This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-308 
entitled 'Water Quality: Improved EPA Guidance and Support Can Help 
States Develop Standards That Better Target Cleanup Efforts' which was 
released on February 13, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives:



January 2003:



WATER QUALITY:



Improved EPA Guidance and Support Can Help States Develop Standards 

That Better Target Cleanup Efforts:



GAO-03-308:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-308, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives:



Why GAO Did This Study:



Water quality standards are composed of designated uses and criteria. 

These standards are critical in making accurate, scientifically based 

determinations about which of the nations waters are in need of 

cleanup. To assess EPA and states actions to improve standards, the 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment asked 

GAO to determine the extent to which (1) states are changing designated

uses when necessary and EPA is assisting the states toward that end

and (2) EPA is updating its criteria documents and assisting states in

establishing criteria that can be compared with reasonably obtainable 

monitoring data.



What GAO Found:



The extent to which states are changing designated uses varies 

considerably. Regardless of the number of use changes states have made 

to date, nearly all states report that some portion of the water bodies 

within their states currently need changes to their designated uses. 

Among the key reasons these needed use changes have not been made is 

states uncertainty over the circumstances in which use changes are 

acceptable to EPA and the evidence needed to support those changes.



As required, EPA has developed and published criteria for a wide range

of pollutants. However, EPA has not developed criteria for 

sedimentation or finalized criteria for nutrientsthe pollutants that, 

according to EPA data, account for a relatively large share of the 

nations impaired waters. Even when national criteria do exist, some 

states have difficulty establishing their criteria in such a way that 

they can be compared with reasonably obtainable monitoring data. In 

addition, a vast majority of states find it difficult to modify their 

existing criteria when warranted by new information or other 

circumstances.



Changing either designated uses or criteria is considered a standards

modification. Twenty-two states reported that an improvement in the

process of changing designated uses would result in different water 

bodies being slated for cleanup, and 22 states reported that an 

improvement in the process of modifying criteria would have that 

effect. Superimposing the states responses indicates that 30 states 

would have different water bodies slated for cleanup with an 

improvement in the process of modifying standards.



What GAO Recommends:



GAO recommends that the Administrator, EPA (1) provide additional 

guidance regarding use changes, (2) follow through on plans to assess 

the feasibility of establishing a clearinghouse of approved use 

changes, (3) set a time frame for developing sedimentation criteria, 

(4) develop alternative, scientifically defensible monitoring 

strategies that states can use to determine if water bodies are 

meeting the criteria, and (5) develop guidance and a training 

strategy to help EPA regional staff in determining the scientific 

defensibility of proposed criteria modifications. EPA agreed to give 

serious consideration to GAOs recommendations and provided several 

technical comments and clarifications.



Contents:



Letter:



Executive Summary:



Purpose:



Background:



Results in Brief:



Principal Findings:



Recommendations:



Agency Comments:



Chapter 1:



Designated Uses:



Water Quality Criteria:



Standards Review and Revision:



Importance of Accurate Water Quality Standards in Identifying Polluted 

Waters:



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Chapter 2:



States Thus Far Report Wide Variation in the Extent to Which They 

Change Designated Uses:



Future Use Changes May Dwarf Those Made to Date:



Lack of Clear Guidance Complicates States Efforts to Make 

Defensible Designated Use Changes:



EPA Regional Approaches Concerning States Designated Use Changes Are 

Inconsistent:



Different Water Bodies Would Be Slated for Cleanup If Improvements Were 

Made:



Conclusions:



Recommendations:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Chapter 3:



Key Criteria Documents Have Not Been Developed by EPA:



Many States Cannot Reasonably Monitor to Determine if Criteria Are 

Being Met:



States Report Difficulty in Modifying Criteria:



Improving Criteria Would Result in Different Waters Being Slated for 

Cleanup:



Potentially Large Cumulative Impact of Both Designated Uses 

and Criteria on Impaired Waters Lists:



Conclusions:



Recommendations:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: EPAs Water Quality Standards Program Budget from 1992 

through 2002:



Appendix II: GAO Survey of State Water Quality Standards Programs:



Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:



Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



Table:



Table 1: EPA Water Quality Standards Program Budget Amounts from 1992 

through 2002:



Figures Figures:



Figure 1: States Reporting That Different Water Bodies Would Be Slated 

for Cleanup if Improvements Were Made to the Process of Changing 

Standards:



Figure 2: Number of Designated Use Changes Reported by Each State from 

1997 through 2001:



Figure 3: Water Quality Standards as the Basis for Cleanup Decisions:



Figure 4: Number of Designated Use Changes Reported by Each State from 

1997 through 2001:



Figure 5: Number of States Reporting Various Percentages of Their Water 

Bodies Needing Designated Use Changes:



Figure 6: States Responses to Whether Different Water Bodies Would Be 

Slated for Cleanup if the Process for Changing Designated Uses Were 

Improved:



Figure 7: Percent of Impairments Nationwide Caused by Various 
Pollutants:



Figure 8: States Responses on the Extent to Which Their Criteria Can 
Be 

Used to Determine Whether Their Water Bodies Are Impaired:



Figure 9: States Reporting the Ease or Difficulty of Modifying Water 

Quality Criteria:



Figure 10: States Reporting That Different Water Bodies Would Be Slated 

for Cleanup if Improvements Were Made to the Process of Changing 

Standards:



ASIWPCA: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution

  Control Administrators:



EPA : Environmental Protection Agency:



NPDES: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System:



TMDL: total maximum daily load:



UAA: use attainability analysis:



January 30, 2003:



The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.

Chairman, Subcommittee on

Water Resources and Environment

Committee on Transportation

  and Infrastructure

House of Representatives:



Dear Mr. Chairman:



In response to your request, this report discusses the extent to which 

(1) states are refining designated uses when necessary and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is assisting states toward that 

end and (2) EPA is updating its criteria documents and assisting states 

in establishing criteria that can be compared with reasonably 

obtainable monitoring data. We include recommendations to the 

Administrator of EPA to provide additional guidance regarding 

designated use changes to the states and regional offices that 

clarifies when a change is appropriate, what data are needed to justify 

the change, and how to establish subcategories of uses; follow through 

on the agencys plans to assess the feasibility of establishing a 

clearinghouse of approved designated use changes by 2004; set a 

time frame for developing and publishing nationally recommended 

sedimentation criteria; develop alternative, scientifically defensible 

monitoring strategies that states can use to determine if water bodies 

are meeting the criteria; and develop guidance and a training strategy 

that will help EPA regional staff determine the scientific 

defensibility of proposed criteria modifications.



As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 

from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the 

appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of EPA, and the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.



Please call me or Steve Elstein on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff 

have any questions. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix IV.



Sincerely yours,



Signed by John B. Stephenson:



John B. Stephenson

Director, Natural Resources

  and Environment:



[End of section]



Executive Summary:



Purpose:



According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 

20,000 bodies of water throughout the country are too polluted to meet 

water quality standards, and it may cost billions of dollars to clean 

them up. Under the Clean Water Act, states adopt water quality 

standards as the benchmarks against which pollution levels within their 

water bodies are measured. As such, the standards are critical in 

making accurate, scientifically based determinations as to which waters 

are impaired and require attention. In recent years, however, questions 

have been raised as to whether current water quality standards are 

accurate and, therefore, whether the right waters are being targeted 

for cleanup.



In his capacity as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Water 

Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, Representative Duncan asked GAO to determine whether 

EPA and the states are doing all they should to ensure that the two key 

components of water quality standards--the designated uses that 

identify the purposes which a given body of water is intended to serve 

and the water quality criteria that are used to determine whether the 

waters quality is high enough to achieve these uses--can be used to 

make accurate determinations as to which waters are impaired and 

therefore require remediation. Specifically, GAO was asked to determine 

the extent to which (1) states are changing designated uses when 

necessary and EPA is assisting the states toward that end and (2) EPA 

is updating its criteria documents and assisting states in establishing 

criteria that can be compared with reasonably obtainable monitoring 

data.



To respond to the Chairmans request, GAO obtained information from 

state water quality officials through a Web-based survey of the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. GAO also completed telephone 

surveys with all 10 EPA regional offices and conducted site visits to 

Kansas, Ohio, and Montana. GAO also met with, and obtained information 

from, officials from EPAs headquarters and the Association of State 

and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

(ASIWPCA)[Footnote 1] and interviewed representatives of various 

interest groups such as Earthjustice and the American Farm Bureau 

Federation. (See chapter 1 for a detailed description of our scope and 

methodology.):



Background:



Water quality standards comprise two key components--designated uses 

and water quality criteria. Designated uses are uses assigned to water 

bodies, such as drinking water, contact recreation (e.g., swimming), 

and aquatic life support (e.g., fishing). Water quality criteria 

specify pollutant limits that are intended to protect the designated 

uses of a water body, such as the maximum allowable concentration of a 

pollutant (e.g., iron) or an important physical or biological 

characteristic that must be met (e.g., an allowable temperature range).



Water quality criteria can be numeric (i.e., quantitative) or narrative 

(i.e., qualitative), and they can include components such as the 

frequency and duration of monitoring needed to determine whether the 

criteria are being met. To develop criteria, states rely heavily on 

EPA-developed criteria documents containing the technical data that 

help states adopt pollutant levels that, if not met, may preclude a 

water body from meeting its designated uses. EPA is responsible for 

developing and revising criteria documents in a manner that reflects 

the latest scientific knowledge. States may adopt these criteria as 

recommended by EPA, adapt them to meet state needs, or develop criteria 

using other scientifically defensible methods.



States are required to review both their waters designated uses and 

associated criteria periodically and propose changes to EPA as 

appropriate. Before its changes can take effect, the state must submit 

them to EPA and obtain approval of the changes. EPA is required to 

review and approve or disapprove standards changes proposed by a state 

within 60 to 90 days.



States generally determine if a water bodys designated use is being 

achieved by comparing monitoring data with applicable state water 

quality criteria. If the water body fails to meet the applicable 

standards, the state is required to list that water as impaired, 

calculate a pollution budget under EPAs Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) program, which specifies reductions necessary to achieve the 

standard, and then eventually implement a cleanup plan. Thus, as noted 

in a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences, water quality 

standards are the foundation on which the entire TMDL program rests: if 

the standards are flawed, all subsequent steps in the TMDL process will 

be affected.



Results in Brief:



The extent to which states are changing designated uses varies 

considerably, with states making anywhere from no use changes to more 

than 1,000 use changes during the 5-year period from 1997 through 2001. 

Regardless of the number of use changes states have made to date, 

nearly all states report that they have water bodies within their 

states that currently need changes to their designated uses. According 

to the states, some of these needed designated use changes have not 

been made because of barriers states face to making these changes, with 

many citing, for example, a lack of resources and monitoring data or 

resistance from interest groups and affected parties. Importantly, in 

some instances, another key reason needed use changes have not been 

made is states uncertainty over the circumstances in which use changes 

are acceptable to EPA and the evidence needed to support those changes. 

Many states said they need additional assistance from EPA to make 

accurate and defensible decisions on what some believe will be a much 

larger number of designated use changes in coming years. Specifically, 

they cited a need for additional EPA guidance that clarifies both the 

circumstances under which a use change is acceptable and the type of 

evidence needed to support those changes. EPA headquarters officials 

acknowledge this need and have formed a national working group to 

develop additional guidance regarding designated use changes. Such 

guidance would also (1) help clarify to EPA regional officials what 

state-proposed changes are acceptable and (2) promote more consistent 

review and approval policies across EPAs 10 regional offices. Among 

other things, GAO is recommending that EPA clarify its guidance to the 

states and regions on when a use change is appropriate and what 

constitutes an approvable designated use change and develop a 

clearinghouse that provides the states and regions with examples of 

approved use changes.



As required, EPA has developed and published criteria for a wide range 

of pollutants. However, EPA has not developed criteria for 

sedimentation and is currently in the process of developing the complex 

criteria needed for nutrients. According to EPA data, these pollutants 

account for a relatively large share of the nations impaired waters. 

Hence, it is not surprising that states responding to GAOs survey rank 

these two pollutants as their highest priorities for criteria 

development. Even when EPA criteria documents have been developed, some 

states have reported difficulty in using the documents to establish 

criteria in such a way that the criteria can be easily compared with 

reasonably obtainable monitoring data. As a related matter, states also 

expressed difficulty in modifying the criteria they already have in 

place when they find it necessary to reflect, for example, new data or 

changing ecological conditions. While most states cited resource 

constraints as a barrier that affects their ability to make criteria 

modifications, more than half of the states also cited EPAs approval 

process--noting, for example, insufficient assistance from their 

respective EPA regional offices in helping them understand what data 

are necessary to justify a criteria modification. Inconsistency among 

EPA regional offices in providing this assistance has been due, in 

part, to a lack of staff expertise among some offices in determining 

the scientific feasibility of criteria modifications. To help states 

better meet their criteria needs, GAO is recommending that EPA (1) set 

a time frame for developing and publishing sedimentation criteria, (2) 

develop alternative, scientifically defensible monitoring strategies 

that states can use to determine if water bodies are achieving their 

water quality criteria, and (3) develop guidance and a training 

strategy that will help EPA regional standards staff determine the 

scientific defensibility of proposed criteria modifications.



Taken together, states designated uses and water quality criteria, 

which comprise their water quality standards, determine how states 

identify their impaired waters. If states are unable to correctly 

identify their impaired waters, they risk focusing their limited 

resources on the wrong water bodies and/or exposing their citizens to 

health and environmental risks. As figure 1 illustrates, 30 states 

reported that if improvements were made to the process of modifying 

standards (through changes to designated uses and/or criteria), 

different waters would be identified for TMDL development. 

Significantly, this total does not reflect the effects on impaired 

waters lists of new criteria developed by EPA and the states. As EPA 

issues new numeric criteria for sedimentation and other pollutants and 

finalizes the nutrient criteria currently under development, states 

will be required to adopt numeric criteria for these key pollutants. As 

states adopt the new criteria, they will likely list different waters 

as impaired.



Figure 1: States Reporting That Different Water Bodies Would Be Slated 

for Cleanup if Improvements Were Made to the Process of Changing 

Standards:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of state data.



Principal Findings:



States Practices in Changing Designated Uses Vary Widely:



As figure 2 illustrates, states vary widely in the extent to which they 

have made designated use changes, with states making anywhere from no 

use changes to more than 1,000 use changes during the 5-year period 

from 1997 through 2001. Regardless of the number of designated use 

changes that have been made to date, nearly all states told GAO that 

designated use changes will be needed in the future. The total number 

of such changes may dwarf those already made. For example, Oregon 

officials noted that while the state did not make any use changes from 

1997 through 2001, they believe designated use changes are needed for 

more than 90 percent of its basins. Four other states reported that 

more than 50 percent of their water bodies currently need use changes. 

Many states explained their current need to make designated use changes 

by noting, among other things, that many of their original use 

decisions, made during the 1970s, were made without the benefit of 

accurate data. States survey responses also indicate that states 

believe more protective uses are needed for some waters, while less 

protective uses are needed for others.



A key reason states have not made more of their needed designated use 

changes, according to responses to the GAO survey, is the uncertainty 

many state water quality officials face as to the circumstances under 

which use changes are acceptable and the evidence needed to support 

those changes. While EPA published guidance regarding designated use 

changes in 1994, 43 percent of states reported that they need 

additional guidance on when and how to make designated use changes. EPA 

officials from 9 of the 10 EPA regions also acknowledged that states 

need better guidance on when designated use changes are appropriate and 

the data needed to justify a use change. EPA headquarters officials 

told GAO that they also recognize the states need for this kind of 

additional guidance and have formed a national working group to address 

this need.



Figure 2: Number of Designated Use Changes Reported by Each State from 

1997 through 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Notes: 	GAO analysis of state data. 



The designated use changes reported by the states include both changes 

that resulted in more protective uses and changes that resulted in less 

protective uses.



EPA regional officials explained to GAO that lack of clarity in the 

1994 guidance regarding the type and amount of data that would 

constitute an approvable use change has led to varying regional 

interpretations and, consequently, inconsistency in approval decisions 

made by the regions. EPA headquarters officials also acknowledge this 

inconsistency and note that regional inconsistency in approving 

proposed designated use changes has been a long-standing concern.



Importantly, 22 states indicated that if the process for changing 

designated uses were improved in a way that allowed them to assign more 

accurate designated uses, different water bodies would be targeted for 

cleanup under the TMDL program. (An additional 16 states said they did 

not know whether different water bodies would be slated for TMDL 

development.) Most EPA regional officials agreed; officials from 7 of 

EPAs 10 regional offices reported that different water bodies would be 

slated for cleanup if the process of changing designated uses were 

improved.



States Need Criteria for Some Pollutants and Assistance in Applying and 

Modifying Existing Criteria:



Water quality criteria are the measures by which states determine if 

designated uses are being attained, and therefore they play an equally 

important role in identifying impaired waters for cleanup. If 

nationally recommended criteria do not exist for key pollutants or if 

states have difficulty using or modifying existing criteria, states may 

not be able to accurately identify water bodies that are not attaining 

their designated uses. Several barriers currently prevent states from 

using some of the criteria they need to identify impaired water bodies. 

Specifically, (1) EPA has not developed criteria documents for some key 

pollutants that cause a relatively large share of the nations water 

impairments; (2) even when EPA has developed criteria recommendations, 

many states have difficulty using some of the criteria to determine 

whether their water bodies are meeting standards; and (3) most states 

have difficulty modifying the criteria they already have in place to 

better meet their needs or to reflect new information.



Regarding the first barrier, while EPA has developed and published 

criteria documents for a wide range of pollutants over a period of 

decades, it has not yet issued numeric water quality criteria 

recommendations for sedimentation and other key pollutants and is 

currently in the process of developing nutrient criteria. These 

pollutants together cause approximately 50 percent of water quality 

impairments nationwide. Many states responding to GAOs survey 

indicated that these pollutants are among those for which numeric 

criteria are most needed. Specifically, when asked to identify the top 

three such pollutants, the pollutants most frequently cited were 

nutrients, followed by sediment and pathogens. EPA explained that the 

delay in developing and publishing key criteria has been due to various 

factors, such as the complexity of the criteria and the need for 

careful scientific analysis, as well as an essentially flat budget 

accompanied by a sharply increased workload.



Regarding the second barrier, even where criteria documents have been 

published by EPA, states reported that the criteria cannot always be 

used because water quality officials sometimes cannot perform the kind 

of monitoring that the criteria documents specify, particularly in 

terms of frequency and duration. GAOs survey asked states the extent 

to which they have been able to establish criteria that can be compared 

with reasonably obtainable monitoring data. About one-third reported 

that they were able to do so to a minor extent or less, about one-

third to a moderate extent, and about one-third to a great extent. 

Mississippis response noted, for example, that the state has adopted 

criteria that specify that samples must be collected on four 

consecutive days. The state noted, however, that its monitoring and 

assessment resources are simply insufficient to monitor at that 

frequency. Mississippi is not alone: a 2001 report by the National 

Research Council found that there is often a fundamental discrepancy 

between the criteria used to determine whether a water body is 

achieving its designated use and the frequency with which water quality 

data are collected. To address this discrepancy, regional EPA 

officials have suggested that EPA work with the states to develop 

alternative methods for determining if water bodies are meeting their 

criteria, such as a random sampling approach to identify and prioritize 

impaired waters.



Regarding the third barrier, states are required to periodically review 

and modify the criteria they already have in place, but 43 states 

reported that it is somewhat to very difficult to do so. Given 

their current fiscal conditions, most state water quality officials 

said that they lack the considerable resources (including data, 

funding, and expertise) needed to modify their criteria. Significantly, 

however, more than half of the states reported that EPAs approval 

process is a barrier they face when trying to modify their criteria. In 

this connection, respondents also noted that EPA regional offices are 

inconsistent in the type and amount of data they deem sufficient to 

justify a criteria change. Some regional officials told us that this 

inconsistency is explained, in part, by staff turnover in the regional 

offices. Likewise, a 2000 EPA report found that less tenured staff in 

some regional offices often lack the technical experience and skill to 

work with the states in determining the scientific feasibility of 

state-proposed criteria modifications. GAO concluded that additional 

headquarters guidance and training of its regional water quality 

standards staff would help to facilitate meritorious criteria 

modifications while protecting against modifications that would result 

in environmental harm.



Recommendations:



At the end of chapter 2, GAO makes a number of recommendations to the 

EPA Administrator to help ensure that the designated uses in place 

under EPAs water quality standards program provide a valid basis for 

decisions about which of the nations waters should be targeted for 

cleanup. Along similar lines, GAO makes recommendations to the 

Administrator at the end of chapter 3 to help improve the states 

abilities to adopt, apply, and modify water quality criteria so that 

they, too, are more effective in accurately determining water 

impairments.



Agency Comments:



GAO provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and 

comment. EPAs January 14, 2003, letter is included in appendix III. To 

obtain the states perspectives, GAO also provided the draft report to 

ASIWPCA, which in turn provided it to water quality standards experts 

from Ohio and South Carolina for their review.



EPA stated that the agency will give serious consideration to the 

reports recommendations. EPA also offered specific comments dealing 

with the reports discussion of (1) EPAs progress in developing 

nutrient and sedimentation criteria, (2) new criteria for nutrients, 

sedimentation, and other pollutants causing an increase in the number 

of waters identified as impaired by states, (3) states concerns about 

developing and adopting nutrient criteria, (4) states need to change 

some of their designated uses, and (5) barriers states face to changing 

designated uses. These issues, and our responses, are discussed at the 

end of chapters 2 and 3. In addition, EPA also provided GAO with a 

number of more detailed technical suggestions and clarifications. These 

have been incorporated into the report as appropriate.



The water quality standards experts from Ohio and South Carolina who 

reviewed the report on behalf of ASIWPCA offered several specific 

clarifications and suggestions, all of which were incorporated in the 

report. ASIWPCA officials noted that since the reviewers comments were 

not considered for endorsement by the associations membership, they 

should be viewed as informal suggestions to enhance the accuracy and 

completeness of the report. GAO also verified specific state 

information noted in the draft report with representatives from those 

states and made modifications as necessary.



[End of section]



Chapter 1 Introduction:



[End of section]



The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the 

Clean Water Act, was enacted in 1972. One of its primary goals is to 

achieve and maintain water quality for the protection and propagation 

of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the 

water. As a first step toward achieving this goal, states were required 

to adopt water quality standards. These standards identify thresholds 

above which water bodies are deemed to be impaired and in need of 

cleanup. The act specifies that water quality standards should consist 

of designated uses and water quality criteria. Designated uses identify 

the purposes for which a given body of water is intended to serve, such 

as drinking water, contact recreation (e.g., swimming), and aquatic 

life support (e.g., fishing). Water quality criteria are used to 

determine whether the waters quality is high enough to support these 

uses.



In addition to requiring the states to set standards, the act also 

requires that states periodically review their standards and revise 

them as needed. Periodic review and revision of water quality standards 

is important because standards are the foundation of several water 

quality programs, such as the TMDL program. For this reason, water 

quality standards play a key role in achieving the goals of the Clean 

Water Act.



Designated Uses:



States must determine designated uses by considering the use and value 

of their water bodies for public water supplies; the protection of 

fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and for recreational, agricultural, 

industrial, and navigational purposes. In situations where water 

quality standards specify designated uses less protective than those 

that are presently being attained, the state is required to revise its 

standards to reflect the uses actually being attained. In addition, 

states must assign designated uses to protect any existing use--

defined by EPA regulations as any use actually attained by a water body 

on or after November 28, 1975.



Federal regulations state that, with EPA approval, a state may remove a 

designated use that is not an existing use if the state can demonstrate 

that it is not feasible to attain that designated use. According to the 

language of the regulations, a designated use change may be made for 

one of the following reasons:



* naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment 

of the use;



* natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water 

levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may 

be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent 

discharges without violating state water conservation requirements to 

enable uses to be met;



* human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the 

attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more 

environmental damage to correct than to leave in place;



* dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude 

the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water 

body to its original condition or to operate such modification in a way 

that would result in the attainment of the use;



* physical conditions related to the natural features of the water 

body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, 

pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude 

attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or:



* controls more stringent than those required by the act would result 

in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.



To demonstrate that a current designated use is not feasible for one of 

these reasons, states can conduct a use attainability analysis (UAA). A 

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 above. States that want 

to remove a designated use, for example, by removing a primary contact 

recreation use such as swimming while retaining a secondary contact 

recreation use such as boating, must conduct a UAA and include the 

results of the analysis in their submittal for a use change to EPA. 

States that want to increase the stringency of a designated use are not 

required to conduct a UAA.



In addition to changing uses for individual water bodies, states may 

also add subcategories of designated uses. For example, a state may 

wish to create designated use subcategories that distinguish between 

cold and warm water fisheries, as opposed to a single, more general 

fishery use. These types of more stratified designated uses are 

referred to by the National Academy of Sciences as tiered designated 

uses.



Water Quality Criteria:



In addition to assigning designated uses, states must also adopt water 

quality criteria that specify pollutant limits intended to protect 

those uses. Criteria can be either numeric or narrative, and they can 

include components such as frequency and duration of monitoring needed 

to determine if criteria are being met. Numeric criteria specify 

quantitative limits on pollutant levels that will protect a designated 

use. For example, states might specify a maximum allowable 

concentration for iron in order to protect a water body designated for 

public water supply or an allowable temperature range to protect a 

water body for aquatic life. Narrative criteria are descriptions of 

physical or biological conditions that must be met in order for the 

water body to be identified as achieving its designated use. For 

example, states might have a narrative criterion for all surface waters 

stating that waters shall be free from floating debris, oil, scum, and 

other floating materials entering the waters as a result of human 

activity in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or cause degradation.:



In addition to numerous chemical-specific criteria, states have 

sometimes adopted biological, nutrient, and sedimentation criteria, as 

well. For example, biological criteria can be developed to describe a 

desired aquatic community based on the number and kind of organisms 

expected to be present in a water body.[Footnote 2] Nutrient criteria 

are a means to protect water bodies from nutrient over-enrichment and 

cultural eutrophication--a condition in an aquatic ecosystem where high 

nutrient concentrations stimulate the rapid growth of algae. Nutrients, 

such as phosphorus and nitrogen, occur in waters naturally as well as 

from pollution sources such as wastewater treatment plants and runoff 

from agriculture. Sedimentation criteria describe conditions that will 

avoid the adverse effects of sediments. Sediments, for example sand and 

silt, accumulate through natural processes such as erosion and from 

activities such as mining, logging, and urban development.



To assist states, EPA is required to develop, publish, and revise 

criteria documents that contain the technical information states need 

to develop their water quality criteria. States may adopt EPAs 

nationally recommended criteria, modify nationally recommended 

criteria to reflect site-specific conditions, or adopt criteria based 

on other scientifically defensible methods.



Standards Review and Revision:



Under the Clean Water Act, states are required to review their water 

quality standards at least every 3 years, make revisions as needed, and 

submit any changes to EPA for review and approval (or 

disapproval).[Footnote 3] Once states submit their proposals, EPA has 

60 days to approve or 90 days to disapprove of the standards change. In 

its review of state changes, EPA must determine whether:



* the state has adopted designated uses which are consistent with the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act,



* the state has adopted criteria that protect the designated uses,



* the state has followed its legal procedures for revising or adopting 

standards,



* the state standards are based upon appropriate technical and 

scientific data and analyses, and:



* the state submission meets the requirements of the regulations.



If a state has met these conditions, EPA will generally approve the 

standards change.[Footnote 4] If a state has not met these conditions, 

EPA must disapprove the change, specify what the state needs to do to 

correct the problem, and promulgate a new or revised standard when 

necessary to meet the requirements of the act if the state fails to 

revise its standards to address EPAs concerns. Historically, states 

could implement new standards pending a decision by EPA, but a recent 

court decision[Footnote 5] and subsequent regulations, commonly 

referred to as the Alaska rule, declared that water quality standards 

are not effective until approved by EPA.



Importance of Accurate Water Quality Standards in Identifying Polluted 

Waters:



States use water quality standards as the benchmark against which they 

identify water quality problems caused by a variety of factors, such as 

improperly treated wastewater discharges; runoff or discharges from 

active or abandoned mining sites; sediment, fertilizers, and chemicals 

from agricultural areas; and erosion of stream banks caused by improper 

grazing practices. Water quality standards also support other programs 

aimed at achieving and maintaining protective water quality conditions. 

For example, water quality standards support (1) the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for point source 

discharges; (2) efforts that document current water quality conditions, 

including the list identifying impaired waters for which TMDLs are 

required; (3) water quality certifications for activities that may 

affect water quality and require a federal license or permit; and (4) 

management plans for the control of nonpoint sources 

of pollution.[Footnote 6]



Of perhaps greatest consequence in the past several years is the 

critical role that water quality standards play in determinations made 

in the TMDL program. As figure 3 illustrates, states water quality 

standards play a key role in helping states identify which waters are 

in need of cleanup. States generally determine if a water bodys 

designated use has been achieved by comparing monitoring data with 

applicable state water quality criteria. If the water body fails to 

meet the applicable standards, the state is required to list the water 

as impaired, calculate a pollution budget under the TMDL program that 

specifies what reductions are needed to achieve the standards, and 

eventually implement a cleanup plan. Because of this link between the 

water quality standards and TMDL programs, we and other organizations 

have identified concerns about the standards program. Our January 2002 

report, Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate 

Nations Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters (GAO-02-186), 

addressed, in part, inconsistencies among the states in assigning 

designated uses to water bodies as well as in developing criteria to 

protect those uses. In a similar vein, the National Academy of 

Sciences National Research Council released a report in June 2001 that 

concluded, among other things, that standards are the foundation upon 

which the entire TMDL program rests, and states need to develop 

appropriate water quality standards prior to assessing water bodies and 

developing TMDLs.[Footnote 7]



Figure 3: Water Quality Standards as the Basis for Cleanup Decisions:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



As agreed with the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 

objectives of this review were to determine the extent to which (1) 

states are changing designated uses when necessary and EPA is assisting 

the states toward that end, and (2) EPA is updating its criteria 

documents and assisting states in establishing criteria that can be 

compared with reasonably obtainable monitoring data.



To obtain information on both objectives, we conducted a Web-based 

survey of water quality standards officials from the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. Our survey asked state officials to provide 

information on the number of designated uses that have been changed in 

their state, as well as barriers officials face when making use 

changes. We also asked the officials to provide information on their 

states water quality criteria needs and barriers they face when 

modifying criteria. We pretested our survey with state officials in 

Pennsylvania and Virginia and also obtained comments on the draft 

survey during a teleconference call with officials from 27 states and 

ASIWPCA. We received survey responses from all 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. We also provided our survey to five river basin 

commissions and received responses to the questions applicable to these 

organizations from three of those commissions.



To obtain EPAs perspective, we interviewed officials in EPA 

headquarters and EPAs 10 regional offices. During our interviews with 

officials from the regional offices, we asked the officials to provide 

information on program operations, policies, and guidance. We also 

obtained information on regional offices interactions with the states 

during situations in which the state proposed to change designated uses 

and modify criteria.



To obtain more detailed information on the activities and limitations 

affecting state agencies efforts to refine designated uses and 

establish appropriate criteria, we also visited water quality staff in 

three states--Kansas, Montana, and Ohio. In selecting these states, we 

considered a variety of factors, most notably their experiences in 

changing designated uses and establishing criteria and the diversity of 

their geophysical characteristics. In the states, we interviewed state 

water quality officials as well as representatives of industry and 

environmental groups. In addition, we accompanied Kansas water quality 

officials as they conducted a use attainability analysis and Ohio water 

quality officials as they demonstrated a biological assessment of a 

water body.



To obtain the perspective of the primary national organization 

representing state and interstate water quality officials, we 

interviewed members and staff of ASIWPCA. To obtain additional 

perspectives of key interest groups, we also interviewed 

representatives from the national offices of the American Farm Bureau 

Federation, the American Forest and Paper Association, and 

Earthjustice.



We conducted our work from February through December 2002 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. GAO contacts and 

staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV.



[End of section]



Chapter 2 States Practices in Changing Designated Uses Vary Widely:



[End of section]



Appropriate designated uses are critical because they play a key role 

in states determinations as to whether their waters are impaired and 

therefore need to be cleaned up. Nearly all states believe that some 

portion of their water bodies have over-or under-protective designated 

uses, or both. However, states vary considerably in the extent to which 

they have made changes to those designated uses. Nearly all states 

reported that they face barriers to making necessary changes to their 

designated uses, with many noting that a lack of resources and data 

limits the number of designated use changes they attempt. Compounding 

these problems is uncertainty states sometimes face about the 

circumstances in which use changes are acceptable to EPA and the 

evidence needed to support those changes. A key contributor to this 

uncertainty, in turn, is the absence of sufficient EPA guidance to help 

states understand when it is appropriate to pursue a designated use 

change and what data is required to successfully justify the change. 

Improved guidance would also help clarify for EPAs regional offices 

the circumstances under which state-proposed use changes should and 

should not be approved. Significantly, many states indicated that if 

improvements were made to the process of changing designated uses, so 

that they could more accurately assign those uses, they would likely 

identify different waters for cleanup under the TMDL program.



States Thus Far Report Wide Variation in the Extent to Which They 

Change Designated Uses:



We asked the states to report the total number of designated use 

changes they adopted from 1997 through 2001. Their responses indicated 

that the extent to which states have made use changes varies widely. As 

figure 4 illustrates, 31 states and the District of Columbia reported 

that they made somewhere between no designated use changes to up to 20 

use changes between 1997 and 2001, 12 states reported that they made 

between 21 and 100 use changes, and 7 states made between 101 and 1,127 

use changes. Overall, the states identified approximately 3,900 use 

changes that were made during this period.



Figure 4: Number of Designated Use Changes Reported by Each State from 

1997 through 2001:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Notes: GAO analysis of state data. 



The designated use changes reported by the states include both changes 

that resulted 

in more protective uses and changes that resulted in less protective 

uses.



Future Use Changes May Dwarf Those Made to Date:



Regardless of the number of use changes states have made to date, 

nearly all believe that future use changes are needed. As figure 5 

illustrates, 28 states reported that between 1 to 20 percent of their 

water bodies need use changes, 11 states reported that between 21 and 

50 percent of their water bodies need use changes, and 5 states 

reported that more than 50 percent of their water bodies need use 

changes. When examined more closely, these percentages indicate that 

future use changes may dwarf the few thousand made between 1997 and 

2001. For example, Missouris response noted that while the state did 

not make any use changes from 1997 through 2001, approximately 25 

percent of the states water bodies need changes to their recreational 

designated uses, and more changes might be needed for other use 

categories, as well. Similarly, Oregons response noted that while no 

use changes were made from 1997 through 2001, the state needs 

designated use changes in more than 90 percent of its basins. The 

prospect of a significant increase in the number of designated use 

changes was also suggested by an internal 2000 EPA report assessing the 

water quality standards development and review process. In that report, 

EPA noted that the number of water quality standards submissions are 

expected to increase significantly, due in part to use designations 

reflecting more and better scientific information and greater focus on 

ecological factors.[Footnote 8]



Figure 5: Number of States Reporting Various Percentages of Their Water 

Bodies Needing Designated Use Changes:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of state data.



The expected increase in designated use changes to be proposed by many 

states is explained, in part, by how states originally designated the 

uses of their waters. Many state officials reported that, as a result 

of time constraints and a lack of data, their state set designated uses 

broadly. For example, Oregons response explained that the states 

designated uses were assigned very broadly by entire basin or subbasin, 

and most freshwaters are designated for all uses. Missouris response 

explained that Due to the paucity of data and time frame 

considerations [at the time uses were assigned] many of the states 

waters are not appropriately designated. State water quality officials 

estimated that for recreational uses alone, 25 percent of the states 

water bodies are misclassified. Utahs response noted that because of 

concerns that grant funds would be withheld if designated uses were not 

assigned quickly, state water quality and wildlife officials set 

designated uses over a 4-to 5-day period using best professional 

judgment.:



In the same vein, many states found that as they collected more data in 

ensuing years, the new data provided compelling evidence that their 

uses were either under-or over-protective. In the case of over-

protective designated uses, some states found, for example, that 

natural physical conditions unrelated to water quality (such as cover, 

flow, or depth) prevent attainment of the designated use. For example, 

as Kansas officials have collected additional data on their water 

bodies, they have identified instances where the attainment of a 

recreation use was not feasible due to natural physical conditions. 

They cited the example of Lohff Creek, which has naturally low flow 

conditions that prevent it from attaining its recreation use--a 

condition that state officials recognized only after they actually 

monitored the creek in 2001. Similarly, some states found that man-made 

hydrologic modifications, such as dams and diversions, sometimes 

prevent the attainment of a designated use and that in such instances 

it may not be feasible to restore or modify the water body. In other 

cases, naturally occurring pollutants, such as arsenic and mercury, 

prevent attainment of the designated use.



Conversely, some states reported that a portion of their designated 

uses were not protective enough. For example, water quality officials 

from Kansas explained that some of the water bodies in their state that 

have a designated use of secondary contact recreation (i.e., wading) 

should actually have a more protective primary contact recreation use 

(i.e., swimming) because the public has easy access to those water 

bodies. They cited the example of Huntress Creek, which flows through a 

city park, thereby allowing the public unhindered access. South 

Carolinas response noted that the state changed the designated uses of 

some of its water bodies to be more protective of trout waters and the 

outstanding resource waters of the state. Iowas and Kentuckys 

responses noted that 96 and 87 percent, respectively, of their 

designated use changes made between 1997 and 2001 resulted in more 

protective uses. An Iowa water quality official explained that Iowa has 

been changing broad designated use categories into more specifically 

defined categories, and that these changes have resulted in many water 

bodies being assigned more protective uses.



In addition, some states have recognized a need to change designated 

uses based on interstate inconsistencies they identified. For example, 

a former Kansas water quality official (currently with the Kansas Farm 

Bureau) explained that a part of the Missouri River that forms a 

portion of the state boundary between Kansas and Missouri has a primary 

recreation use in Kansas and a secondary recreation use in Missouri. 

Because of this discrepancy in the uses between the states, Missouri 

can allow discharges at levels such that the identical stretch of water 

is not impaired in Missouri but is impaired in Kansas. Similarly, the 

Salmon Falls River, an interstate water forming a portion of the 

boundary between Maine and New Hampshire, had inconsistent designated 

uses that resulted in an impairment designation by Maine but not by New 

Hampshire. Likewise, New York and Connecticut discovered that their 

dissolved oxygen standards for Long Island Sound (both designated uses 

and criteria) were inconsistent.



Some states are also seeking to develop more subcategories of 

designated uses to make them more precise and reflective of their 

waters actual uses. Developing these subcategories of uses has the 

potential to result in more protective uses in some cases, and less 

protective uses in others. For example, Montana water quality officials 

noted that all streams with trout fall under the same use 

classification, but that not all trout have the same habitat 

requirements. The officials explained that without subcategories of 

uses, they cannot distinguish between high-quality, award-winning trout 

fisheries and lower-quality fisheries. Similarly, a representative from 

the Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest explained that 

for water bodies that have a general designated use of fishing, the 

fish species present has sometimes changed over time due to increased 

pollution, yet the water bodies were still attaining their uses. On the 

contrary, states that currently have broadly defined designated uses 

that are protective of the most sensitive species might develop 

subcategories that are less protective for areas where those species 

are not present.



Citing circumstances such as these, the 2001 National Research Council 

report discussed earlier concluded that developing subcategories of 

designated uses is an essential step in setting appropriate water 

quality standards and that designated uses need to be more detailed 

than broad recreational support and aquatic life support 

categories. EPA has since developed a tiered aquatic life uses working 

group that has been tasked with developing guidance for creating 

aquatic life use subcategories.



Lack of Clear Guidance Complicates States Efforts to Make 

Defensible Designated Use Changes:



States have latitude under the Clean Water Act in determining whether 

their designated uses need to be changed. This latitude, along with 

different state philosophies, helps to explain, in part, their behavior 

thus far in making such changes. However, our survey shows that states 

have not made all of the use changes they believe are needed. According 

to the states, some reasons needed designated use changes have not been 

made include a lack of resources and monitoring data and resistance 

from interest groups and affected parties. Importantly, another key 

reason some of the needed use changes have not been made is states 

uncertainty over the circumstances in which use changes are acceptable 

to EPA and the evidence needed to support these changes. EPA 

headquarters and regional officials acknowledge that states are 

uncertain about how to change their designated uses and believe better 

guidance would serve to alleviate some of the confusion.



Uncertainty Regarding UAAs:



EPA regulations specify that in order to remove a designated use, 

states must provide a reason as to why a use change is needed and 

demonstrate to EPA that the current designated use is unattainable. To 

do this, states are required to conduct a UAA. According to EPA, a UAA 

is a structured, scientific assessment of the physical, chemical, 

biological, and economic factors affecting the attainment of a use. 

UAAs vary considerably in their scope and complexity and in the time 

and cost required to complete them. They can range from 15-minute 

evaluations that are recorded on a single worksheet to more complex 

analyses that might require years to complete. A Virginia water quality 

official explained, for example, that some of the states UAAs are 

simple exercises using available data, while others require more 

detailed analysis involving site visits, monitoring, and lab work. In 

their responses to our survey, states reported that UAAs they conducted 

in the past 5 years cost anywhere from $100 to $300,000.



In 1994, as noted in chapter 1, EPA published guidance regarding use 

changes that specifies the reasons why states may remove a designated 

use.[Footnote 9] Nonetheless, our survey shows that many states are 

still uncertain as to when to conduct UAAs, or about the type or amount 

of data they need to provide to EPA to justify their proposed use 

changes. Forty-three percent of states reported that they need 

additional clarifying UAA guidance. Among them, Oregons response 

explained that water quality officials need guidance on whether a UAA 

is required to add subcategories of use for particular fish species. 

Virginias response indicated that the state needs guidance as to what 

reasons can justify recreational use changes, noting further that state 

water quality officials would like to see examples of UAAs conducted in 

other states. Louisianas response similarly called for specific 

guidance on what type of and how much data are required for UAAs in 

order for EPA to approve a designated use change with less 

protective criteria.



To facilitate the process of making necessary use changes, as of summer 

2001, 18 states had negotiated UAA protocols with their EPA regional 

offices to assist in achieving a common understanding of the 

information needed to justify a use change. Another 6 states were 

developing protocols at that time.[Footnote 10] According to EPA 

officials, such protocols facilitate the UAA process by 

(1) standardizing data collection and analysis procedures, 

(2) outlining the bases on which the state evaluates the information, 

and (3) providing a consistent format and content for UAA results. 

Seventy-eight percent of the states with UAA protocols made designated 

use changes from 1997 to 2001, compared to 45 percent of the states 

without UAA protocols.



EPA Acknowledges State Uncertainty Regarding UAAs:



EPA regional officials acknowledged the uncertainty states frequently 

experience regarding the scope, content, and other key attributes 

required for a given UAA. Officials from 9 of the 10 EPA regions 

reported that states need better guidance on when UAAs are needed and 

the data needed to justify a use change. Chicago regional officials, 

for example, explained that the states in their region need 

clarification on when recreational use changes are appropriate and the 

data needed to support recreational use changes. Similarly, an official 

from the San Francisco regional office reported that EPA needs to 

develop national UAA guidance that details how to conduct UAAs and 

suggested that headquarters provide a national clearinghouse of 

approved use changes to provide examples for states and regions of what 

is considered sufficient justification for a use change. In an EPA 

Office of Water draft strategy developed for the water quality 

standards program, EPA recognized that a clearinghouse for states and 

EPA to share information on policies, guidance, criteria, and 

implementation approaches would be useful to the states. The strategy 

specifies that EPAs Office of Science and Technology will conduct a 

feasibility study to identify ways to provide a cost-effective 

clearinghouse; EPA plans to conduct the feasibility study in 2004.



EPA headquarters officials have acknowledged states need for 

additional UAA guidance and have formed a national UAA working group 

for this purpose. Tasked with developing draft guidance for categories 

of designated uses, the group plans to have draft guidance for 

recreational uses for public comment in late spring 2003 and to 

finalize the guidance by late summer 2003. EPA also intends to start 

drafting guidance for aquatic life uses in spring 2003, with draft 

guidance completed sometime in 2004.



EPA Regional Approaches Concerning States Designated Use Changes Are 

Inconsistent:



EPAs regional offices play an important role, both in assisting states 

in their efforts to ensure that their waters are properly designated 

and ultimately in either approving or disapproving proposed designated 

use changes. We found that regional assistance to the states varies but 

that much of this variation reflects the fact that some states request 

more assistance than others. Of greater concern to some states than the 

amount of assistance provided by EPA are the different burdens of 

proof applied by different regional offices as to when a UAA is needed 

and how much data is sufficient to justify a use change.



In response to a specific question posed in the letter requesting this 

study, we asked states about the extent of EPA assistance they have 

received in their efforts to evaluate designated uses for possible 

changes. Most of the states that have conducted UAAs characterized the 

level of assistance they received from their EPA regional offices as 

minor, very minor, or none at all. EPA officials explained that 

they provide assistance to states that are conducting UAAs when 

contacted by the states, and they encourage states to involve them in 

the process early and often. Officials from the Boston regional office 

noted that they have only received one request to assist with a UAA and 

that they worked hand in hand with the state when asked. Officials from 

the San Francisco regional office explained that it is important for 

states to contact EPA early in the process of conducting a UAA because 

EPA can help identify problem areas in advance. The officials noted 

that any time a state or regulated community member has conducted a 

UAA, they have come to the regional EPA office for assistance.



States responses, however, cited a need for a different kind of 

assistance from EPA than guidance on how to conduct a UAA; rather, many 

said they would like a sense of predictability regarding the data they 

need to justify to EPA a designated use change. Some states water 

quality officials reported that the data needed to justify a use change 

varies among EPA regions, and, in some regions, the requirements serve 

as a barrier to making use changes. Louisianas response noted that the 

state would like EPA to agree on what type of and how much data are 

required in a UAA to substantiate a use change and added that it would 

like to see the same rules apply across EPA regions. In our 

experience, states in other regions are not subject to the same 

requirements for UAAs as we have been. Similarly, Iowas response 

indicated that the approaches used to modify standards, including UAAs, 

vary considerably among the states and that EPA is often seen as an 

impediment to adopting better designated uses. Likewise, Rhode Islands 

response noted that EPA guidance on UAAs should be more uniformly 

applied by all the EPA regional offices and explained that the states 

most significant concern is that its EPA regional staff require a much 

greater burden of proof than EPA guidance suggests or than other 

regions require.



Existing EPA guidance recognizes that some inconsistency in the amount 

and type of data required to justify a use change is legitimate given 

that UAAs vary in scope and complexity. Some EPA headquarters and 

regional officials, however, acknowledge inconsistency among the 

regions, based on varying interpretations of the regulations, in the 

type and amount of data they require of states making use changes. One 

EPA regional official expressed the view that the 10 regions have 10 

different interpretations of when a UAA is appropriate and what data 

are needed to justify a use change. The official further explained that 

national UAA guidance that provides decision criteria is needed so that 

there can be greater consistency in use change decisions across 

regions. Water officials from several other regions also acknowledged 

the inconsistency and explained that the inconsistency is due to the 

lack of national guidance. EPA headquarters officials concurred that 

regional offices require different types and amounts of data to justify 

a use change and noted that inconsistency in EPA regional approaches 

has been a long-standing concern. The officials explained that EPA is 

trying to reduce inconsistencies while maintaining the flexibility 

needed to meet region-specific conditions by holding regular work group 

meetings and conference calls between the regional offices and 

headquarters.



Different Water Bodies Would Be Slated for Cleanup If Improvements Were 

Made:



Appropriate designated uses play a key role in states determinations 

of impaired water bodies. Without them, states cannot make well-

informed cleanup decisions under the TMDL program, and states risk 

focusing resources on the wrong water bodies and/or exposing their 

citizens to health and environmental risks. Given the barriers to 

changing designated uses that states face, some EPA regional officials 

reported that some states are opting to develop bad TMDLs rather than 

make needed use changes. Some states believe that if the process of 

changing designated uses were improved, it would result in better 

decisions as to which water bodies need to be cleaned up. As figure 6 

illustrates, 22 states reported that they believe different water 

bodies would be identified for TMDL development in their states, while 

another 16 reported that they did not know whether different water 

bodies would be slated for TMDL development. Rhode Islands response, 

for example, noted that if the process of changing uses were improved, 

waters impaired by natural causes would no longer be targeted for TMDL 

development. Nebraskas response indicated that if the state were able 

to refine recreational uses to exclude high flow events, many of its 

waters slated for cleanup would no longer require TMDLs.



Figure 6: States Responses to Whether Different Water Bodies Would Be 

Slated for Cleanup if the Process for Changing Designated Uses Were 

Improved:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of state data.



Many of the regional EPA officials we interviewed agreed with this 

assessment. Overall, officials from 7 of 10 regional EPA offices 

reported that different water bodies would probably be identified as 

requiring TMDLs if the process of changing designated uses were 

improved.[Footnote 11] One regional official reflected the views of 

others in explaining that while some additional water bodies presently 

not listed as impaired would be identified as requiring a TMDL, others 

currently listed as impaired might be subsequently delisted.



Conclusions:



The accuracy of designated uses is critically important, given their 

central role in determining whether or not waters are to be targeted 

for cleanup. Inaccurately identified uses may result in either wasted 

resources caused by the overprotecting of some waters, or 

unacceptable environmental consequences caused by the 

underprotecting of others.



Many thousands of waters nationwide are currently assigned designated 

uses that state water quality officials believe are inappropriate. 

However, based on the states relatively limited experience to date in 

making use changes, the challenge of evaluating this much larger number 

of waters for future changes will be particularly complicated.



As they approach this task, both states and their EPA regional offices 

would benefit from additional guidance that clarifies the circumstances 

in which designated use changes are appropriate and the type and amount 

of data a state needs to justify such a change to EPA. Indeed, the 

states and regions that have developed protocols for this purpose have, 

as a group, been better able to agree upon such changes than those 

without protocols. EPA officials acknowledge the value of designated 

use protocols. They also acknowledge that clearer national guidance 

would serve a similar purpose and, at the same time, provide a more 

consistent framework for use changes among states and regions.



EPA has plans to explore the feasibility of establishing a 

clearinghouse that provides states and regional offices with examples 

of approved use changes and the justification for those changes. A 

clearinghouse would also allow EPA and the states to share information 

on policies, guidance, criteria, and implementation approaches. EPA 

officials said they are currently planning to conduct the feasibility 

study in 2004 to identify cost-effective ways to provide this 

clearinghouse.



Recommendations:



To help ensure that the designated uses in place under EPAs water 

quality standards program provide a valid basis for decisions on which 

of the nations waters should be targeted for cleanup, we recommend 

that the Administrator of EPA:



* provide additional guidance on designated use changes to better 

clarify for the states and regional offices when a use change is 

appropriate, what data are needed to justify the change, and how to 

establish subcategories of uses; and:



* follow through on the agencys plans to assess the feasibility of 

establishing a clearinghouse of approved designated use changes 

by 2004.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



EPA shares our concern that waters are inappropriately slated for TMDL 

development as a result of inappropriate use designations. The agency 

notes that it intends to provide guidance to states on how to change 

their uses so that states can establish a more refined set of uses that 

will better characterize the states water quality goals for specific 

waters. The agency also notes, however, that current designated uses 

are not necessarily incorrect, explaining that waters may be listed 

as impaired inappropriately because the designated uses applying to 

those waters are not specific enough. We agree with EPA that some of 

the waters inappropriately slated for TMDL development are the result 

of designated uses that are not specific enough and need further 

refinement. However, some state water quality officials also told us 

that some waters are listed inappropriately because the designated uses 

were, in fact, incorrect. For example, a number of state officials 

explained that some waters are listed inappropriately because the 

designated uses are simply inconsistent with the waters conditions.



EPA points out that, like the non-EPA related barriers to making 

necessary criteria changes cited in chapter 3, similar barriers apply 

to the designated uses discussion in chapter 2. Specifically, EPAs 

letter cites burdensome state rulemaking processes, public opposition 

to downgrades, and resource shortages that make it difficult for states 

to invest in necessary monitoring and assessment programs. While the 

draft report had acknowledged several of these non-EPA barriers (e.g., 

scarcity of resources and monitoring data and resistance from interest 

groups and affected parties) in its executive summary, we have added 

these barriers in chapter 2.



[End of section]



Chapter 3 States Need Criteria for Some Pollutants and Assistance in 

Applying and Modifying Existing Criteria:



[End of section]



Because water quality criteria are the measures by which states 

determine if designated uses are being attained, they play a role as 

important as designated uses in states decisions regarding the 

identification and cleanup of impaired waters. If nationally 

recommended criteria do not exist for key pollutants or if states have 

difficulty using or modifying existing criteria, states may not be able 

to accurately identify water bodies that are not attaining designated 

uses. Therefore, EPA is required to periodically publish and revise 

criteria documents that contain the technical data that help the states 

adopt pollutant thresholds.



As required, EPA has developed and published criteria for a wide range 

of pollutants. According to EPA data, however, a relatively large share 

of pollutants causing water quality problems nationwide are pollutants 

for which EPA either has not yet developed national numeric criteria 

(e.g., sedimentation and other nonpoint source pollutants) or is in the 

process of developing numeric criteria (e.g., nutrients). In addition, 

(1) many states have had difficulty using EPAs criteria documents to 

establish state water quality criteria that can be compared with 

reasonably obtainable monitoring data and (2) most states have 

difficulty modifying the criteria they already have in place to better 

meet their needs or reflect new information. As was the case with 

designated uses discussed in the previous chapter, many states reported 

that if the process of making necessary changes to criteria were 

improved, different waters would be slated for cleanup.



Key Criteria Documents Have Not Been Developed by EPA:



Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is required to develop and publish, and 

from time to time revise, water quality criteria that accurately 

reflect the latest scientific knowledge. As of May 2002, EPA had issued 

national numeric criteria for 165 pollutants, of which 101 are for 

priority toxic pollutants.[Footnote 12] Yet as large as this number of 

pollutants may be, approximately 50 percent of water quality 

impairments nationwide concern pollutants for which there are no 

national numeric water quality criteria. Sedimentation is a key 

pollutant for which numeric water quality criteria need to be 

developed. In addition, nutrient criteria are currently being 

developed, and pathogen criteria need to be revised. Together, 

sediments, nutrients, and pathogens are responsible for about 40 

percent of impairments nationwide. (See fig. 7.) Many states responding 

to our survey indicated that these pollutants are among those for which 

numeric criteria are most needed. Specifically, when asked to identify 

the top three such pollutants, the pollutants most frequently cited 

were nutrients, followed by sediment and pathogens.



Figure 7: Percent of Impairments Nationwide Caused by Various 

Pollutants:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of EPA data.



Recognizing the growing importance of pathogens in accounting for the 

nations impaired waters, EPA developed numeric criteria for pathogens 

in 1986--although states are having difficulty using these criteria and 

are awaiting additional EPA guidance. EPA is also currently working 

with states to develop nutrient criteria and has entered into a 

research phase for sedimentation. The agency is asking states to make 

substantial progress in adopting nutrient criteria by the end of 

2004. EPA issued guidance in January 2001 to help the regions and 

states do this. While EPA has published final eco-regional nutrient 

criteria recommendations for all freshwaters, excluding wetlands, some 

state water quality officials told us of continuing concerns over their 

ability to adapt the recommended numeric nutrient criteria to take into 

account local watershed conditions. If the recommended criteria are not 

adapted, some states expressed concern that the criteria may not be 

realistic for state implementation. For example, a water quality 

official from Iowa explained that the discussion in his region has thus 

far been dominated by individuals who will not be responsible for 

actually using the criteria and that the criteria suggested appear to 

represent ideal conditions. Water quality officials from Illinois and 

Kentucky also expressed concern with the current nutrient criteria, 

noting that eco-regions are too broad in scope and that criteria will 

need to be adapted by the states to be meaningful.



EPA has made substantially less progress in developing sedimentation 

criteria. The agency plans to have a strategy for developing 

sedimentation criteria by September 2003. At that point, EPA officials 

plan to consult with their Science Advisory Board regarding the 

strategy. As of January 2003, the agency does not have a prospective 

date for developing sedimentation criteria. EPA noted that in the past 

the agency has issued several technical papers and provided some 

guidance to states regarding sedimentation.



EPA explained that the delay in developing and publishing key criteria 

has been due to various factors, such as the complexity of the criteria 

and the need for careful scientific analysis, as well as an essentially 

flat budget accompanied by a sharply increased workload. In response to 

our request for specific budget data, the officials noted that since 

1992 the water quality standards budget has fluctuated between $16.2 

and $20.3 million, with the fiscal year 2002 budget at approximately 

$18.8 million. (See app. I.) During the same time, EPA officials noted 

that their workloads have increased because of several external 

factors, including increased litigation and new legislative 

requirements. For example, as of August 2002, EPA had 11 pending cases 

and nine notices of intent to file suit that affect the water quality 

standards program. The officials also explained that for several 

decades EPA and the states focused more on point source discharges of 

pollution, which can be regulated easily through permits, than on 

nonpoint sources, which are more difficult to regulate. In recent 

years, as nonpoint sources of pollution have become more of a priority, 

there has been an increasing focus on pollutants from such sources.



Many States Cannot Reasonably Monitor to Determine if Criteria Are 

Being Met:



Even in cases where criteria have been published by EPA, states 

reported that the criteria cannot always be effectively used because 

water quality officials sometimes cannot perform the kind of 

monitoring, as specified in the criteria documents, that must be used 

to ascertain whether the water body is meeting standards. While most 

states face long-standing challenges in collecting a sufficient amount 

of monitoring data to assess all of their water bodies, states reported 

that some criteria cannot be used even when reasonably obtainable 

monitoring data is collected. These findings confirm those of the 2001 

National Research Council report cited earlier, which underscored the 

importance of criteria that can be reasonably compared with monitoring 

data but which also found that criteria often lack this 

key characteristic.



Our survey asked states to report on the extent to which they have been 

able to establish criteria that they can use to determine whether their 

water bodies are attaining their designated uses. As figure 8 shows, 

about one-third reported that they were able to do so to a minor 

extent or less, about one-third to a moderate extent, and about one-

third to a great extent. Some states explained that the required 

frequency of monitoring posed a problem. For example, while Connecticut 

was one of the states that reported that it has been able to establish 

its criteria in this way to a moderate extent, its response also 

explained that some criteria include never exceed values that suggest 

the need for continuous monitoring--a monitoring regimen that requires 

resources the state simply does not have. Similarly, Mississippis 

response noted that the state has adopted some water quality criteria 

that specify that samples must be collected on four consecutive days. 

The response noted, however, that the states monitoring and assessment 

resources are simply insufficient to monitor at that frequency.



Figure 8: States Responses on the Extent to Which Their Criteria Can 

Be Used to Determine Whether Their Water Bodies Are Impaired:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of state data.



Some EPA regional officials said they generally understand the states 

concerns and suggested that EPA should assist states by developing 

scientifically defensible methods for implementing criteria that 

account for monitoring constraints. Regional officials in Boston 

explained that they are currently assisting the states in their region 

to use probabilistic sampling techniques for assessing many water 

bodies. Similarly, Chicago and Dallas regional officials suggested the 

use of a random sample approach to identify and prioritize impaired 

waters. San Francisco regional officials recognized that technology has 

not always kept pace with states monitoring needs, and thus they have 

promoted a weight of evidence approach to making impairment decisions 

in which chemical, toxicity, and biological data are assessed 

collectively, rather than independently, to determine the overall state 

of the water body. New York regional officials stated that national EPA 

guidance for criteria implementation is needed because states will not 

use criteria unless they have a clear understanding of how to implement 

them.



The National Research Councils 2001 report underscored the importance 

of having water quality standards that can be compared to reasonably 

obtainable monitoring data, but echoed the concerns of many states that 

standards too often lack this key characteristic. The report explained 

that In many states, there is a fundamental discrepancy between the 

criteria that have been chosen to determine whether a water body is 

achieving its designated use and the frequency with which water quality 

data are collected. The report further noted that compliance with some 

criteria is virtually impossible, leading to complications within the 

TMDL program.



States Report Difficulty in Modifying Criteria:



If a state believes that it can improve its criteria, it has the option 

of modifying them--with EPAs approval. In fact, states are required to 

review and modify their criteria periodically--a process involving 

activities from data collection and assessment through EPA approval or 

disapproval. A state might modify a criterion, for example, if new 

information becomes available that better reflects local variations in 

pollutant chemistry and corresponding biological effects, or because 

newer and more direct measures of designated use protection are 

identified.



As figure 9 illustrates, 43 states responded that it was somewhat to 

very difficult to modify criteria. Not surprisingly, a vast majority 

of states reported that a lack of resources (including funding, data, 

and staff expertise) complicates this task. Nevadas response, for 

example, explained that, like many states, it typically relies on EPAs 

recommended criteria because of limited experience in developing 

criteria as well as limited resources; in many instances, developing 

site-specific criteria would better reflect unique conditions, allowing 

for better protection of designated uses. Ohios response cited the 

need to use a formal rulemaking process, which can be both time-and 

resource-intensive.



Figure 9: States Reporting the Ease or Difficulty of Modifying Water 

Quality Criteria:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of state data.



Many states also said that concern over the publics perception of a 

proposal to modify criteria affects their ability and inclination to do 

so. States receive comments concerning proposed changes from a wide 

range of interested parties, from the regulated community (e.g., the 

American Farm Bureau, power companies, and wastewater treatment plants) 

to the environmental community and other citizen groups. As Wisconsins 

response noted, resistance to criteria changes tends to come from 

whichever side believes its interests are adversely affected--the 

regulated community in cases where the proposed criteria become more 

stringent and the environmental community when they become less 

stringent. On the other hand, Ohio water quality officials, as well as 

members of environmental organizations and the regulated community, 

noted that their state officials use of science to justify criteria 

changes makes agreement between the state and the public more likely. 

Members of the regulated community have been able to use the states 

methodology for making criteria changes in order to initiate some 

criteria changes and provide the data to justify those changes. 

Likewise, members of a state environmental organization noted that they 

support the states methodology because it is science-based and allows 

for greater objectivity in decision making.



Uncertainty over EPA approval process a key barrier:



While it is not surprising that most states cited resource shortages 

and the publics response as factors that affect their ability to 

modify criteria, more than half the states also reported that the EPA 

approval process is a factor. Some states noted that the EPA approval 

process leaves them unclear as to whether a resource-intensive criteria 

modification process may be worth pursuing. States also noted 

differences among the EPA regional offices and with EPAs headquarters 

office as to what they will accept as reasonable proof to justify a 

criteria modification. Kansas officials explained that EPA headquarters 

officials state there is a great deal of flexibility afforded to states 

in developing their individual state water quality standards, but EPA 

regional officials appear more reluctant to allow states to utilize 

that flexibility. State officials postulated that because of staff 

turnover, regional staff are not there long enough to have much 

confidence as to what is reasonable. A Kansas Farm Bureau employee who 

formerly worked for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

asserted that Region 7 officials were far less experienced than Region 

8 officials and that it was therefore much more difficult to negotiate 

criteria changes with Region 7 staff.



Some EPA regional and headquarters officials acknowledge that a lack of 

staff expertise has sometimes had an effect on criteria modification 

decisions. One regional EPA official told GAO that regional staff 

tenure and experience has affected how easily states are able to modify 

their criteria. In addition, a recent report by EPAs Office of Science 

and Technology acknowledged the staff turnover issue and its 

effects.[Footnote 13] The report notes that high staff turnover at 

headquarters as well as in the regions has, at times, resulted in 

inexperienced staff being placed in positions of authority over water 

quality standards decisions. The report further notes that these staff 

sometimes lack the technical competency to work with the states on 

determining the scientific feasibility of state criteria 

modifications. While the report adds that EPA is implementing 

2000 guidelines for national coordination on reviewing state water 

quality standards actions, states continue to report inconsistencies.



Regional officials have acknowledged this reports conclusion that 

states uncertainty over what constitutes an approvable modification 

has sometimes complicated their efforts to modify their criteria. An 

official from the San Francisco regional office noted that states do 

not know what data they need to provide to justify a criteria 

modification or when their region will approve a criteria modification. 

The official explained that a southern California group of dischargers 

spent $1.5 million to provide supporting data for a standards change to 

the regional EPA office. The proposed change was ultimately not 

approved, and the sponsors believed that a clear reason for the 

disapproval was not provided.



Officials from EPAs Office of Science and Technology told us that EPA 

has intentionally not issued specific guidance on what constitutes an 

approvable criteria modification. The officials explained that EPA does 

not want to preclude options that states may use to modify their 

criteria if the states can demonstrate protectiveness and scientific 

defensibility of the proposed criteria. The officials noted that EPA 

regional and headquarters staff are available to assist states that 

wish to pursue modifications of their criteria. We acknowledge the 

merits of EPAs strategy of allowing the states the flexibility to 

pursue different options. Our findings, however, suggest that 

additional headquarters guidance and training of its regional water 

quality standards staff would still help to facilitate meritorious 

criteria modifications--particularly in situations where relatively 

less experienced standards officials have hesitated to consider 

proposed modifications largely because they would come under the 

scrutiny of the regulated and/or environmental communities.



Improving Criteria Would Result in Different Waters Being Slated for 

Cleanup:



States abilities to modify criteria can significantly affect the way 

they identify their impaired waters and, consequently, the decisions 

they make as to which of their waters should be targeted for cleanup 

under the TMDL program. When asked if an improvement in the criteria 

modification process would result in different waters being slated for 

TMDL development, 22 states responded yes, 19 states said they did not 

know, and 10 states said no. Idaho, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and 

Wyoming responded that improved criteria would probably result in fewer 

waters being listed as impaired. Rhode Island and South Carolina said 

that such criteria could better reflect site-specific conditions in 

their states. Oregons response noted that an improvement in the 

criteria modification process could lead to more or fewer water bodies 

identified as impaired, depending on what criteria are modified and how 

they are modified.



Additional Impacts Expected from Upcoming New Criteria on Nonpoint 

Source Pollutants:



In addition to states identifying different waters as impaired due to 

their modification of existing criteria, states would also identify 

different waters as impaired as a result of new nonpoint source 

pollutant criteria--particularly nutrients and sedimentation. These 

criteria will likely lead to increases in the number of impaired waters 

listed by some states, particularly agricultural states. Kansas water 

quality officials explained, for example, that if Kansas adopts the 

nutrient criteria without adapting them for local conditions, more than 

90 percent of the states lakes and reservoirs--284 of approximately 

315 lakes and reservoirs--would need to be listed as impaired by 

nutrients. Regardless of whether states experience an increase, 

decrease, or no change in the number of waters identified as impaired 

due to new criteria, the more important point is that states will be 

identifying different waters as impaired.



Potentially Large Cumulative Impact of Both Designated Uses 

and Criteria on Impaired Waters Lists:



Because designated uses and criteria make up states water quality 

standards, a change in either one is considered a standards 

modification. As noted in chapter 2, 22 states reported that an 

improvement in the process of changing designated uses would result in 

different water bodies being slated for cleanup. Further, as noted in 

this chapter, 22 states reported that an improvement in the process of 

modifying criteria would have that effect. When we superimpose the 

states responses to obtain the cumulative effect of improving either 

designated uses or the process of criteria modification, we found that 

a total of 30 states indicated that an improvement in the process of 

modifying standards--whether a change in their designated uses, their 

criteria, or both--would result in different water bodies being slated 

for cleanup. (See fig. 10.):



Figure 10: States Reporting That Different Water Bodies Would Be Slated 

for Cleanup if Improvements Were Made to the Process of Changing 

Standards:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Note: GAO analysis of state data.



Importantly, the 30-state total does not reflect the impacts that would 

result from EPAs publication, and states subsequent adoption, of new 

criteria for sedimentation and other pollutants and states adoption of 

new nutrient criteria. As this occurs in coming years, states will 

adopt numeric criteria for these key pollutants which, in turn, will 

likely lead many of them to identify different waters as impaired.



Conclusions:



Because water quality criteria are the measures by which states 

determine if designated uses are being attained, they play an equally 

important role with designated uses in identifying impaired waters for 

cleanup. Several problems, however, impede the use of criteria for this 

purpose. Specifically, (1) EPA has not developed many of the criteria 

for identifying the key nonpoint source pollutants that cause the 

largest share of the nations water quality impairments, (2) even when 

EPA has developed criteria recommendations, some states have often had 

difficulties using the criteria in such a way that they can reasonably 

determine if the criteria are being met, and (3) most states have 

difficulty modifying the criteria that they already have in place.



EPA has developed and published criteria for a wide range of pollutants 

over a period of decades, but has not yet issued numeric water quality 

criteria recommendations for key nonpoint source pollutants that 

together cause approximately 50 percent of water quality impairments 

nationwide. The agency has taken significant steps toward the complex 

task of developing nutrient criteria, and states are currently trying 

to adapt default nutrient criteria provided by EPA to reflect local 

conditions. However, EPA has made substantially less progress to date 

in developing criteria for sedimentation, another top priority 

pollutant, and has yet to identify a target date for its completion.



In cases where EPA has developed criteria recommendations, states have 

often had difficulties using the criteria in such a way that they can 

reasonably determine if the criteria are being met. Some difficulties 

in using the criteria stem, for example, from states inability to 

reasonably monitor at the frequency needed. While a lack of resources 

for monitoring has been a long-standing concern at the state level, 

some EPA regional officials have noted that there may be alternative, 

scientifically defensible monitoring strategies that could better help 

them determine whether water bodies are meeting their criteria.



Even though states are required to review and modify their existing 

criteria periodically, most states have a difficult time making needed 

changes. While most states said that they sometimes lack the resources 

needed to modify their criteria, more than half of the states also 

reported that EPAs approval process is a barrier they face when trying 

to modify their criteria. Many noted that EPA regional officials are 

inconsistent in the types and amount of data they deem sufficient to 

justify a criteria change. This inconsistency can be explained, at 

least in part, by staff turnover in the regional offices, particularly 

in situations where relatively less experienced standards officials 

have hesitated to consider proposed modifications. Additional 

headquarters guidance and training of its regional water quality 

standards staff would help facilitate meritorious criteria 

modifications while protecting against modifications that would result 

in environmental harm.



Recommendations:



We recommend that the Administrator of EPA take actions to improve 

states abilities to adopt, implement, and modify water quality 

criteria. Specifically, the Administrator should direct the Office of 

Science and Technology to do the following to help ensure that states 

criteria are a valid basis for impairment decisions:



* Set a time frame for developing and publishing nationally recommended 

sedimentation criteria.



* Develop alternative, scientifically defensible monitoring strategies 

that states can use to determine if water bodies are meeting their 

water quality criteria.



* Develop guidance and a training strategy that will help EPA 

regional staff determine the scientific defensibility of proposed 

criteria modifications.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



EPA states that the report should further emphasize the significant 

progress the agency has made in developing criteria for nutrients and 

sedimentation. EPA notes, for example, that the agency has published 

final nutrient criteria recommendations for all freshwaters (except 

wetlands) in the contiguous United States and that EPA is currently 

working on nutrient criteria recommendations for wetlands. The agency 

also underscored its initial efforts to develop sedimentation criteria. 

The draft report had cited EPAs significant efforts to develop 

nutrient criteria, noting, for example, that EPA issued guidance in 

January 2001 to assist the regions and states develop eco-regional 

numeric nutrient criteria that would take into account local watershed 

conditions. The draft also cited EPAs plans to have a strategy for 

developing sedimentation criteria by September 2003 and after that, 

consult with its Science Advisory Board regarding the strategy. 

However, in response to the EPA comment, we have added an expanded 

explanation of the current status of EPA actions to develop nutrient 

and sedimentation criteria in chapter 3.



EPA questions the draft reports prediction that new criteria for 

nutrients, sedimentation, and other pollutants would lead to large 

increases in the numbers of waters listed as impaired. EPA points out 

that it may be difficult to predict the effect of the new criteria for 

various reasons. For example, EPA notes that depending on how states 

prepared their previous lists of impaired waters, some waters may be 

taken off the list while others are added. In addition, EPA explains 

that new quantitative criteria for nutrients or sedimentation may help 

refine impaired waters lists because many states would have numeric 

benchmarks as opposed to narrative criteria or qualitative assessments. 

We acknowledge EPAs assessment that the nationwide effect of new 

criteria may be unclear. However, water quality experts from a number 

of individual states told us that they expect large increases in their 

numbers of impaired waters from the new nutrient criteria alone. 

Nonetheless, whether the new criteria result in an increase, decrease, 

or no change in the number of waters listed as impaired nationwide, the 

important point is that the issuance of these criteria will result in 

different listings in the case of many waters. In response to EPAs 

comment, we revised the report to emphasize the key point that states 

will identify different waters as impaired, rather than more or fewer 

waters.



EPA states that the draft report did not sufficiently recognize the 

progress EPA has made in addressing states concerns about developing 

and adopting nutrient criteria. The agency notes that in response to 

states concerns that EPAs nutrient criteria recommendations may not 

be appropriate for specific waters, the agency issued a November 2001 

guidance memorandum. EPA explains that the guidance memorandum 

clarifies that states have the flexibility to adopt EPAs 

recommendations, adapt the recommendations to better reflect local 

conditions, or develop nutrient criteria using other scientifically 

defensible methods. We acknowledge the value of EPAs November 2001 

guidance but note that some state representatives told us of continuing 

concerns, despite the guidance, over their ability to adopt, adapt, or 

develop nutrient criteria. For example, some state representatives 

reported that their states will need to adapt EPA recommended nutrient 

criteria to reflect local conditions but will have difficulty 

collecting adequate data to do so.



[End of section]



Appendixes:



[End of section]



Appendix I: EPAs Water Quality Standards Program Budget from 1992 

through 2002:



EPA provided its best available budget amounts for the water quality 

standards program from 1992 through 2002. As table 1 indicates, 

the nominal dollar budget amounts for the program ranged between 

approximately $16.2 and $20.3 million during that time.



EPA Water Quality Standards Program Budget Amounts from 1992 

through 2002 



Fiscal Year: 1992; Dollars in millions: $16.2.



Fiscal Year: 1993; Dollars in millions: $16.7.



Fiscal Year: 1994; Dollars in millions: $18.9.



Fiscal Year: 1995; Dollars in millions: $18.6[A].



Fiscal Year: 1996; Dollars in millions: $18.4[B].



Fiscal Year: 1997; Dollars in millions: $19.9[A].



Fiscal Year: 1998; Dollars in millions: $20.3[C].



Fiscal Year: 1999; Dollars in millions: $19.1[A].



Fiscal Year: 2000; Dollars in millions: $18.5[A].



Fiscal Year: 2001; Dollars in millions: $18.4[A].



Fiscal Year: 2002; Dollars in millions: $18.8[A].



[End of table]



Source: EPA.



[A] Enacted budget amount:



[B] Operations plan budget amount:



[C] Presidential budget amount:



[End of section]



Appendix II: GAO Survey of State Water Quality Standards Programs:



[See PDF for image] - graphic text:



[End of figure] - graphic text:



[End of section]



Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:



UNITED STATES:



UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:



WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460:



OFFICE OF WATER:



John B. Stephenson:



Director, Natural Resources and the Environment U.S. General Accounting 

Office:



Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Stephenson:



Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft General Accounting 

Office (GAO) Report, Water Quality: Improved EPA Guidance and Support 

Can Help States Develop Standards That Better Target Cleanup Efforts. 

We appreciate the effort your staff has made to understand the water 

quality standards program and will give serious consideration to your 

recommendations. In this letter we are providing our substantive 

comments on the Report. We are providing separate technical and 

editorial comments regarding factual information in the Report.



Throughout the document, the Report emphasizes the need for the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish nutrient and 

sedimentation criteria since many waters are identified to be impaired 

by these pollutants. We agree wholeheartedly, but believe your readers 

need to know that EPA has made significant progress in developing 

criteria for these pollutants, especially for nutrients. EPA has 

published final nutrient criteria recommendations for all fresh waters 

(except wetlands) in the contiguous United States. EPA is currently 

working on nutrient criteria recommendations for wetlands. In addition, 

EPA has published final guidance on how to develop nutrient criteria 

for estuaries and coastal waters. Concerning sedimentation, EPA has 

issued several technical papers and provided some guidance to States. 

The Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW), in EPAs Office 

of Water, is developing guidance for sedimentation TMDLs, including 

innovative guidance on assessing watersheds for river stability and 

sediment supply. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) is 

developing a sedimentation criteria strategy for review by EPAs 

Science Advisory Board during 2003. OST and OWOW are also working with 

EPAs Office of Research and Development (ORD) on sedimentation 

workshops, synthesis papers, and ORDs research projects concerning 

sedimentation exposure, risk assessment, sedimentation effects, and 

risk management/restoration. As a point of clarification, we suggest 

you use the term sedimentation criteria rather than sediment 

criteria. Without this change, readers may confuse the term with 

criteria for contaminated sediments.:



The Report states in several places that the new criteria for 

nutrients, sediments and other pollutants will lead to large 

increases in the numbers of waters listed as impaired. This in fact may 

not be the case for several reasons. (Use changes and criteria 

modifications may also lead to some differences in the lists, but not 

necessarily a huge increase or decrease.) First, the lists may change 

with some waters being de-listed and some being added as a result of 

States adopting new criteria depending on how the States have prepared 

their previous lists. Second, many of the waters listed as impaired for 

nutrients or sediments are listed based on narrative criteria or 

qualitative assessments. New quantitative criteria may actually help 

refine the impaired waters lists as the States will have numeric 

benchmarks with which to evaluate monitoring data. These criteria will 

also serve as quantitative targets to help prepare restoration plans 

and thus reduce the number of waters on the list.Finally, it is 

unclear how to interpret State responses to your survey since the 

survey was conducted just as States were preparing their 2002 section 

303(d) lists of impaired waters requiring TMDLs. State lists from 

1998/2000 are the basis for EPAs current estimate of 35,000 TMDLs 

needed, but most States have now submitted their 2002 lists based on 

new information and on EPAs November 2001 listing guidance. This 

guidance establishes a revised framework for assessing waters. 

Preliminary analysis of the 2002 section 303(d) lists indicates that 

many States are refining their lists as a result of this guidance. We 

suggest that GAOs projection of increases in waters listed may be 

difficult to justify given the changing baselines.



The Report suggests that States are concerned with EPAs guidance to 

States on developing and adopting nutrient criteria (chapter 3, page 

35). The statements in the Report do not recognize the progress EPA has 

made in the past year to address many of the States concerns. For 

example, in response to States concern that EPAs nutrient criteria 

recommendations may not be appropriate for specific waters, EPA 

clarified in a November 2001 guidance memorandum that States have the 

flexibility to adopt EPAs recommendations, adapt the recommendations 

to better reflect local conditions, or to develop nutrient criteria 

using other scientifically defensible methods. EPA recommended that 

States develop nutrient criteria plans describing their expected 

approach to developing criteria and the schedule they plan to meet. EPA 

requested that States share these plans with EPA for purposes of coming 

to a mutually agreeable approach. Since we issued the November 2001 

guidance memorandum, we have received a positive response from almost 

all States interested in developing plans and pursuing development and 

adoption of nutrient criteria.



With regard to designated uses, the Report says that additional 

guidance on how to change uses is needed because the incorrect uses 

in place are causing waters to be inappropriately slated for TMDLs. EPA 

does not believe the current designated uses are necessarily 
incorrect 

in these situations. Waters may be listed as impaired inappropriately 

because the uses applying to those waters are not specific enough to 

properly describe the desired conditions. Therefore, EPA intends to 

provide guidance to States on how to change their uses so that they can 

establish a more refined set of uses to assign their waters that will

better characterize the States water quality goals for specific 
waters. 

In addition, the survey you sent to States asked whether they believed 

their designated uses were reasonable and if they believed any 

refinement in the uses were needed. The language in the survey did 
not 

suggest that uses may be considered incorrect. We suggest that you 

clarify this point in the report and remove any language suggesting 
that 

more accurate designated uses are necessary. You may wish to consider 

including the survey instrument in the Report as an appendix.



In Chapter 2, the Report fails to identify significant non-EPA barriers 

that States face when changing designated uses. These include 

burdensome State rulemaking processes, public opposition to any 

downgrades and resource shortages that make it difficult for States 

to invest in necessary monitoring and assessment programs. The Report 

does address similar non-EPA barriers (e.g. public perception, resource 

shortages, stakeholder resistance) to criteria modifications in Chapter 

3. We suggest including such a discussion on the non-EPA barriers to 

designated use changes in Chapter 2.



Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with your staff 

on this Report. Should you need any additional information or have 

further questions, please contact Fred Leutner, Chief of the Water 

Quality Standards Branch at (202) 566-0378 or Don Brady, Chief of the 

Watershed Branch at (202) 566-1227.



Sincerely,



Signed by Diane C. Regas:



Diane C. Regas, Director:



Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds:



[End of section]



Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



John Stephenson, (202) 512-3841

Steve Elstein, (202) 512-6515:



Acknowledgments:



In addition to the individuals named above, Barbara Patterson, 

Katheryn Summers, and Michelle K. Treistman made key contributions 

to this report. Also contributing to this report were Nancy Crothers, 

Brandon Haller, Karen Keegan, and Elsie Picyk.



FOOTNOTES



[1] ASIWPCA is an independent, nonpartisan organization of state and 

interstate water program managers.



[2] According to EPA, there is a growing recognition of the importance 

of biological criteria in water quality protection.



[3] EPAs regulations provide that the minimum requirements for a state 

water quality standards submission to EPA include, among other things, 

an antidegradation policy to maintain and protect the existing uses of 

water bodies.



[4] EPA must also consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service if the approval would affect 

threatened or endangered species.



[5] Alaska Clean Water Alliance v. Clark, No. C96-1762R (W.D. Wash. 

July 8, 1997).



[6] Point source discharges include discrete discharges from individual 

facilities, such as factories and wastewater treatment plants. Nonpoint 

sources of pollution are diffuse sources that include a variety of 

land-based activities, such as timber harvesting, agriculture, and 

urban development.



[7] National Research Council, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water 

Quality Management (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001).



[8] EPA, An Assessment of the Water Quality Standards Development and 

Review Process (Washington, D.C.: October 2000).



[9] EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook--Second Edition.



[10] The 18 states with UAA protocols are Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, 

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. The six states developing protocols as of summer 2001 were 

Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Virginia, and West Virginia.



[11] Officials from the other three regional offices indicated that 

they did not know whether different water bodies would require TMDLs.



[12] The Clean Water Act includes specific requirements for priority 

toxic pollutants, which are known to be toxic at low levels.



[13] EPA, An Assessment of the Water Quality Standards Development and 

Review Process (Washington, D.C.: October 2000).



GAOs Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAOs commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAOs Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as Todays Reports, on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: