl
BIOLOGICAL fACTORS
• bioqical
mnDtory
(existi. use
analys~)
- flow/velocity • suspended soli_ -fish
- annual hydrology - rnacroinvertebrates
- total volume .autrieats - rnicroinvertebrates
- reeeration rates - nitrogen - phytoplankton
- gradient/pool a! - phosphorus - periphyton
riffles - macrophytes
- temperature
- sedimentation • bioloKicai
- channel potential
modifications anaIy~
- channel stability - diversity indices
- HSI moods
. tissue analyses
• substrate
compolitioo lIDd • _Ikalioity - ren>Very index
cbarlllCteristics • intolerant species analysis
- omnivore-carnivore
• pH analysis
• duumel debrb
• diIIoIved IOIids
• slud&e depoeitl • biological
poteDtial
lUUl1ysk
- 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 Such considerations may include whether it would
used to identify any physical limitations that may cause more environmental damage to correct the
preclude attainment of the designated use. problem than to leave the water body as is, or
Depending on the water body in question, any of whether physical impediments such as dams can
the physical parameters listed in Table 2-1 may be be operated or modified in a way that would
appropriately examined. A State may use any of allow attainment of the use.
these parameters to identify physical limitations
and characteristics of a water body. Once a State Several assessment techniques have been
has identified any physical limitations based on developed that correlate physical habitat
evaluating the parameters listed, careful characteristics to fishery resources. The
consideration of "reversibility" or the ability to identification of physical factors limiting a fishery
restore the physical integrity of the water body is a critical assessment that provides important
should be made. 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 QuaJity Standards Handbook - Second Edition
suitability indices (HSI). Several States have natural background contaminants to the water
begun developing their own models and body; this may be a legitimate factor that
procedures for habitat assessments. Parameters effectively prevents a designated use from being
generally included in habitat assessment met. To determine whether the natural
procedures are temperature, turbidity, velocity, background concentration of a pollutant is
depth, cover, pool and riffle sizes, riparian adversely impacting the survival of species. the
vegetation, bank stability, and siltation. These concentration may be compared to one of the
parameters are correlated to fish species by following:
evaluating the habitat variables important to the
life cycle of the species. The value of habitat for • 304(a) criteria guidance documents: or
other groups of aquatic organisms such as
macroinvertebrates and periphyton also may be • site-specific criteria; or
considered. Continued research and refinement of
habitat evaluation procedures reflect the • State-derived criteria.
importance of physical habitat.
Another way to obtain an indication of the
If physical limitations of a stream restrict the use, potential for the species to survive is to determine
a variety of habitat modification techniques might if the species are found in other waterways with
restore a habitat so that a species could thrive similar chemical concentrations.
where it could not before. Some of the
techniques that have been used are bank In determining whether human-caused pollution is
stabilization, flow control, current deflectors, irreversible, consideration needs to be given to the
check dams, artificial meanders, isolated oxbows, permanence of the damage, the feasibility of
snag clearing when determined not to be abating the pollution, or the additional
detrimental to the life cycle or reproduction of a environmental damage that may result from
species, and installation of spawning beds and removing the pollutants. Once a State identifies
artificial spawning channels. If the habitat is a the chemical or water quality characteristics that
limiting factor to the propagation and/or survival are limiting attainment of the use, differing levels
of aquatic life, the feasibility of modifications of remedial control measures may be explored.
might be examined before additional controls are In addition, if instream toxicants cannot be
imposed on dischargers. removed by natural processes and cannot be
removed by human effort without severe
2.9.3 Chemical Evaluations long-term environmental impacts, the pollution
may be considered irreversible.
The chemical characteristics of a water body are
examined to determine why a designated use is In some areas, the water's chemical characteristics
not being met and to determine the potential of a may have to be calculated using predictive water
particular species to survive in the water body if quality models. This will be true if the receiving
the concentration of particular chemicals were water is 10 be impacted by new dischargers,
modified. The State has the discretion to changes in land use. or improved treatment
determine the parameters required to perform an facilities. Guidance is available on the selection
adequate water chemistry evaluation. A partial and use of receiving water models for biochemical
list of the parameters that may be evaluated is oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia
provided in Table 2-1. for instream systems (USEPA, 1983d.e) and
dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus for
As part of the evaluation of the water chemistry lake systems, reservoirs, and impoundments
composition, a natural background evaluation is (USEPA, 1983f).
useful in determining the relative contribution of
2-12 (9/15193)
Chap," 2 . Designation of Uses
2.'.4 Biolo&kal Evaluations • By knowing what species are present, the
biologist can analyze, in general terms, the
In evaluating what aquatic life protection uses are health of the water body. For example. if the
attainable, the biology of the water body should fish species present are principally carnivores,
be evaluated. The interrelationships between the the quality of the water is generally higher
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics than in a water body dominated by omnivores.
are complex, and alterations in the physical It also allows the biologist to assess the
and/or chemical parameters result in biological presence or absence of intolerant species.
changes. The biological evaluation described in
this section encourages States to: • Identification of the species enables the State to
develop baseline conditions against which to
• provide a more precise statement of which evaluate any remedial actions. The
species exist in the water body and should be development of a regional baseline based upon
protected; several site-specific species lists increases an
understanding of the regional fauna. This
• determine the biological health of the water allows for easier grouping of water bodies
body; and based on the biological regime of the area.
• determine the species that could potentially • By identifying the species. the decision-maker
exist in the water body if the physical and has the data needed to explain the present
chemical factors impairing a use were condition of the water body to the public and
corrected. the uses that must be maintained.
This section of the guidance will present the The evaluation of the existing biota may be simple
conceptual framework for making these or complex depending on data availability. As
evaluations. States have the discretion to use much information as possible should be gathered
other scientifically and technically supportable on the categories of organisms listed in Table 2-1.
assessment methodologies deemed appropriate for It is not necessary to obtain complete data for all
specific water bodies on a case-by-case basis. six categories. However, it is recommended that
Further details on each of the analyses presented fish should be included in any combination of
can be found in the Technical Support Manual for categories chosen because:
Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (USEPA,
1983c). • the general public can relate better to
statements about the condition of the fish
BiolOlical Inventory (Existing Use Analysis) community;
The identification of which species are in the • fish are typically present even in the smallest
water body and should be protected serves several streams and in all but the most polluted
purposes: waters;
(9/15/93) 2-13
Water Quality StaDdards Handbook - Second Edition
Before any field work is conducted, existing data EPA publications, including the Biological
should be collected. EPA can provide data from Methods Manual (USEPA, 1972). Again, it is
intensive monitoring surveys and special studies. not the intent of this document to specify tests to
Data, especially for fish, may be available from be conducted by the States. This will depend on
State fish and game departments, recreation the information available, the predictive accuracy
agencies, and local governments, or through required, site-specific conditions of the water
environmental impact statements, permit reviews, body being examined, and the cooperation and
surveys, and university or other studies. assistance the State receives from the affected
municipalities and industries.
Biological Cendltion/Bielogical Health
Assessment Biological Potential Analysis
The biological inventory can be used to gain A significant step in the use attainability analysis
insight into the biological health of the water body is the evaluation of what communities could
by evaluating: potentially exist in a particular water body if
pollution were abated or if the physical habitat
• species richness or the number of species; were modified. The approach presented is to
• presence of intolerant species; compare the water body in question to reference
• proportion of omnivores and carnivores; reaches within a region. This approach includes
• biomass or production; and the development of baseline conditions to facilitate
• number of individuals per species. the comparison of several water bodies at less
cost. As with the other analyses mentioned
The role of the biologist becomes critical in previously, available data should be used to
evaluating the health of the biota because the minimize resource impacts.
knowledge of expected richness or expected
species comes only from understanding the The biological potential analysis involves:
general biological traits and regimes of the area.
Best professional judgments by local biologists are • defining boundaries of fish faunal regions;
important. These judgments are based on many
years of experience and on observations of the • selecting control sampling sites in the
physical and chemical changes that have occurred reference reaches of each area;
over time.
• sampling fish and recording observations at
Many methods for evaluating biotic communities each reference sampling site;
have been and continue to be developed. The
Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use • establishing the community characteristics
Attainability Analyses (USEPA, 1983c) and Rapid for the reference reaches of each area; and
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers (USEPA, 198ge) describe methods that • comparing the water body in question to the
States may want to consider using in their reference reaches.
biological evaluations.
In establishing faunal regions and sites, It IS
A number of other methods have been and are important to select reference areas for sampling
being developed to evaluate the health of sites that have conditions typical of the region.
biological components of the aquatic ecosystem
including short-term in situ or laboratory The establishment of reference areas may be
bioassays and partial or full life-cycle toxicity based on physical and hydrological characteristics.
tests. These methods are discussed in several The number of reference reaches needed will be
2-14 (9/15193)
Chap/a 2 . Designation of Uses
determined by the State depending on the develop for conducting a water body assessment
variability of the waterways within the Slate and should be flexible enough to be adaptable to a
the number of classes that the State may wish to variety of site-specific conditions.
establish. For example, the State may want to
use size, flow, and substrate as the defining A common experimental approach used in
characteristics and may consequently desire to biological assessments has been a hierarchical
establish classes such as small, fast running approach to the analyses. This can be a rigidly
streams with sandy substrate or large, slow rivers tiered approach. An alternative is presented in
with cobble bottom. It is at the option of the Figure ~-~.
State to:
The flow chart is a general illustration of a
• choose the parameters to be used in classi fyi ng thought process used to conduct a use attainability
and establishing reference reaches; and analysis. The process illustrates several
alternative approaches that can be pursued
• determine the number of classes (and thus the separately or, to varying degrees, simultaneously
refinement) within the faunal region. depending on:
This approach can also be applied to other aquatic • the amount of data available on the site;
organisms such as macroinvertebrates (particularly
freshwater mussels) and algae. • the degree of accuracy and precision
required;
Selection of the reference reaches is of critical
importance because the characteristics of the • the importance of the resou rce:
aquatic community will be used to establish
baseline conditions against which similar reaches • the site-specific conditions of the study
(based on physical and hydrological area; and
characteristics) are compared. Once the reference
reaches are established, the water body in • the controversy associated with the site.
question can be compared to the reference reach.
The results of this analysis will reveal whether the The degree of sophistication is variable for each
water body in question has the typical biota for approach. Emphasis is placed on evaluating
that class or a less desirable community and will available data first. If information is found to be
provide an indication of what species may lacking or incomplete, then field testing or field
potentially exist if pollution were abated or the surveys should be conducted.
physical habitat limitations were remedied.
The major elements of the process are briefly
2.9.5 Approaches to Conducting the Physical, described below.
Chemical, and Biological Evaluations
Steps I and 2
In some cases, States that assess the status of their
aquatic resources, will have relatively simple Steps I and 2 are the basic organizing steps in the
situations not requiring extensive data collection evaluation process. By carefully defining the
and evaluation. In other situations, however, the objectives and scope of the evaluation, there will
complexity resulting from variable environmental be some indication of the level of sophistication
conditions and the stress from multiple uses of the required in subsequent surveys and testing. States
resource will require both intensive and extensive and the regulated community can then adequately
studies to produce a sound evaluation of the plan and allocate resources to the analyses. The
system. Thus, procedures that a State may designated use of the water body in question
(9/15/93 ) 2-15
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
should be identified as well as the minimum Step 58 focuses more narrowly on site-specific
chemical, physical, and biological requirements problem areas with the intent of separating, where
for maintaining the use. Minimum requirements possible, biological impacts due to physical
may include, for example, dissolved oxygen habitat alteration versus those due to chemical
levels, flow rates, temperature, and other factors. impacts. These categories are not mutually
All relevant information on the water body should exclusive but some attempt should be made to
be collected to determine if the available define the causal factors in a stressed area so that
information is adequate for conducting an appropriate control measures can be implemented
appropriate level of analysis. It is assumed that if necessary.
all water body evaluations, based on existing data,
will either formally or informally be conducted Step 5C would be conducted to evaluate possibly
through Steps 1 and 2. important trends in the spatial and/or temporal
changes associated with the physical, chemical,
Steps 3 and 4 and biological variables of interest. In general,
more rigorous quantification of these variables
If the available information proves inadequate, would be needed to allow for more sophisticated
then decisions regarding the degree of statistical analyses between reference and study
sophistication required in the evaluation process areas which would, in turn, increase the degree of
will need to be made. These decisions will, most accuracy and confidence in the predictions based
likely, be based on the five criteria listed in Step on this evaluation. Additional laboratory testing
3 of Figure 2-2. Based on these decisions, may be included, such as tissue analyses,
reference areas should be chosen (Step 4), and behavioral tests, algal assays, or tests for flesh
one or more of the testing approaches should be tainting. Also, high-level chemical analyses may
followed. be needed, particularly if the presence of toxic
compounds is suspected.
Steps .5A, 0, C, D
Step 5D is, in some respects, the most detailed
These approaches are presented to illustrate level of study. Emphasis is placed on refining
several possible ways of analyzing the water cause-effect relationships between physical-
body. For example, in some cases chemical data chemical alterations and the biological responses
may be readily available for a water body but previously established from available data or steps
little or no biological information is known. In 5A through Sc. In many cases. state-of-the-art
this case, extensive chemical sampling may not be techniques will be used. This pathway would be
required, but enough samples should be taken to conducted by the States only where it may be
confirm the accuracy of the available data set. necessary to establish, with a high degree of
Thus, to accurately define the biological condition confidence, the cause-effect relationships that are
of the resource, 5C may be chosen, but 5A may producing the biological community
be pursued in a less intensive way to supplement characteristics of those areas. Habitat
the chemical data already available. requirements or tolerance limits for representative
or important species may have to be determined
Step 5A is a general survey to establish relatively for those factors limiting the potential of the
coarse ranges for physical and chemical variables, ecosystem. For these evaluations, partial or full
and the numbers and relative abundances of the life-cycle toxicity tests, algal assays, and sediment
biological components (fishes, invertebrates, bioassays may be needed along with the shorter
primary producers) in the water body. Reference term bioassays designed to elucidate sublethal
areas mayor may not need to be evaluated here, effects not readily apparent in toxicity tests
depending on the types of questions being asked (e.g., preference-avoidance responses,
and the degree of accuracy required.
(9/15/93) 2-17
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
~-18 (9/15/93)
Chapter 2 - Designation of USt'S
sets up secondary currents that ultimately affect • determine what types of plants and animals
the salinity distribution across the estuary. The could potentially become established. assuming
salinity distribution is important because it affects no interference from other factors such as
the distribution of fauna and flora within the nutrient. dissolved oxygen (DO). and/or ioxics
estuary. It is also important because it is problems.
indicative of the mixing properties of the estuary
as they may affect the dispersion of pollutants The bottom of most estuaries is a mix of sand,
(flushing properties). Additional factors such as silt, and mud that has been transported and
friction forces and the size and geometry of the deposited by ocean currents or by freshwater
estuary also contribute to the circulation patterns. sources. Rocky areas may also be present,
The complex geometry of estuaries, in particularly in the fjord-type estuary. None of
combination with the presence of wind, the effect these substrate types is particularly hospitable to
of the Earth's rotation (Coriolis effect), and other aquatic plants and animals, which accounts in part
effects. often results in residual currents (i.e., of for the paucity of species seen in an estuary.
longer period than the tidal cycle) that strongly
influence the mixing processes in estuaries. The amount of material transported to the estuary
will be determined by the types of terrain through
Consideration of time scales of the physical which the river passes. and upon land use
processes being evaluated is very important for practices that may encourage runoff and erosion.
any water quality study. It is important to take land use practices into
consideration when examining the attainable uses
Short-term conditions are much more influenced of the estuary. Deposition of particles varies with
by a variety of short-term events that perhaps location in the estuaries and velocity of the
have to be analyzed to evaluate a "worst case" currents.
scenario. Longer term (seasonal) conditions are
influenced predominantly by events that are It is often difficult for plants to colonize estuaries
averaged over the duration of that time scale. because of a lack of suitable anchorage points and
because of the turbidity of the water, which
Estuary Substrate Composition restricts light penetration (Mcl.usky, 1971).
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V)
Characterization of sediment/substrate properties (macrophytes) develops in sheltered areas where
is important in a use attainability analysis because silt and mud accumulate. These plants help to
such properties: slow the currents, leading to further deposition of
silt. The growth of plants often keeps pace with
• determine the extent to which toxic compounds rising sediment levels so that over a long period
in sediments are available to the biota; and of time substantial deposits of sediment and plant
material may be seen.
Adjacent WetlaTUis
(9/15/93) 2-19
Water Quahty Standards Handbook - Secood Edition
from external phenomena. This function may be returned, usually in the form of wastewater
particularly important during wet weather periods effluent, the salinity gradient of the estuary may
when relatively high stream flows discharge high not be affected, although other problems
loads of sediment and pollutants to the estuary. attributable to nutrients and other pollutants in the
The wetlands slow the peak velocity, to some wastewater may occur.
extent alleviate the sudden shock of salinity
changes. and filter some of the sediments and Salinity also may be affected by the way that
nutrients that would otherwise be discharged dams along the river are operated. Flood control
directly into the estuary. dams result in controlled discharges to the estuary
rather than relatively short but massive discharge
Hydrology and Hydraulics during high-flow periods. Dams operated to
impound water for water supplies during low-flow
The two most important sources of freshwater to periods may drastically alter the pattern of
the estuary are stream flow and precipitation. freshwater flow to the estuary, and although the
Stream flow generally represents the greatest annual discharge may remain the same, seasonal
contribution to the estuary. The location of the changes may have significant impact on the
salinity gradient in a river-controlled estuary is to estuary and its biota.
a large extent a function of stream flow. Location
of the iso-concentration lines may change Influence of Physica! Characteristics on Use
considerably. depending upon whether stream AltailUlbility
flow is high or low. This in tum may affect the
biology of the estuary. resulting in population •Segmentation" of an estuary can provide a useful
shifts as biological species adjust to changes in framework for evaluating the influence of
salinity. Most estuarine species are adapted to estuarine physical characteristics such as
survive temporary changes in salinity either by circulation, mixing, salinity. and geomorphology
migration or some other mechanism (e.g., on use attainability. Segmentation is the
mussels can close their shells). However, many compartmentalization of an estuary into subunits
cannot withstand these changes indefinitely. with homogeneous physical characteristics. In the
Response of an estuary to rainfall events depends absence of water pollution, physical
upon the intensity of rainfall, the drainage area characteristics of different regions of the estuary
affected by the rainfall, and the size of the tend to govern the suitability for major water
estuary. Movement of the salt front is dependent uses. Once the segment network is established,
upon tidal influences and freshwater flow to the each segment can be subjected to a use
estuary. Variations in salinity generally follow attainability analysis. In addition, the
seasonal patterns such that the salt front will segmentation process offers a useful management
occur farther down-estuary during a rainy season structure for monitoring conformance with water
than during a dry season. The salinity profile quality goals in future years.
also may vary from day to day, reflecting the
effect of individual rainfall events. and may The segmentation process is an evaluation tool
undergo major changes due to extreme that recognizes that an estuary is an interrelated
meteorological events. ecosystem composed of chemically, physically,
and biologically diverse areas. It assumes that an
Anthropogenic activity also may have a significant ecosystem as diverse as an estuary cannot be
effect on salinity in an estuary. When feeder effectively managed as only one unit because
streams are used as sources of public water supply different uses and associated water quality goals
and the withdrawals are not returned, freshwater will be appropriate and feasible for different
flow to the estuary is reduced, and the salt wedge regions of the estuary. However. after developing
is found farther up the estuary. If the water is a network based upon physical characteristics,
2-20 (9/15193)
Chapter 2 - Designation of Usa
(9/15/93) 2-21
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
2-22 (9/15/93)
• intertidal zone ani mals tend to tolerate wider detailed discussion of the desktop and computer
ranges of salinities than do subtidal and calculations is given in llSEPA (1984a).
open-ocean organisms:
The third step is to perform detailed analyses
• low intertidal species are less tolerant of low through the use of more sophisticated computer
salinities than are high intertidal species; and models. These tools can be used to evaluate the
system's response to removing individual point
• more sessile animals are likely to be more and nonpoint source discharges, so as to assist
tolerant of fluctuating salinities than organisms with assessments of the causers) of any use
that are highly mobile and capable of impairment.
migrating during times of salinity stress.
2.9.7 Lake Systems
Estuaries are generally characterized by low
diversity of species but high productivity because This section will focus on the factors that should
they serve as the nursery or breeding grounds for be considered in performing usc attainability
some species. Methods to measure the biological analyses for lake systems. Lake systems are in
health and diversity of estuaries are discussed in most cases linked physically to rivers and streams
USEPA (l984a). and exhibit a transition from riverine habitat and
conditions to lacustrine habitat and conditions.
Techniques for Use Attainability Evaluations Therefore, the information presented in section
2.9.1 through 2.9.5 and the Technical Support
In assessing use levels for aquatic life protection, Manual, Volume I (USEPA. 1983c) will to some
determination of the present use and whether this extent apply to lake systems. EPA has provided
corresponds to the designated use is evaluated in guidance specific to lake systems in the Technical
terms of biological measurements and indices. Support Manual for Conducting Use Attainability
However, if the present use does not correspond Analyses. Volume /II: Lake S.. .'stems (USEPA,
to the designated use, physical and chemical 1984b). This manual should be consulted by
factors are used to explain the lack of attainment anyone performing a use attainability analysis for
and the highest level the system can achieve. lake systems.
The physical and chemical evaluations may Aquatic life uses of a lake are defined in
proceed on several levels depending on the level reference to the plant and animal life in a lake.
of detail required, amount of knowledge available However, the types and ahundance of the biota
about the system (and similar systems), and are largely determined by the physical and
budget for the use attainability study. As a first chemical characteristics of the lake. Other
step, the estuary is classified in terms of physical contributing factors include the location,
processes so that it can be compared with climatological conditions, and historical events
reference estuaries in terms of differences in affecting the lake.
water quality and biological communities, which
can be related to man-made alteration (i.e., Physical Parameters
pollution discharges).
The physical parameters that describe the size,
The second step is to perform desktop or simple shape, and flow regime of a lake represent the
computer model calculations to improve the basic characteristics that affect physical, chemical,
understanding of spatial and temporal water and biological processes. As part of a use
quality conditions in the present system. These attainability analysis, the physical parameters must
calculations include continuous point source and be examined to understand non-water quality
simple box model-type calculations. A more factors that affect the lake's aquatic life.
(9/15/93) 2-23
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edmon
The origins of a lake determine its morphologic In addition to the physical parameters listed
characteristics and strongly influence the physical, above, it is also important to obtain and analyze
chemical, and biological conditions that will information concerning the lake's contributing
prevail. Therefore, grouping lakes formed by the watershed. Two major parameters of concern are
same process often will allow comparison of the drainage area of the contributing watershed
similar lake systems. Measurement of the and the land uses of that watershed. Drainage
following morphological characteristics may be of area will aid in the analysis of inflow volumes to
importance to a water body survey: the lake due to surface runoff. The land use
classification of the area around the lake can be
• surface area; used to predict flows and also nonpoint source
• volume; pollutant loadings to the lake.
• inflow and outflow;
• mean depth; The physical parameters discussed above may be
• maximum depth; used to understand and analyze the various
• length; physical processes that occur in lakes. They can
• length of shoreline; also be used directly in simplistic relationships
• depth-area relationships; that predict productivity to aid in aquatic use
• depth-volume relationships; and attainability analyses.
• bathymetry (submerged contours).
Physical Processes
These physical parameters can in some cases be
used to predict biological parameters. For Many complex and interrelated physical processes
example, mean depth has been used as an occur in lakes. These processes are highly
indicator of productivity. Shallow lakes tend to dependent on the lake's physical parameters,
be more productive, and deep, steep-sided lakes location, and characteristics of the contributing
tend to be less productive. These parameters may watershed. Several of the major processes are
also be used to calculate other characteristics of discussed below.
the lake such as mass flow rate of a chemical,
surface loading rate, and detention time. Lake Currents
Total lake volume and inflow and outflow rates Water movement in a lake affects productivity and
are physical characteristics that indirectly affect the biota because it influences the distribution of
the lake's aquatic community. Large inflows and nutrients, microorganisms, and plankton. Lake
outflows for lakes with small volumes produce currents are propagated by wind, inflow/outflow,
low detention times or high flow-through rates. and the Coriolis force. For small shallow lakes,
Aquatic life under these conditions may be particularly long and narrow lakes, inflow/outflow
different than when relatively small inflows and characteristics are most important, and the
outflows occur for a large-volume lake where predominant current is a steady-state flow through
long detention times occur. the lake. For very large lakes. wind is the
primary generator of currents. and except for
The shape factor (lake length divided by lake local effects, inflow/outflow have a relatively
width) also may be correlated to chemical and minor effect on lake circulation. Coriolis effect,
biological characteristics. This factor has been a deflecting force that is the function of the
used to predict parameters such as chlorophyll-a Earth's rotation, also plays a role in circulation in
levels in lakes. For more detailed lake analysis, large lakes such as the Great Lakes.
information describing the depth-area and
depth-volume relationships and information
describing the bathymetry may be required.
2-24 (9.!15/93)
Chapter 2 - Deslgnation of Usa
Temperature and its distribution within lakes and Lakes in temperate and northern latitudes typically
reservoirs affects not only the water quality within exhibit vertical density stratification during certain
the lake but also the thermal regime and quality of seasons of the year. Stratification in lakes is
a river system downstream of the lake. The primarily due to temperature differences, although
thermal regime of a lake is a function of the heat salinity and suspended solids concentrations may
balance around the body of water. Heat transfer also affect density. Typicall y. three zones of
modes into and out of the lake include heat thermal stratification are formed.
transfer through the air-water interface,
conduction through the mud-water interface, and The upper layer of warmer, lower density water
inflow and outflow heat advection. is termed the "epilimnion," and the lower,
stagnant layer of colder, higher density water is
Heat transfer through the air-water interface is termed the "hypolimnion." The transition zone
primarily responsible for typical annual between the epilimnion and the hypolimnion,
temperature cycles. Heat is transferred across the referred to as the "metalimnion," is characterized
air-water interface by three different processes: by the maximum rate of temperature decline with
radiation exchange, evaporation, and conduction. depth (the thermocline). During strati fication, the
The heat flux of the air-water interface is a presence of the thermocline suppresses many of
function of location (latitude/longitude and the mass transport phenomena that are otherwise
elevation), season, time of day, and responsible for the vertical transport of water
meteorological conditions (cloud cover, quality constituents within a lake. The aquatic
dew-point, temperature, barometric pressure, and community present in a lake is high\y dependent
wind). on the thermal structure.
(9/15/93) 2-25
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Lakes can be classified on the basis of their Sediment accumulation rates are strongly
pattern of annual mixing. These classifications dependent both on the physiographic
are described below. characteristics of a specific watershed and on
various characteristics of the lake. Prediction of
(I) Amictic - Lakes that never circulate and are sedimentation rates can be estimated in two basic
permanently covered with ice. primarily in ways:
the Antarctic and very high mountains.
• periodic sediment surveys on a lake; and
(2) Holornictic - Lakes that mix from top to • estimation of watershed erosion and bed load.
bottom as a result of wind-driven
circulation. Several subcategories are Accumulation of sediment in lakes can, over
defined: many years, reduce the life of the water body by
reducing the water storage capacity. Sediment
• Oligomictic - Lakes characterized by flow into the lake also reduces light penetration,
circulation that is unusual. irregular, and eliminates bottom habitat for many plants and
short in duration; generally small to
medium tropical lakes or very deep
lakes.
2-26 (9/15/93)
ChI/pin ;2 - Dl'.\i~II'Ifj{)1I ,~r L"l"
animals, and carries with it adsorbed chemicals high nutrient availability i.. short-lived because the
and organic matter that settle to the bottom and soluble reduced forms arc rapidly oxidized to
can be harmful to the ecology of the lake, Where insoluble forms that precipitate out and "euk to
sediment accumulation is a major problem, proper the bottom. Phosphorus and nitrogen arc also
watershed management including erosion and deposited through sorption to particles that settle
sediment control must be put into effect. to the bottom and as dead plant material that is
added to the sediments.
Chemical Characteristics
Of the many raw materials required hy aquatic
Freshwater chemistry is discussed in section 2.9.:1 plants (phytoplankton and rnacrophytev) tor
and in the Technical Support MeJ1!Ull!, Volwnt' I growth, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus are the
(USEPA, 198:1c). Therefore, the discussion here most important. Carbon is available frum carbon
will focus on chemical phenomena that are of dioxide, which is in almost unlimited upply.
particular importance to lakes. Nutrient cycling Since growth is generally limited by the e sential
and eutrophication are the pri mary factors of nutrient that is in lowest supply, either nitrogen or
concern in this discussion. but the effects of pH, phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient for
dissolved oxygen, and redox potential on lake growth of primary producers. If the . . e nutrients
processes are also involved. are available in adequate supply, massive algal
and rnacrophyte blooms may occur with severe
Water chemistry in a lake is closely related to the consequences for the lake. MO\t cnmmonly in
stages in the annual lake turnover. Once a lakes, phosphorus is the limning nutrient for
thermocline has formed. the dissolved oxygen aq uatic plant growth. In th ese situauon . . ,
levels in the hypolimnion tend to decline. This adequate control of pho ... phoru S, particularly from
occurs because the hypolimnion is isolated from anthropogenic sources, can control growth of
surface waters by the thermocline and there is no aquatic vegetation. Phosphorus can in some
mechanism for aeration. cases, be removed from the water column hy
precipitation, as described in the Technical
The decay of organic matter and the respiration of Support Manual, volume III (USEPA, 19~4h).
fish and other organisms in the hypolimnion serve
to deplete DO. Extreme depletion of DO may Eutrophication and Xutrient Cycling
occur in ice- and snow-covered lakes in which
light is insufficient for photosynthesis. If The term "eutrophication" is used 10 two general
depletion of DO is great enough, fish kills may ways: (1) eutrophication is defined as the proce . . s
result. With the depletion of DO. reducing of nutrient enrichment in a water body: and (2)
conditions prevail and many compounds that have eutrophication is used to describe the effects of
accumulated in the sediment by precipitation are nutrient enrichment, that is, the uncontrolled
released to the surrounding water. Chemicals growth of plants, particularly phytoplankton, in a
solubilized under such conditions include lake or reservoir. The second use abo
compounds of nitrogen. phosphorus, iron, encompasses changes in the composition oi animal
manganese, and calcium. Phosphorus and communities in the water body. Both u.. es arc
nitrogen are of particular concern because of their commonly found in the literature, and the
role in the eutrophication process in lakes. distinction. if important. III II 'it he discerned from
the context of use.
Nutrients released from the bottom sediments
during stratified conditions are not available to Eutrophication is often greatly accelerated hy
phytoplankton in the epilimnion. However. during anthropogenic nutrient enrichment. whi~'h has
overturn periods, mixing of the layers distributes been termed "cultural eutrophication." 1': .ricnt . .
the nutrients throughout the water column. The 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. Also, the presence of toxics such as pesticides,
A consideration of attainable uses in a lake must herbicides, and heavy metals in sediments or the
include an understanding of the sources of water column should by considered in evaluating
nitrogen and phosphorus, the significance of uses. These pollutants may prevent the attainment
internal cycling, especially of phosphorus, and the of uses (particularly those related to fish
changes that might be anticipated if eutrophication propagation and maintenance in water bodies) that
could be controlled. would otherwise be supported by the water quality
criteria for DO and other parameters.
Significance of Chemical Phenomena to Use
AttainabiLily Biological Characteristics
The most critical water quality indicators for A major concern for lake biology is the
aquatic use attainment in a lake are DO, nutrients, eutrophication due to anthropogenic sources of
chlorophyll-a. and toxicants. In evaluating use nutrients. The increased presence of nutrients
attainability, the relative importance of three may result in phytoplankton blooms that can, in
forms of oxygen demand should be considered: tum, have adverse impacts on other components
respiratory demand of phytoplankton and of the biological community. A general trend that
macrophytes during non-photosynthetic periods, results from eutrophication is an increase in
water column demand, and benthic demand. Ifuse numbers of organisms but a decrease in diversity
impairment is occurring, assessments of the of species, particularly among nonmotile species.
significance of each oxygen sink can be useful in The biological characteristics of lakes are
evaluating the feasibility of achieving sufficient discussed in more detail in the Technical Support
pollution control. or in implementing the best Manual, Volume Ill.
internal nutrient management practices to attain a
designated use. Techniques for Use Attainability Evaluations
2-28 (9/15/93)
Chapter 3 - Water Qualit» Criteria
CHAPfER 3
Table of Contents
Endnotes 3-45
Chapter 3 - Willer Quality Criteria
CRAYfER 3
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
The term "water quality criteria" has two different Advisory Board of outside experts and the public.
definitions under the Clean Water Act (CW A). This effort culminated on November ~8, 1980,
Under section 304(a), EPA publishes water when the Agency published criteria development
quality criteria that consist of scientific guidelines for aquatic life and for human health,
information regarding concentrations of specific along with criteria for M toxic pollutants
chemicals or levels of parameters in water that (USEPA, lY80a,b). Since that initial publication.
protect aquatic life and human health (see section the aquatic life methodology was amended
3.1 of this Handbook). The States may usc these (Appendix H), and additional criteria were
contents as the basis for developing enforceable proposed for public comment and finalized as
water quality standards. Water quality criteria are Agency criteria guidance. EPA summarized the
also elements of State water quality standards available criteria information in the "Gold Book"
adopted under section 303(c) of the CW A (see (USEPA, lY86a), which is updated from time to
sections 3.2 through 3.6 of this Handbook). time. However, the individual criteria documents
States are required to adopt water quality criteria (see Appendix I), as updated, arc the official
that will protect the designated users) of a water guidance documents.
body. These criteria must be based on sound
scientific rationale and must contain sufficient EPA's c nter ia documents p rovi de a
parameters or constituents to protect the comprehensive toxicological evaluation of each
designated use. chemical. For toxic pollutants. the documents
tabulate the relevant acute and chronic toxicity
EPA Section 304(a) Guidance information for aquatic life and derive the criteria
maximum concentrations (acute criteria) and
criteria continuous concentration" (chronic
EPA and a predecessor agency have produced a criteria) that the Agency recommends to protect
series of scientific water quality criteria guidance aquatic life resources. The methodologies for
documents. Early Federal efforts were the these processes are described in Appendices H
"Green Book" (FWPCA, 1968) and the "Red and J and outlined in sections 3. I. ~ and 3.1.3 of
Book" (USEPA, 1976). EPA also sponsored a this Handbook.
contract effort that resulted in the "Blue Book"
(NAS/NAE, 1973). These early efforts were 3.1.1 State Use of EPA Criteria Documents
premised on the use of literature reviews and the
collective scientific judgment of Agency and EPA's water quality criteria documents arc
advisory panels. However, when faced with the available to assist States in:
need to develop criteria for human health as well
as aquatic life, the Agency determined that new • adopting water quality standards that include
procedures were necessary. Continued reliance appropriate numeric water qualitv criteria;
solely on existing scientific literature was deemed
inadequate because essential information was not • interpreting existing water quality standards
available for many pollutants, EPA scientists that include narrative "no toxirs in toxic
developed formal methodologies for establishing amounts" criteria:
scientifically defensible criteria. These were
subjected to review by the Agency's Science
(8/15/94) 3-1
Chapter 3 - Willer Quality Criteria
CRAYfER 3
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
The term "water quality criteria" has two different Advisory Board of outside experts and the public.
definitions under the Clean Water Act (CW A). This effort culminated on November ~8, 1980,
Under section 304(a), EPA publishes water when the Agency published criteria development
quality criteria that consist of scientific guidelines for aquatic life and for human health,
information regarding concentrations of specific along with criteria for M toxic pollutants
chemicals or levels of parameters in water that (USEPA, lY80a,b). Since that initial publication.
protect aquatic life and human health (see section the aquatic life methodology was amended
3.1 of this Handbook). The States may usc these (Appendix H), and additional criteria were
contents as the basis for developing enforceable proposed for public comment and finalized as
water quality standards. Water quality criteria are Agency criteria guidance. EPA summarized the
also elements of State water quality standards available criteria information in the "Gold Book"
adopted under section 303(c) of the CW A (see (USEPA, lY86a), which is updated from time to
sections 3.2 through 3.6 of this Handbook). time. However, the individual criteria documents
States are required to adopt water quality criteria (see Appendix I), as updated, arc the official
that will protect the designated users) of a water guidance documents.
body. These criteria must be based on sound
scientific rationale and must contain sufficient EPA's c nter ia documents p rovi de a
parameters or constituents to protect the comprehensive toxicological evaluation of each
designated use. chemical. For toxic pollutants. the documents
tabulate the relevant acute and chronic toxicity
EPA Section 304(a) Guidance information for aquatic life and derive the criteria
maximum concentrations (acute criteria) and
criteria continuous concentration" (chronic
EPA and a predecessor agency have produced a criteria) that the Agency recommends to protect
series of scientific water quality criteria guidance aquatic life resources. The methodologies for
documents. Early Federal efforts were the these processes are described in Appendices H
"Green Book" (FWPCA, 1968) and the "Red and J and outlined in sections 3. I. ~ and 3.1.3 of
Book" (USEPA, 1976). EPA also sponsored a this Handbook.
contract effort that resulted in the "Blue Book"
(NAS/NAE, 1973). These early efforts were 3.1.1 State Use of EPA Criteria Documents
premised on the use of literature reviews and the
collective scientific judgment of Agency and EPA's water quality criteria documents arc
advisory panels. However, when faced with the available to assist States in:
need to develop criteria for human health as well
as aquatic life, the Agency determined that new • adopting water quality standards that include
procedures were necessary. Continued reliance appropriate numeric water qualitv criteria;
solely on existing scientific literature was deemed
inadequate because essential information was not • interpreting existing water quality standards
available for many pollutants, EPA scientists that include narrative "no toxirs in toxic
developed formal methodologies for establishing amounts" criteria:
scientifically defensible criteria. These were
subjected to review by the Agency's Science
(8/15/94) 3-1
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
• making listing decision s under section 304( 1) other EPA documents), the State may reference
of the CWA; and rely on the data in these documents and need
not create duplicative or new material for
• writing water quality-based NPDES permits inclusion in their records. However, where site-
and individual control strategies; and specific issues arise or the State decides to adopt
an approach to anyone of these three factors that
• providing certi fication under section 401 of differs from the approach in EPA's criteria
the CW A for any Federal permit or license document, the State must explain its reasons in a
(e.g., EPA-issued NPDES permits, CWA manner sufficient for a reviewer to determine that
section 404 permits, or Federal Energy the approach chosen is based on sound scientific
Regulatory Commission licenses). rationale (40 erR \3 L l1(b».
In these situations, States have primary authority 3.1.2 Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection
to determine the appropriate level to protect
human health or welfare (in accordance with The development of national numerical water
section 303(c)(2) of the CWA) for each water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic
body. However, under the Clean Water Act, organisms is a complex process that uses
EP A must also review and approve State water information from many areas of aquatic
quality standards; section 304( 1) listing decisions toxicology. (See Appendix H for a detailed
and draft and final State-issued individual control discussion of this process.) After a decision is
strategies; and in States where EPA writes made that a national criterion is needed for a
NPDES permits, EPA must develop appropriate particular material, all available information
water quality-based permit limitations. The States concerning toxicity to. and bioaccumulation by.
and EPA therefore have a strong interest in aquatic organisms is collected and reviewed for
assuring that the decisions are legally defensible, acceptability. If enough acceptable data for 48- to
are based on the best information available, and 96-hour toxicity tests on aquatic plants and
are subject to full and meaningful public comment animals are available. they are used to derive the
and participation. It is very important that each acute criterion. If sufficient data on the ratio of
decision be supported by an adequate record. acute to chronic toxicity concentrations are
Such a record is critical to meaningful comment, available, they are used to derive the chronic or
EPA's review of the State's decision, and any long-term exposure criteria. If justified. one or
subsequent administrative or judicial review. both of the criteria may be related to other water
quality characteristics. such as pH. temperature.
Any human health criterion for a toxicant is based or hardness. Separate criteria arc developed for
on at least three interrelated considerations: fresh and sa/l waters.
• cancer potency or systemic toxicity. The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
States to develop numerical criteria or modify
• exposure. and
• risk characterization.
3-2 (8/15/94 )
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
EPA's recommended criteria to account for Frequency for Aquatic Life Criteria
site-specific or other scientifically defensible
factors. Guidance on modifying national criteria To predict or ascertain the attainment of criteria,
is found in sections 3.6 and 3.7. When a it is necessary to specify the allowable frequency
criterion must be developed for a chemical for for exceeding the criteria. This is because it is
which a national criterion has not been statistically impossible to project that criteria will
established, the regulatory authority should refer never be exceeded. As ecological communities
to the EPA guidelines (Appendix H). are naturally subjected to a series of stresses, the
allowable frequency of pollutant stress may be set
Magnitude for Aquatic Life Criteria at a value that does not significantly increase the
frequency or severity of all stresses combined.
Water quality criteria for aquatic life contain two
expressions of allowable magnitude: a criterion EPA recommends an average frequency for
maximum concentration (CMC) to protect against excursions of both acute and chronic criteria not
acute (short-term) effects; and a criterion to exceed once in 3 years. In all cases, the
continuous concentration (CCC) to protect against recommended frequency applies to actual ambient
chronic (long-term) effects. EPA derives acute concentrations, and excludes the influence of
criteria from 48- to 96-hour tests of lethality or measurement imprecision. EPA established its
immobilization. EPA derives chronic criteria recommended frequency as part of its guidelines
from longer term (often greater than 28-day) tests for deriving criteria (Appendix H). EPA selected
that measure survival, growth, or reproduction. the 3-year average frequency of criteria
Where appropriate, the calculated criteria may be exceedence with the intent of providing for
lowered to be protective ofcomercially or ecological recovery from a variety of severe
recreationally important species. stresses. This return interval is roughly
equivalent to a 7QlO design flow condition.
Duration for Aquatic Life Criteria Because of the nature of the ecological recovery
studies available, the severity of criteria
The quality of an ambient water typically varies in excursions could not be rigorously related to the
response to variations of effluent quality, stream resulting ecological impacts. Nevertheless, EPA
flow, and other factors. Organisms in the derives its criteria intending that a single marginal
receiving water are not experiencing constant, criteria excursion (i .e., a slight excursion over a
steady exposure but rather are experiencing I-hour period for acute or over a 4-day period for
fluctuating exposures, including periods of high chronic) would require little or no time for
concentrations, which may have adverse effects. recovery. If the frequency of marginal criteria
Thus, EPA's criteria indicate a time period over excursions is not high, it can be shown that the
which exposure is to be averaged, as well as an frequency of severe stresses, requiring measurable
upper limit on the average concentration, thereby recovery periods, would be extremely small.
limiting the duration of exposure to elevated EPA thus expects the 3-year return interval to
concentrations. For acute criteria, EPA provide a very high degree of protection.
recommends an averaging period of 1 hour. That
is, to protect against acute effects, the l-hour 3.1.3 Criteria for Human Health Protection
average exposure should not exceed the CMC.
For chronic criteria, EPA recommends an This section reviews EPA's procedures used to
averaging period of 4 days. That is, the 4-day develop assessments of human health effects in
average exposure should not exceed the CCc. 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
(8115/94) 3-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Preparation ofHealth Effects Assessment Chapters assumption, although the human health guidelines
of the Consent Decree Waler Documents provide for considering other sources where data
(Appendix J). The procedures contained in this are available (see 45 F.R. 79354). Thus the
document are used in the development and criteria are based on an assessment of risks
updating of EPA water quality criteria and may be related to the surface water exposure route only
used in updating State criteria and in developing (57 F.R. 60862-3).
State criteria for those pollutants lacking EPA
human health criteria. The procedures may also The consumption of contaminated fish tissue is of
be applied as site-specific interpretations of serious concern because the presence of even
narrative standards and as a basis for permit limits extremely low ambient concentrations of
under 40 CFR 122.44 (d)( I )(vi). bioaccumulative pollutants (sublethal to aquatic
life) in surface waters can result in residue
Magnitude and Duration concentrations in fish tissue that can pose a human
health risk. Other exposure route information
Water quality criteria for human health contain should be considered and incorporated in human
only a single expression of allowable magnitude; exposure evaluations to the extent available.
a criterion concentration generally to protect
against long-term (chronic) human health effects. Levels of actual human exposures from
Currently, national policy and prevailing opinion consuming contaminated fish vary depending upon
in the expert community establish that the a number of case-specific consumption factors.
duration for human health criteria for carcinogens These factors include type of fish species
should be derived assuming lifetime exposure, consumed, type of fish tissue consumed, tissue
taken to be a 70-year time period. The duration lipid content, consumption rate and pattern. and
of exposure assumed in deriving criteria for food preparation practices. In addition, depending
noncarcinogens is more complicated owing to a on the spatial variability in the fishery area, the
wide variety of endpoints: some developmental behavior of the fish species, and the point of
(and thus age-specific and perhaps gender- application of the criterion. the average exposure
specific), some lifetime. and some, such as of fish may be only a small fraction of the
organoleptic effects. not duration-related at all. expected exposure at the point of application of
Thus, appropriate durations depend on the the criterion. If an effluent attracts fish. the
individual noncarcinogenic pollutants and the average exposure might he greater than the
endpoints or adverse effects being considered. expected exposure.
3-4 (8!l5/94)
Chapter 3 - Walt'r Quality Criteria
(8/15/94) 3-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
3-6 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Waur Quality Criteria
(8/15/94) 3-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
and "NOAEL" refer to animal and human Maximum protection of human health from the
toxicology and are therefore distinct from the potential effects of exposure to carcinogens
aquatic toxicity terms "no-observed-effect through the consumption of contaminated fish
concentration" (NOEC) and "lowest-observed- and/or other aquatic life would require a criterion
effect concentration" (LOEC).) Uncertainty of zero. The zero level is based upon the
factors are then applied to the NOAEL or LOAEL assumption of non-threshold effects (i.e., no safe
to account for uncertainties in the data associated level exists below which any increase in exposure
with variability among individuals, extrapolation does not result in an increased risk of cancer) for
from nonhuman test species to humans, data on carcinogens. However, because a publicly
other than long-term exposures, and the use of a acceptable policy for safety does not require the
LOAEL (USEPA, 1988a). An additional absence of all risk, a numerical estimate of
uncertainty factor may be applied to account for pollutant concentration (in J.'g/l) which
significant weakness or gaps in the database. corresponds to a given level of risk for a
population of a specified size is selected instead.
The RID is a threshold below which systemic A cancer risk level is defined as the number of
toxic effects are unlikely to occur. While new cancers that may result in a population of
exposures above the RID increase the probability specified size due to an increase in exposure
of adverse effects, they do not produce a certainty (e.g., l O? risk level = I additional cancer in a
of adverse effects. Similarly, while exposure at population of I million). Cancer risk is calculated
or below the RID reduces the probability, it does by multiplying the experimentally derived cancer
not guarantee the absence of effects in all persons. potency estimate by the concentration of the
The RIDs contained in IRIS are values that chemical in the fish and the average daily :.uman
represent EPA's consensus (and have uncertainty consumption of contaminated fish. The risk for a
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude). This specified population (e.g., I million people or 10-
means an RID of 1.0 mg/kg/day could range from 6) is then calculated by dividing the risk level by
0.3 to 3.0 mg/kg/day. the specific cancer risk. EPA's ambient water
quality criteria documents provide risk levels
For noncarcinogenic effects, an updated criterion ranging from 10- 5 to 10- 7 as examples.
can be derived using the equation in Exhibit 3-1.
The cancer potency estimate, or slope factor
If the receiving water body is not used as a (formerly known as the q, *), is derived using
drinking water source, the factor WI can be animal studies. High-dose exposures are
deleted. Where dietary and/or inhalation extrapolated to low-dose concentrations and
exposure values are unknown, these factors may adjusted to a lifetime exposure period through the
be deleted from the above calculation. use of a linearized multistage model. The model
calculates the upper 95 percent confidence limit of
Calculilling Criteria for Carcinogens the slope of a straight line which the model
postulates to occur at low doses. When based on
Any human health criterion for a carcinogen is human (epidemiological) data, the slope factor is
based on at least three interrelated considerations: based on the observed increase in cancer risk and
cancer potency, exposure, and risk is not extrapolated. For deriving criteria for
characterization. When developing State criteria, carcinogens, the oral cancer potency estimates or
States may make their own judgments on each of slope factors from IRIS are used.
these factors within reasonable scientific bounds,
but documentation to support their judgments It is important to note that cancer potency factors
must be clear and in the public record. may overestimate or underestimate the actual risk.
Such potency estimates are subject to great
uncertainty because of two primary factors:
3-8 (8/15/94)
Chapler J - Wafer Quality Criteria
Exhibit 3-1. Equation for Deriving Human Health Criteria Based on Noncarcinogenic Effects
• adequacy of the cancer data base (i .e., If the receiving water body is not designated as a
human vs. animal data); and drinking water source, the factor WI can be
deleted.
• limited information regarding the mechanism
of cancer causation. Deriving QuantilDJive Risk Assessments in
the Absence of IRIS Values
Risk levels of IO- s, IO~, and 10-7 are often used
by States as minimal risk levels in interpreting The RIDs or cancer potency estimates comprise
their standards. EPA considers risks to be the existing dose-response factors for developing
additive, i.e., the risk from individual chemicals criteria. When IRIS data are unavailable,
is not necessarily the overall risk from exposure quantitative risk level information may be
to water. For example, an individual risk level of developed according to a State's own procedures.
10-6 may yield a higher overall risk level if Some States have established their own
multiple carcinogenic chemicals are present. procedures whereby dose-response factors can be
developed based upon extrapolation of acute
For carcinogenic effects, the criterion can be and/or chronic animal data to concentrations of
determined by using the equation in Exhibit 3-2. exposure protective of fish consumption by
(8115/94) 3-9
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
C (1JlI/1) - (RL X WD
€II- [WI + Fe X L X (I'M X BCF)]
where:
Exhibit 3-2. Equation for Deriving Human Health Criteria Based on Carcinogenic Effects
3-10 (8115/94)
Chapter 3 - Waler Quality Criteria
upon brief immersion, should be avoided. The Where criteria have not been specifically
section 304(a)(l) human health effects criteria developed for these uses, the criteria developed
based on direct human drinking water intake and for human health and aquatic life are usually
fish consumption might provide useful guidance in sufficiently stringent to protect these uses. States
these circumstances. Also, section 304(a)( I) may also establish criteria specifically designed to
criteria based on human health effects may be protect these uses.
used to support this designated use where fishing
is included in the State definition of "recreation." 3.2.4 Public Water Supply
In this latter situation, only the portion of the
criterion based on fish consumption should be The drinking water exposure component of the
used. Section 304(a)(l) criteria to protect section 304(a)( I) criteria based on human health
recreational uses are also available for certain effects can apply directly to this use classification.
physical, microbiological, and narrative "free The criteria also may be appropriately modified
from" aesthetic cri teria. depending upon whether the specific water supply
system falls within the auspices of the Safe
Research regarding bacteriological indicators has Drinking Water Act's (SDW A) regulatory control
resulted in EPA recommending that States use and the type and level of treatment imposed upon
Escherichia coli or enterococci as indicators of the supply before delivery to the consumer. The
recreational water quality (USEPA, 1986b) rather SDWA controls the presence of contaminants in
than fecal coliform because of the better finished ("at-the-tap") drinking water.
correlation with gastroenteritis in swimmers.
A brief description of relevant sections of the
The "Green Book" and "Blue Book" provide SDWA is necessary to explain how the Act will
additional information on protecting recreational work in conjunction with section 304(a)( I) criteria
uses such as pH criteria to prevent eye irritation in protecting human health from the effects of
and microbiological criteria based on aesthetic toxics due to consumption of water. Pursuant to
considerations. section 1412 of the SDWA, EPA has promulgated
"National Primary Drinking Water Standards" for
3.2.2 Aquatic Life certain radionuclide, microbiological, organic, and
inorganic substances. These standards establish
The section 304(a)( I) criteria for aquatic life maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which
should be used directly to support this designated specify the maximum permissible level of a
use. If subcategories of this use are adopted contaminant in water that may be delivered to a
(e.g., to differentiate between coldwater and user of a public water system now defined as
warmwater fisheries), then appropriate criteria serving a minimum of 25 people. MCLs are
should be set to reflect the varying needs of such established based on consideration of a range of
subcategories. factors including not only the health effects of the
contaminants but also treatment capability,
3.2.3 Agricultural and Industrial Uses monitoring availability, and costs. Under section
1401(l )(D)(i) of the SDWA, EPA is also allowed
The "Green Book" (FWPCA, 1968) and "Blue to establish the minimum quality criteria for water
Book" (NAS/NAE, 1973) provide some that may be taken into a public water supply
information on protecting agricultural and system.
industrial uses. Section 304(a)( I) criteria for
protecting these uses have not been specifically Section 304(a)(l) criteria provide estimates of
developed for numerous parameters pertaining to pollutant concentrations protective of human
these uses, including most toxics. health, but do not consider treatment technology,
costs, and other feasibility factors. The section
(8115/94) 3-11
Water Quality Standards Handbook· Second Edition
304(a)( 1) criteria also include fish reduces the level of pollutants, or a more stringent
bioaccumulation and consumption factors in contaminant level than the former three options.
addition to direct human drinking water intake.
These numbers were not developed to serve as
"at-the-tap" drinking water standards, and they
[IIJ State Criteria Requirements
have no regulatory significance under the SOWA.
Drinking water standards are established based on Section 131.11 (a)(1) of the Regulation requires
considerations, including technological and States to adopt water quality criteria to protect the
economic feasibility, not relevant to section designated use(s). The State criteria must be
304(a)(1) criteria. Section 304(a)(1) criteria are based on sound scientific rationale and must
more analogous to the maximum contaminant contain sufficient parameters or constituents to
level goals (MCLGs) (previously known as protect the designated use(s). For waters with
RMCLs) under section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the multiple use designations, the criteria must
SOWA in which, based upon a report from the support the most sensitive use.
National Academy of Sciences, the Administrator
should set target levels for contaminants in In section 131.11, States are encouraged to adopt
drinking water at which "no known or anticipated both numeric and narrative criteria. Aquatic life
adverse effects occur and which allow an adequate criteria should protect against both short-term
margin of safety." MCLGs do not take treatment, (acute) and long-term (chronic) effects. Numeric
cost, and other feasibility factors into criteria are particularly important where the cause
consideration. Section 304(a)( 1) criteria are, in of toxicity is known or for protection against
concept, related to the health-based goals specified pollutants with potential human health impacts or
in the MCLGs. bioaccumulation potential. Numeric water quality
criteria may also be the best way to address
MCLs of the SOWA, where they exist, control nonpoini source pollution problems. Narrative
toxic chemicals in finished drinking water. criteria can be the basis for limiting toxicity in
However, because of variations in treatment, waste discharges where a specific pollutant can be
ambient water criteria may be used by the States identified as causing or contributing to the toxicity
as a supplement to SOWA regulations. When but where there are no numeric criteria in the
setting water quality criteria for public water State standards. Narrative criteria also can be
supplies, States have the option of applying used where toxicity cannot be traced to a
MCLs, section 304(a)( 1) human health effects particular pollutant.
criteria, modified section 304(a)( 1) criteria, or
controls more stringent than these three to protect Section 131.11(a)(2) requires States to develop
against the effects of contaminants by ingestion implementation procedures which explain how the
from drinking water. State will ensure that narrative toxics criteria are
met.
For treated drinking water supplies serving 25
people or greater, States must control To more fully protect aquatic habitats, it is EPA's
contaminants down to levels at least as stringent policy that States fully integrate chemical-specific,
as MCLs (where they exist for the pollutants of whole-effluent, and biological assessment
concern) in the finished drinking water. approaches in State water quality programs (see
However, States also have the options to control Appendix R). Specifically, each of these three
toxics in the ambient water by choosing section methods can provide a valid assessment of llQ1l:
304(a)(1) criteria, adjusted section 304(a)(1) attainment of designated aquatic life uses but can
criteria resulting from the reduction of the direct rarely demonstrate use attainment separately.
drinking water exposure component in the criteria Therefore. EPA supports a policy of independent
calculation to the extent that the treatment process application of these three water quality assessment
3-12 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Watt'r QlUJliry Criteria
(8/15/94) 3-13
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
~ .
...----.:---
3-14 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Walt'r Qua lily Criteria
protect human health. To comply with the estimate of actual risk posed, based on the best
statute, a State needs to adopt aquatic life and and most representative information available.
human health criteria where necessary to support The importance of the estimated actual risk
the appropriate designated uses. Criteria for the increases as the degree of conservatism in the
protection of human health are needed for water selected risk level diminishes. EPA carefully
bodies designated for public water supply. When evaluates all assumptions used by a State if the
fish ingestion is considered an important activity, State chose to alter anyone of the standard EPA
then the human health-related water quality assumption values (57 F.R. 60864, December 22,
criteria recommendation developed under section 1993).
304(a) of the CWA should be used; that is, the
portion of the criteria recommendation based on EPA does not intend to propose changes to the
fish consumption. For those pollutants designated current requirements regarding the bases on which
as carcinogens, the recommendation for a human a State can adopt numeric criteria (40 CFR
health criterion is generally more stringent than 131.1I(b){I». Under EPA's regulation, in
the aquatic life criterion for the same pollutant. addition to basing numeric criteria on EPA's
In contrast, the aquatic life criteria section 304(a) criteria documents, States may also
recommendations for noncarcinogens are base numeric criteria on site-specific
generally more stringent than the human health determinations or other scientifically defensible
recommendations. When a State adopts a human methods.
health criterion for a carcinogen, the State needs
to select a risk level. EPA has estimated risk EPA expects each State to comply with the new
levels of 10- 5 , 10-6, and 10-7 in its criteria statutory requirements in any section 303(c) water
documents under one set of exposure assumptions. quality standards review initiated after enactment
However, the State is not limited to choosing of the Water Quality Act of 1987. The structure
among the risk levels published in the section of section 303(c) is to require States to review
304{a) criteria documents, nor is the State limited their water quality standards at least once each 3
to the base case exposure assumptions; it must year period. Section 303(c)(2){B) instructs States
choose the risk level for its conditions and explain to include reviews for toxics criteria whenever
its rationale. they initiate a triennial review. Therefore, even
if a State has complied with section 3m(c)(2)(B),
EPA generally regulates pollutants treated as the State must review its standards each triennium
carcinogens in the range of 1()-6 to io- to protect to ensure that section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements
average exposed individuals and more highly continue to be met, considering that EPA may
exposed populations. However, if a State selects have published additional section 304(a) criteria
a criterion that represents an upper bound risk documents and that the State will have new
level less protective than I in 100,000 (e.g., IO'S) , information on existing water quality and on
the State needs to have substantial support in the pollution sources.
record for this level. This support focuses on two
distinct issues. First, the record must include It should be noted that nothing in the Act or in the
documentation that the decision maker considered Water Quality Standards Regulation restricts the
the public interest of the State in selecting the risk right of a State to adopt numeric criteria for any
level, including documentation of public pollutant not listed pursuant to section 307(a)(1),
participation in the decision making process as and that such criteria may be expressed as
required by the Water Quality Standards concentration limits for an individual pollutant or
Regulation at 40 CFR 131.20(b). Second, the for a toxicity parameter itself as measured by
record must include an analysis showing that the whole-effluent toxicity testing. However, neither
risk level selected, when combined with other risk numeric toxic criteria nor whole-effluent toxicity
assessment variables, is a balanced and reasonable
(8/15/94) 3-15
Water Quality Slandards Handbook - Secoed Edition
(2) Adopt specific numeric criteria in State • gets specific numbers into State water quality
water quality standards for section 307(a) standards fast, at first
toxic pollutants as necessary to support
designated uses where such pollutants are Con:
discharged or are present in the affected
waters and could reasonably be expected to • some pnonty toxic pollutants may not be
interfere wi th designated uses; discharged in State
(3) Adopt a "translator procedure" to be applied • may cause unnecessary monitoring by States
to a narrative water quality standard
provision that prohibits toxicity in receiving • might result in "paper standards"
waters. Such a procedure is to be used by
the State in calculating derived numeric Option I is within a State's legal authority under
criteria, which shall be used for all purposes the CW A to adopt broad water quality standards.
under section 303(c) of the CWA. At a This option is the most comprehensi ve approach
minimum, such criteria need to be developed to satisfy the statutory requirements because it
for section 307(a) toxic pollutants, as would include all of the priority toxic pollutants
necessary to support designated uses, where for which EPA has prepared section 304(a)
these pollutants are discharged or present in criteria guidance for either or both aquatic life
the affected waters and could reasonably be protection and human health protection. In
expected to interfere with designated uses. addition to a simple adoption of EPA's section
304(a) guidance as standards, a State must select
Option 1 is consistent with State authority to a risk level for those toxic pollutants which are
establish water quality standards. Option 2 most carcinogens (i.e.. that cause or may cause cancer
directly reflects the CW A requirements and is the in humans).
option recommended by EPA. Option 3, while
meeting the requirements of the CWA, is best Many States find this option attractive because it
suited to supplement numeric criteria from option ensures comprehensive coverage of the priority
1 or 2. The three options are discussed in more toxic pollutants with scientifically defensible
detail below. criteria without the need to conduct a resource-
intensive evaluation of the particular segments and
3-16 (8'15/94)
C1UJpter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
pollutants requmng criteria. This option also • standards based on demonstrated need to
would not be more costly to dischargers than control problem pollutants
other options because permit limits would be
based only on the regulation of the particular • State can use EPA's section 304(a) national
toxic pollutants in their discharges and not on the criteria recommendations or other
total listing in the water quality standards. Thus, scientifically acceptable alternative, including
actual permit limits should be the same under any site-specific criteria
of the options.
• State can consider current or potential toxic
The State may also exercise its authority to use pollutant problems
one or more of the techniques for adjusting water
quality standards: • State can go beyond section 307(a) toxics
list, as desired
• establish or revise designated stream uses
based on use attainability analyses (see Con:
section 2.9);
• may be difficult and time consuming to
• develop sire-specific criteria; or determine if, and which, pollutants are
interfering with the designated use
• allow short-term variances (see section 5.3)
when appropriate. • adoption of standards can require lengthy
debates on correct criteria limit to be
All three of these techniques may apply to included in standards
standards developed under any of the three
options discussed in this guidance. It is likely • successful State toxic control programs based
that States electing to use option 1 will rely more on narrative criteria may be halted or slowed
on variances because the other two options are as the State applies its limited resources to
implemented with more site-specific data being developing numeric standards
available. It should be noted, however, that
permits issued pursuant to such water quality • difficult to update criteria once adopted as
variances still must comply with any applicable part of standards
antidegradation and antibacksliding requirements.
• to be absolutely technically defensible, may
OPTION 2 need site-specific criteria in many situations,
leading to a large workload for regulatory
Adopt specific numeric criteria in State water agency
quality standards for section 307 (a) toxic
pollutants as necessary to support designated EPA recommends that a State use this option to
uses where such pollutants are discharged or meet the statutory requirement. It directly reflects
are present in the affected waters and could all the Act's requirements and is flexible,
reasonably be expected to interfere with resulting in adoption of numeric water quality
designated uses. standards as needed. To assure that the State is
capable of dealing with new problems as they
Pro: arise, EPA also recommends that States adopt a
translator procedure the same as, or similar to,
• directly reflects statutory requirement that described in option 3, but applicable to all
chemicals causing toxicity and not just priority
pollutants as is the case for option 3.
(8/15/94) 3-17
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Beginning in 1988, EPA provided States with • NPDES permit applications and permittee
candidate lists of priority toxic pollutants and self-monitoring reports;
water bodies in support of CWA section 304(1)
implementation. These lists were developed • effluent guideline development documents,
because States were required to evaluate existing many of which contain section 307(a)( I)
and readily available water-related data to comply priority pollutant scans;
with section 304(1),40 CFR 130.1O(d). A similar
"strawman" analysis of priority pollutants • pesticide and herbicide application
potentially requiring adoption of numeric criteria information and other records of pesticide or
under section 303(c)(2)(B) was furnished to most herbicide inventories;
States in September or October of 1990 for their
use in ongoing and subsequent triennial reviews. • public water supply source monitoring data
The primary differences between the "strawman" noting pollutants with Maximum
analysis and the section 304(1) candidate lists were Contaminant Levels (MCLs); and
that the "strawman" analysis (I) organized the
results by chemical rather than by water body, (2) • any other relevant information on toxic
included data for certain STORET monitoring pollutants collected by Federal, State,
stations that were not used in constructing the interstate agencies, academic groups, or
candidate lists, (3) included data from the Toxics scientific organizations.
Release Inventory database, and (4) did not
include a number of data sources used in States are also expected to take into account
preparing the candidate lists (e.g., those, such as newer information as it became available, such as
fish kill information, that did not provide information in annual reports from the Toxic
chemical-specific information). Chemical Release Inventory requirements of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
EPA intends for States, at a minimum, to use the Know Act of 1986 (Title III, Public Law 99-499).
information gathered in support of section 304(1)
requirements as a starting point for identifying (I) Where the State's review indicates a reasonable
water segments that will need new and/or revised expectation of a problem from the discharge or
water quality standards for section 307(a) toxic presence of toxic pollutants, the State should
pollutants, and (2) which priority toxic pollutants identify the pollutant(s) and the relevant
require adoption of numeric criteria. In the segment(s). In making these determinations,
longer term, EPA expects similar determinations States should use their own EPA-approved criteria
to occur during each triennial review of water or existing EPA water quality criteria for
quality standards as required by section 303(c). purposes of segment identification. After the
review, the State may use other means to establish
In identifying the need for numeric criteria, EPA the final criterion as it revises its standards.
is encouraging States to use information and data
such as: As with option I, a State using option 2 must
follow all its legal and administrative
• presence or potential construction of requirements for adoption of water quality
facilities that manufacture or use priority standards. Since the resulting numeric criteria are
toxic pollutants; part of a State's water quality standards, they are
required to be submitted by the State to EPA for
• ambient water monitoring data, including review and either approval or disapproval.
those for sediment and aquatic life (e.g., fish
tissue data); EPA believes this option offers the State optimum
flexibility. For section 307(a) toxic pollutants
3-18 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
(8/15/94) 3-19
Water Quality Standards Handbook· Second Edition
(1) The Option 3 Procedure Must Be Used To are to be met at the edge of the mixing zone.
Calculate Derived Numeric Water Quality The acute criteria are to be met (1) at the end-of-
Criteria pipe if mixing is not rapid and complete and a
high rate diffuser is not present; or (2) after
States must adopt a specific procedure to be mixing if mixing is rapid and complete or a high
applied to a narrative water quality criterion. To rate diffuser is present. (See EPA's Technical
satisfy section 303(c)(2)(B), this procedure shall Support Documensfor Water Quality-based Taxies
be used by the State in calculating derived Control, USEPA 1991a.)
numeric criteria, which shall be used for all
purposes under section 303(c) of the CWA. Such EPA has not established a national policy
criteria need to be developed for section 307(a) specifying the point of application in the receiving
toxic pollutants as necessary to support designated water to be used with human health criteria.
uses, where these pollutants are discharged or are However, EPA has approved State standards that
present in the affected waters and could apply human health criteria for fish consumption
reasonably be expected to interfere with the at the mixing zone boundary and/or apply the
designated uses. criteria for drinking water consumption, at a
minimum, at the point of use. EPA has also
To assure protection from short-term exposures, proposed more stringent requirements for the
the State procedure should ensure development of application of human health criteria for highly
derived numeric water quality criteria based on bioaccumulative pollutants in the Warer Quality
valid acute aquatic toxicity tests that are lethal to guidance for the Great Lakes System (50 F.R.
half the affected organisms (LC50) for the species 20931, 21035, April 16, 1993) including
representative of or similar to those found in the elimination of mixing zones.
State. In addition, the State procedure should
ensure development of derived numeric water In addition, the State should also include an
quality criteria for protection from chronic indication of potential bioconcentration or
exposure by using an appropriate safety factor bioaccumulation by providing for:
applicable to this acute limit. If there are
saltwater components to the State's aquatic • laboratory tests that measure the steady-state
resources, the State should establish appropriate bioconcentration rate achieved by a
derived numeric criteria for saltwater in addition susceptible organism; and/or
to those for freshwater.
• field data in which ambient concentrations
The State's documentation of the tests should and tissue loads are measured to give an
include a detailed discussion of its quality control appropriate factor.
and quality assurance procedures. The State
should also include a description (or reference In developing a procedure to be used in
existing technical agreements with EPA) of the calculating derived numeric criteria for the
procedure it will use to calculate derived acute protection of aquatic life, the State should
and chronic numeric criteria from the test data, consider the potential impact that bioconcentration
and how these derived criteria will be used as the has on aquatic and terrestrial food chains.
basis for deriving appropriate TMDLs, WLAs,
and NPDES permit limits. The State should also use the derived
bioconcentration factor and food chain multiplier
As discussed above, the procedure for calculating to calculate chronically protective numeric criteria
derived numeric criteria needs to protect aquatic for humans that consume aquatic organisms. In
life from both acute and chronic exposure to calculating this derived numeric criterion, the
specific chemicals. Chronic aquatic life criteria State should indicate data requirements to be met
3-20 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Wall'r Quality Criteria
when dealing with either threshold (toxic) or non- and experience it has gained in developing section
threshold (carcinogenic) compounds. The State 304(a) criteria for toxic pollutants by application
should describe the species and the minimum of its own translator method (USEPA, 1980b;
number of tests, which may generally be met by USEPA, 1985b).
a single mammalian chronic test if it is of good
quality and if the weight of evidence indicates that Once EPA has approved the State's procedure,
the results are reasonable. The State should the Agency's review of derived numeric criteria,
provide the method to calculate a derived numeric for example, for pollutants other than section
criterion from the appropriate test result. 307(a) toxic pollutants resulting from the State's
procedure, will focus on the adequacy of the data
Both the threshold and non-threshold criteria for base rather than the calculation method. EPA
protecting human health should contain exposure also encourages States to apply such a procedure
assumptions, and the State procedure should be to calculate derived numeric criteria to be used as
used to calculate derived numeric criteria that the basis for deriving permit limitations for
address the consumption of water, consumption of nonconventional pollutants that also cause
fish, and combined consumption of both water toxicity.
and fish. The State should provide the
assumptions regarding the amount of fish and the (3) The State Must Provide Full Opportunity
quantity of water consumed per person per day, for Public Participation in Adoption of the
as well as the rationale used to select the Procedure
assumptions. It needs to include the number of
tests, the species necessary to establish a dose- The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires
response relationship, and the procedure to be States to hold public hearings to review and revise
used to calculate the derived numeric criteria. water quality standards in accordance with
For non-threshold contaminants, the State should provisions of State law and EPA's Public
specify the model used to extrapolate to low dose Participation Regulation (40 CFR 25). Where a
and the risk level. It should also address State plans to adopt a procedure to be applied to
incidental exposure from other water sources the narrative criterion, it must provide full
(e.g .• swimming). When calculating derived opportunity for public participation in the
numeric criteria for multiple exposure to development and adoption of the procedure as part
pollutants, the State should consider additive of the State's water quality standards.
effects, especially for carcinogenic substances,
and should factor in the contribution to the daily While it is not necessary for the State to adopt
intake of toxicants from other sources (e.g., food, each derived numeric criterion into its water
air) when data are available. quality standards and submit it to EPA for review
and approval, EPA is very concerned that all
(2) The State Must Demonstrate That the affected parties have adequate opportunity to
Procedure Results in Derived Numeric participate in the development of a derived
Criteria Are Protective
(8115/94) 3-21
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
numeric criterion even though it is not being limits in NPDES permits; determining whether
adopted directly as a water quality standard. water use designations are being met; and
identifying potential nonpoint source pollution
A State can satisfy the need to provide an problems.
opportunity for public participation in the
development of derived numeric criteria in several (5) The Procedure Must Be Approved by EPA
ways, including: as Part of the State's Water Quality
Standards Regulation
• a specific hearing on the derived numeric
criterion; To be consistent with the requirements of the Act,
the State's procedure to be applied to the narrative
• the opportunity for a public hearing on an criterion must be submitted to EPA for review
NPDES permits as long as public notice is and approval, and will become a part of the
given that a criterion for a toxic pollutant as State's water quality standards. (See 40 CFR
part of the permit issuance is being 131.21 for further discussion.) This requirement
contemplated; or may be satisfied by a reference in the standards to
the procedure, which may be contained in another
• a hearing coincidental with any other hearing document, which has legal effect and is binding
as long as it is made clear that development on the State, and all the requirements for public
of a specific criterion is also being review, State implementation, and EPA review
undertaken. and approval are satisfied.
For example, as States develop their lists and Criteria Based on Biological Monitoring
individual control strategies (lCSs) under section
304(1), they may seek full public participation. For priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has
NPDES regulations also specify public not issued section 304(a)( I) criteria guidance,
participation requirements related to State permit CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt
issuance. Finally, States have public participation criteria based on biological monitoring or
requirements associated with Water Quality assessment methods. The phrase "biological
Management Plan updates. States may take monitoring or assessment methods" includes:
advantage of any of these public participation
requirements to fulfill the requirement for public • whole-effluent toxicity control methods;
review of any resulting derived numeric criteria.
In such cases, the State must give prior notice that • biological criteria methods; or
development of such criteria is under
con sideration. • other methods based on biological
monitoring or assessment.
(4) The Procedure Must Be Formally Adopted
and Mandatory The phrase "biological monitoring or assessment
methods" in its broadest sense also includes
Where a State elects to supplement its narrative criteria developed through translator procedures.
criterion with an accompanying implementing This broad interpretation of that phrase is
procedure, it must formally adopt such a consistent with EPA's policy of applying
procedure as a part of its water quality standards. chemical-specific, biological, and whole-effluent
The procedure must be used by the State to toxicity methods independently in an integrated
calculate derived numeric criteria that will be used toxics control program. It is also consistent with
as the basis for all standards' purposes, including the intent of Congress to expand State standards
the following: developing TMDLs, WLAs, and programs beyond chemical-specific approaches.
3-22 (8/15/94 )
Chapter 3 - Water QUIl!ity Criteria
States should also consider developing protocols a State's toxics control program under section
to derive and adopt numeric criteria for priority 3OJ(c)(2)(B) and a principal means for
toxic pollutants (or other pollutants) where EPA implementing a State's narrative "free from
has not issued section 304(a) criteria guidance. toxics" standard.
The State should consider available laboratory
toxicity test data that may be sufficient to support Guidance documents EPA considers to serve the
derivation of chemical-specific criteria. Existing purpose of section 304(a)(8) include the Technical
data need not he as comprehensive as that Support Document for Water Quality-based Taxies
required to meet EPA's 1985 guidelines in order Control (USEPA, 1991a; Guidelines for Deriving
for a State to use its own protocols to derive National Waler Quality Criteria for the Protection
criteria. EPA has described such protocols in the of Aquatic Organ isms and Their US('S (Appendix
proposed Water Quulitv Guidance for the Great H); Guidelines and Methodology Used in the
Lakes System (58 F,R. 2WN2, at 21016, April 16, Preparation ofHealth Effect Assessment Chapters
1993.) This is particularly important where other of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents
components of a Stues narrative criterion (Appendix 1); Methods for Measuring Acute
implementation procedure (e.g., WET controls or Toxicity oj Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
biological criteria) may not ensure full protection Organisms (USEPA, 199Id); Short-Term Methods
of designated uses. For some pollutants, a jor Estimating the Chronic Toxicity (~r Effluents
combination of chemical-specific and other and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms
approaches IS necessary (e.g.. pollutants where (USEPA, 1991e); and Short-Term Methods for
bioaccurnulation in fish tissue or water Estimating the Chronic Toxicity oj Effluents and
consumption hy humans is a primary concern). Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine
Organisms (USEPA. 1991 f).
Biologically based monitoring or assessment
methods serve as the basis for control where no 3.4.2 Criteria for Nonconventional Pollutants
specific numeric criteria exist or where calculation
or application of pollutant-by-pollutant criteria Criteria requirements applicable to toxicants that
appears inteasiblc. Also, these methods may are not priority toxic pollutants (e.g.. ammonia
serve as a supplemental measurement of and chlorine), are specified in the 1983 Water
attainment of water quality standards in addition Quality Standards Regulation (see 40 CFR
to numeric and narrative criteria. The 131.11). Under these requirements. States must
requirement for both numeric criteria and adopt criteria based on sound scientific rationale
biologicall y based methods demonstrates that that cover sufficient parameters to protect
section 303(c)(2)(8) contemplates that States designated uses. Both numeric and narrative
develop a comprehensive toxics control program criteria (discussed in sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2,
regardless of the status of EPA's section 304(a) below) may be applied to meet these
criteria. requirements.
(8/15/94) 3-23
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
3.5.2 Narrative Criteria To ensure that narrative criteria for toxicants are
attained, the Water Quality Standards Regulation
To supplement numeric criteria for toxicants, all requires States to develop implementation
States have also adopted narrative criteria for procedures (see 40 CFR 131. 1l(a)(2». Such
toxicants. Such narrative criteria are statements implementation procedures (Exhibit 3-3) should
that describe the desired water quality goal, such address all mechanisms to be used by the State to
as the following: ensure that narrative criteria are attained.
Because implementation of chemical-specific
All waters, including those within numeric criteria is a key component of State
mixing zones, shall be free from toxics control programs, narrative criteria
substances attributable to wastewater implementation procedures must describe or
discharges or other pollutant sources reference the State's procedures to implement
that: such chemical-specific numeric criteria (e.g.,
procedures for establishing chemical-specific
permit limits under the NPDES permitting
3-24 (8/15/94 )
Chapter 3 - Waler Quality Criteria
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:
• 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;
- 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
Exhibit 3-3. Components of a State Implementation Procedure for Narrative Toxics Criteria
(8/15/94) 3-25
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
program). Implementation procedures must also numenc criterion for a pollutant present in an
address State programs to control whole-effluent effluent at a concentration that causes or
toxicity (WET) and may address programs to contributes to a violation of the State's narrative
implement biological criteria, where such criteria.
programs have been developed by the State.
Implementation procedures therefore serve as 3.5.3 Biological Criteria
umbrella documents that describe how the State's
various taxies control programs are integrated to The Clean Water Act of 1972 directs EPA to
ensure adequate protection for aquatic life and develop programs that will evaluate, restore, and
human health and attainment of the narrative maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
toxics criterion. In essence, the procedure should integrity of the Nation's waters. In response to
apply the "independent application" principle, this directive, States and EPA have implemented
which provides for independent evaluations of chemically based water quality programs that
attainment of a designated use based on chemical- address significant water pollution problems.
specific, whole-eflluent toxicity, and biological However, over the past 20 years, it has become
criteria methods (see section 3.5.3 and apparent that these programs alone cannot identify
Appendices C. K, and R). and address all surface water pollution problems.
To help create a more comprehensive program,
EPA encourages, and may ultimately require, EPA is setting a priority for the development of
State implementation procedures to provide for biological criteria as part of State water quality
implementation of biological criteria. However, standards. This effort will help States and EPA
the regulatory basis for requiring whole-effluent (I) achieve the biological integrity objective of the
toxicity (WET) controls is clear. EPA regulations CWA set forth in section 101, and (2) comply
at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(v) require NPDES with the statutory requirements under sections 303
permits to contain WET limits where a permittee and 304 of the Act (see Appendices C and K).
has been shown to cause, have the reasonable
potential to cause, or contribute to an in-stream Regulatory Bases for Biocriteria
excursion of a narrative criterion. Implementation
of chemical-specific controls is also required by The primary statutory basis for EPA's policy that
EPA regulations at 40 CFR I22.44(d)( I). State States should develop biocriteria is found in
implementation procedures should, at a minimum, sections 10 I (a) and 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean
specify or reference methods to be used in Water Act. Section 101(a) of the CW A gives the
irnplementing chernical-speci fie and whole-effluent general goal of biological criteria. It establishes
toxicity-based controls, explain how these as the objective of the Act the restoration and
methods are integrated, and specify needed maintenance of the chemical, physical. and
application criteria. biological integrity of the Nation's waters. To
meet this objective, water quality criteria should
In addition to EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 131, address biological integrity. Section 101(a)
EPA has regulations at 40 CFR 122.44 that cover includes the interim water quality goal for the
the National Surface Water Toxics Control protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
Program. These regulations are intrinsically wildlife.
linked to the requirements to achieve water
quality standards, and specifically address the Section 304(a) of the Act provides the legal basis
control of pollutants both with and without for the development of informational criteria,
numeric criteria. For example, section including biological criteria. Specific directives
122A4(d)( I )(vi) provides the permitting authority for the development of regulatory biocriteria can
with several options for establishing effluent limits be found in section 303(c), which requires EPA to
when a State does not have a chemical-specific develop criteria based on biological assessment
3-26 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Wa1fr QUllliry Criteria
methods when numerical criteria are not conditions then become the basis for developing
established. biocriteria for major surface water types (streams,
rivers, lakes. wetlands, estuaries, or marine
Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and publish waters).
water quality criteria and information on methods
for measuring water quality and establishing water Biological criteria support designated aquatic life
quality criteria for toxic pollutants on bases other use classifications for application in State
than pollutant-by-pollutant, including biological standards (see chapter 2). Each State develops its
monitoring and assessment methods that assess: own designated use classification system based on
the generic uses cited in the Act (e.g .. protection
• the effects of pollutants on aquatic and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife).
community components (". . . plankton, Designated uses are intentionally general.
fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life ... ") and However. States may develop subcategories
community attributes (". . . biological within use designations to refine and clarify the
community diversity, productivity, and use class. Clarification of the use class is
stability ... ") in any body of water; and particularly helpful when a variety of surface
waters with distinct characteristics fit within the
• factors necessary " . . . to restore and same use class. or do not fit well into any
maintain the chemical, physical, and category.
biological integrity of all navigable waters .
. . " for II •••the protection of shellfish, For example, subcategories of aquatic life uses
fish, and wildlife for classes and categories may be on the basis of attainable habitat (e.g.,
of receiving waters .... II coldwater versus warmwater stream systems as
represented by distinctive trout or bass fish
Once biocriteria are formally adopted into State communities, respectively). Special uses may
standards, biocriteria and aquatic life use also be designated to protect particularly unique,
designations serve as direct, legal endpoints for sensitive, or valuable aquatic species,
determining aquatic life use attainmentfnon- communities, or habitats.
attainment. CWA section 30.3(c)(2)(B) provides
that when numeric criteria are not available, Resident biota integrate multiple impacts over
States shall adopt criteria for toxics based on time and can detect impairment from known and
biological monitoring or assessment methods; unknown causes. Biological criteria can be used
biocriteria can be used to meet this requirement. to verify improvement in water quality in
response to regulatory and other improvement
Development and Implementation of efforts and to detect new or continuing
Biocriteria degradation of waters. Biological criteria also
provide a framework for developing improved
Biocriteria are numerical values or narrative best management practices and management
expressions that describe the expected reference measures for nonpoint source impacts. Numeric
biological integrity of aquatic communities biological criteria can provide effective
inhabiting waters of a designated aquatic life use. monitoring criteria for more definitive evaluation
In the most desirable scenario, these would be of the health of an aquatic ecosystem.
waters that are either in pristine condition or
minimally impaired. However, in some areas The assessment of the biological integrity of a
these conditions no longer exist and may not be water body should include measures of the
attainable. In these situations, the reference structure and function of the aquatic community
biological communities represent the best within a specified habitat. Expert knowledge of
attainable conditions. In either case, the reference the system is required for the selection of
(8/15/94) 3-27
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
appropriate biological components and that study the effects of pollution, including
measurement indices. The development and sedimentation, in estuaries on aquatic life;
implementation of biological criteria requires:
• section 304(a)( I) directs the Administrator to
• selection of surface waters to use in develop and publish criteria for water
developing reference conditions for each quality, including information on the factors
designated use; affecting rates of organic and inorganic
sedimentation for varying types of receiving
• measurement of the structure and function of waters;
aquatic communities in reference surface
waters to establish biological criteria; • section 304(a)(2) directs the Administrator to
develop and publish information on, among
• measurement of the physical habitat and other issues, "the factors necessary for the
other environmental characteristics of the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish,
water resource; and and wildlife for classes and categories of
receiving waters. . . . "
• establishment of a protocol to compare the
biological criteria to biota in comparable test To the extent that sediment criteria could be
waters to determine whether impairment has developed that address the concerns of the section
occurred. 404(b) ( 1) Guidelines for discharges of dredged or
fill material under the CWA or the Marine
These elements serve as an interactive network Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, they
that is particularly important during early could also be incorporated into those regulations.
development of biological criteria where rapid
accumulation of information is effective for EPA's current sediment criteria development
refining both designated uses and developing effort, as described below, focuses on criteria for
biological criteria values and the supporting the protection of aquatic life. EPA anticipates
biological monitoring and assessment techniques. potential future expansion of this effort to include
sediment criteria for the protection of human
3.5.4 Sediment Criteria health.
While ambient water quality criteria are playing Chemical Approach to Sediment Criteria
an important role in assuring a healthy aquatic Development
environment, they alone have not been sufficient
to ensure appropriate levels of environmental Over the past several years, sediment criteria
protection. Sediment contamination, which can development activities have centered on evaluating
involve deposition of toxicants over long periods and developing the Equilibrium Partitioning
of time, is responsible for water quality impacts Approach for generating sediment criteria. The
In some areas. Equilibrium Partitioning Approach focuses on
predicting the chemical interaction between
EPA has authority to pursue the development of sediments and contaminants. Developing an
sediment criteria in streams, lakes and other understanding of the principal factors that
waters of the United States under sections 104 and influence the sediment/contaminant interactions
304(a)( I) and (2) of the CWA as follows: will allow predictions to be made regarding the
level of contaminant concentration that benthic
• section 104(n)(l) authorizes the and other organisms may be exposed to. Chronic
Administrator to establish national programs water quality criteria, or possibly other
toxicological endpoints, can then be used to
3-28 (8115/94)
Chapter 3 . Waur Quality Criteria
(8/15/94 ) 3-29
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
• Establish permit limits for point sources to Science Advisory Board Review
ensure that uncontaminated sediments remain
uncontaminated or sediments already The Science Advisory Board has completed a
contaminated have an opportunity to cleanse second review of the EqP approach to deriving
themselves. Of course. this would occur sediment quality criteria for non-ionic
only after criteria and the means to tie point contaminants. The November 1992 report
sources to sediment contamination are (USEPA, 1992c) endorses the EqP approach to
developed. deriving criteria as ". . . sufficiently valid to be
used in the regulatory process if the uncertainty
• Establish target levels for nonpoint sources associated with the method is considered.
of sediment contamination. described, and incorporated," and that "EPA
should . . . establish criteria on the basis of
• For remediation activities, SQC would be present knowledge within the bounds of
valuable in identifying: uncertainty. . .. "
- need for remediation. The Science Advisory Board also identified the
need for ". . . a better understanding of the
- spatial extent of remediation area, uncertainty around the assumptions inherent in the
approach. including assumptions of equilibrium,
- benefits derived from remediation bioavailability, and kinetics, all critical to the
activities, application of the EqP. "
3-30 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Wtllt'r QU<lIi1.\' Crueria
(8/15/94) 3-31
Water Quality Standards Handbook· Second Edition
3-32 (8!15/94)
Chapter 3 - WaJer Quality Criteria
these materials produce waste byproduct). Also, Extension of the EPA national 304(a) numeric
5 of the 21 are among the top 25 pollutants aquatic life criteria to wetlands is recommended
identified at Superfund sites in 1985 (3 metals, 2 as part of a program to develop standards and
organics). criteria for wetlands. Appendices D and E
provide an overview of the need for standards and
Following this initial effort, EPA held a national criteria for wetlands. The 304(a) numeric aquatic
meeting in April 19921 to constructively discuss life criteria are designed to be protective of
and evaluate proposed methodologies for deriving aquatic life for surface waters and are generally
wildlife criteria to build consensus among the applicable to most wetland types. Appendix E
scientific community as to the most defensible provides a possible approach, based on the site-
scientifically approach(es) to be pursued by EPA specific guidelines, for detecting wetland types
in developing useful and effective wildlife criteria. that might not be protected by direct application
of national 304(a) criteria. The evaluation can be
The conclusions of this national meeting were as simple and inexpensive for those wetland types
follows: for which sufficient water chemistry and species
assemblage data are available, but will be less
• wildlife criteria should have a tissue-residue useful for wetland types for which these data are
component when appropriate; not readily available. In Appendix E, the site-
specific approach is described and recommended
• peer-review of wildlife criteria and data sets for wetlands for which modification of the 304(a)
should be used in their derivation; numeric criteria are considered necessary. The
results of this type of evaluation, combined with
• wildlife criteria should incorporate methods information on local or regional environmental
to establish site-specific wildlife criteria; threats, can be used to prioritize wetland types
(and individual criteria) for further site-specific
• additional amphibian and reptile toxicity data evaluations and/or additional data collection.
are needed; Close coordination among regulatory agencies,
wetland scientists, and criteria experts will be
• further development of inter-species required.
toxicological sensitivity factors are needed;
and
(8/15/94) 3-33
Waler Quahty Standards Handbook - Second Edition
[3 Policy on Aquatic Life Criteria for additional technical details. They arc: Guidance
Document on Expression III' Ail/Wile Life Criteria
Metals as Dissolved Criteria (Attachment 112). Guidance
Document on Dvnamic Modrlins; ani} Translators
It is the policy of the Office of Water that the use (Attachment #3), and Guidancr Document on
of dissolved metal to set and measure compliance Monitoring (Attachment #4). These will be
with water quality standards is the recommended supplemented as additional Information becomes
approach, because dissolved metal more closely available.
approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in
the water column than does total recoverable Since metals toxicity is significantly affected by
metal. This conclusion regarding metals site-specific factors, it presents a number of
bioavailability is supported by a majority of the programmatic challenges. Factors that must be
scientific community within and outside EPA. considered in the management of metals in the
One reason is that a primary mechanism for water aquatic environment include: toxicity specific to
column toxicity is adsorption at the gill surface effluent chemistry; toxicity specific to ambient
which requires metals to be in the dissolved form. water chemistry; different patterns of toxicity for
different metals; evolution of the state of the
Until the scientific uncertainties are better science of metals toxicity. fate. and transport;
resolved. a range of different risk management resource limitations for monitoring. analysis,
decisions can be justified by a State. EPA implementation. and research functions: concerns
recommends that State water quality standards be regarding some of the analytical data currently on
based on dissolved metal--a conversion factor record due to possible sampling and analytical
must be used in order to express the EPA criteria contamination; and lack of standardized protocols
articulated as total recoverable as dissolved. (See for clean and ultraclean metals analysis. The
the paragraph below for technical details on States have the key role in the risk management
developing dissolved criteria.) EPA will also process of balancing these factors in the
approve a State risk management decision to adopt management of water programs. The site-specific
standards based on total recoverable metal. if nature of this issue could he perceived as
those standards are otherwise approvable as a requiring a perrnit-hy-permit approach to
matter of law. (Office of Warer Policy and implementation. However, EPA believes that this
Technical Guidance on Interpretation and guidance can he effectively implemented un a
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria broader level, across any waters with roughly the
USEPA. 1993f) same physical and chemical characteristics, and
recommends that States work with thc EPA with
3.6.1 Background that perspective in mind.
The implementation of metals criteria is complex 3.6.2 Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria
due to the site-specific nature of metals toxicity.
This issue covers a number of areas including the Dissolved vs. Total Recoverable Metal
expression of aquatic life criteria; total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs). permits, effluent A major issue is whether, and how, to use
monitoring, and compliance; and ambient dissolved metal concentrations ("dissolved metal")
monitoring. The following Sections, based on the or total recoverable metal concentrations ("total
policy memorandum referenced above. provide recoverable metal") III setting State water quality
additional guidance in each of these areas. standards. In the past, Statcs have used both
Included in this Handbook as Appendix J are approaches when applying the same EPA Section
three guidance documents issued along with the 304(a) criteria guidance. Some older criteria
Office of Water policy memorandum with documents Illay have facilitated these different
3-34 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Wa/~r Quality Criteria
approaches to interpretation of the criteria because ambient water quality criteria are neither designed
the documents were somewhat equivocal with nor intended to protect sediments, or to prevent
regards to analytical methods. The May 1992 effects in the food webs containing sediment
interim guidance continued the policy that either dwelling organisms. A risk manager, however,
approach was acceptable. may consider sediments and food chain effects
and may decide to take a conservative approach
The position that the dissolved metals approach is for metals, considering that metals are very
more accurate has been questioned because it persistent chemicals. This conservative approach
neglects the possible toxicity of particulate metal. could include the use of total recoverable metal in
It is true that some studies have indicated that water quality standards. However, since
particulate metals appear to contribute to the consideration of sediment impacts is not
toxicity of metals, perhaps because of factors such incorporated into the criteria methodology, the
as desorption of metals at the gill surface, but degree of conservatism inherent in the total
these same studies indicate the toxicity of recoverable approach is unknown. The
particulate metal is substantially less than that of uncertainty of metal impacts in sediments stem
dissolved metal. from the lack of sediment criteria and an
imprecise understanding of the fate and transport
Furthermore, any error incurred from of metals. EPA will continue to pursue research
excl uding the contribution of particulate metal will and other activities to close these knowledge gaps.
generally be compensated by other factors which
make criteria conservative. For example, metals Dissolved Criteria
in toxicity tests are added as simple salts to
relatively clean water. Due to the likely presence In the toxicity tests used to develop EPA metals
of a significant concentration of metals binding criteria for aquatic life, some fraction of the metal
agents in many discharges and ambient waters, is dissolved while some fraction is bound to
metals in toxicity tests would generally be particulate matter. The present criteria were
expected to be more bioavailable than metals in developed using total recoverable metal
discharges or in ambient waters. measurements or measures expected to give
equivalent results in toxicity tests, and are
If total recoverable metal is used for the articulated as total recoverable. Therefore, in
purpose of specifying water quality standards, the order to express the EPA criteria as dissolved, a
lower bioavailability of particulate metal and total recoverable to dissolved conversion factor
lower bioavailability of sorbed metals as they are must be used. Attachment #2 in Appendix J
discharged may result in an overly conservative provides guidance for calculating EPA dissolved
water quality standard. The use of dissolved criteria from the published total recoverable
metal in water quality standards gives a more criteria. The data expressed as percentage metal
accurate result in the water column. However, dissolved are presented as recommended values
total recoverable measurements in ambient water and ranges. However, the choice within ranges is
have value, in that exceedences of criteria on a a State risk management decision. EPA has
total recoverable basis are an indication that metal recently supplemented the data for copper and is
loadings could be a stress to the ecosystem, proceeding to further supplement the data for
particularly in locations other than the water copper and other metals. As testing is completed,
column (e.g., in the sediments). EPA will make this information available and this
is expected to reduce the magnitude of the ranges
The reasons for the potential consideration of total for some of the conversion factors provided.
recoverable measurements include risk EPA also strongly encourages the application of
management considerations not covered by dissolved criteria across a watershed or
evaluation of water column toxicity alone. The
(8/15/94) 3-35
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
waterbody, as technically sound and the best use 3.6.3 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
of resources. and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
Sue-Specific Criteria ModificatWns
Dynamic Water Qualily Modeling
While the above methods will correct some site-
specific factors affecting metals toxicity, further Although not specifically part of the reassessment
refinements are possible. EPA has issued of water quality criteria for metals, dynamic or
guidance for three site-specific criteria probabilistic models are another useful tool for
development methodologies: recalculation implementing water quality criteria, especially for
procedure, water-effect ratio (WER) procedure those criteria protecting aquatic life. These
(called the indicator species procedure in previous models provide another way to incorporate site-
guidance) and resident species procedure. (See specific data. The Technical Support Document
Section 3.7 of this Chapter.) for Waler Quality-based Toxics Control (TSO)
(USEPA, 1991a) describes dynamic, as well as
In the National Toxics Rule (57 FR 60848, static (steady-state) models. Dynamic models
December 22, 1992), EPA recommended the make the best use of the specified magnitude,
WER as an optional method for site-specific duration, and frequency of water quality criteria
criteria development for certain metals. EPA and, therefore, provide a more accurate
committed in the NTR preamble to provide representation of the probability that a water
additional guidance on determining the WERs. quality standard exceedence will occur. In
The In/aim Guidance on (he Determination and contrast, steady-state models frequently apply a
Use of water-Effect Ratios for Metals was issued number of simplifying, worst case assumptions
by EPA on February 22, 1994 and is intended to which makes them less complex but also less
fulfill that commitment. This interim guidance accurate than dynamic models.
supersedes all guidance concerning water-effect
ratios and the recalculation procedure previously Dynamic models have received increased attention
issued by EPA. This guidance is included as over the last few years as a result of the
Appendix L to this Handbook. widespread belief that steady-state modeling is
over-conservative due to environmentally
In order to meet current needs, but allow for conservative dilution assumptions. This belief has
changes suggested by protocol users, EPA issued led to the misconception that dynamic models will
the guidance as "interim." EPA will accept always lead to less stringent regulatory controls
WERs developed using this guidance, as well as (e.g., NPDES effluent limits) than steady-state
by using other scientifically defensible protocols. models, which is nut true in every application of
dynamic models. EPA considers dynamic models
to be a more accurate approach to implementing
water quality criteria and continues to recommend
their use. Dynamic modeling does require a
commitment of resources to develop appropriate
data. (See Appendix J, Attachment #3 and the
USEPA, 1991a fur details on the use of dynamic
models. )
need to be able to translate from dissolved metal below I ppb, may be compromised due to
to total recoverable metal for TMDLs and contamination of samples during collection.
NPDES permits. TMDLs for metals must be able preparation, storage, and analysis. Depending on
to calculate: (I) dissolved metal in order to the level of metal present, the use of "clean" and
ascertain attainment of water quality standards, "ultraclean" techniques for sampling and analysis
and (2) total recoverable metal in order to achieve may be critical to accurate data for
mass balance necessary for permitting purposes. implementation of aquatic life criteria for metals.
EPA's NPDES regulations require that limits of The significance of the sampling and analysis
metals in permits be stated as total recoverable in contamination problem increases as the ambient
most cases (see 40 CFR §122.45(c» except when and effluent metal concentration decreases and,
an effluent guideline specifies the limitation in therefore, problems are more likely in ambient
another form of the metal, the approved analytical measurements. "Clean" techniques refer to those
methods measure only dissolved metal, or the requirements (or practices for sample collection
permit writer expresses a metals limit in another and handling) necessary to produce reliable
form (e.g., dissolved, valent specific, or total) analytical data in the part per billion (ppb) range.
when required to carry out provisions of the "Ultraclean" techniques refer to those
Clean Water Act. This is because the chemical requirements or practices necessary to produce
conditions in ambient waters frequently differ reliable analytical data in the part per trillion (ppt)
substantially from those in the effluent, and there range. Because typical concentrations of metals
is no assurance that effluent particulate metal in surface waters and effluents vary from one
would not dissolve after discharge. The NPDES metal to another, the effect of contamination on
rule does not require that State water quality the quality of metals monitoring data varies
standards be expressed as total recoverable; appreciably.
rather, the rule requires permit writers to translate
between different metal forms in the calculation of EPA plans to develop protocols on the use of
the permit limit so that a total recoverable limit clean and ultra-clean techniques and is
can be established. Both the TMDL and NPDES coordinating with the United States Geological
uses of water quality criteria require the ability to Survey (USGS) on this project. because USGS has
translate between dissolved metal and total been doing work on these techniques for some
recoverable metal. Appendix J, Attachment #3 time, especially the sampling procedures. Draft
provides guidance on this translation. protocols for clean techniques were presented at
the Norfolk, VA analytical methods conference in
3.6.4 Guidance on Monitoring the Spring of 1994 and final protocols are
expected to be available in early 1995. The
Use of Clean Sampling and Analytical development of comparable protocols for ultra-
Techniques clean techniques is underway and are expected to
be available in late 1995. In developing these
In assessing waterbodies to determine the potential protocols, we will consider the costs of these
for toxicity problems due to metals, the quality of techniques and will give guidance as to the
the data used is an important issue. Metals data situations where their use is necessary. Appendix
are used to determine attainment status for water L. pp. 98-108 provide some general guidance on
quality standards, discern trends in water quality, the use of clean analytical techniques. We
estimate background loads for TMDLs, calibrate recommend that this guidance he used bv States
fate and transport models, estimate effluent and Regions as an interim step. while the clean
concentrations (including effluent variability), and ultra-clean protocols are being dcx doped.
assess permit compliance, and conduct research.
The quality of trace level metal data, especially
(8/15/94) 3-37
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
3-38 (8/15/94)
Chapter 3 - Weller QUi/iity Crueria
(1) the species at the site are more or less 1983a) and expanded upon in the Guidelines for
sensitive than those included in the national Deriving Numerical Aquatic Sire-Specific WaIn
criteria data set (e. g., the national criteria Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria
data set contains data for trout, salmon, (USEPA, 1984f). Interest has increased in recent
penaeid shrimp, and other aquatic species years as states have devoted more attention to
that have been shown to be especially chemical-specific water quality criteria for aquatic
sensitive to some materials), or life. In addition, interest in water-effect ratios
increased when they were integrated into some of
(2) physical and/or chemical characteristics of the aquatic life criteria for metals that were
the site alter the biological availability promulgated for several states in the National
and/or toxicity of the chemical (e.g., Toxies Rule (57 ER 60848, December 22, 1992).
alkalinity, hardness, pH, suspended solids The Office of Warer Policy and Technical
and salinity influence the concentration(s) of Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
the toxic form(s) of some heavy metals, Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals (USEPA, 19930
ammonia and other chemicals). (see Section 3.6 of this Handbook) provided
further guidance on site-specific criteria for metals
Therefore, it is appropriate that site-specific by recommending the use of dissolved metals for
procedures address each of these conditions setting and measuring compliance with water
separately as well as the combination of the two. quality standards.
In the early 1980' s, EPA recognized that
laboratory-derived water quality criteria might not The early guidance concerning WERs (USEPA,
accurately reflect site-specific conditions and, in 1983a; 1984f) contained few details and needed
response, created three procedures to derive site- revision, especially to take into account newer
specific criteria. This Handbook contains the guidance concerning metals. To meet this need.
details of these procedures, referenced below. EPA issued Interim Guidance on the
Determination and Use (~f Water-Effect Ratios for
1. The Recalculation Procedure is intended to Metals in 1994 (Appendix L). Metals are
take into account relevant differences specifically addressed in Appendix L because of
between the sensitivities of the aquatic the National Taxies Rule and because of current
organisms in the national dataset and the interest in aquatic life criteria for metals; although
sensitivities of organisms that occur at the most of this guidance also applies to other
site (see Appendix L, pp. 90-97). pollutants, some obviously applies only to metals.
Appendix L supersedes all guidance concerning
2. The Water-Effect Ratio Procedure (called the water-effect ratios and the Indicator Species
Indicator Species Procedure in USEPA, Procedure given in Chapter 4 of the Water
1983a; 1984f) provided for the use of a Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA, 1983a) and
water-effect ratio (WER) that is intended to in Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
take into account relevant differences Specific WaIn Quality Criteria by Modifying
between the toxicities of the chemical in National Criteria (USEPA, 1984f). Appendix L
laboratory dilution water and in site water (p. 90-98) also supersedes the guidance in these
(see Appendix L). earlier documents for the Recalculation Procedure
for performing site-specific criteria modifications.
3. The Resident Species Procedure intended to The Resident Species Procedure remains
take into account both kinds of differences essentially unchanged since 198J (except for
simultaneously (see Section 3.7.6). changes in the averaging periods to conform to
the 1985 aquatic life criteria guidelines (USEPA,
These procedures were first published in the 1983 1985b) and is presented in Section 3.7.6, below.
Water Qualitv Standards Handbook (USEPA,
(8/15/94) 3-39
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
The previous guidance concerning site-specific expect EPA to take additional time to closely
procedures did not allow the Recalculation scrutinize the results before granting any approval
Procedure and the WER procedure to be used to the formally adopted standards.
together in the derivation of a site-specific aquatic
life criterion; the only way to take into account The following sequence of decisions need to be
both species composition and water quality made before any of the procedures are initiated:
characteristics in the determination of a site-
specific criterion was to use the Resident Species • verify that site-specific criteria are actually
Procedure. A specific chan~e contained Appendix needed (e.g., that the use of clean sampling
L is that. except in jurisdictions that are subject to andlor analytical techniques, especially for
the National Toxics Rule. the Recalculation metals, do not result in attainment of
Procedure and the WER Procedure may now be standards. )
used to~ether provided that the recalculation
procedure is performed first. Both the • Define the site boundaries.
Recalculation Procedure and the WER Procedure
are based directly on the guidelines for deriving • Determine from the national criterion
national aquatic life criteria (USEPA 1985 ) and, document and other sources if physical
when the two are used together, use of the andlor chemical characteristics are known to
Recalculation Procedure must be performed first affect the biological availability and/or
because the Recalculation Procedure has specific toxicity of a material of interest.
implications concerning the determination of the
WER. • If data in the national criterion document
andlor from other sources indicate that the
3.7.2 Preparing to Calculate Site-Specific range of sensitivity of the selected resident
Crlteria species to the material of interest is different
from the range for the species in the national
Adopting site-specific criteria in water quality criterion document, and variation in physical
standards is a State option--not a requirement. and/or chemical characteristics of the site
Moreover, EPA is not advocating that States use water is not expected to be a factor, use the
site-specific criteria development procedures for Recalculation Procedure (Section 3.7.4).
setting all aquatic Ii fe cri teria as opposed to using
the National Section 304(a) criteria
recommendations. Site-specific criteria are not
needed in all situations. When a State considers
the possibility of developing site-specific criteria,
it is essential to involve the appropriate EPA
Regional office at the start of the project.
3-40 (8/15/94)
• If data in the national criterion document when a site-specific criterion is derived using the
and/or from other sources indicate that Recalculation Procedure, all species that "occur at
physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site" need to be taken into account when
the site water may affect the biological deciding what species, if any, are to be deleted
availability and/or toxicity of the material of from the dataset. Unique populations or less
interest, and the selected resident species sensitive uses within sites may justify a
range of sensitivity is similar to that for the designation as a distinct site.
species in the national criterion document,
use the Water-Effect Ratio Procedure If the species of a site are toxicologically
(Section 3.7.5). comparable to those in the national criteria data
set for a material of interest, and physical and/or
• If data in the national criterion document chemical water characteristics are the only factors
and/or from other sources indicated that supporting modification of the national criteria,
physical and/or chemical characteristics of then the site can be defined on the basis of
the site water may affect the biological expected changes in the material's biological
availability and/or toxicity of the material of availability and/or toxicity due to physical and
interest, and the selected resident species chemical variability of the site water. However,
range of sensitivity is different from that for when a site-specific criterion is derived using a
the species in the national criterion WER, the WER is to be adequately protective of
document, and if both these differences are the entire site. If, for example, a site-specific
to be taken into account, use the criterion is being derived for an estuary, WERs
Recalculation Procedure in conjunction with could be determined using samples of the surface
the Water-Effect Ratio Procedure or use the water obtained from various sampling stations,
Resident Species Procedure (Section 3.7.6). which, to avoid confusion, should not be called
"sites". If all the WERs were sufficiently similar,
3.7.3 Definition of a Site one site-specific criterion could be derived to
apply to the whole estuary. If the WERs were
Since the rationales for site-specific criteria are sufficiently different. either the lowest WER could
usually based on potential differences in species be used to derive a site-specific criterion for the
sensitivity, physical and chemical characteristics whole estuary, or the data might indicate that the
of the water, or a combination of the two, the estuary should be divided into two or more sites,
concept of site must be consistent with this each with its own criterion.
rationale.
3.7.4 The Recalculation Procedure
In the general context of site-specific criteria, a
"site" may be a state, region, watershed, The Recalculation Procedure is intended to cause
waterbody, or segment of a waterbody. The site- a site-specific criterion to appropriately differ
specific criterion is to be derived to provide from a national aquatic life criterion if justified by
adequate protection for the entire site, however demonstrated pertinent toxicological differences
the site is defined. between the aquatic species that occur at the site
and those that were used in the derivation of the
If water quality effects on toxicity are not a national criterion. There are at least three reasons
consideration, the site can be as large as a why such differences might exist between the two
generally consistent biogeographic zone permits. sets of species.
For example, large portions of the Chesapeake
Bay, Lake Michigan, or the Ohio River may be • First, the national dataset contains aquatic
considered as one site if their respective aquatic species that are sensitive to many pollutants,
communities do not vary substantially. However,
(8/15/94) 3-41
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Se..: onJ Edition
hut these and comparably sensitive species additions that have been approved by EPA are
might not occur at the site. required, whereas use of the deletion process is
optional. The deletion process may not be used
• Second. a species that is critical at the site to remove species from the criterion calculation
might be sensitive to the pollutant and that are not currently present at a site due to
require a lower criterion. (A critical species degraded conditions.
is a species that is commercially or
recreationally important at the site, a species The Recalculation Procedure is more likely to
that exists at the site and is listed as result in lowering a criterion if the net result of
threatened or endangered under section 4 of addition and deletion is to decrease the number of
the Endangered Species Act, or a species for genera in the dataset, whereas the procedure is
which there is evidence that the loss of the more likely to result in raising a criterion if the
species from the site is likely to cause an net result of addition and deletion is to increase
unacceptable impact on a commercially or the number of genera in the dataset.
recreationally important species, a threatened
or endangered species, the abundances of a For the lipid soluble chemicals whose national
variety of other species. or the structure or Final Residue Values are based on Food and Drug
function of the community.) Administration (FDA) action levels, adjustments
in those values based on the percent lipid content
• Third, the species that occur at the site of resident aquatic species is appropriate for the
might represent a narrower mix of species derivation of site-specific Final Residue Values.
than those in the national dataset due to a For lipid-soluble materials, the national Final
limited range of natural environmental Residue Value is based on an average II percent
conditions. lipid content for edible portions for the freshwater
chinook salmon and lake trout and an average of
The procedure presented in Appendix. L, pp. 90- 10 percent lipids for the edible portion for
98 is structured so that corrections and additions saltwater Atlantic herring. Resident species of
can be made to the national dataset without the concern may have higher (e.g .. Lake Superior
deletion process being used to take into account siscowet, a race of lake trout) or lower (e.g .•
taxa that do not occur at the site; in effect, this many sport fish) percent lipid content than used
procedure makes it possible to update the national for the national Final Residue Value.
aquatic life criterion. All corrections and
3-42 (8115/94)
Chapter 3 - Water Qualitv ('rift'ri!l
For some lipid-soluble materials such as quality-based permit limits, or (h) an instream
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and DDT, the concentration appears to exceed an existing or
national Final Residue Value is based on wildlife proposed water quality criterion.
consumers of fish and aquatic invertebrate species
rather than an FDA action level because the WERs obtained usin~ the methods described in
former provides a more stringent residue level. Appendix L should only be used to adjust aQuatic
See the National Guidelines (USEPA, 1985b) for life criteria that were derived usin~ laboratory
details. toxicity tests, WERs determined using the
methods described herein cannot he used to adjust
For the lipid-soluble materials whose national the residue-based mercury Criterion Continuous
Final Residue Values are based on wildlife Concentration (CCC) or the field-based selenium
effects, the limiting wildlife species (mink for freshwater criterion.
PCB and brown pelican for DDT) are considered
acceptable surrogates for resident avian and Except in jurisdictions that are subject to the
mammalian species (e.g., herons, gulls, terns, NTR, the WERs may also be used with site-
otter, etc.) Conservatism is appropriate for those specific aquatic life criteria that are derived using
two chemicals, and no less restrictive modification the Recalculation Procedure described in
of the national Final Residue Value is appropriate. Appendix L (p.90).
The site-specific Final Residue Value would be
the same as the national value. WaJer-E/fect Ratios in the Derivation of
Site-Specific Criteria
3.7.5 The Water-Effect Ratio (WER)
Procedure A central question concerning WERs is whether
their use by a State results in a site-specific
The guidance on the Water-Effect Ratio Procedure criterion subject to EPA review and approval
presented in Appendix L is intended to produce under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act:
WERs that may be used to derive site-specific
aquatic life criteria from most national and state Derivation of a water-effect ratio by a State is a
aquatic life criteria that were derived from site-specific criterion adjustment subject to EPA
laboratory toxicity data. review and approval/disapproval under Section
303(c). There are two options by which this
As indicated in Appendix L, the review can be accomplished.
determination of a water-effect ratio may require
substantial resources. A discharger should Option 1:
consider cost-effective, preliminary measures
described in this Appendix L (e.g., use of "clean" A State may derive and submit each individual
sampling and chemical analytical techniques water-effect ratio determi nation to EP A for review
especially for metals, or in non-NTR States, a and approval. This would be accomplished
recalculated criterion) to determine if an indicator through the normal review and revision process
species site-specific criterion is really needed. In used by a State.
many instances, use of these other measures may
eliminate the need for deriving water-effect ratios. Option 2:
The methods described in the 1994 interim
guidance (Appendix L) should be sufficient to A State can amend its water quality standards 10
develop site-specific criteria that resolve concerns provide a formal procedure which includes
of dischargers when there appears to be no derivation of water-effect ratios, appropriate
instream toxicity but, where (a) a discharge definition of sites, and enforceable monitoring
appears to exceed existing or proposed water provisions to assure that designated uses are
(8/15/94) 3-43
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
protected. Both this procedure and the resulting is then used to develop appropriate NPDES permit
criteria would be subject to full public limits. The rule thus provides a State with the
participation requirements. EPA would review flexibility to derive an appropriate site-specific
and approve/disapprove this protocol as a revised criterion for specific waterbodies.
standard as part of the State's triennial
review/revision. After adoption of the procedure, As a point of emphasis, although a water-effect
public review of a site-specific criterion could be ratio affects permit limits for individual
accomplished in conjunction with the public dischargers, it is the State in all cases that
review required for permit issuance. For public determines if derivation of a site-specific criterion
information, EPA recommends that once a year based on the water-effect ratio is allowed and it is
the State publish a list of site-specific criteria. the State that ensures that the calculations and
data analysis are done completely and correctly.
An exception to this policy applies to the waters
of the jurisdictions included in the National 3.7.6 The Resident Species Procedure
Toxics Rule. The EPA review is not required for
the jurisdictions included in the National Toxics The resident Species Procedure for the derivation
Rule where EPA established the procedure for the ofa site-specific criterion accounts for differences
State for application to the criteria promulgated. in resident species sensitivity aM differences in
The National Toxics Rule was a formal biological availability and/or toxicity of a material
rulemaking process (with notice and comment) in due to variability in physical and chemical
which EPA pre-authorized the use of a correctly characteristics of a site water. Derivation of the
applied water-effect ratio. That same process has site-specific criterion maximum concentration
not yet taken place in States not included in the (CMC) and site-specific criterion continuous
National Toxics Rule. concentration (CCC) are accomplished after the
complete acute toxicity minimum data set
However. the National Toxics Rule does not requirements have been met by conducting tests
affect State authority to establish scientifically with resident species in site water. Chronic tests
defensible procedures to determine Federally may also be necessary. This procedure is
authorized WERs, to certify those WERs in designed to compensate concurrently for any real
NPDES permit proceedings, or to deny their differences between the sensitivity range of
application based on the State's risk management species represented in the national data set and for
analysis. site water which may markedly affect the
biological availability and/or toxicity of the
As described in Section 1J 1.36(b)(iii) of the water material of interest.
quality standards regulation (the official regulatory
reference to the National Toxics Rule), the water- Certain families of organisms have been specified
effect ratio is a site-specific calculation. As in the National Guidelines acute toxicity minimum
indicated on page 60866 of the preamble to the data set (e.g .. Salmonidae in fresh water and
National Toxics Rule, the rule was constructed as Penaeidae or Mysidae in salt water); if this or any
a rebuttable presumption. The water-effect ratio is other requirement cannot be met because the
assigned a value of 1.0 until a different water- family or other group (e.g.. insect or benthic
effect ratio is derived from suitable tests crustacean) in fresh water is not represented by
represcntati ve of condi tions in the affected resident species. select a substituters) from a
waterbody. It is the responsihility of the State to sensitive family represented by one or more
determine whether to rebut the assumed value of resident species and meet the 8 family minimum
1.0 in the National Toxics Rule and apply another data set requirement. If all the families at the site
value of the water-effect ratio in order to establish have been tested and the minimum data set
a site-specific criterion. The site-specific criterion requirements have not been met, use the most
3-44
Chapter 3 - Wata Quality Criteria
Endnotes
I. Proceedings in production.
(8/15/'14) 3-45
Chapter .j - Antidegradation
CHAYfER 4
ANTIDEGRADATION
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 4
ANTIDEGRADATION
(9/15/93) 4-1
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
4-2 (9/15/93)
Chapter " - Antidegradation
(9/15/93) 4-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
uses in that water body, such an activity is • If the State designated use classification
inconsistent with EPA's antidegradation policy, system is very specific in describing
which requires that existing uses are to be subcategories of a use, then such
maintained. In such a circumstance, the specifically defined uses, if they exist, must
planned activity must be avoided or adequate be protected fully under antidegradation.
mitigation or preventive measures must be A State with a broadly written use
taken to ensure that the existing uses and the classification system may, as a matter of
water quality to protect them will be policy, interpret its classifications more
maintained. specifically for detennining existing
uses-as long as it is done consistently. A
Section 4.4.1, this Handbook, discusses the State may also redefine its use
determination and protection of recreational classification system, subject to the
"existing" uses, and section 4.4.2, this constraints in 40 CFR 131.10, to more
Handbook, discusses aquatic life protection adequately reflect existing uses.
"existing" uses (of course, many other types of
existing uses may occur in a water body). • If the use classification system in a State is
defined in broad terms such as primary
4.4.1 Recreational Uses contact recreation, secondary contact
recreation, or boating, then it is a State
Recreational uses traditionally are divided into determination whether to allow changes in
primary contact and secondary contact the type of primary or secondary contact
recreation (e.g .. swimming vs. boating; that is, recreation or boating activity that would
recreation "in" or "on" the water.) However, occur on a specific water body as long as
these two broad uses can logically be the basic use classification is met. For
subdivided into a variety of subcategories (e.g., example, if a State defines a use simply as
wading, sailing, power boating, rafting). TIle "boating, " it is the State's decision whether
water quality standards regulation does not to allow something to occur that would
establish a level of specificity that each State change the type of boating from canoeing
must apply in determining what recreational to power boating as long as the resulting
"uses" exist. However, the following principles water quality allows the "boating" use to be
apply. met. (The public record used originally to
establish the use may provide a clearer
• The State selects the level of specificity it indication of the use intended to be
desires for identifying recreational existing attained and protected by the State.)
uses (that is, whether to treat secondary
contact recreation as a single use or to The rationale is that the required water quality
define subcategories of secondary win allow a boating use to continue and that
recreation). The State has two limitations: use meets the goal of the Act. Water quality is
the key. This interpretation may allow a State
the State must be at least as specific to change activities within a specific use
as the uses listed in sections 101(a) category but it does not create a mechanism to
and 303(c) of the Clean Water Act; remove use classifications; this latter action is
and governed solely by the provisions of the
standards regulation (CW A section 131.1O(g)).
the State must be at least as specific
as the written description of the One situation where EPA might conceivably be
designated use classifications adopted called upon to decide what constitutes an
by the State. 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 131. 12(a)( I) states, "Existing instream
section 301 (b)(l )(C) to determine what is water uses and level of water quality necessary
needed to protect existing uses under the to protect the existing uses shall be maintained
State's antidegradation requirement, and and protected." For example, while sustaining a
accordingly may define "existing uses" or small coldwater fish population, a stream does
interpret the State's definition to write that not support an existing use of a "coldwater
permit if the State has not done so. Of course, fishery. "The existing stream temperatures arc
EPA's determination would be subject to State unsuitable for a thriving coldwater fishery. The
section 401 certification in such a case. small marginal population is an artifact and
should not be employed to mandate a more
4.4.2 Aquatic Life/Wildlife Uses stringent use (true coldwater fishery) where
natural conditions are not suitable for that use.
No activity is allowable under the
antidegradation policy which would partially or A use attainability analysis or other scientific
completely eliminate any existing use whether assessment should be used to determine
or not that use is designated in a State's water whether the aquatic life population is in fact an
quality standards. The aquatic protection use is artifact or is a stable population requiring water
a broad category requiring further explanation. quality protection. Where species appear in
Non-aberrational resident species must be areas not normally expected, some adaptation
protected, even if not prevalent in number or may have occurred and site-specific criteria may
importance. Water quality should be such that be appropriately developed. Should the
it results in no mortality and no significant coldwater fish population consist of a
growth or reproductive impainnent of resident threatened or endangered species, it may
species. Any lowering of water quality below require protection under the Endangered
this full level of protection is not allowed. Species Act. Otherwise, the stream need only
be protected as a wannwater fishery.
A State may develop subcategories of aquatic
protection uses but cannot choose different 4.4.3 Existing Uses and Physical
levels of protection for like uses. The fact that Modificatlons
sport or commercial fish are not present does
not mean that the water may not be supporting A literal interpretation of 40 CFR 131.12(a)( I)
an aquatic life protection function. An existing could prevent certain physical modifications to
aquatic community composed entirely of a water body that are clearly allowed by the
invertebrates and plants, such as may be found Clean Water Act, such as wetland fill
in a pristine alpine tributary stream, should still operations permitted under section 404 of the
be protected whether or not such a stream Clean Water Act. EPA interprets section
supports a fishery. 131.12(a)(I) of the antidegradation policy to be
satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if the
Even though the shorthand expression discharge did not result in "significant
"fishable/swimmable" is often used, the actual degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem as
objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain defined under section 230.IO(c) of the section
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 404(b)(I) Guidelines.
of our Nation's waters" (section 101(a)). The
term "aquatic life" would more accurately The section 404(b) (I ) Guidelines state that the
reflect the protection of the aquatic community following effects contribute to significant
that was intended in section 10 1(a)(2) of the degradation, either individually or collectively:
Act.
(9/15/93) 4-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
... significant adverse effects on (I) no significant degradation level as long as the
human health or welfare, including requirements of section 131.12(a)(2) were
effects on municipal water supplies, followed. As for the ONRW provision of
plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and antidegradation (131.12(a)(3», there is no
special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands); difference in the way it applies to wetlands and
(2) on the life stages of aquatic life other water bodies.
and other wildlife dependent on
aquatic ecosystems, including the 4.4.4 Existing Uses and Mixing Zones
transfer, concentration, or spread of
pollutants or their byproducts beyond Mixing zones are another instance when the
the site through biological. physical, entire extent of the water body is not required
or chemical process; (3) on ecosystem to be given full existing use protection. The
diversity. productivity. and stability, area within a properly designated mixing zone
including loss of fish and wildlife (see section 5.1) may have altered benthic
habitat or loss of the capacity of a habitat and a subsequent alteration of the
wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify portions of the aquatic community. Any effect
water, or reduce wave energy; or (4) on the existing use must be limited to the area
on recreational, aesthetic, and of the regulatory mixing zone.
economic values.
Protection of Water Quality in Higb-
These Guidelines may be used by States to Quality Waters- 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)
determine "significant degradation" for wetland
fills. Of course, the States are free to adopt This section provides general program guidance
stricter requirements for wetland fills in their in the development of procedures for the
own antidegradation polices, just as they may maintenance and protection of water quality
adopt any other requirement more stringent where the quality of the water exceeds levels
than Federal law requires. For additional necessary to support propagation of fish,
information on the linkage between water shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on
quality standards and the section 404 program, the water. Water quality in "high-quality
see Appendix D. waters" must be maintained and protected as
prescribed in section 131.12(a)(2) of the WQS
If any wetlands were found to have better water regulation.
quality than "fishable/swimmable," the State
would he allowed to lower water quality to the
4-6 (9/15/93)
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
High-quality waters are those whose quality quality waters down to "fishable/swimmable"
exceeds that necessary to protect the section levels will not be used to undercut the Clean
101 (a)(2) goals of the Act, regardless of use Water Act requirements for point source and
designation. All parameters do IlQt need to be nonpoint source pollution control;
better quality than the State's ambient criteria for furthermore, by ensuring compliance with
the water to be deemed a "high-quality water." such statutory and regulatory controls, there
EPA believes that it is best to apply is less chance that a lowering of water
antidegradation on a parameter-by-parameter quality will be sought to accommodate new
basis. Otherwise, there is potential for a large economic and social development).
number of waters not to receive antidegradation
protection, which is important to attaining the In addition, water quality may not be lowered to
goals of the Clean Water Act to restore and less than the level necessary to fully protect the
maintain the integrity of the Nation's waters. "fishable/swimmable" uses and other existing
However, if a State has an official interpretation uses. This provision is intended to provide relief
that differs from this interpretation, EPA will only in a few extraordinary circumstances where
evaluate the State interpretation for conformance the economic and social need for the activity
with the statutory and regulatory intent of the clearly outweighs the benefit of maintaining water
antidegradation policy. EPA has accepted quality above that required for
approaches that do not use a strict pollutant-by- "fishable/swimmable" water, and both cannot be
pollutant basis (USEPA, 1989c). achieved. The burden of demonstration on the
individual proposing such activity will be very
In "high-quality waters," under 131. 12(a)(2), high. In any case. moreover, the existing use
before any lowering of water quality occurs, there must be maintained and the activity shall nat
must be an antidegradation review consisting of: preclude the maintenance of a
"fishable/swimmable" level of water quality
• a finding that it is necessary to accommodate protection.
important economical or social development
in the area in which the waters are located The antidegradation review requirements of this
(this phrase is intended to convey a general provision of the antidegradation policy are
concept regarding what level of social and triggered by any action that would result in the
economic development could be used to lowering of water quality in a high-quality water.
justify a change in high-quality waters); Such activities as new discharges or expansion of
existing facilities would presumably lower water
• full satisfaction of all intergovernmental quality and would not be permissible unless the
coordination and public participation State conducts a review consistent with the
provisions (the intent here is to ensure that previous paragraph. In addition, no permit may
no activity that will cause water quality to be issued, without an antidegradation review. to
decline in existing high-quality waters is a discharger to high-quality waters with effluent
undertaken without adequate public review limits greater than actual current loadings if such
and intergovernmental coordination); and loadings will cause a lowering of water quality
(USEPA, 1989c).
• assurance that the highest statutory and
regulatory requirements for point sources, Antidegradation is not a "no growth" rule and was
including new source performance standards, never designed or intended to be such. It is a
and best management practices for nonpoint policy that allows public decisions to be made on
source pollutant controls are achieved (this important environmental actions. Where the State
requirement. ensures that the limited intends to provide for development. It may decide
provision for lowering water quality of high- under this section, after satisfying the
(8/15/94 ) 4-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Secoed Edition
(8/15/94)
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
problems. The State should consider how these of the States's water quality, (4) developing a
provisions will be implemented in conjunction water quality management plan which lists the
with the water quality standards program. standards, and prescribes the regulatory and
construction activities necessary to meet the
Applicability of Water Quality standards, (5) calculating rota I maximum daily
Standard'! to Nonpoint Sources loads and wasteload allocations for point source"
Versus Enforceability of Control'! of pollution and load allocations for nonpoint
sources of pollution in the implementation of
The requirement in Section 131. 21(a)(2) to standards.to) implementing the section 319
implement existing nonpoint source controls management plan which outlines the State's
before allowing degradation of a high quality control strategy for nonpoint sources of pollution,
water, is a subset of the broader issue of the and (7) developing permits under Section 402.
applicability of water quality standards versus the
enforceability 2f controls designed to implement Water quality standards describe the desired
standards. A discussion of the broader issue is condition of the aquatic environment, and, as
included here with the intent of further clarifying such, reflect any activity that affects water
the nonpoint source antidegradation question. In quality. Water quality standards have broad
the following discussion, the central message is application and use in evaluating potential impacts
that water quality standards apply broadly and it of water quality from a broad range of causes and
is inappropriate to exempt whole classes of sources and are not limited to evaluation of effects
activities from standards and thereby invalidate caused by the discharge of pollutants from point
that broader, intended purpose of adopted State sources. In this regard, States should have in
water quality standards. place methods by which the State can determine
whether or not their standards have been achieved
Water quality standards serve the dual function of (including uses, criteria, and implementation of an
establishing water quality goals for a specific antidegradation policy). Evaluating attainment of
waterbody and providing the basis for regulatory standards is basic to successful application of a
controls. Water quality standards apply to both State's water quality standards program. In the
point and nonpoint sources. There is a direct broad application of standards, these evaluations
Federal implementation mechanism to regulate are not limited to those activities which are
point sources of pollution but no parallel Federal directly controlled through a mandatory process.
regulatory process for nonpoint sources. Under Rather, these evaluations are an important
State law, however, States can and do adopt component of a State's water quality management
mandatory nonpoint source controls. program regardless of whether or not an
enforcement procedure is in place for the activity
State water quality standards play the central role under review.
in a State's water quality management program,
which identifies the overall mechanism States use Water quality standards are implemented through
to integrate the various Clean Water Act water State or EPA-issued water quality-based permits
quality control elements into a coherent and through State nonpoint source control
management framework. This includes, for programs. Water quality standards are
example: (I) setting and revising water quality implemented through enforceable NPDES permits
standards for all surface waterbodies, (2) for point sources and through the installation and
monitoring water quality to provide information maintenance of BMPs for nonpoint sources.
upon which water quality-based decisions will be Water quality standards usually are not considered
made, progress evaluated, and success measured, self-enforcing except where they are established as
(3) preparing a water quality inventory report enforceable under State law. Application of water
under section 305(b) which documents the status quality standards in the overall context of a water
(8/15/94) 4-9
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
quality management program, however, is not traditional parameters such as dissolved oxygen or
limited to activities for which there are pH, may not be particularly high or whose
enforceable implementation mechanisms. characteristics cannot be adequately described by
these parameters (such as wetlands).
In simple terms, applicability and enforceability
are two distinctly separate functions in the water The regulation requires water quality to be
quality standards program. Water quality maintained and protected in ONRWs. EPA
standards are applicable to all waters and in all interprets this provision to mean no new or
situations, regardless of activity or source of increased discharges to ONRWs and no new or
degradation. Implementation of those standards increased discharge to tributaries to ONRWs that
may not be possible in all circumstances; in such would result in lower water quality in the
cases, the use attainability analysis may be ONRWs. The only exception to this prohibition,
employed. In describing the desired condition of as discussed in the preamble to the Water Quality
the environment, standards establish a benchmark Standards Regulation (48 F .R. 51402), permits
against which all activities which might affect that States to allow some limited activities that result
desired condition are, at a minimum, evaluated. in temporary and short-term changes in the water
Standards serve as the basis for water quality quality of ONRW. Such activities must not
monitoring and there is value in identifying the permanently degrade water quality or result in
source and cause of a exceedance even if, at water quality lower than that necessary to protect
present, those sources of impact are not regulated the existing uses in the ONRW. It is difficult to
otherwise controlled. give an exact definition of "temporary" and
"short-term" because of the variety of activities
It is acceptable for a State to specify particular that might be considered. However, in rather
classes of activities for which no control broad terms, EPA's view of temporary is weeks
requirements have been established in State law. and months, not years. The intent of EPA's
It is not acceptable, however, to specify that provision clearly is to limit water quality
standards do not apply to particular classes of degradation to the shortest possible time. If a
activities (e.g. for purposes of monitoring and construction activity is involved, for example,
assessment). To do so would abrogate one of the temporary is defined as the length of time
primary functions of water quality standards. necessary to construct the facility and make it
operational. During any period of time when,
Outstanding National Resource after opportunity for public participation in the
Waters (ONRW) 40 CFR decision, the State allows temporary degradation,
131.12(a)(3) all practical means of minimizing such
degradation shall be implemented. Examples of
Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs) situations in which flexibility is appropriate are
are provided the highest level of protection under listed in Exhibit 4-1.
the antidegradation policy. The policy provides
for protection of water quality in high-quality Antidegradation Application and
waters that constitute an ONRW by prohibiting Implementation
the lowering of water quality. ONRWs are often
regarded as highest quality waters of the United Anyone or a combination of several acnvrnes
States: That is clearly the thrust of 131. 12(a)(3). may trigger the antidegradation policy analysis.
However, ONRW designation also offers special Such activities include a scheduled water quality
protection for waters of "exceptional ecological standards review, the establishment of new or
significance." These are water bodies that are revised load allocations, waste load allocations,
important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but total maximum daily loads, issuance of NPDES
whose water quality, as measured by the permits, and the demonstration of need for
4-10 (8/15/94)
Chapter 4 - AntUhgradalion
Under the regulation, the construction could occur if best management practices were
scrupulously followed to minimize any disturbance of water quality or aquatic habitat.
Under the regulation, this water-quality-enhancmg action would he permitted if there was
only temporary increase in sediment and, perhaps, in organic loading, which would occur
during the actual construction phase.
The regulation intends that best management practices for timber harvesnng 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 or condoning timbering operations. The regulation allows
only temporary and short-term water quality degradation while maintaining existing usea
or new uses consistent with the purpose of the management of the ONRW are...
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,
(&/15/94) 4-11
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
advanced treatment or request by private or public and baseline control requirements of the
agencies or individuals for a special study of the antidegradation policy have been met. Once the
water body. LA, WLA, or TMDL revision is completed, the
resulting permits must incorporate discharge
Nonpoint xource activities are not exempt from limitations based on this revision.
the prov i ~ ions of the antidegradation policy. The
language of section 131.12 (a)(2) of the When a pollutant discharge ceases for any reason,
regulation: "Further, the State shall assure that the waste load allocations for the other
there shall he achie ....cd the highest statutory and dischargers in the area may be adjusted to reflect
regulatory requirements for all new and existing the additional loading available consistent with the
point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable antidegradation policy under two circumstances:
best management practices for nonpoint source
control . . . " reflects statutory provisions of the • In "high-quality waters" where after the full
Clean Water Act. While it is true that the Act satisfaction of all public participation and
does not establish a federally enforceable program intergovernmental review requirements. such
for nonpoint sources, it clearly intends that the adjustments are considered necessary to
8M P.., developed and approved under sections accommodate important economic or social
205U), 20H, 303(e), and 319 be aggressively development, and the "threshold" level
implemented by the States. requirements (required point and nonpoint
source controls) are met.
4.8.1 Antidegradatiun, Load Allocation,
Waste Load Allocation, Total Maximum • In less than "high-quality waters." when the
I>ail~ Load. and Permits expected improvement in water quality (from
the ceased discharge) would not cause a
In developing or revising a load allocation (LA), better use to be achieved.
waste load allocation (WI-A). or total maximum
daily load (1'I\.1DL) to reflect new information or The adjusted loads still must meet water quality
to provide for seasonal variation, the standards, and the new waste load allocations
antidcgradation policy, as an integral part of the must be at least as stringent as technology-based
State water quality standards, must be applied as limitations. Of course. all applicable
discussed in this section. requirements of the section 402 NPDES permit
regulations would have to be satisfied before a
The TMDL/WLA/LA process distributes the permittee could increase its discharge.
allowable pollutant loadings to a water body. Such
allocations also consider the contribution to If a permit is being renewed. reissued or modified
pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources. This to include less stringent limitations based on the
process must reflect applicable State water quality revised LA/WLA/TMDL. the same
standards including the antidegradation policy. antidegradation analysis applied during the
No .... astl' load allocation can be developed or LA/WLA/TMDL stage would apply during the
NPDES permit issued that would result in permitting stage. It would he reasonable to allow
standards being violated. With respect to the showing made during the LA/WLA/TMDL
antidcgradaiion. that means existing uses must be stage to satisfy the antidegradation showing at the
protected. water quality may not be lowered in permit stage. Any restrictions to less stringent
ONRWs, and in the case of waters whose quality limits based on antihacksliding would also apply.
exceeds that necessary for the section IOI(a)(2)
goals of the Act, an activity cannot result in a If a State issues an NPDE..4;) permit that violates
lowering of water quality unless the applicable the required antidegradation policy, it would be
public participation, intergovernmental review. subject to a discretionary EPA veto under section
4-12 (8/15/94)
Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
402(d) or to a citizen challenge. In addition to reconsideration of the existing waste loads (such
actions on permits, any waste load allocations and as dischargers withdrawing from the area) will
total maximum daily loads violating the result in an improvement in water quality that
antidegradation policy are subject to EPA makes a better use attainable, even if nut lip to the
disapproval and EPA promulgation of a new "fishable/swimmable" goal, then the water quality
waste load allocation/total maximum daily load standards must be upgraded and full public review
under section 303(d) of the Act. If a significant is required for any action affecting changes in
pattern of violation was evident, EPA could standards, Although not specifically required hy
constrain the award of grants or possibly revoke the standards regulation between the triennial
any Federal permitting capability that had been reviews, we recommend that the State conduct a
delegated to the State. Where EPA issues an use attainability analysis to determine if water
NPDES permit, EPA will, consistent with its quality improvement will result in attaining higher
NPDES regulations, add any additional or more uses than currently designated in situations where
stringent effluent limitations required to ensure significant changes in waste loads are expected.
compliance with the State antidegradation policy
incorporated into the State water quality The antidegradation public participation
standards. If a State fails to require compliance requirement may be satisfied in several ways.
with its antidegradation policy through section 401 The State may hold a public hearing or hearings.
certification related to permits issued by other The State may also satisfy the requirement by
Federal agencies (e.g., a Corps of Engineers providing public notice and the opportunity for the
section 404 permit), EPA could comment public to request a hearing. Activities that may
unfavorably upon permit issuance. The public, of affect several water bodies in a river basin or sub-
course, could bring pressure upon the permit basin may be considered in a single hearing. To
issumg agency. ease the resource burden on both the State and
public, standards issues may he combined with
For example applications of antidegradation in the hearings on environmental impact statements,
WLA and permitting process, see Exhibit 4-2. water management plans, or permits. However,
if this is done, the puhlic must he clearly
4.8.2 Antidegradation and the Public informed that possible changes in water quality
Participation Process standards are being considered along with other
activities, It is inconsistent with the water quality
Antidegradation, as with other water quality standards regulation to "back-door" changes in
standards activities, requires public participation standards through actions on EIS' s, waste load
and intergovernmental coordination to be an allocations, plans, or permits.
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 NPDE~ permit or amendment of a
208 plan. Also, if the action that causes
(8/15/94) 4-13
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Example 1
Sneral facilitits 011 a strtlJlft segment discharge phosphorus-containing wastes.
Ambi~nt phosphorus conctntraliolls meet the desiglUlted class B (non-
./fsJuJble/swimmabk) standtuds, but banly. Thre« dischargers achieve
.limination by d,p~loping lalld tnatmellt systems. As a nsult, actual water
qUDlity improves (i.e., phosphorus levels decline) but not quile to the level
lIeMBtl to meet class A (fishabk/swimmable) sIiUUlards. Can the remaining
dischargers now be allowed to increase their phosphorus discharge without an
antidegradaJion alUllysis with the result tluu wtuer quality declines (phosphorus
kvels increase} to previous levels?
Nothing in the water quality .tandards regulation explicitly prohibits this. Of course, changes in their
NPDES permit limits may be subject to non-water quality constraints, such lIS BPT. BAT. or the
NPDES antiback.lidinl provisions, which may restrict the increased load•.
Example 2
Suppose, in the above situation, water quality improves to the point thai actual
water quality now meets class A requirements. Is the answer different '?
Example 3
As an altettuuive case, suppose phosphorus loadings go down and water quality
improves because of a change in fanning practices (e.g., initiation of a
successful nonpoint source program.) An the above answers the same?
Yes. Whether the improvement results from a change in pomt or nonpoint source activity is immaterial
to how any aspect of the standards regulation operates. Section 131.10(d) clearly indicates that US('!>
are deemed attainable if they can be achieved by •... cost-effective and reasonable best management
practice. for noopoint source control." Section 131. 12(a)(2) of the antidegradation policy contains
eueotially the same wording.
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL POLICIES
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL POLICIES
States may, at their discretion, adopt certain EPA's current mixing zone guidance. contained
policies in their standards affecting the in this Handbook and the Technical Support
application and implementation of standards. Document for Water Quality-based Taxies
For example, policies concerning mixing zones, Control (USEPA. 1991a), evolved from and
water quality standards variances, and critical supersedes these sources.
flows for water quality-based permit limits may
be adopted. Although these are areas of State Allowable mixing zone characteristics should be
discretion, EPA retains authority to review and established to ensure that:
approve or disapprove such policies (see 40
CFR 131.13). • mixing zones do not impair the integrity of
the water body as a whole.
[ill Mixing Zones
• there is no lethality to organisms passing
through the mixing zone (sec section 5.1.2.
It is not always necessary to meet all water this Handbook); and
quality criteria within the discharge pipe to
protect the integrity of the water body as a • there are no significant health risks.
whole. Sometimes it is appropriate to allow for considering likely pathways of exposure (see
ambient concentrations above the criteria in section 5.1.3. this Handbook).
small areas near outfalls. These areas are
called mixing zones. Whether to establish a EPA recom mends that mixing zone
mixing zone policy is a matter of State characteristics he defined on a case-by-case
discretion, but any State policy allowing for basis after it has been determined that the
mixing zones must be consistent with the Clean assimilative capacity of the receiving system can
Water Act and is subject to approval of the safely accommodate the discharge. This
Regional Administrator. assessment should take into consideration the
physical. chemical, and biological characteristics
A series of guidance documents issued by EPA of the discharge and the receiving system; the
and its predecessor agencies have addressed the life history and behavior of organisms in the
concept of a mixing zone as a limited area or receiving system; and the desired uses of the
volume of water where initial dilution of a waters. Mixing zones should not he permitted
discharge takes place. Mixing zones have been where they may endanger critical areas (c.g..
applied in the water quality standards program drinking water supplies. recreational areas,
since its inception. The present water quality breeding grounds. areas with sensitive biota).
standards regulation allows States to adopt
I
mixing zones as a matter of States discretion. EPA has developed a holistic approach 10
Guidance on defining mixing zones previously determine whether a mixing zone is tolerable
has been provided in several EPA documents, (Brungs, 1986). The method considers all the
including FWPCA (1968); NAS/NAE (1972); impacts 10 the water body and all the impacts
USEPA (1976); and USEPA (l983a). 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 sections 2.2, 4.3, 4.4) discusses rmxmg zone
overlapping mixing zones. This method analyses for situations in which the discharge
includes the identification of all upstream and does not mix completely with the receiving
downstream water bodies and the ecological water within a short distance. Included are
and cultural data pertaining to them; the discussions of outfall designs that maximize
collection of data on all present and future initial dilution in the mixing zone, critical
discharges to the water body; the assessment of design periods for mixing zone analyses, and
relative environmental value and level of methods to analyze and model nearfield and
protection needed for the water body; and, farfield mixing.
finally, the allocation of environmental impact
for a discharge applicant. Because of the 5.1.1 State Mixing Zone Methodologies
difficulty in collecting the data necessary for
this procedure and the general lack of EPA recommends that States have a definitive
agreement concerning relative values, this statement in their standards on whether or not
method will be difficult to implement in full. mixing zones are allowed. Where mixing zones
However, the method does serve as a guide on provisions are part of the State standards, the
how to proceed in allocating a mixing zone. State should describe the procedures for
defining mixing zones. Since these areas of
Mixing zone allowances will increase the mass impact, if disproportionally large, could
loadings of the pollutant to the water body and potentially adversely impact the productivity of
decrease treatment requirements. They the water body and have unanticipated
adversely impact immobile species, such as ecological consequences, they should be
benthic communities, in the immediate vicinity carefully evaluated and appropriately limited in
of the outfall. Because of these and other size. As our understanding of pollutant impacts
factors, mixing zones must be applied carefully, on ecological systems evolves, cases could be
so as not to impede progress toward the Clean identified where no mixing zone is appropriate.
Water Act goals of maintaining and improving
water quality. EPA recommendations for State water quality standards should describe
allowances for mixing zones, and appropriate the State's methodology for determining the
cautions about their use. are contained in this location, size, shape, outfall design, and in-zone
section. quality of mixing zones. The methodology
should be sufficiently precise to support
regulatory actions, issuance of permits, and
MIXING ZONES determination of BMPs for nonpoint sources.
EPA recommends the following:
A limited area or volume of water where
initial dilution of a discharge takes place • Location
and where numeric water quality criteria
can be exceeded but acutely toxic Biologically important areas are to be identified
conditions are prevented. 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.
5-2 (9/15/93)
Chapter 5 - General Policies
mixing zone during design flow conditions and created by water with inadequate chemical or
generally provide: physical quality.
(9/15/93) 5-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
5-4 (9/15/93)
Chapter 5 - General Policies
taken into account before judging the mixing with a specified radius is generally preferable,
zone concentrations to be safe. but other shapes may be specified in the case of
unusual site requirements. Most States allow
The above recommendations assume that the mixing zones as a policy issue but provide
effluent is repulsive, such that free-swimming spatial dimensions to limit the areal extent of
organisms would avoid the mixing zones. While the mixing zones. The mixing zones are then
most toxic effluents are repulsive, caution is allowed (or not allowed) after case-by-case
necessary in evaluating attractive mixing zones determinations. State regulations dealing with
of known effluent toxicity, and denial of such streams and rivers generally limit mixing zone
mixing zones may well be appropriate. It is widths, cross-sectional areas, and flow volumes,
also important to assure that concentration and allow lengths to be determined on a
isopleths within any plume will not extend to case-by-case basis. For lakes, estuaries, and
restrict passage of swimming organisms into coastal waters, dimensions are usually specified
tributary streams. by surface area, width, cross-sectional area, and
volume. "Shore-hugging" plumes should be
In all cases, the size of the mixing zone and the avoided in all water bodies.
area within certain concentration isopleths
should be evaluated for their effect on the Outfall Design
overall biological integrity of the water body. If
the total area affected by elevated Before designating any rmxing zone, the State
concentrations within all mixing zones should ensure that the best practicable
combined is small compared with the total area engineering design is used and that the location
of a water body (such as a river segment), then of the existing or proposed outfall will avoid
mixing zones are likely to have little effect on significant adverse aquatic resource and water
the integrity of the water body as a whole, quality impacts of the wastewater discharge.
provided that they do not impinge on unique or
critical habitats. EPA has developed a In-Zone Quality
multistep procedure for evaluating the overall
acceptability of mixing zones (Brungs, 1986). Mixing zones are areas where an effluent
discharge undergoes initial dilution and are
Shape extended to cover the secondary mixing in the
ambient water body. A mixing zone is an
The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple allocated impact zone where acute and chronic
configuration that is easy to locate in a body of water quality criteria can be exceeded as long
water and that avoids impingement on as a number of protections are maintained,
biologically important areas. In lakes, a circle including freedom from the following:
(9/15/93) 5-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
(4) substances in concentrations that produce condition under which lethality will not occur if
objectionable color, odor, taste, or the duration of the exposure to the CMC level
turbidity; and is less than 1 hour. The CMC for
whole-effluent toxicity is intended to prevent
(5) substances in concentrations that produce lethality or acute effects in the aquatic biota.
undesirable aquatic life or result in a The CMC for individual toxicants prevents
dominance of nuisance species. acute effects in all but a small percentage of
the tested species. Thus, the areal extent and
Acutely toxic conditions are defined as those concentration isopleths of the mixing zone must
lethal to aquatic organisms that may pass be such that the l-hour average exposure of
through the mixing zone. As discussed in organisms passing through the mixing zone is
section 5. 1.2 below, the underlying assumption less than the CMC. The organism must be able
for allowing a mixing zone is that a small area to pass through quickly or flee the high-
of concentrations in excess of acute and chronic concentration area. The objective of mixing
criteria but below acutely toxic releases can zone water quality recommendations is to
exist without causing adverse effects to the provide time-exposure histories that produce
overall water body. The State regulatory negligible or no measurable effects on
agency can decide to allow or deny a mixing populations of critical species in the receiving
zone on a site-specific basis. For a mixing zone system.
to be permitted, the discharger should prove to
the State regulatory agency that all State Lethality to passing organisms can be prevented
requirements for a mixing zone are met. in the mixing zone in one of four ways. The
first method is to prohibit concentrations in
5.1.2 Prevention of Lethality to Passing excess of the CMC in the pipe itself, as
Organisms measured directly at the end of the pipe. As an
example, the CMC should be met in the pipe
Lethality is a function of the magnitude of whenever a continuous discharge is made to an
pollutant concentrations and the duration an intermittent stream. The second approach is to
organism is exposed to those concentrations. require that the CMe be met within a very
Requirements for wastewater plumes that tend short distance from the outfall during chronic
to attract aquatic life should incorporate design flow conditions for receiving waters (see
measures to reduce the toxicity (e.g., via section 5.2, this Handbook).
pretreatment, dilution) to minimize lethality or
any irreversible toxic effects on aquatic life. If the second alternative is selected, hydraulic
investigations and calculations indicate that the
EPA S water quality criteria provide guidance
I use of a high-velocity discharge with an initial
on the magnitude and duration of pollutant velocity of 3 m/sec, or greater, together with a
concentrations causing lethality. The CMC is mixing zone spatial limitation of 50 times the
used as a means to prevent lethality or other discharge length scale in any direction, should
acute effects. As explained in Appendix D to ensure that the CMC is met within a few
the Technical Support Document for Wafer minutes under practically all conditions.
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a),
the CMC is a toxicity level and should not be The discharge length scale is defined as the
confused with an LC5Q level. The CMC is square root of the cross-sectional area of any
defined as one-half of the final acute value discharge pipe.
(F AV) for specific toxicants and 0.3 acute
toxicity unit (TV.) for effluent toxicity (USEPA, A third alternative (applicable to any water
1991a. chap. 2). The CMC describes the body) is not to use a high-velocity discharge.
5-6 (9115/93)
Chapter 5 - General Policies
Rather the discharger should provide data to for those situations where collecting chemical
the State regulatory agency showing that the samples to develop monitoring data would he
most restrictive of the following conditions are impractical, such as at deep outfalls in oceans,
met for each outfall: lakes, or embayments. Other types of data
could include field tracer studies using dye,
• The CMC should be met within 10 percent current meters, other tracer materials, or
of the distance from the edge of the outfall detailed analytical calculations, such as
structure to the edge of the regulatory modeling estimations of concentration or
mixing zone in any spatial direction. dilution isopleths.
• The CMC should be met within a distance The following outlines a method, applicable to
of 50 times the discharge length scale in any the fourth alternative, to determine whether a
spatial direction. In the case of a multipart mixing zone is tolerable for a free-swimming or
diffuser, this requirement must be met for drifting organism. The method incorporates
each port using the appropriate discharge mortality rates (based on toxicity studies for the
length scale of that port. This restriction pollutant of concern and a representative
will ensure a dilution factor of at least to organism) along with the concentration
within this distance under all possible isopleths of the mixing lone and the length of
circumstances, including situations of severe time the organism may spend in each isopleth.
bottom interaction, surface interaction, or The intent of the method is to prevent the
lateral merging. actual time of exposure from exceeding the
exposure time required to elicit an effect:
• 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 where T(n) is the exposure time an organism is
conditions (e.g., low-flow for rivers). This in isopleth n, and ET(X) is the "effect time."
restriction will prevent locating the discharge That is. ET(X) is the exposure time required to
in very shallow environments or very close to produce an effect (including a delayed effect) in
shore, which would result in significant X percent of organisms exposed to a
surface and bottom concentrations. concentration equal to C(nl' the concentration in
isopleth n. ET(X) is experimentally
A fourth alternative (applicable to any water determined; the effect is usually mortal ity. If
body) is for the discharger to provide data to the summation of ratios of exposure time to
the State regulatory agency showing that a effect time is less than I, then the percent
drifting organism would not be exposed to 1- effect will not occur.
hour average concentrations exceeding the
CMC, or would not receive harmful exposure 5.1.3 Human Health Protection
when evaluated by other valid toxicological
analysis (USEPA, 1991a, chap. 2). Such data For protection of human health, the presence of
should be collected during environmental mixing zones should not result in significant
conditions that replicate critical conditions. health risks when evaluated using reasonable
assumptions about exposure pathways. Thus,
For the third and fourth alternatives, examples where drinking water contaminants are a
of such data include monitoring studies, except concern, mixing zones should not encroach on
(9115/93) 5-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
drinking water intakes. Where fish tissue .5.1.4 Where Mixing Zones Are Not
residues are a concern (either because of Appropriate
measured or predicted residues), mixing zones
should not be projected to result in significant States are not required to allow rmxmg zones
health risks to average consumers of fish and and, if mixing zones are allowed, a State
shellfish, after considering exposure duration of regulatory agency may decide to deny a mixing
the affected aquatic organisms in the mixing zone in a site-specific case. Careful
zone and the patterns of fisheries use in the consideration must be given to the
area. appropriateness of a mixing zone where a
substance discharged is bioaccumulative,
While fish tissue contamination tends to be a persistent, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or
far-field problem affecting entire water bodies teratogenic.
rather than a narrow-scale problem confined to
mixing zones, restricting or eliminating mixing Denial should be considered when
zones for bioaccumulative pollutants may be bioaccumulative pollutants are in the discharge.
appropriate under conditions such as the The potential for a pollutant to bioaccumulate
following: in living organisms is measured by:
• Mixing zones should be restricted such that • the bioconcentration factor (BCF), which is
they do not encroach on areas often used for chemical-specific and describes the degree to
fish harvesting particularly of stationary which an organism or tissue can acquire a
species such as shellfish. higher contaminant concentration than its
environment (e.g., surface water);
• Mixing zones might be denied (see section
5.1 A) where such denial is used as a device • the duration of exposure; and
to compensate for uncertainties in the
protectiveness of the water quality criteria or • the concentration of the chern ical of interest.
uncertainties in the assimilative capacity of
the water body. While any BCF value greater than I 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
-- - ~-
- -
-~ ---
5-8 (9/15/93)
Chapter 5 - General Policies
low concentrations and has a low BCF value applied in evaluating the discharge of dredged
will not result in a bioaccumulation hazard. or fill material in navigable waters (see 40 CFR
Conversely, a chemical that is discharged to a 230). The guidelines include provisions for
receiving stream resulting in a low determining the acceptability of mixing
concentration but having a high BCF value may discharge zones (section 230.11 (f». The
result in a bioaccumulation hazard. Also, some particular pollutant involved should be
chemicals of relatively low toxicity, such as zinc, evaluated carefully in establishing dredging
will bioconcentrate in fish without harmful mixing zones. Dredged spoil discharges
effects resulting from human consumption. generally result in temporary short-term
disruption and do not represent continuous
Factors such as size of zone, concentration discharge that will affect beneficial uses over a
gradient within the zone, physical habitat, and long term. Disruption of beneficial uses should
attraction of aquatic life are important in this be the primary consideration in establishing
evaluation. Where unsafe fish tissue levels or mixing zones for dredge and fill activities. State
other evidence indicates a lack of assimilative water quality standards should reflect these
capacity in a particular water body for a principles if mixing zones for dredging activities
bioaccumulative pollutant, care should be taken are referenced.
in calculating discharge limits for this pollutant
or the additivity of multiple pollutants. In such 5.1.6 Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects
instances, the ecological or human health
effects may be so adverse that a mixing zone is The Administrator is authorized, after public
not appropriate. hearings, to permit certain discharges associated
with approved aquaculture projects (section 318
Another example of when a regulator should of the Act). The regulations relating to
consider prohibiting a mixing zone is in aquaculture (40 CFR 122.56 and 125.11)
situations where an effluent is known to attract provide that the aquaculture project area and
biota. In such cases, provision of a continuous project approval must not result in the
zone of passage around the mixing area will not enlargement of any previously approved mixing
serve the purpose of protecting aquatic life. A zone. In addition, aquaculture regulations
review of the technical literature on provide that designated project areas must not
avoidance/attraction behavior revealed that the include so large a portion of the body of water
majority of toxicants elicited an avoidance or that a substantial portion of the indigenous
neutral response at low concentrations (Versar, biota will be exposed to conditions within the
1984). However, some chemicals did elicit an designated projects area (section 125.11 (dl).
attractive response, but the data were not Areas designated for approved aquaculture
sufficient to support any predictive methods. projects should be treated in the same manner
Temperature can be an attractive force and as other mixing zones. Special allowances
may counter an avoidance response to a should not be made for these areas.
pollutant, resulting in attraction to the toxicant
discharge. Innate behavior such as migration
may also supersede an avoidance response and
~ Critical Low-Flows
cause a fish to incur a significant exposure.
Water quality standards should protect water
S.1.5 Mixing Zones for the Discharge of quality for designated uses in critical low-flow
Dredged or Fill Material situations. In establishing water quality
standards, States may designate a critical low-
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of flow below which numerical water quality
the Army, has developed guidelines to be 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 load allocations. Because dynamic waste load
objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum, oil, models do not generally use specific steady-
or other matter; produce objectionable color, state design flows but accomplish the same
odor, taste, or turbidity; cause acutely toxic effect hy factoring in the probability of
conditions; or produce undesirable or nuisance occurrence of stream flows based on the
aquatic life. historical flow record, only steady-state
conditions will be discussed here. Clearly, if
To do steady-state waste load allocation the criteria are implemented using inadequate
analyses. these low-flow values become design design flows. the resulting toxies controls would
flows for sizing treatment plants, developing not be fully effective because the resulting
waste load allocations, and developing water ambient concentrations would exceed EPA's
quality-based effluent limits. Historically, these criteria.
so-called "design" Ilows were selected for the
purposes of waste load allocation analyses that In the case of aquatic life, more frequent
focused on instream dissolved oxygen violations than the assumed exceedences once
concentrations and protection of aquatic life. in 3 years would result in diminished vitality of
EPA introduced hydrologically and biologically stream ecosystems characteristics by the loss of
based analyses for the protection of aquatic life desired species such as sport fish. Numeric
and human health with the publication of the water quality criteria should apply at all flows
Technical Support Document for Water Quality- that are equal to or greater than flows specified
based Taxies Control. These concepts have in Exhibit 5-1.
been expanded subsequently in guidance
entitled Technical Guidance Manual for EPA is recommending the harmonic mean flow
Performing wasteload Allocations, Book 6. to be applied with human health criteria for
Design Conditions, (USEPA, 1986c). These new carcinogens. The concept of a harmonic mean
developments are included in Appendix D of is a standard statistical data analysis technique.
the 1991 Technical Support Document for Water EPA S model for human health effects assumes
I
Quality-based Taxies Control (USEPA, 1991a). that such effects occur because of a long-term
The discussion here is greatly simplified; it is exposure to low concentration of a toxic
provided to support EPA's recommendation for pollutant (for example. 2 liters of water per
baseline application values for instream flows day for 70 years). To estimate the
and thereby maintain the intended stringency of concentrations of the toxic pollutant in those 2
the criteria for priority toxic pollutants. EPA liters per day by withdrawal from streams with
recommended either of two methods for a high daily variation in flow. EPA believes the
calculating acceptable low-flows. the traditional harmonic mean flow is the correct statistic to
hydrologic method developed by the U.S. use in computing such design flows rather than
Geological Survey and a biologically based other averaging techniques. For a description
method developed by EPA. of harmonic means, refer to Rossman (1990).
~/I'/
requirements for streams and rivers to protect , ,'/ I
1/1'/
/
'I':
"
j!
.I
'1,1,'1) ///1//,1
I'·
"'/1
.' .I; "/
'I/Ii f/ ,/'11;'1' ,J/fl//I/ 1:/",
designated uses against the effects of toxics. 'r/I'I/I'I/I ~
5-10 (9/15/93)
Chapter 5 - General Policies
(9/15/93 ) 5-11
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Variance procedures involve the same • the discharger who is given a variance for
substantive and procedural requirements as one particular constituent is required to
removing a designated use (see section 2.7, this meet the applicable criteria for other
Handbook), but unlike use removal, variances constituents;
are both discharger and pollutant specific, are
time-limited, and do not forego the currently • the variance is granted for a specific period
designated use. of time and must be rejustified upon
expiration but at least every 3 years (Note:
A variance should be used instead of removal the 3-year limit is derived from the triennial
of a use where the State believes the standard review requirements of section 303(c) of the
can ultimately be attained. By maintaining the Act.);
standard rather than changing it, the State will
assure that further progress is made in • the discharger either must meet the standard
improving water quality and attaining the upon the expiration of this time period or
standard. With a variance, NPDES permits must make a new demonstration of
may be written such that reasonable progress is "unattainability" ;
made toward attaining the standards without
violating section 402(a)( I) of the Act, which • reasonable progress is being made toward
requires that NPDES penn its must meet the meeting the standards; and
applicable water quality standards.
• the variance was subjected to public notice,
State variance procedures, as part of State opportunity for comment, and public
water quality standards, must be consistent with hearing. (See section 303(c){l) and 40CFR
the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 131. 131.20.) The public notice should contain a
EPA has approved State-adopted variances in clear description of the impact of the
the past and will continue to do so if: variance upon achieving water quality
standards in the affected stream segment.
• each individual variance is included as part
of the water quality standard;
5-12 (9/15/93)
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Watt'r Quality Standards
CHAPTER 6
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 6
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND REVISION OF WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
State review and revision of water quality implementation procedures, or in other general
standards are discussed in section 6.1. of this policies.
chapter. Guidance is provided on the
administrative and regulatory requirements and 6.1.1 Consultation with EPA
procedures that should be followed in the State
review and submittal process as well as the State consultation with EPA regional offices
implication of a State's failure to submit should occur when States begin activities to
standards. EPA review and approval revise or adopt new water quality standards and
procedures are discussed in section 6.2, and the long before the State standards are formally
procedures for promulgation of Federal submitted for EPA review. Reasons for early
standards are described in section 6.3. consultation with EPA include the following:
[ill State Review and Revision • States will benefit from early identification
of potential areas of disagreement between
EPA and the Stares. and EPA can
Section 303(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act determine where assistance may be
requires that a State shall, from time to time, provided;
but at least once every 3 years, hold public
hearings to review applicable water quality • EPA must be in a position to respond to
standards and, as appropriate, to modify and litigation and to congressional and other
adopt standards. The 3-year period is inquiries relating to actions on the revised
measured from the date of the letter in which State water quality standards;
the State informs EPA that revised or new
standards have been adopted for the affected • Headquarters must be ready to support
waters and are being submitted for EPA review promulgation actions when State standards
or, if no changes were made in the standards have been disapproved;
for those waters, from the date of the letter in
which the State informs EPA that the standards • early consultation with EPA allows issues
were reviewed and no changes were made. to be discussed well before a formal
review request is received from the State;
States identify additions or revisions necessary and
to existing standards based on their 305(b)
reports, other available water quality • EPA actions related to State standards
monitoring data, previous water quality should receive as comprehensive a review
standards reviews, or requests from industry, as possible.
environmental groups, or the public. Water
quality standards reviews and revisions may 6.1.2 Public Notice Soliciting Suggestions for
take many forms, including additions to and Additions or Revisions to Standards
modifications in uses, in criteria, in the
antidegradation policy, in the antidegradar ion An important component of the water quality
standards setting and review process is a
(9/15/93) 6-1
Waler Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
I
Stale Attorney G«wIiI
• Mbdng Zone ProYtsk>ns (Section .1) certlnesWaterOualIty
• DellnIIIons ~
• Other
....
... State SUbmlla Revisions.
MethodI. JUItItIcatIon8
S4Medlon of Spedflc and Anomey General
Walerbodlea for Review Cer1IfIcatIon to EPA lor
Revtew
• CWA §305(b) Report
• CWA §304(T) Ust
•
•
•
CWA §303(d) Waters
CWA§319Wa....
ConsIrudIon Grants Priority Ust
...
• EJcplred Ma;or PermIts Vea
•
•
Waters No« Meeting CWA
§ 101(a)(8) GOlD
UndaaalfIed Waterbodies
EPA
AppcOYM
Standards . State Proposes Revisions I
"I~'7
No
• Public Input
No
... V.. ...
Evaluation of DesIgnated Uaes
(Chapter 2) . EPA Promulgatea Federal
Water 0uaIty Standarda
(S«:tIon 3)e.
... ...
EvaJulltion of CrIteria
(Chapter 3)
I
Stand.-ds to PermIts
Proceaa
I
Figure 6-1. Simplified Flow Chart of a Typical State Water Quality Standards Review Process
6-2 19/15/93)
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Wuter Quality Standards
meaningful involvement of those affected by the Inclusion of All 'Vaters of the United
standards decisions. At a minimum, section States
303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States
to hold a public hearing in reviewing and Water quality standards are needed for all
revising water quality standards. (State law may "waters of the United States." defined in the
require more than one hearing.) However, National Pollution Discharge Elimination
States are urged to involve the public more System Regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 to include
actively in the review process. Involvement of all interstate waters. including wetlands, and all
the public includes the involvement of citizens intrastate lakes, rivers. streams (including
affected by standards decisions, the regulated intermittent streams), wetlands. natural ponds.
community (municipalities and industry), and etc., the use. degradation or destruction of
inter-governmental coordination with local, which would affect or could affect interstate or
State. and Federal agencies, and Indian Tribes foreign commerce. The term "waters of the
with an interest in water quality issues. This United States" should be read broadly during
partnership will ensure the sharing of ideas, the standards review process. States should
data, and information, which will increase the ensure that all waters under this definition are
effectiveness of the total water quality included in the States' water quality standards,
management process. are assigned designated uses. and have
protective criteria,
Public involvement is beneficial at several
points in the water quality standards decision Definitions
making process. Enlisting the support of
municipalities, industries, environmentalists, Terms used in the Water Quality Standards
universities, other agencies, and the affected Regulation are defined in 40 CFR 131.3. The
public in collecting and evaluating information glossary of this document contains these and
for the decision making process should assist other water quality standards-related terms
the State in improving the scientific basis for, defined by the Clean Water Act, EPA
and in building support for, standards decisions. regulation. or guidance. States, when reviewing
The more that people and groups are involved their water quality standards. should at a
early in the process of setting appropriate minimum define those terms included in the
standards, the more support the State will have Definitions section of the regulation to be
in implementing the standards. synonymous with the EPA definitions.
6.1.3 Review of General Provisions 6.1.4 Selection of Specific Water Bodies for
Review
In each 3-year water quality standards review
cycle, States review the general provisions of The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
the standards for adequacy taking into States to establish procedures for identifying
considerat ion: and reviewing the standards on specific water
bodies in detail. Any procedures States
• new Federal or State statutes, regulations, establish to revise standards should be
or guidance; articulated in the continuing planning process
consistent with the water quality management
• legal decisions involving application of regulation. Water bodies receiving a detailed
standards; or standards review are most likely to be those
where:
• other necessary clarifications or revisions.
(9/15/93) 6-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
6-4 (9115/93)
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
which have been used include bank proper substrate may preclude certain forms of
stabilization, current deflectors, construction of aquatic life from using the stream for
oxbows, or installation of spawning beds. A propagation, or the lack of cover, depth, flow,
State also might wish to consider improving the pools, riffles, or impacts from channelization,
access to the water body, improving facilities dams, or diversions may preclude particular
nearby so that it can be used for recreational forms of aquatic life from the stream
purposes, or establishing seasonal uses or altogether. While physical factors may
subcategories of a use. influence a State sI decision regarding
designation of uses for a water body, States
If uses are not being met because of water need to give consideration to the incidental uses
pollution problems, the first step in the process that may be made of the water body
is to determine the cause. If the standards notwithstanding the use designation. For
review process is well coordinated with the total example, even though it may not make sense to
maximum daily load (TMDL) determination encourage use of a stream for swimming
and the permit process, pennitees may be because of the flow, depth, or velocity of the
required to conduct some of the analyses water, the States and EPA must recognize that
necessary to determine why uses are not swimming and/or wading may. in fact. occur.
attained (For more information on the TMDL To protect public health, States must set criteria
process, see chapter 7, this Handbook.) When to reflect swimming if it appears that primary
background levels of pollutants are irreversible contact recreation will, in fact. occur in the
and criteria cannot be met, States should stream.
evaluate other more appropriate uses and revise
the water quality standards appropriately. While physical factors arc important in
evaluating whether a use is attainable. physical
Detennination of Attainable Uses limitations of the stream may not be an
overriding factor. Common sense and good
Consideration of the suitability of the water judgment play an important role in setting
body to attain a use is an integral part of the appropriate uses and criteria. In setting criteria
water quality standards review and revision and uses, States must assure the attainment of
process. The data and information collected downstream standards. The downstream uses
from the water body survey provide a finn basis may not be affected by the same physical
for evaluating whether the water body is limitations as the upstream uses.
suitable for the particular use. Suitability
depends on the physical, chemical, and If a change in the designated use is warranted
biological characteristics of the water body, its based on a use attainability analysis, States may
geographic setting and scenic qualities, and the modify the uses currently assigned. In doing so,
socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the State should designate uses that can be
the surrounding area. Suitability must be supported given the physical, chemical, or
assessed through the professional judgment of biological limitations of the water body. Or, a
the evaluators. It is their task to provide State may designate uses on a seasonal basis.
sufficient information to the public and the Seasonal use designations may be appropriate
State decision makers. for streams that lack adequate water volume to
support aquatic life year round, but can be used
In some instances, physical factors may preclude for fish spawning, etc., during higher flow
the attainment of uses regardless of periods. In setting seasonal uses, care must be
improvements in the chemistry of the receiving taken not to allow the creation of conditions
water. This is particularly true for fish and instream that preclude uses in another season.
wildlife protection uses where the lack of a EPA encourages the designation of seasonal
(9/15/93 ) 6-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
uses as an alternative to completely and criteria for section 307(a) toxic pollutants
downgrading the use of a water body. must be addressed consistent with section
303(c)(2)(B) (see chapter 3, this Handbook).
Economic Impact Assessment All State standards should contain the "free
froms" narrative statements (see section 3.5.2)
The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows in addition to numerical limits that can be used
States to establish uses that are inconsistent as a basis for regulating discharges into surface
with the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act if waters. Also. water quality parameters such as
the more stringent technology required to meet temperature. dissolved oxygen, pH. and
the goals will cause substantial and widespread bacteriological requirements are basic to all
economic and social impact. These are impacts State standards.
resulting specifically from imposition of the
pollution controls and reflect such factors as EPA's laboratory-derived criteria may not
unemployment. plant closures, and changes in always accurately reflect the bioavailability
the governmental fiscal base. The analysis and/or toxicity of a pollutant because of the
should address the incremental effects of water effect of local physical and chemical
quality standards beyond technology-based or characteristics or varying sensitivities of local
other State requirements. If the requirements aquatic communities. Similarly, certain
arc not demonstrated to have an incremental. compounds may be more or less toxic in some
substantial, and widespread impact on the waters because of differences in temperature,
affected community, the standard must be hardness, or other conditions. Setting site-
maintained or made compatible with the goals specific criteria is appropriate where:
of the Act.
• hackground water quality parameters. such
6.1.6 Evaluation of Criteria as pH, hardness, temperature. color. appear
to differ significantly from the laboratory
Changes in use designations also must be water used in developing the section 304(a)
accompanied by consideration of the need for criteria; or
a change in criteria. If a use is removed. the
criteria to protect that use may be deleted or • the types of local aquatic organisms differ
revised to assure protection of the remaining significantly from those actually tested in
uses. If a use is added. there must be adequate developing the section 304(a) criteria.
water quality criteria to protect the use.
Regardless of whether changes or modifications Developing site-specific criteria is a method of
in uses are made. criteria protective of the use taking local conditions into account so that
must be adopted. Certain criteria arc deemed criteria are adequate to protect the designated
essential for inclusion in all State standards, use without being more or less stringent than
needed. A three-phase testing program that
includes water quality sampling and analysis, a
II) biological survey. and acute bioassays provides
I':
".'
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
<---CI section 3.10 of this Handbook arc scientifically
-~-'j.'~~~T·
,-- - - - ~9 ~
acceptable procedures for setting site-specific
-- I pollutant concentrations that will protect
6-6 (9/15/93 )
Chapter 6 - Procedures lor Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
designated uses . EPA believes that setting site- hearing. In cases where the analyses are judged
specific criteria will occur on only a limited to be inadequate, EPA will identify how the
number of stream segments because of the analyses could be improved and suggest the
resources required to conduct the analyses and additional types of evaluations or data needed.
the basic soundness of the section 304(a) By consulting with EPA frequently throughout
recommendations. the review process, States can be better assured
that EPA will be able to expeditiously review
6.1.7 Draft Water Quality Standards State submissions and make the determination
Submitted to EPA for Review that the standards meet the requirements of the
Act.
While not a regulatory requirement, prudence
dictates that draft State water quality standards The analyses and supporting documentation
be submitted to EPA for review. The EPA prepared in conjunction with the proposed
regional office and Headquarters will conduct water quality standards revision should be made
concurrent reviews of draft standards and make available to the interested public prior to the
comments on proposed revisions to assist the hearing. Open discussion of the scientific
State in producing standards that are evidence and analysis supporting proposed
approvable by the Regional Administrator. revisions in the water quality standards will
Continuing cooperation between the State and assist the State in making its decision.
EPA is essential to timely approval of State
standards. 6.1.9 State Adopts Revisions; Submits
Standards Package to EPA for Review
6.1.8 Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to
Standards Within 30 days of their final administrative
action, States submit to EPA water quality
Before removing or modifying any use or standards revisions, supporting analyses, and
changing criteria, the Clean Water Act requires State Attorney General certification that the
the State to hold a public hearing. More than standards were duly adopted pursuant to State
one hearing may be required depending on law. Final administrative action is meant to be
State regulations. It may be appropriate to the last action a State must take before its
have EPA review the adequacy of justifications revision becomes a rule under State law and it
including the data and the suitability and can officially transmit State-adopted standards
appropriateness of the analyses and how the to EPA for review. This last action might be a
analyses were applied prior to the public signature, a review by a legislative committee or
(9/15/93) 6-7
Water Quality StandarW Handbook - Second Edition
• EPA determines whether "fishable/ • EPA ensures that general "free from"
swimmable" designated uses have been narrative criteria are included that protect
assigned to all State waters or a use all waters at all flows from substances that
6-8 (9/15/93)
Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Waur Quality Standards
"lI ,.
Region Reviews Draft
....
was ~
III'"
Ha Reviews Draft was
......
"lI ,.
Comments Given to
State
"lI ,
State Adopts or
Revises was
~I
State Submits Revisk>na, Methods, Justifications
and Attorney General Certfficatlon to Regional ConaJmlnI HQ Revtew]
Administrator for Review ~
. . (60 days)
Regional Administrator
Approves was
or
~,
Regional Administrator
Disapproves was
(90 days)
or
.
Regional Administrator
Conditionally Approves
I was
,
r
(90 days)
,r .,
tate
If Condltlons Not Met
Adopts
Yes by State, was
I
ReqUired
Considered
Changes
DIsapproved
?
No
"
EPA Begins ~
Promulgation ,..,.
(9/15/93) 6-9
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
• EPA reviews comments and suggestions on • is not raising water uses to meet the section
previous State water quality standards to 101 (a)(2) goals of the Act; or
ensure that any areas for improvement or
conditions attached to previous approvals • is considering adopting a water quality
have been acted upon satisfactorily. criterion less stringent than currently
included in a State's standard.
• EPA reviews whether the policies are
consistent with the latest EPA guidance and To expedite Headquarters review, copies of
regulatory requirements. State water quality standards revisions (draft
and final) must be provided to the Director,
• EPA ensures that the State has met the Standards and Applied Science Division, at the
minimum requirements for a standards 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 Warer Qua/iI)' Standards
involve other EPA offices in the review as Administrator to each Regional Administrator.
appropriate, and provide comments and The Administrator retains the authority to
suggestions, if any, to regional offices for promulgate standards. Revisions to State water
consideration in State-EPA negotiations and quality standards that meet the requirements of
final standards decisions. Their review will be the Act and the Water Quality Standards
expeditiously accomplished so as not to slow Regulation are approved by the appropriate
regional approval/disapproval. Neither the EPA Regional Administrator. The Regional
regional nor Headquarters review need be Administrator must, within 60 days, notify the
limited only to revisions to existing standards or Governor or his designee by letter of the
to new standards. approval and forward a copy of the letter to the
appropriate State agency. The letter should
In general, three outcomes are possible: contain any information that might be helpful in
understanding the scope of the approval action.
• EPA approval, in whole or in part, of the If particular events (e.g., State implementation
submitted State water quality standards; decisions, pending Federal legislation pertaining
to water quality standards requirements) could
• EPA disapproval, in whole or in part, of the result in a failure of the approved standards to
submitted State water quality standards; and continue to meet the requirements of the Act.
these events should be identified in the
• EPA conditional approval, in whole or in approval letter. Such events should be
part, of the submitted State water quality identified for the record to guide future review
standards. and revision activities.
(9/15/93) 6-11
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Regulation and specify the revisions that must Because promulgation of Federal standards is
be adopted to obtain full approval. The letter inherently a lengthy process, the use of
must also notify the Governor that the conditional approvals evolved over the years as
Administrator will initiate promulgation another mechanism to maintain the
proceedings if the State fails to adopt and State-Federal relationship in establishing
submit the necessary revisions within 90 days standards. When used properly, conditional
after not i fication. approvals can result in standards that fully meet
the requirements of the Act without undue
A State water quality standard remains in Federal intervention and promote smooth
effect. even though disapproved by EPA, until operation of the national program.
the State revises it or EPA promulgates a rule
that supersedes the State water quality If used improperly, conditional approvals can be
standard. This is because water quality an unacceptable delaying tactic to establishing
standards are State laws, not Federal laws, and standards and can be construed as EPA failing
once the law is amended by the State, the to properly exercise its duty to review and
previously adopted and EPA-approved either approve or disapprove and promptly
standards no longer legally exist. initiate promulgation action after the allotted
9O-day period for State action. This improper
6.2.3 Policies and Procedures Related to usc of conditional approvals must be avoided.
Conditional Approvals
It is incumbent on a Region that uses a
Conditional approvals are EPA approvals conditional approval to ensure that State action
contingent on the performance of specified is timely. When a State fails to meet the
actions on the part of a State in a timely agreed-upon schedule, EPA should initiate
manner. There is an implicit or explicit promulgation action. Conditional approvals are
statement in the letter to the State that failure to be used only to correct minor deficiencies
to satisfy the identified conditions will nullify and should be the exception, not the rule,
the conditional approval and lead to Federal governing regional responses to State standards.
promulgation action. Problems have arisen with Note that requests for clarification or additional
inconsistent lise of conditional approvals among information are not approval actions of any
the regions and with followup actions to ensure type.
that a State is responding to the conditions in a
tirncl y manncr. 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 Waft'r Qualitv Standards
(SIPs) in the air program. (See 44 F.R. 38583, • in any case where the Administrator
July 2, 1979. See also Mississippi Commission determines that a new or revised standard is
on Natural Resources v . Costle , 625 F. 2d 1269 necessary to meet the requirements of the
(5th Cir.) 1980.) Act.
Necessary Elements of Conditional Under the latter provision of the statute , EPA
Approvals would be able to promulgate standards for a
State, or States, that failed to conduct a
First, conditional approvals are appropriate only triennial review and submit new or revised
for "minor deficiencies." Blatant disregard of standards to EPA for review so long as the
Federal statutory or regulatory requirements or Administrator determined new standards were
changes that will affect major permit issuance necessary. Where one of these conditions is
or reissuance are not minor deficiencies. In met, the Administrator has the authority to
addition, the State's standards submission as a publish proposed revisions to the Staters)
whole must be in substantial compliance with standards in the Federal Register. Generally. a
EPA's regulation. Major deficiencies must be public hearing will be held on the proposed
disapproved to allow prompt Federal standards. Final standards are promulgated
promulgation action. after giving due consideration to written
comments received and statements made at any
Second, the State must commit, in writing, to a public hearings on the proposed revisions.
mutually satisfactory, negotiated schedule to
correct the identified regulatory deficiencies in Although only the Administrator may
as short a time period as possible. The time promulgate State standards, the Regional Office
allowed should bear a reasonable relationship has a major role in the promulgation process.
to the required action. However, in The Regional Office provides the necessary
consideration of the first element above, it is background information and conducts the
expected that the time period for compliance public hearings. The Regional Office prepares
will be limited to a few months. It is definitely drafts of the rationale supporting EPA's action
not expected that a year or more will be included in the proposed and final rulernakings.
required. If that is the case, disapproval would The rationale should clearly state the reason for
be more appropriate. Headquarters the disapproval of the State standard.
concurrence in the schedule is required if it
extends for more than 3 months. If conditions warrant (e.g. .a State remedies the
deficiencies in its water quality standards prior
[ill EPA Promulgation to promulgation), the Administrator may
terminate the rulemaking proceeding at any
time. However, if a proposed rulemaking has
As a matter of policy, EPA prefers that States been published in the Federal Register. then the
adopt their own standards. However, under Regional Administrator must not approve the
section 303(c)(4) of the Act, EPA may State's changes without obtaining concurrence
promulgate Federal standards: from Headquarters.
(9115/93) 6-13
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
6-14 (9115/93)
Chapter 7· The Waur Quality-Baud Approach to Pollution Control
CHAPfER 7
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 7
THE WATER QUALI1Y-BASED APPROACH
TO POLLUTION CONTROL
This chapter briefly describes the overall water In the third stage, "Establishing Priorities."
quality-based approach and its relationship to States rank water bodies according to the
the water quality standards program. The water severity of the pollution. the uses to be made of
quality-based approach emphasizes the overall the waters, and other social-economic
quality of water within a water body and considerations, and determine how best to
provides a mechanism through which the utilize available resources to solve problems.
amount of pollution entering a water body is Section 7.3 of this Handbook discusses the
controlled based on the intrinsic conditions of ranking and targeting of water bodies.
that body of water and the standards set to
protect it. In the fourth stage. "Evaluating WQS for
Targeted Waters," the appropriateness of the
As shown in Figure 7.1, the water quality-based water quality standards for specific waters is
approach contains eight stages. These stages evaluated. States may revise or reaffirm their
each represent a major Clean Water Act water quality standards. A State may choose,
program with specific regulatory requirements for example, to develop site-specific criteria for
and guidance. The presentations in this chapter a particular stream because a particular species
summarize how the different programs fit into needs to be protected. This stage is discussed
the overall water quality control scheme and in section 7.4 of this Handbook.
are not intended as implementation guidance.
Implementation of these programs should be In the fifth stage "Defining and Allocating
consistent with the specific programmatic Control Responsibilities." the level of control
regulations and guidance documents provided needed to meet water quality standards is
by the appropriate program office, many of established. and control responsibilities are
which are cited herein. defined and allocated. States use mathematical
models and/or monitoring to determine total
The first stage, "Determining Protection Level." maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for water
involves State development of water quality bodies; the TMDLs include waste load
standards. the subject of the preceding chapters allocations (WLAs) for point sources. load
of this Handbook. allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, and a
margin of safety. The TMDL is the amount of
In the second stage, "Monitoring and Assessing a pollutant that may be discharged into a water
Water Quality," States identify impaired waters, body and still maintain water quality standards.
determine if water quality standards are being Pollutant loadings above this amount generally
met. and detect pollution trends. Sections of will result in waters exceeding the standards.
the Clean Water Act require States to compile Allocations for pollution limits for point and
data. assess. and report on the status of their nonpoint sources are calculated to ensure that
water bodies. States generally use existing water quality standards arc not exceeded.
information and new data collected from Section 7.5 discusses the TMDL process in
ongoing monitoring programs to assess their greater detai I.
waters. This stage is discussed in section 7.2.
of this Handbook.
(9/15/93) 7-1
Waler Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
1
Determine ProtecUon Level
Review I RevIse State was
8 2
Measure Progress Conduct wa Assessment
Modify TMDL If needed (a) Monitor Water Quality
7
t (b) Identify Impaired Waters
\
Monitor and Enforce
Compliance 3
Establish Prtorttles
,
Self-Monitoring Rank I Target wstenxxues
Agency Monitoring
Enforcement
'\
6 4
Establish Source Controls Evaluate was for
Targeted Waters
Point Source Permits
NPS Programs Reaffirm / Revise WOS
§~I~~~~n~ 5 ~
Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities
TMDL / WLA / LA
In the sixth stage, "Establishing Source Control," nonpoint source programs are monitored and
States and EPA implement point source enforced under Stale law and to the extent
controls through NPDES permits, State and provided by State law.
local governments implement nonpoint source
management programs through State laws and In the final stage. "Measuring Progress," the
local ordinances, and States assure attainment States (and EPA) assess the effectiveness of the
of water quality standards through the CW A controls and detcnnine whether water quality
section 401 certification process. Control standards have been attained, water quality
actions are discussed in Section 7.6. standards need to be revised, or more stringent
controls should be applied.
In the seventh stage. "Monitoring and Enforcing
Compliance," States (or EPA) evaluate self- Determine Protection Level
monitoring data reported by dischargers to sec
that the conditions of the NPDES penn it are
being met and take actions against any The water quality-based approach to pollution
violators. Dischargers are monitored to control hegins with the identification of
determine whether or not they meet permit problem water bodies. State water quality
conditions and to ensure that expected water standards fonn the basis and "yardstick" by
quality improvements are achieved. State 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 assess compliance with permits, and report on
water quality standard defmes the water quality conditions and trends in ambient waters. EPA
goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by issued guidance in 1985 for State Water
designating the use or uses to be made of the Monitoring and Waste load Allocation (USEPA,
water, by setting criteria necessary to protect 1985d). Guidance for preparing CWA section
the uses, and by preventing degradation of 305(b) reports is contained in the Guidelines for
water quality through antidegradation the Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality
provisions. States adopt water quality standards Assessments (305(b) Reports) (USEPA, 1993a).
to protect public health or welfare, enhance the Both of these documents discuss monitoring as
quality of water, and serve the purposes of the an information collection tool for many
Clean Water Act. Serve the purposes of the
II program needs. The Intergovernmental Task
Act" (as defmed in sections 101(a), 101 (a)(2), Force on Monitoring Water Quality report
and 303(d) of the Act) means that water quality (ITFM, 1992) proposes actions to improve
standards should (l) include provisions for ambient water quality monitoring in the United
restoring and maintaining chemical, physical, States to allow better management of water
and biological integrity of State waters; (2) resources.
provide, wherever attainable, water quality for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, Sections 208(b)(2)(F) through (K) of the CWA
and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water require the development of a State process to
("fishable/swimmable"); and (3) consider the identify, ifappropriate, agricultural, silvicultural,
use and value of State waters for public water and other nonpoint sources of pollution. NPS
supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, monitoring concerns are discussed in several
recreation, agricultural and industrial purposes, NPS guidance documents along with methods to
~ ...• and navigation. The preceding chapters of this monitor and evaluate nonpoint sources
Handbook provide EPA's guidance on the (Watershed Monitoring and Reponing
water quality standards program. Requirements for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects (USEPA, 1991g)
17.21 Conduct Water Quality Assessment
and Guidance Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters (USEPA, 1993b).
Once State water quality standards have
determined the appropriate levels of protection 7.2.2 Identify Impaired (Water Quality-
to be afforded to State water bodies, States Limited) Waters
conduct water quality monitoring and identify
those waters that are "water quality limited, or
II
EPA's Water Quality Planning and
not meeting the standards. Management Regulation (40 CFR Part 130)
establishes the process for identifying water
7.2.1 Monitor Water Quality quality-limited water still requiring total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Waters
Monitoring is an important element throughout require 1MDLs when certain pollution control
the water quality-based decision making requirements (see Exhibit 7.1) are not stringent
process. In this step, monitoring provides data enough to maintain water quality standards for
for identifying impaired waters. The Clean such waters.
Water Act specifies that States and Interstate
Agencies, in cooperation with EPA, establish The most widely applied water pollution
water quality monitoring systems necessary to controls are the technology-based effluent
review and revise water quality standards, assess limitations required by sections 301(b) and 306
designated use attainment, calculate TMDLs, of the Clean Water Act. In some cases, a State
(9/15/93) 7-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
7-4 (9/15/93)
Chapter 7 - The WtJlt'r Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
305(b) reports. Section 319 of the CWA Targeting high-priority waters for TMDL
requires each State to develop an NPS development should reflect an evaluation of the
assessment report. Guidance on the submission relative value and benefit of water bodies
and approval process for Section 319 reports is within the State and take into consideration the
contained in Nonpoint Source Guidance following:
(USEPA. 1987c).
• risk to human health, aquatic life, and
Lists prepared to satisfy requirements under wildlife;
section 305(b), 304(1), 314(a) and 319 should be
very useful in preparing 303(d) lists. Appendix • degree of public interest and support;
B of Guidance for Water Quality-based
Decisions: The TMDL Process (USEPA, 1991c) • recreational, economic, and aesthetic
provides a summary of these supporting CWA importance of a particular water body;
programs.
• vulnerability or fragility of a particular
~ Establish Priorities
water body as an aquatic habitat;
(9115/93) 7-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
of TMDL development within 2 years following CWA and WQS regulation, may be
the listing process - identified. (See USEPA inappropriate (either over- or under-protective)
(\99Ic) for further derails on submission of for a specific water body that has not had an in-
priorities to EPA.) depth standards analysis. For example, if a
water body was classified as a coldwater fishery
To effectively develop and implement TMDLs based solely on its proximity to other coldwater
for all waters identified, States should establish fisheries, a water body-specific analysis may
multi-year schedules that take into show that only a warrnwater fishery use is
consideration the immediate TMDL existing or attainable. If the listing of the water
development for targeted water bodies and the body was based on exceedences of criteria that
long-range planning for addressing all water are more stringent for coldwater fish (such as
quality-limited waters still requiring TMDL'5. ammonia or dissolved oxygen), changing the
designated use through a use attainability
While the CW A section 319 NPS assessment analysis and applying appropriate criteria may
report identifies the overall dimensions of the allow standards to be met without further water
State's NPS water quality problem s and States quality controls.
are to develop statewide program approaches
for specific categories of pollution to address Second, even if an in-depth analysis has been
NPS problems, States are also encouraged to done in the past, changes in the uses of the
target subsets of waters for concerted action on water body since that time may have made
a watershed-by-watershed basis. EPA has different standards more appropriate or
issued guidance on NPS targeting (USEPA, generated an additional "existing use" which
1987c). must be protected. For example, a water body
designated for fish, aquatic life, and recreation
Evaluate Water Quality Standards in the past may now be used as a public water
for Targeted Waters supply, without that use and protective criteria
ever being formally adopted in the standards.
At this point in the water quality management Another example might be a designated
process. States have identified and targeted wannwater fishery that, due to the removal of
priority water quality-limited water bodies. It is a thermal discharge, now supports a coldwater
often appropriate. to re-evaluate the fishery as the existing use.
appropriateness of the water quality standards
for the targeted waters for several reasons Third, monitoring data used to identify the
including. bur not limited to, the following. water body as impaired may be historical, and
subsequent water quality improvements have
First, many States have not conducted in-depth allowed standards to be met. And fourth, site-
analyses of appropriate uses and criteria for all specific criteria may be appropriate because of
water bodies bur have designated general specific local environmental conditions. For
fishable/swimmable use classifications and example. the species capable of living at the site
statewide crite ria on a "best professional are more or less sensitive than those included
judgment" basis co many waters. In addition, in the national criteria data set, or physical
many Stares make general assumptions about and/or chemical characteristics of the site alter
the antidegradation status of State waters (e.g., the biological availability andJor toxicity of the
all waters not specifically assigned to an chemical.
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
7-6 (9/15/93)
Chapter 7 - The Waur Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
-----
. " I II
-------.
.• "11/ / ...
_ d" ~~.M-=~~=-._...,.'__
.:: =-
-- ..... _= ._-
Me _
(8/15/94) 7-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook: - second Edition
7-8 (8/t5/94)
Chapter 7 - The Waler Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
implementation, maintenance, and overall pollutants. ICSs consist of NPDF~" permit limits
effectiveness to ensure that load allocations are and schedules for achieving such limits. along
achieved. Section 7.6.2 discusses some of the with documentation showing that the control
programs associated with implementation of measures selected are appropriate and adequate
nonpoint source control measures. (e.g., fact sheets including information on how
water quality-based limits were developed. such
States may also grant, condition, or deny as total maximum daily loads and waste load
"certification" for a federally permitted or allocations). Point sources with approved leSs
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to are to he in compliance with those K'Ss as soon
the waters of the United States, if it is the State as possible or in no case later than 3 years from
where the discharge will originate. The State the establishment of the ICS (typically by 1992 or
decision is based on a State's determination of 1993).
whether the proposed activity will comply with
the requirements of certain sections of the Clean When establishing WLAs for point sources in a
Water Act, including water quality standards watershed, the TMDL record should show that. in
under section 303. Section 7.6.3 of this the case of any credit for future nonpoint source
Handbook contains further discussion of section reductions (1) there is reasonahle assurance that
401 certification. nonpoint source controls will be implemented and
maintained, or (2) that nonpoint source reductions
7.6.1 Point Source Control - the NPDES are demonstrated through an effective monitoring
Process program. Assurances may include the application
or utilization of local ordinances, grant
Both technology-based and water quality-based conditions, or other enforcement authorities. For
controls are implemented through the National example, it may be appropriate to provide that a
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be reopened when a WLA requiring
permitting process. Permit limits based on more stringent limits is necessary because
TMDLs are called water quality-based limits. attainment of a nonpoint source load allocation
was not demonstrated.
Waste load allocations establish the level of
effluent quality necessary to protect water quality Some compliance implementation time may. in
in the receiving water and to ensure attainment of certain situations, be necessary and appropriate
water quality standards. Once allowable loadings for permittees to meet new permit limits based on
have been developed through WLAs for specific new standards. Under the Administrator's April
pollution sources, limits are incorporated into 16, 1990 decision in an NPDES appeal (Star-Kist
NPDES permits. It is important to ensure that the Caribe Inc., NPDES Appeal No. 88-5), the
WLA accounts for the fact that effluent quality Administrator stated that the only basis in which
is often highly variable. The WLA and permit a permittee may delay compliance after July I.
limit should be calculated to prevent water quality 1977 (for a post July 1977 standard), is pursuant
standards impairment at all times. The reader is to a schedule of compliance established in the
referred to the Technical Support Document for permit which is authorized by the State in the
Waler Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, water quality standard itself or in other State
1991a) for additional information on deriving implementing regulations. Standards are made
permit limits. applicable to individual dischargers through
NPDES permits which reflects the applicable
As a result of the 1987 Amendments to the Act, Federal or State water quality standards. When a
Individual Control Strategies (lCSs) were permit is issued, a schedule of compliance for
established under section 304(1)( I) for certain water quality-based limitations may be included.
point source discharges of priority toxic as necessary.
(8/15/94) 7-9
Water Quahty Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Section 62 17 of the Coastal Zone Reauthorization EPA has identified five Federal permits and/or
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) requires that licenses that authorize activities that may result in
States with federally approved coastal zone a discharge to the waters: permits for point
management programs develop Coastal Nonpoint source discharge under section 402 and discharge
Pollution Control Programs to be approved by of dredged and fill material under section 404 of
EPA and NOAA. EPA and NOAA have issued the Clean Water Act; permits for activities in
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; navigable waters that may affect navigation under
Program Development and Approval Guidance sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
(NOAA/EPA. 1993>. which describes the (RHA); and licenses required for hydroelectric
program development and approval process and 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.
7-10 (8/15/94)
Chapter 7 - 1M Willer Quality-Bared Approach 10 Pollution Control
Congress intended for the States to use the water These requirements address effluent limitations
quality certification process to ensure that no for conventional and nonconventional pollutants,
Federal license or permits would be issued that water quality standards, new source performance
would violate State standards or become a source standards, and toxic pollutants (sections 301, 302,
of pollution in the future. Also, because the 303, 306, and 307). Also included are
States' certification of a construction permit or requirements of State law or regulation more
license also operates as certification for an stringent than those sections or their Federal
operating permit (except in certain instances implementing regulations.
specified in section 401(a)(3», it is imperative for
a State review to consider all potential water States adopt surface water quality standards
quality impacts of the project, both direct and pursuant to section 303 of the Clean Water Act
indirect, over the life of the project. and have broad authority to base those standards
on the waters' use and value for ". . . public
In addition, when an activity requiring 401 water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife,
certification in one State (i.e. the State in which recreational purposes, and . . . other purposes"
the discharge originates) will have an impact on (33 U.S.C. section 1313 (c)(2)(A». All permits
the water quality of another State, the statute must include effluent limitations at least as
provides that after receiving notice of application stringent as needed to maintain established
from a Federal permitting or licensing agency, beneficial uses and to attain the quality of water
EPA will notify any States whose water quality designated by States for their waters. Thus, the
may be affected. Such States have the right to States' water quality standards are a critical
submit their objections and request a hearing. concern of the 401 certification process.
EPA may also submit its evaluation and
recommendations. If the use of conditions cannot If a State grants water quality certification to an
ensure compliance with the affected State's water applicant for a Federal license or permit, it is in
quality requirements, the Federal permitting or effect saying that the proposed activity will
licensing agency shall not issue such permit or comply with State water quality standards (and the
license. other CW A and State law provisions enumerated
above). The State may thus deny certification
The decision to grant, condition, or deny because the applicant has not demonstrated that
certification is based on a State's determination the project will comply with those requirements.
from data submitted by an applicant (and any Or it may place whatever limitations or conditions
other information available to the State) whether on the certification it determines are necessary to
the proposed activity will comply with the ensure compliance with those provisions, and with
requirements of certain sections of the Clean any other "appropriate" requirements of State law.
Water Act enumerated in section 401(a)(1).
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 10 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
(8/t5/94 ) 7-11
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
review. (I f the applicant is a Federal agency, required in the permit to assess the impact of their
however, at least one Federal court has ruled that discharge on the receiving water. A monitoring
the State's certification decision may be reviewed requirement can be put into the permit as a
by the Federal courts.) special condition as long as the information is
collected for purposes of writing a permit limit.
States may also waive water quality certification,
either affirmatively or involuntarily. Under States should also ensure that effective monitoring
section 401(a}(1), if the State fails to act on a programs are in place for evaluating nonpoint
certification request "within a reasonable time source control measures. EPA recognizes
(which shall not exceed one year)" after the monitoring as a high-priority activity in a State's
receipt of an application, it forfeits its authority to nonpoint source management program (55 F. R.
grant conditionally or to deny certification. 35262, August 28, 1990). To facilitate the
implementation and evaluation of NPS controls,
The most important regulatory tools for the States should consult current guidance (USEPA,
implementation of 401 certification are the States' 1991g); (USEPA, 1993b). States are also
water quality standards regulations and their 401 encouraged to use innovative monitoring programs
certification implementing regulations and (e.g., rapid hioassessments (USEPA, 198ge), and
guidelines. Most Tribes do not yet have water volunteer monitoring (USEPA, 199Gb) to provide
quality standards, and developing them would be for adequate point and nonpoint source monitoring
a first step prior to having the authority to coverage.
conduct water quality certification. Also, many
States have not adopted regulations implementing Dischargers are monitored to determine whether
their authority to grant, deny, and condition water or not they are meeting their permit conditions
quality certification. Wetland and 401 and to ensure that expected water quality
Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for improvements are achieved. If a State has not
States and Eligible Indian Tribes (USEPA , 1989a) been delegated authority for the NPDES permit
discusses specific approaches, and elements of program, compliance reviews of all permittees in
water quality standards and 401 certification that State are the responsibility of EPA. EPA
regulations that EPA views as effective to retains oversight responsibility for State
implement the States' water quality certification compliance programs in NPDES-delegated States.
authori ty. NPDES permits also contain self-monitoring
requirements that are the responsibility of the
:\Ionitor and Enforce Compliance individual discharger. Data obtained through self-
monitoring are reported to the appropriate
regulatory agency.
As noted throughout the previous sections,
monitoring is a crucial element of water Based on a review of data, EPA or a State
quality-based decision making. Monitoring regulatory agency determines whether or not a
provides data for assessing compliance with water NPDES permittee has complied with the
quality-based controls and for evaluating whether requirements of the NPDES permit. If a facility
the TMOL and control actions that are based on has been identified as having apparent violations,
the TMDL protect water quality standards. EPA or the State will review the facility's
compliance history. Thi s review focuses on the
With point sources, dischargers are required to magnitude. frequency, and duration of violations.
provide reports on compliance with NPDES A determination of the appropriate enforcement
permit limits. Their discharge monitoring reports response is then made. EPA and States are
(OMR) provide a key source of effluent quality authorized to bring civil or criminal action against
data. In some instances, dischargers may also be facilities that violate their NPDE.5 permits. State
7-12 (8/15/94)
Chapter 7 - 11Ii' Walt" Quality-Based Approach tv Pollution Control
Measure Progress
(8/15;94) 7-U
REFERENCES
SECOND EDITION
References
REFERENCES
II II
Barnes, D.G., and M. Dourson. 1988. Reference Dose rR'/])J: Description and ('.\e ill 1/1'II/fli Risl:
Assessments. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology H, 471-4Xf!.
Battelle Ocean Sciences. 1992. Evaluation of Trace-Metal Levels ill Ambient Wala.1 and
Tributaries to New York/New Jersey Harborfor Wa.\fl' Loud Allocation. l i.x. EPA. (Htl(c of
Wetlands, Oceans. and Watersheds, Washington. DC and Region II, New York. NY. (Source
# I.)
Brown. D.S., and J.D. Allison. 1987. MINTEQAl, An Equilibrium Mefal Speciation Motiel:
User's Manual. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, (iA. EPA N)(V~-~7
012. (Source #2.)
Brungs, W.A. 1986. Allocated Impact Zones for Areas 1!(NOII-COnJplllJ!1(·I'. USEPA. Regron I,
Water Management Division. Boston, MA. (Source #J.)
Brungs, W.A .. T.S. Holderman, and M.T. Southerland. IlJl)2. Svnopsis of W,uI'r-t:I.!i'('{ Ratiosfor
Heavy Metalsas Derived for Site-specific Watn Qualify Criteria, Draft. U.S. EPA Contract
68-CO-0070. (Source #4.)
Carlson, A.R .• W.A. Brungs, G.A. Chapman, and OJ. Hansell. IlJH4. Guidelinestor Deriving
Numerical Aquatic Site-specific Watu Quality Criteria bv Modif»..illg Nutionul Criteria. U.S.
EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory. Duluth. MN. EPA hOO:J-X-l-()l)l). NTIS IIPB H5-
121101. (Source #2 or #9.)
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. RI'{JIJr! 011 the Fcusihiht v I!!
Predicting the Effects of Fluctuating Concentrations on Aquatic Organisms. lJSFPA. ERL.
Duluth, MN. (Source #16.)
FWPCA (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration). lQhH. WilfN Quulit, Critcri« (the:
"Green Book"), Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Sel,:rl·t<iry of the
Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. (Out of Print.j
GAO (U. S. General Accounting Office) 1987. Wildf!fe MunugI'mcnt" National Rt~/i(t:I'
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-H7-12H. (Source 1If!.)
ITFM. 1lJ92. Ambient water-quatuv Monitoring in the United States: First }'/,or Review,
Evaluation, and Recommendations. Intcrgovcrrncntal Task Force: on Monitoring W,ltcr
Quality. Washington. DC. (Source #15.)
(9/15/93) REF-I
Water Quality Standards Handbook. - Second Edition
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic lntegrity 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.
Martin, T.D., J.W. O'Dell, E.R. Martin, and G.D. McKee. 1986. Evaluation of Method 200./
Determination of Acid-Soluble Metals. Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab,
Cincinnati, OH. (Source #4.)
McLusky, D.S. 1971. Ecology of Estuaries. Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd. London.
NAS/NAE. 1973. Warer 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. VSGPO #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.)
PuIs, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Ground Water Sampling for Metals Analyses. EPA
Superfund Ground Water Issue. V.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. EPA
540/4-89-001. (Source #9.)
Rossman, Lewis J. 1990. Design Stream Flows Based on Harmonic Means. J. of Hydraulics
Engineering, Vol. 116, No.7.
V.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Agricultural Statistics. VSDA, Washington, DC. p. 506.
VSEPA (V. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1972. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods
for Measuring the Qualify of Surface Warers and Effluents. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA 670/4-73-001. (Source #9.)
_ _ _ . 1976. Quality Criteria for Waler 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.
REF-2 (9/15/93)
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.
_ _ _. 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 Warer and Wastes (Sections 4.1.1. 4.1.3. and
4.1.4). Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati. OH. EPA 6fXJ/4-79-
020. (Source #9.)
_ _ _ . 1983c. Technical Support Manual: Warerbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainabilty Analyses, volume I. Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
(Source #10.)
_ _ _. 1983d. Technical Guidance Manuo/ for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book /I
Streams and Rivers - Chapter I 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 JI
Streams and Rivers - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts. Monitoring and Data Support
Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-021. (Source #10.)
_ _ _. 1983f. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV
Lakes and Impoundments - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication 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 /I, Estuarine Systems. Criteria and Standards Division.
Washington. DC. (Source #10.)
_ _ _ . 1984b. Technical Support Manual: waierbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
Use Attainability Analyses, volume /II, 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.)
(8/15/94) REF-3
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
- - - . 1984e. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations. Book JJ
Streams and Rivers. Chapter 3 Toxic Substances. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-022. (Source #10.)
_ _ _ . 1984f. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria by
Modifying National Criteria. Office of Research and Development. Duluth, MN. (Out of
Print.)
_ _ _ . 1985a. Methods for Measuring Acme 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 Stare Warer 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.)
_ _ _ . 1986a. Quality Criteria for Warer (the "Gold Book") Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. USGPO #955-002-00000-8. (Source #7.)
REF-4 (8/15/94)
_ _ _ . 1986b. Ambient Warn 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.)
_ _ _ . 1986<1. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book VI,
Design Conditions: Chapter I - Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-87-004. (Source #10.)
_ _ _. 1986. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations. Book lV
Lakes, Reservoirs, and Impoundments. Chapter 3 Toxic Substances. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-87-002. (Source #10.)
___ . 1987d. Nonpoint Source Controls and Warer 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
Walers to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH. EPA 600/4-87-028.
_ _ _ . 1988d. State Clean Warer Strategies, Meeting the Challenges for the Future. Office of
Water. Washington, DC. (Source #5.)
_ _ _ . 1988e. Guidance for Stare lmplementation of Waler Quality Standards for CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B). Office of Water. Washington, DC. (Source #10.)
_ _ _. 1989a. Wetlands and 401 Certificaiion: Opportunities for States and Eligible Indian
Tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC. (Source #12.)
(8/15/94) REF-5
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
_ _ _. 1989d. Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source Projects: You Beller Shop Around. Office of
Water; and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC. EPA 506/2-89-003.
(Source #13.)
_ _ _. 198ge. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division. Washington, DC. EPA 444/4-89-001. (Source #14.)
_ _ _ . 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.)
_ _ _ . 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.)
199Oa. Biological Criteria, National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of
- - -.
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #10)
_ _ _ . I99Ob. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for Slate Managers. Office of Water.
Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-90-010. (Source #14.)
_ _ _. I99Oc. 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.)
_ _ _ . 1991c. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. Office of
Water, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-91-001 (Source #14.)
REF-6 (8/15/94)
_ _ _. 1991d. Methods for Measuring tire Acute Toxicity of Effluetus 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 EjJluenrs and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms. 3d. ed. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH. EPA 600/4-91-002. (Source #9.)
_ _ _ . 1991f. Short-term Methods for Estimating tire Chronic Toxicity of Effiuenls and Receiving
Waters 10 Marine and Estuarine Organisms. 2d. ed. Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA 600/4-91-003. (Source #9.)
_ _ _. 1991g. Watershed Monitoring and Reponing Requirements for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. Washington
DC. (Source #8.)
_ _ _. 1991h. Section 401 Cenifiauion 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 tire 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.)
_ _ _ . 1993d. Final Guidance on tire Award and Management of Nonpoint Source Program
lmplemeruation 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. Guidancefor Assessing Chemical Coniaminant 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.)
(8/15/94) REF-7
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
- - - . 1994b. Interim Guidance on Determination and Use oj Water-Effect Ratios for Metals.
Office of Water. Washington, DC. EPA-823-B-94-001. (Source #10.)
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.
Windom, H.L., J.T. Byrd, R.G. Smith, and F. Huan. 1991. Inadequacy of NASQAN Data for
Assessing Metals Trends in the Nation's Rivers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25, 1137.
REF-8 (8/15/94)
References
(6) U.S. General Accounting Office (11) U. S. Environ mental Protection Agency
Post Office Box 60 15 Standards and Applied Science Division
Gaithersburg, MD 20877 401 M Street, S. W. (4305)
Telephone: 202-5\2-6000 Washington, DC 20460
(First copy free) Fax: (202) 260-9830
Ph: (202) 260-7301
(7) U.S. Government Printing Office (See Appendix V)
Superintendent of Documents
North Capitol Street H Streets, NW (12) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20401 Wetlands Division
Ph: (202) 783-3238 401 M Street, S.W. (4502F)
Washington, DC 20460
(8) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ph: (202) 260-7719
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M Street, S.W. (4305F) (13) EPIC
Washington, DC 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ph: (202) 260-7100 11029 Kenwood Road
Building 5
(9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45242
Center for Environmental Research Fax: (513) 569-7186
Office of Research and Development Ph: (513) 569-7980
Room G72
26 West Martin Luther King Drive (14) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268 Assessment and Watershed Protection
Ph: (513) 569-7562 Division
401 M Street, S. W. (4503F)
(10) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
Office of Water Resource Center Ph: (202) 260-7166
RC-41oo
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Ph: (202) 260-7786 (voice mail
publication request line)
(See Appendix V)
(8/15/94 ) REF-9