Proceedings Summary Report 

National Symposium 

Designating Attainable Uses for the Nation’s Waters

June 3-4, 2002

Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, DC

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science and Technology

Standards and Health Protection Division

Water Quality Standards Branch

EPA Contract No. 68-C-02-021

Work Assignment B-03

Prepared by:

739 Hastings Street

Traverse City, Michigan 49686

Phone: (231) 941-2230

Facsimile: (231) 941-2240
DISCLAIMER

This report provides a basic overview of the EPA-sponsored national symposium entitled 

“Designating Attainable Uses for the Nation’s Waters” held on June 3-4, 2002 at the Marriott 

Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. The information presented reflects summary notes 

taken during the meeting by the contractor, Great Lakes Environmental Center, and is not 

intended to quote any speaker/participant at the symposium. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 2 July 31, 2002 
Draft Summary Report

National Symposium: Designating Attainable Uses for the Nation’s Waters

June 3-4, 2002

Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington, DC

EPA’s Office of Science and Technology (OST) is responsible for overseeing the national water

quality standards (WQS) program. As part of their water quality standards programs, states and

authorized tribes must establish appropriate protection levels or “designated uses” for each of the

waterbodies in their jurisdiction. Many interested parties have expressed to EPA the need for

additional guidance on designating uses for waterbodies (e.g., aquatic life, recreation,

navigation) and the process to follow when making designated uses more or less protective. 

In order to hear stakeholder views on this subject and to examine the possibility for development

of guidance for use designation, EPA sponsored a national symposium entitled “Designating

Attainable Uses for the Nation’s Waters” on June 3-4, 2002 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel

in Washington, DC. Approximately 200 interested citizens, government officials, and regulated

parties attended this open meeting. (The attendee list is available on EPA’s web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/symposium/registlist.pdf.) EPA assembled an

expert panel representing different viewpoints to share their perspectives, and invited

stakeholders to submit abstracts on a variety of topics concerning designated uses. Based on

these abstracts, the Agency selected speakers who gave brief presentations at the symposium.

The format for the symposium was as follows:

Day 1- Expert panel presentations with comments and questions in the morning followed by

stakeholder presentations in the afternoon.

Day 2- Small group discussions in the morning with additional stakeholder presentations in the

afternoon.

This report summarizes the presentations and discussions at the symposium.

Symposium Proceedings Report 3 July 31, 2002 
Monday June 3, 2002 

The symposium opened with a statement by Geoffrey Grubbs, Director of OST. Mr. Grubbs 

explained that the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and authorized tribes to establish 

water quality standards, of which designating the use of the waterbody is a critical component. 

He also explained that the symposium was designed to be a listening opportunity for EPA, and 

that EPA does not plan to introduce new policies or propose new initiatives for regulatory 

change. Mr. Grubbs also stated that EPA recognizes the complexity of issues surrounding 

designating attainable uses, and that EPA appreciates the views and opinions received from the 

stakeholders. 

Opening remarks continued with an overview statement from the meeting organizer, Cara Lalley 

of OST’s Water Quality Standards Branch, describing the purpose of the symposium. Ms. 

Lalley explained that the goals of the meeting were to enable information exchange among 

stakeholders that might help resolve key questions concerning use designations, and to help EPA 

understand the diversity of views concerning use designations. She also stated that EPA is 

considering developing guidance for states and tribes addressing those key questions. 

The schedule and ground rules for the symposium were then explained by the symposium 

facilitator, Jan Connery of Eastern Research Group (ERG). 

1.0 EXPERT PANEL PRESENTATIONS 

Each of seven expert panel presenters was asked to speak for approximately 5-8 minutes about 

the one or two actions that they would most like to see EPA take in the near future regarding 

designated uses, and why. Their comments are summarized below. 

1.1 Leonard Shabman, Director, Virginia Water Resources Research Center at Virginia 

Tech and Committee Member of the June 2001 National Research Council Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study 

Symposium Proceedings Report 4 July 31, 2002 
• Monitoring data should be compared to designated uses (There needs to be a better 

connection between monitoring and the design of water quality standards; don’t 

design a standard that includes criteria that cannot be measured using current 

monitoring techniques). 

• A Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) is used to define water conditions, not to 

degrade water quality requirements. UAAs are not always for designated use 

downgrades. 

• EPA must better communicate with interested parties, and water quality goals should 

be subject to revision. (The need for a UAA is a “social determination” that involves 

the public. Long-term use attainment decisions are not always possible. Therefore, 

we must take short-term steps toward water quality improvements and they must 

involve educating the public about what water quality standards are desirable and 

achievable.) 

• EPA should seek out advice from experts in the academic arena when developing 

water quality guidance, particularly from economists when giving guidance on CFR 

131.10(g)(6). 

1.2 Mary Buzby, Director of Environmental Technology at Merck, representing the 

American Chemistry Council 

• Use designation is a good concept, but there are flaws. 

• National designated uses (fishable/swimmable, recreation, etc.) are not differentiated 

sufficiently for regulatory purposes. (National EPA policies don’t allow for enough 

local specificity). 

• There is a need to further refine use designations to reflect highest attainable uses. 

We should strive for the highest attainable water quality, not an unrealistic pristine 

condition. 

• When waterbodies are segmented for water quality standards, the different segments 

should reflect different uses. 

• There is a lack of clarity from EPA about how use designations should be established, 

and there are too many delays in the regulatory process regarding UAAs and use 

changes. 

• A weight of evidence approach is needed when evaluating use attainment, rather than 

independent applicability (i.e., independent evaluation of chemical, biological, or 

physical data). 

• Something must be done to solve conflicting public mandates between ensuring high 

water quality and protecting other aspects of public health and safety (e.g., swails 

beside roads drain snowmelt after salting, but the high levels of salt in the water 

prevent fishable uses). 

1.3 David Katz, Deputy Water Commissioner of the Philadelphia Water Department, 

representing the Association of Metropolitan Sewer Agencies (AMSA) 

Symposium Proceedings Report 5 July 31, 2002 
• Designated uses, monitoring, TMDLs, etc. are all interlinked (but TMDL calculations 

are often not well developed). Designated use reviews should be formally 

incorporated into the TMDL process. 

• Use designations often get lost in the water quality standards program. Statewide 

“blanket”designations of 101(a)(2) uses have a different regulatory significance today 

than they did when they were established in the 1970s. CFR 131.10(g) is too 

stringent to remove these improper designations. 

• States say that they need flexibility and that designated uses need revisions. 

1.4 Nina Bell, Executive Director, Northwest Environmental Advocates 

• EPA’s emphasis on downgrading use designations is not responsible. 

• The Bush administration focuses on attainability (“almost there”) rather than on 

attainment (“there”) of water quality standards. 

• The inadequate broad use designations currently applied across the country are 

sufficiently vague so as to avoid applying the most protective criteria (especially for 

protecting endangered species). 

• EPA should persuade states to upgrade rather than downgrade use designations. 

When states do not complete triennial reviews on time, EPA should use the 

opportunity to promulgate use upgrades. 

• Antidegradation guidance is needed more than use designation guidance, and should 

be EPA’s top priority. 

1.5 Tony Shaw, Water Pollution Biologist, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources 

• Pennsylvania traditionally focused on chemical and point-source pollution, but has 

recently switched its focus to non-point sources of pollution and using biological 

assessments when determining water quality standards. 

• Most of Pennsylvania’s use reviews have been for aquatic life uses, and 95 percent of 

them have resulted in no change or an upgrade in use. 

• Original designated uses from the 1970s are not particularly accurate; there are now 

some localized discrepancies with the blanket designations. Some streams have 

never attained their designated use (e.g., cold water fishery). 

• Pennsylvania needs EPA guidance on how to designate recreational and human 

contact uses. 

• States need guidance and flexibility. They are caught between EPA mandates and 

satisfying the public. 

1.6 Robert Moore, Executive Director, Prairie Rivers Network 

• Use designations drive water quality standards. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 6 July 31, 2002 
• UAAs are not a form of regulatory relief. 

• EPA guidance should be on how to properly document uses of waterbodies and how 

to meet CWA goals, not on how to downgrade uses. 

• States should seek the advice of EPA through guidance that already exists, such as 

technical support and antidegradation documents. 

• Wishes to see upgrades rather than downgrades in designated uses. 

1.7 Rick Moore, President of Rizzo Associates, representing the Water Environment 

Federation 

• The Clean Water Act is a premier legislative act, and no one wants to compromise 

Section 101(a)(2) uses. But interpreting the “where attainable” clause is the key. 

• Attainment of a designated use 30 years ago is not the same as attainment now. 

• There is a disconnect between the costs and benefits of wet weather programs; the 

public and politicians don’t understand how cost-benefit analysis works. 

• There is a need for temporary standards during rain events because water quality 

standards are violated during almost every wet weather event. 

• We should remove the existing use concept and focus on designated uses. 

1.8 Questions and Responses Concerning the Expert Panel Presentations 

After the panel presentations, symposium participants were given the opportunity to ask 

questions of the expert panel members. The questions and panel responses are summarized 

below. 

Question 1: “Dischargers” have made arguments to gut the CWA and 131 regulation, yet 

we can’t get rid of the Clean Water Act. CFR 131.10(h) has been forgotten. 

Triennial reviews must assess downgraded waters, and the CWA calls for 

restoration of waters. What is the polluters’ argument for downgrading 

water quality standards? 

Response: Practicality motivates dischargers to look for use changes. Dischargers haven’t 

been able to make all water quality improvements, but they’ve made incremental 

improvements and would like to make more, rather than staying at zero 

improvements (i.e., an unattained use) due to semantics in the regulatory 

language. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 7 July 31, 2002 
Response: Industry invests in clean water, relies on it, and has no intention to destroy it. But 

we want to get the use right. That doesn’t mean downgrading or upgrading, until 

the science is done to determine which is appropriate. 

Response: A change in a use designation is not necessarily a downgrade. 

Question 2: What data are needed to remove a designated use? 

Response: Perhaps the question that should be asked is: how do we make uses more precise, 

not downgrade or remove uses. So first refine uses to some extent (e.g., as simple 

as cold vs. warm water fishery). 

Response: We need the same data and models utilized for TMDL calculations. 

Response: Social issues need to be included as well. 

Response: We need the existing use concept to motivate us to upgrade use designations. 

Giving up on that concept would be giving in to the status quo of allowing water 

to be degraded. 

Question 3: How do we reconcile when existing uses are greater than designated uses?

Response: We need to involve more lay people in watershed decisions.

Response: We can’t always rely on the public to give accurate answers.

Question 4: It’s not true that all use designations apply everywhere, because some 

streams are not that easy to characterize. To resolve this, should EPA come 

up with a checklist approach for use attainability? 

Response: There is a value to a checklist approach, however a watershed approach is more 

desirable. 

Response: Checklists can be good, but if they lead to restrictions, then they are bad. 

Response: A “cookie-cutter” approach is not a good idea for use attainability. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 8 July 31, 2002 
Question 5: How would it be helpful to balance regulatory requirements (i.e., provide 

more flexibility)? 

Response: There is a need to balance water quality improvements with costs and benefits. 

Response: If we can’t meet the use, is it proper to begin with? 

Response: If standards and uses are not met, then it’s difficult to be flexible [under the CWA 

and its implementing regulations]. 

Question 6: What are the national trends in upgrading use designations, and why should 

there be more flexibility by EPA? 

Response: National trends are difficult to comment on, but in Pennsylvania most uses are 

upgraded. 

Response: There should be more flexibility because the states are attempting to refine use 

designations, and this takes time. 

Response: Communities do need to follow the rules, but some flexibility is needed. 

Response: Flexibility allows for a shift from regulatory issues to other important issues. 

Question 7: What are the problems associated with the use of biological data and 

reference sites? 

Response: Least disturbed sites become the standard when they are not necessarily 

comparable to other sites. 

Response: There are other issues with protocol, statistics, etc. that are of concern. 

Response: There are problems with excessively “strict” or “loose” reference sites. 

Question 8: What can we do when cost/benefit analyses don’t favor the benefits and how 

do we involve the public? 

Response: The public generally wants to spend money for pollution control, so we need to 

explain the benefits that would be obtained. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 9 July 31, 2002 
Question 9: How much do we really need an existing use, and how can we define 

biological and human uses? 

Response: We need to protect existing uses. 

Response: If we don’t have an existing use, then we don’t know the restoration benchmark. 

Response: We don’t have complete toxicity data for protecting existing uses. 

Response: There are different processes for designating human and biological uses, and it’s 

not “one size fits all.” 

2.0 ABSTRACT PRESENTATIONS 

Prior to the symposium, participants interested in being presenters submitted abstracts describing 

case studies or new approaches addressing specific topics regarding use designations. Of those 

abstracts submitted, a representative number were selected to present different perspectives on a 

variety of issues. A brief summary highlighting the key points of each presentation is provided 

below, and a copy of each abstract is available on EPA’s web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/symposium/abstracts/ 

(EPA received a large number of abstract submissions, and was not able to select them all for 

presentation at the symposium due to time constraints. However, EPA has posted many of the 

abstracts that were not selected on the above web site.) 

2.1 Jodi Perras, City of Indianapolis Department of Public Works 

Reconciling Policy with Reality: Applying a Common Sense Interpretation of “Existing 

Use” for Recreation in a CSO-Impacted Urban Watershed 

Ms. Perras introduced her presentation by stating that the City of Indianapolis supports and 

upholds the principles underlying the Clean Water Act, including the antidegradation principle 

and the need to provide the greatest protection to existing uses of the nation’s waterways. As 

part of this effort, Indianapolis is preparing a long-term control plan to address long-standing 

combined sewer overflow (CSO) problems, and an accompanying UAA. The UAA will seek to 

demonstrate that any remaining CSO discharges will contribute to violations of water quality 

standards for bacteria, and that complete elimination of those discharges will cause widespread 

Symposium Proceedings Report 10 July 31, 2002 
economic and social impacts on the community. Through the UAA, they will be proposing a

temporary suspension of the designated full-body contact recreational use

on CSO-impacted streams during and after wet weather events. When trying to determine an

existing use, EPA policy says “a state may remove a designated use from its water quality

standards only if the designated use is not an existing use.” An existing use is a use

actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they

are included in the state’s water quality standards. However, the term “actually attained”

is not defined. Therefore, how should the city of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana determine

whether a use has been “actually attained?” In an urban watershed, they believe the following 

factors should be considered in making this determination: 

- Is the water quality and hydrology of the streams conducive to full-body contact recreation? 

- Are there physical barriers making it difficult for people to access the stream? 

- Is swimming or other full-body contact recreation specifically authorized or enabled by the 

city (e.g., does the waterway contain public beaches with lifeguards)? 

- Does the city discourage contact with sewage-contaminated waterways through warning 

signs or other public education programs? 

- How frequent and widespread are any unauthorized recreational uses of an urban stream? 

Thus, EPA, states and CSO communities must meet on common ground to be most efficient. 

Everyone must strive for full protection of an existing use. Finally, there must be a national, 

common sense definition of “existing use” and “actually attained”. 

2.2 James Woodworth, Urban Water Specialist, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Balancing Bathers and Bacteria: Managing Recreation, Wet-Weather Flows and the 

Legacy of a Combined Sewer System in the Nation’s Capital. 

Mr. Woodworth first gave a brief historical account of the Washington, DC combined sewer 

system which is outdated and overflows approximately 75 times in an average year, discharging 

over 3 billion gallons of untreated combined sewer effluent and storm water during rain events. 

In an attempt to address this issue, a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) for CSOs has been drafted 

that proposes to reduce by a very large percentage both the frequency and volume of overflows 

occurring in District waters. Yet, in striving to balance economic realities, engineering 

constraints, and climatological uncertainties, the proposed plan will not meet existing water 

quality standards all of the time. The plan instead proposes to modify water quality standards so 

that the standards can be met or relaxed during wet-weather events. All of the waters of the 

District of Columbia are classified for designated uses of Class A waters, fit for primary contact 

recreation, but none of those waters are now classified for current uses of Class A waters. 

However, the Washington, DC CSO system is designed to overflow, and separation will not 

address storm water runoff. CSO controls alone won’t fix an inter-jurisdictional watershed 

Symposium Proceedings Report 11 July 31, 2002 
problem. He recommended that a well-intentioned and balanced use attainability analysis should 

engage and address the recreational needs, desires and visions of the local community. It should 

consider the limits of technology with the realities of recreation, which, in the context of wetweather high flows and elevated bacteria levels, do not necessarily consider the weather report. 

In summary, water quality standards should be reevaluated only after a comprehensive long term 

control plan has been designed, approved and implemented. Provisions should be made to 

monitor progress and upgrade the plan as necessary. Any remaining discharge of combined 

sewer overflow should receive at least a minimum level of treatment. Short-term measures 

should include the institution of a single-sample maximum numeric standard, real-time water 

quality monitoring and public notification analogous to the now common-place hazardous air 

quality ozone alerts. 

2.3 Warren Kurtz, New York City Department of Environmental Protection and John 

St. John, HydroQual, Inc. 

New York City’s Use and Standards Attainment Project 

Mr. St. John summarized New York City’s Use and Standards Attainment (USA) project, which 

is a $13 million multi-year watershed planning project designed to evaluate all of the causes of 

non-attainment of water quality standards and opportunities and requirements for maximizing 

beneficial uses. This approach involves conducting waterbody/watershed assessments of more than 

20 waterbodies in the New York Harbor complex. In addition, the New York City Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) is implementing a multi-phase program to address the impacts of 

CSOs and water pollution control plants on these waterbodies. However, even with very large 

capital expenditures on major CSO projects and some improvement in numerical values of key water 

quality parameters, full attainment of beneficial uses may not be achievable in many cases. Thus, 

should CSO facilities be expected to attain “fishable/ swimmable” water quality in all tributaries 

if elimination of CSOs by sewer separation would not? In summary, New York City is 

committed to the goals of the CWA and abatement of CSOs and other polluting dischargers. 

However, “fishable” and “swimmable” everywhere, all the time, may not be necessary to 

achieve these goals. Pollution controls should be considered satisfactory in some cases if basic 

water uses are protected. 

2.4 David Yaussy, Robinson and McElwee LLP 

Protecting What Doesn’t Exist: West Virginia’s Statewide Public Water Supply Use 

Designation 

As presented by Mr. Yaussy, the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board (WVEQB), the 

agency that sets West Virginia’s water quality standards, applies the public water supply use in 

Symposium Proceedings Report 12 July 31, 2002 
all state streams, regardless of whether the stream is used as a drinking water supply (to protect 

those individuals that consume water directly from streams). Implementation of this policy 

could lead to significant differences in some cases between the criteria for the public water 

supply use and the mandatory Clean Water Act fishable/swimmable uses. Rather than 

identifying public water intakes and setting upstream controls as appropriate to protect them, 

WVEQB is proposing to remove the public water supply use where it would interfere with 

industrial or municipal operations. The WVEQB understands that its current strategy for 

designating the public water supply use is limiting and has concerns regarding the time frame for 

approval of use re-designations (the EQB is working on a procedural rule that will expedite 

methods for removing the public water supply use designation). Mr. Yaussy recommends that 

EPA allow states flexibility to remove of use designations in areas where it does not exist or will 

not exist in the foreseeable future. More specifically, he proposes that states may remove, 

without a use attainability analysis, a designated use that is not an existing use and that is not a 

use designated to protect fish, shellfish and wildlife, or recreation in and on the water (Section 

101(a)(2) CWA). 

2.5 Robert C. Wieland, Main Street Economics 

Does a UAA Require “Least-Cost” Attainment? 

When dealing with cost issues, UAAs have traditionally held polluting entities to a least cost 

standard, focused on a single polluter or a single, well-defined group of polluters. However, in 

an expanded UAA, the range of pollution sources, abatement technologies and payment options 

is significantly broadened. Assessing the costs of attainment for an expanded UAA is, 

consequently, more complicated. Thus, should those costs and practices be optimized with 

respect to cost-efficiency? If they are not, then the least cost option for attainment is not likely 

to be met. Cost curves and cost-effectiveness should be incorporated into UAAs more often. 

Least-cost attainment can be useful for large municipal systems, but more refinement needs to be 

completed. Finally, funding for abatement should be addressed to evaluate affordability. 

2.6 Chris Yoder, Midwest Biodiversity Institute and Committee Member of the June 

2001 National Research Council TMDL Study 

The Importance of Tiered Aquatic Life Uses and Adequate Monitoring and Assessment to 

the Routine Performance of the Use Attainability Analyses 

Based upon standard monitoring and assessment techniques, the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency (OEPA) determines the extent to which use designations assigned in the Ohio WQS are 

either attained or not attained for a given water body. Since 1990, the OEPA has utilized a tiered 

aquatic life use approach to adopt biological criteria. The implementation of biological criteria 

Symposium Proceedings Report 13 July 31, 2002 
introduces a process in which the UAA is a fundamental component. The data and information 

to support aquatic life UAAs is produced by the systematic monitoring and assessment of 

biological, chemical, and physical indicators via a rotating basin approach. This approach 

employs an adequate set of standardized and calibrated biological assessment tools supported by 

appropriate chemical and physical indicators. An integrated analysis of resource quality and 

attainment status, delineation of causes and sources of threats and impairment, and 

recommendations for management actions are produced for each assessment. This includes 

recommendations for any changes to use designations that might be appropriate, which is then 

followed by a WQS rulemaking process. Thus, by including tiered uses linked to biological 

criteria and supporting chemical and physical indicators, the UAA process becomes a matter of 

comparative routine rather than a resource intensive endeavor. 

2.7 Jeroen Gerritsen, Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Using Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment to Improve Use Attainability Analyses 

As explained by Mr. Gerritsen, designated uses are often assigned by regulatory agencies 

without complete knowledge of a given waterbody due to resource constraints. In many cases it 

is not clear whether the designated use is appropriate because there is a lack of data and/or 

ambiguities in the way some uses are defined. However, the use of EPA’s recently developed 

watershed ecological risk assessments can be used to address these deficiencies in the UAA 

process in a systematic and scientifically defensible manner by involving watershed-specific 

stakeholders in defining the assessment process and considering potential multiple stressors. 

The attributes of the watershed ecological risk assessment lend themselves to the process of 

defining designated uses. Using the EPA sponsored Clinch-Powell River basin (Virginia) 

watershed ecological risk assessment as an example, several methods for improving the UAA 

process and designation of uses were presented. 

2.8 Albert Ettinger, Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest 

An Environmentalist Perspective on Use Attainability Analysis and the Lower Des 

Plaines UAA 

The portion of the Des Plaines River below its confluence with the Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal historically has had very poor water quality as a result of various

wastewater dischargers and channel modifications, and has been classified as “Secondary

Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life.” The great improvement in water quality that has

occurred in the last three decades makes it possible now to consider upgrading the designation of

the Lower Des Plaines to “General Use.” The UAA being performed on the Des Plaines River is

unique because it is attempting to determine whether the current classification (lower than

Symposium Proceedings Report 14 July 31, 2002 
fishable and swimmable use) should be upgraded due to the increased value placed on the water 

body in recent years. Clearly there is a need for public participation in the UAA process and 

there should be a strong bias under the Clean Water Act against designations that are less than 

fishable and swimmable. It is important to consider the uses that could be hoped for, based on 

the modifications present within the system and the legal and economic standards set forth by 40 

CFR 131.10(g). 

2.9 Charles Potts, Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

The Public and the Use Attainability Analysis 

As described by Mr. Potts, the UAA procedure in Oklahoma has evolved over the past 20 years 

from a one dominated by “sensory” determinations (sights and smells), to one that is highly 

quantitative with distinct data objectives and measurements. Determining what questions need 

to be answered and what measurements are needed to answer those questions is a major step in 

determining which beneficial uses are appropriate for any given stream. The current assessment 

methodology that is reproducible and quantitative makes three assumptions with regards to 

beneficial uses. First, not every stream will be capable of supporting the same type of biota. 

Second, if the habitat is there, the climax community will find a way to colonize it. Finally, lack 

of a certain water depth eliminates the need for a primary body contact designation. Thus, the 

use of the methodology (detailed transect descriptions along streams, flow charts and equations) 

has significantly reduced the subjectivity involved in the UAA process. 

2.10 Gayle Killam, River Network 

Public Involvement Challenges from Around the Country 

River Network is a national support organization to watershed groups throughout the country. 

Their interaction with groups working in many different states offers them a window into the 

successes and failures of public involvement. Based on four cases presented by Ms. Killam, the 

River Network is concerned that existing processes for the involvement of stakeholders in use 

designation decisions are inadequate. They concluded that existing uses are not adequately 

protected by designated uses, there have been inconsistent triennial reviews (some with 

inadequate public notice), UAAs were seldom complete (if available at all), and there has been 

inadequate response by EPA to public comments. Thus, they are concerned that these problems 

are weakening the Clean Water Act and its programs. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 15 July 31, 2002 
3.0 DAY 1 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES RAISED IN DISCUSSION 

Betsy Southerland, Director, Standards and Health Protection Division, EPA Office 

of Science and Technology 

At the end of the first day of the symposium, Ms. Southerland provided summary observations of 

the panel discussions and abstract presentations. 

3.1 Panel Discussion Summary 

Ms. Southerland felt that the panel session generated important discussion regarding 

establishing and implementing designated uses. She noted some important areas of agreement 

and disagreement among the panel members and the audience members who asked questions. 

3.1.1 Issues Where There Was Agreement Among Participants 

Everyone agreed that use designation is the driver for monitoring, assessments, TMDLs and 

permits. Therefore, it is important to assign the correct use for each waterbody segment. 

Everyone also agreed that better refined use designations are needed, with differentiated criteria 

to protect those uses. Broad uses are not accurate enough to determine attainment. 

3.1.2 Issues Where There Was Disagreement Among Participants 

There was considerable disagreement about the concept of existing use (i.e., how and whether 

existing uses should be determined and protected). Ms. Southerland pointed out that this is an 

especially important issue for EPA to address because once an existing use is defined, it becomes 

the lowest allowable use for a waterbody. The second disagreement observed was the 

importance of reconciling national policy with the opinions and social decisions that local 

watershed residents would make regarding the uses of their waterbodies. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 16 July 31, 2002 
3.2 Main Themes of Abstract Presentations 

The following is a summary of the important issues/main themes presented by the ten different 

abstract speakers as perceived by Ms. Southerland. 

There were some interesting ideas about prioritization. Indianapolis prioritizes sensitive use 

areas, New York prioritizes open waters versus urban tributaries, and West Virginia prioritizes 

those waters that have existing drinking water intakes over those that could potentially be used 

as drinking water intakes. In each case they were looking for a way to do things differently in 

the high priority areas than the low priority areas. Thus, there is a need to prioritize uses and 

waterbodies, and tackle the biggest problems first. 

Timing issues are also of concern. For example, TMDL changes have been made both before 

and after changes in water quality standards. Environmental justice issues were also mentioned. 

For example, children playing in urban streams, rural residents drinking untreated water, and 

anglers consuming fish from polluted waters are great concerns. 

Cost trade-offs are also an issue when designating uses. One idea was to provide splash parks 

and swimming pools instead of cleaning up urban waterways to attain primary contact 

recreation. Another idea was to change the location of the drinking water intakea instead of 

cleaning up a contaminated area to meet standards for public water supply. 

There is a need for economic analyses in the use designation process. A suggestion for the New 

York harbor is to continue to use the maximum affordability approach for pollution control for 

the high priority open waters, but switch to a knee-of-the-curve economic analysis for the low 

priority urban tributaries. Pollutant trading and least-cost attainment were also discussed. 

During the abstract presentations there were some good examples of aquatic life and recreation 

use assessments. Several speakers also stressed the need for more public involvement in use 

Symposium Proceedings Report 17 July 31, 2002 
designation decisions. Finally, EPA needs to oversee use designation and revision processes 

more adequately and provide more guidance. 

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 

4.0 SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND PLENARY/REPORT OUT 

For this session, participants were seated in 16 groups of approximately 10-12 people each. The 

morning session commenced with an overview statement from Betsy Southerland describing the 

purpose and goals of the small group discussions. She emphasized the importance of working 

together to answer the two questions being posed, and asked participants to step away from their 

normal role as advocates and to participate openly. If anyone had issues of a different nature to 

discuss with EPA, she and Fred Leutner, Chief of OST’s Water Quality Standards Branch, were 

available at a separate table to answer specific questions. 

The schedule and ground rules for the small group discussions were then explained by Jan 

Connery of ERG. Each group had 90 minutes to discuss both questions. Two volunteers were 

needed for each table, a note-taker and a presenter. At the end of the session, the note-taker for 

each table summarized the group’s discussion on an EPA comment sheet, and the presenter 

reported the group’s highlights to the other symposium participants. 

The two questions (and specific instructions) discussed by each group are listed below, as well as 

an overall summary of the responses given by all the groups. 

4.1 Question 1: What data and analysis should be used to determine an existing use? 

Instructions: 

S Your answers may be different depending on the type of use (i.e., primary contact 

recreation, public water supply, etc.), so please specify which use(s) you are thinking of. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 18 July 31, 2002 
S How should current use, current water quality, frequency of use, potential use, historical 

use, and historical water quality be considered? 

S Are there situations where an existing use has been irrevocably lost? How would a state 

demonstrate this, and what would be the new existing use? 

Discussion Highlights: 

Comments Specific to Existing Uses

Several groups felt that the existing use concept, especially the 1975 “benchmark” date, is

confusing and hard to define, therefore EPA needs to give more guidance in this area. Examples

of such comments are as follows:

• Clarification is needed regarding the meaning of certain terms, such as “actually attained” 

and “occurred.” 

• EPA should consider a regulatory modification to remove the existing use concept and in its 

place determine in a formal process the highest and best use of a waterbody. 

• Existing uses should be protected at all costs. 

• There is no avenue to remove an existing use, which could be temporally or spatially limited. 

• With respect to irrevocably lost uses, no one cited a current example. Many groups felt that 

the reverse is happening; streams and even channelized ditches are being rebuilt and restored. 

• Some groups felt that the actual use of a waterbody by humans, and the quality of the water 

should be considered separately when determining the existing use. 

• Two groups felt that data should be collected and analyzed in a watershed management 

context when identifying existing uses, including site visits, land use, photographs, etc. 

• Should a prohibited (illegal) or restricted use should be considered an existing use? For 

example, when primary contact recreation occurs in an urban area where it is posted as 

illegal to swim, should this activity drive the criteria? 

• There is a need to develop good reference conditions when determining existing uses. 

• It is important to notify the public when determining an existing use in order to get the 

necessary anecdotal information (there needs to be a critical mass of anecdotal information 

before determining existing uses). 

• When looking at historical data, the quality varies widely, but anecdotal data is useful. If 

data is lacking, then a default condition should be generated. 

• In swimmable waters, physical condition should be considered when determining existing 

uses (e.g., swimming in a barge canal is not practicable). 

Related Comments

Because existing uses are so closely tied to designated uses, many of the discussions branched

out to other aspects of designated uses, such as the following:

Symposium Proceedings Report 19 July 31, 2002 
• Several groups recommended that states establish a hierarchy of preferred data using a 

weight of evidence approach to determine appropriate designated uses (data could be from 

scientific studies, rigorous surveys, anecdotal data, etc.) 

• The naming of a use and the quality of the use should be in agreement (e.g., a healthy trout 

community, not just trout in the stream). 

• The actual use of a waterbody should be protected despite current water quality (e.g., if 

people swim in a waterbody that does not meet its bacteria standard, it must be brought back 

into compliance because people will continue to swim there). 

• If swimming is not appropriate in one location, but there are alternative swimming locations 

nearby, the latter should be factored into the use designation of the former. 

• Frequency of use was often cited as important to consider when revising recreational uses. 

• Inconsistencies were noted between swimming uses and how drinking water standards are 

implemented. 

4.2 Question 2: Changes in use designations described in Clean Water Act Section 

101(a)(2) must be justified by satisfying at least one of the six factors at 40 

CFR 131.10(g). In your opinion, for which one or two factors does EPA 

most need to provide further clarification, and why? 

Instructions: 

S Some factors can be applied to multiple uses, so please specify which use(s) you are 

thinking of. 

S Are there other parts of the UAA process that present particular difficulties (e.g., 

assessing a waterbody’s physical, chemical, or biological characteristics; involving 

federal, state, and local constituencies in the process, etc.)? How can EPA help? 

As a point of reference, 40 CFR 131.10(g) as provided in the Federal Register states: 

Symposium Proceedings Report 20 July 31, 2002 
(g) States may remove a designated use which is not an existing use, as defined in § 131.3, or 

establish sub-categories of a use if the State can demonstrate that attaining the designated use is 

not feasible because: 

(1) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or 

(2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of 

the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of 

effluent discharges without violating State water conservation requirements to enable uses to be 

met; or 

(3) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be 

remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or 

(4) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use, 

and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to operate such 

modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use; or 

(5) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of a proper 

substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude 

attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or 

(6) Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act would result in 

substantial and widespread economic and social impact. 

Discussion Highlights: 

As with any large group, there was disagreement regarding the adequacy of guidance provided 

by 40 CFR 131.10 (g). Only one group felt that the six factors were sufficiently detailed yet 

broad enough to allow states to justify either removing or not removing a use (with additional 

guidance provided on a case-by-case basis). However, the majority of the groups felt that one 

or more factors are too broad and need additional clarification from EPA. In particular, factor 3 

(human caused conditions) and factor 6 (economic and social impact) require the most 

clarification from EPA. Examples of specific comments include: 

• What does “cannot be remedied” mean (factor 3) and how do you communicate this to the 

public? 

• It is often difficult and time consuming to estimate the economic and social impacts (factor 

6) of a designated use, especially for TMDLs. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 21 July 31, 2002 
• What is “naturally occurring” (factor 1)? 

• There are concerns and some confusion with conflicting information from EPA on how to 

protect ephemeral and intermittent streams (factor 2). 

• What does “feasible” mean (factor 4)? 

• The “physical habitat” aspect of factor 5 needs to be clarified. 

Other concerns raised during the small group session include the need for guidance in low and 

high flow conditions (especially with wet-weather events when recreation can’t be supported), 

and other site-specific conditions. One group raised the question, if the water can’t be restored, 

should we retain the use and change the criteria? 

Overall, many groups felt that states need sufficient guidance and the necessary financial 

resources from EPA to achieve attainment (including monitoring problem areas). Future 

guidance on UAAs could include Standard Operating Procedures which would detail what needs 

to be submitted for a UAA. Such streamlined guidance would enable states and authorized tribes 

to more efficiently utilize their resources. 

5.0 ABSTRACT PRESENTATIONS - FOCUS ON CASE STUDIES AND NEW 

APPROACHES 

On the afternoon of the second day, seven speakers gave presentations based on abstracts they 

had submitted prior to the symposium. A brief summary highlighting the key points of each 

presentation is provided below, and a copy of each abstract is available on EPA’s web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/symposium/abstracts/ 

5.1 Richard Meyerhoff, CDM 

Evaluating Use Attainment in Effluent-Dependent Waters 

Research conducted by Mr. Meyerhoff as part of the Arid West Water Quality Research Project 

(WQRP) involved development of appropriate uses and water quality standards for effluentdependent and ephemeral waters. In these arid regions of the United States, a significant number 

of streams are effluent-dependent and are characterized by constant change and diverse riparian 

Symposium Proceedings Report 22 July 31, 2002 
communities. Under these conditions, it is difficult to evaluate use attainability because of the 

characteristics of the systems and difficulty in defining reference conditions. The methods used 

to define use attainment in these systems can include the designation of minimum water quality 

requirements or the recognition of benefits created in these ecosystems by the characteristic 

fluctuations in water volume. Finally, a holistic watershed approach should be utilized that 

includes riparian habitats and terrestrial communities. 

5.2 Robert Gensemer, ENSR International 

Evaluating Water Quality Criteria for Designated Uses in Ephemeral and EffluentDependent Watercourses of the Arid West 

As part of the Arid West Water Quality Research Project, four existing and proposed federal 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) (copper, selenium, diazinon, and copper) were 

evaluated for their relevance to the attainment of designated uses in these unique effluentdependent aquatic ecosystems. Results obtained indicate that values for these criteria seem to 

be generally appropriate for use in effluent-dominated systems in the arid west. However, the 

unique nature of these systems may call into question the straightforward application of AWQC 

to effluent-dominated systems. Furthermore, it might be possible that the default frequency of 

allowed excursions could be reduced (i.e., to less than once every three years) owing to the 

relatively rapid recovery characteristics of aquatic communities in these ecosystems (models also 

could be utilized). These approaches could also be extended to a national framework. 

5.3 Paul Frohardt, Colorado Water Quality Control Commission 

Recreational Use Designations in Colorado 

In 2000, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission adopted significant refinements 

to the state regulatory provisions regarding adopting recreational use designations for state 

surface waters. Based on this implementation, the three primary contact recreational existing 

uses in Colorado are: existing primary contact (the default condition), potential primary contact, 

and secondary contact. In order to determine these existing uses, citizens are questioned about 

primary contact uses, and if no use is identified, a UAA is utilized. Other issues still need to be 

addressed in this process, including current and future access conditions, seasonal and 

recreational use designations, and assessment of uses under varying flow conditions. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 23 July 31, 2002 
5.4 Heather Lamberson, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts 

The Lower San Gabriel River Watershed: The Need for Use Subcategories 

The lower San Gabriel River and its tributaries have been designated with a variety of existing, 

intermittent and potential beneficial uses, including contact recreation (REC-1) and non-contact 

recreation (REC-2). The REC-1 use is defined in the Water Quality Control Plan as “uses of 

water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is 

reasonably possible. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County contend that the REC-1 use 

is inappropriate in most (if not all) of the waterbodies in the lower San Gabriel River watershed, 

either due to access restrictions or due to the fact that the waterbodies are dry. Instead, the 

Regional Board wants to designate the REC-2 use, or else refine the use categories 

and develop additional subcategories. Barriers to this modification include difficult and unclear 

EPA requirements, public perceptions, and perception by regulators that UAAs are unlikely to 

succeed. To resolve these issues, the Sanitation Districts think EPA should support refining and 

developing site-specific criteria, make the UAA process workable, and approve the refined 

designated uses once adopted by the Regional Board. 

5.5 Lester Stumpe, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 

Development of Targets, Indicators and a Management Model for Improving Aquatic 

Life Uses in Urban Streams – A Work in Progress 

In response to EPA’s guidance document, “Guidance: Coordinating CSO Long-term 

Planning with Water Quality Standards Reviews,” major municipal management agencies in 

Ohio have come together to develop a model to provide a basis for developing an Ohio urban 

stream subcategory for aquatic life uses. The conceptual model seeks to integrate the 

explanatory variables of land use impacts and load impacts with the dependent variable of biotic 

integrity. The model suggests a need to separately explore variables related to the watershed 

scale and those related to stream corridor characteristics. It also suggests there may be a case for 

urban criteria that vary with the condition of the landscape. This model will be utilized to set a 

baseline condition of what designated use is attainable in large Ohio urban streams. However, 

the State of Ohio, with a large biological database, will have a tough task of designating an urban 

use subcategory. In conclusion, there will still be a need for inquiry into the processes and issues 

of local watersheds in addition to flexibility by EPA in developing these processes. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 24 July 31, 2002 
5.6 Tamim Younos, Senior Research Scientist and Associate Director, Virginia Water 

Resources Research Center 

Data Needs to Determine Designated Use for Benthic Impairment: A Virginia Case Study 

In Virginia, all waters are designated for the following uses: recreational (e.g., swimming

and boating); support of aquatic life; and production of edible and marketable natural

resources (e.g., fishing and shell fishing). At present, 111 stream segments (455 miles) are

included in Virginia’s 303(d) list because of benthic impairments. Since all waters in Virginia

are designated for multiple uses, it is critical to determine the existing use(s) of a stream before it

is listed as impaired, and thus the need for a UAA. 

The different components of a benthic UAA were presented (flow chart), including the potential

causes of impairment, existing anthropogenic effects, socio-economic analyses, and stakeholder

negotiations. The Stroubles Creek watershed was described in great detail as a case study,

including sources of impairment. The benthic UAA flow chart was then applied for the

Stroubles Creek watershed. Based on the flow chart, TMDL calculations and modification of the

use are not practical because of the high uncertainty involved with their determination. An

alternative approach involves adaptive management, a procedure in which impaired areas are

restored slowly and then monitored. Management strategies can then be adapted to adjust for

improvements or relapses in restoration. 

5.7 William Kreutzberger and Thomas Dupuis, CH2M HILL 

What are We Trying to Protect?: Beneficial Use Changes in Agricultural Watersheds 

The Lower Boise River watershed is a complex network of natural drainages and man-made 

storage facilities and irrigation canals/drains. As part of the TMDL process in this watershed, a 

beneficial use evaluation was conducted on three tributaries to the River that function to convey 

irrigation water. These ditches are utilized throughout the irrigation season and were designated 

as supporting salmonides and primary contact recreation. To determine existing and attainable 

beneficial uses, physical, biological, and chemical parameters were characterized in this 

watershed and it was determined that habitat conditions were unable to support salmonid and 

other cold water species year round. Since these are modified systems, less stringent siteSymposium Proceedings Report 25 July 31, 2002 
specific criteria were developed to protect the aquatic community existing in the system when 

irrigation is a factor. Changes in the beneficial use designation allowed regulators to conclude 

that the modified aquatic life use was not impaired and that TMDLs were not necessary for 

protection or restoration. 

6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS 

At the conclusion of the symposium, the following summary comments were provided by Betsy 

Southerland. 

The purpose of the symposium was to hear from those individuals who are involved with 

identifying or acting upon priority issues related to designated uses. Based on the presentations 

and discussions at the symposium, EPA’s first priority will be to develop guidance for states and 

tribes on recreational use designations. There are several reasons to have this as a top priority. 

First, everyone agreed that use designations drive TMDLs, and a large percentage of TMDLs are 

being developed for bacterial violations which are causing nonattainment of primary contact 

recreational uses. Secondly, everyone agreed on the need for more refined designated uses with 

more differentiated criteria. Several presentations emphasized the need to look at subcategories 

of recreational use. Finally, everyone agreed that it is important to all of the water programs to 

get the designated use correct. Many participants commented on the difficulty of designating 

doing this, especially with regard to recreation. 

In addition, EPA will address the following issues related to recreational uses: 

• How many times must swimming occur before it is considered an existing use (frequency 

issue)? 

• How to handle prohibited use issues where swimming is not allowed due to hazardous 

conditions 

• How to deal with recreation in large communities with CSOs and in waters affected by nonhuman sources of pollution (livestock, avian, etc.) 

• How valuable is the use to the community? 

• Is the use an environmental justice issue? 

Symposium Proceedings Report 26 July 31, 2002 
When developing the guidance, EPA must not forget CFR 131.10(h) whereby “States may not 

remove designated uses if: (1) they are existing uses, unless a use requiring more stringent 

criteria is added; or (2) such uses will be attained by implementing effluent limits . . . and costeffective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control.” There is also 

a need for EPA to ensure that states are fulfilling their obligation to upgrade use designations 

(CFR 131.20) for waters that do not currently have a fishable/swimmabe designation. 

Finally, there is a concern about how to collect good data to support appropriate use 

designations; specifically how to collect anecdotal or other historical data on existing uses. 

There is also some confusion about what needs to be submitted for a UAA, to avoid trial and 

error. 

Upon completion of draft guidance on recreational use designations, EPA will begin to develop 

similar guidance on issues related to other use designations, such as aquatic life. 

Symposium Proceedings Report 27 July 31, 2002