Click here for

DISCLAIMER

Document starts on next page
United States Office of Water Regulators EPA 440/4-85-031 

Environmental Protection and Standards October 1985 

Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 

EPA Guidance for State Water 

Monitoring and Wasteload 

Allocation Programs 
Guidance for State Water Monitoring 

and Wasteload Allocation Programs 

October 1985 

Monitoring and Data Support Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, DC 20460 
This guidance for Stats programs will be reviewed and revised periodically to reflect changes in EPA’s 

Monitoring Strategy, to include new information, or to clarify/update the text. Comments are invited and 

will be considered in these revisions. Comments or inquiries should be directed to: 

Monitoring Branch 

Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 “M” St. S. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attention: Morris Mabbitt 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF WATER 

To the Reader: 

The Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs 

defines the responsibilities of State and Interstate water pollution control 

agencies, working in a partnership with EPA, for meting the monitoring and 

wasteload objectives of the Clean Mater Act. It is to, be used by the States 

and EPA region in developing annual section 106 and 205(j) work programs that 

focus water quality monitoring and wasteload allocation programs on areas where 

water quality decisions need to be made ( i.e., priority waterbodies) while 

continuing to assess water quality conditions and trends throughout the State. 

I urge all States to work with the EPA in conducting monitoring and wastes 

load allocation activities that provide the data and analyses necessary for 

setting water quality control priorities, developing water quality-based permit 

limits, measuring compliance with permits, and assessing ambient conditons 

Implementing this guidance will provide the data needed to accomplish our water 

quality program. 

Edwin L. Johnson 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator 

iii 
FOREWORD 

The Basic Water Monitoring Program was developed in 1977 to provide a framework for addressing national water monitoring program needs. This 

earlier guidance stressed intensive surveys to assess water quality problems and called for EPA 

and the States to operate a national network of 

fixed monitoring stations. develop and operate a 

pilot biological monitoring program, and report on 

water quality in accordance with Section 305(b) of 

the Clean Water Act. 

• 

• 

• 

With • the Inception of the Agency’s new policies on 

monitoring and water quality-based controls and 

the development of monitoring strategies for compliance and inland/coastal waters, an expansion 

of the Basic Water Monitoring Program document was necessary. Revisions were also needed 

to take account of new technical information and 

guidance. For these reasons. the new Guidance 

for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs is more oriented towards program management and contains less in the way of 

detailed technical guidance. References to technical guidance on assessing water quality and 

developing water quality-based controls are also 

included. 

In general, States and EPA are to work as partners 

in meeting the monitoring and wasteload allocation requirements of the Clean Water Act. These 

requirements include: 

• Increasing the emphasis on identifying 

waters needing water quality-based controls 

and on developing those controls. 

• Implementing EPA’s policy on developing 

water quality-based controls for toxics by determining wasteload allocation for toxics using both biomonitoring and pollutant-specific 

techniques. 

• Focusing resources and new techniques on 

areas where designated used are not being 

met while at the same time, screening water 

quality in other areas to anticipate problems. 

• Focusing on the environmental results gained 

through pollution abatement actions. 

• Acquiring more information on the nature and 

extent of nonpoint sources of pollution, their 

impacts on water quality, and the relative success of different approaches to control nonpoint sources. 

v 

In addition to these requirements, there are other 

areas that need emphasis. These include: 

Performing more targeted inspections of discharges to reduce noncompliance and assess the impact of dischargers on receiving 

waters after controls are in place. 

Increasing the emphasis on pretreatment. 

compliance, and enforcement programs. 

Increasing the use of effluent data to help targot areas for ambient water quality monitoring. 

Improving EPA’s data systems (such as 

STORET and the Permit Compliance System. 

PCS) to make them more useful for State and 

EPA analyses. 

In operating water quality programs, States are to 

assess the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waterways through the use of intensive 

surveys fixed stations, and biological monitoring. 

They are also to ensure that all data collection and 

analysts activities are performed in a scientifically acceptable manner and that all data collected 

is used in carrying out needed water quality planning, wasteload allocation. and standards activities. EPA also strongly encourages that wafer 

quality assessments be documented by the States 

in the form of technical reports. 

The Guidance for State Water Monitoring and 

Waterload Allocation Programs is a product of 

EPA’s Office of Water which includes, among 

others, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards and the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits. Other offices and individuals were also 

Instrumental in preparing this document: the EPA 

Office of Research and Development: the EPA 

Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; the EPA 

Regional Water Division Directors and Environmental Services Division Directors; and the EPA 

Regional Monitoring Coordinators and Regional 

Wasteload Allocation Coordinators. During its 

preparation, this guidance document was discussed with and reflects the comments of the Policy 

and Technical Subgroups of the Standing Work 

Group on Monitoring and Wasteload Allocations 

which include representatives from EPA, the States, 

and several Interstate Commissions. A final draft 

was also distributed to all of the States and EPA 

Regions who submitted many valuable comments 

that were used in preparing this final guidances. 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Section I. Water Quality Program Monitoring 

Chapter 1. Overview of Water Quality Program Monitoring 

Chapter 2. Monitoring for Water Quality-Based Controls 

Chapter 3. Monitoring for Compliance and Enforcement 

Chapter 4. Water Quality Assessments . . . . . . 

Chapter 5. Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Chapter 6. Data Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Section II. Total Maximum Daily Loads and Wasteload Allocations . . . . . 

Chapter 7. Total Maximum Daily Loads and Wasteload Allocations . . . . . 

Appendixes 

A. Monitoring Policy, Inland and Coastal Waters . 

B. Monitoring Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

v 

ix 

7 

11 

15 

19 

21 

23 

A-1 

B-1 

vii 
INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This guidance is to be used by the States and the

EPA Regional offices in developing monitoring and

wasteload allocation portions of the annual State

106 and 205(j) work programs. This guidance

serves to define monitoring and wasteload allocation activities in accordance with EPA regulations

and reflects the objectives of EPA’s Environmental Monitoring Policy, the Water Quality Monitoring

Policy, EPA’s Policy for the Development of Water

Quality-based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants, the Office of Water's Monitoring Strategy,

and the Policy and Program Requirements to Implement the Quality Assurance Program.

As used in this document, the word “State” includes State agencies and Interstate Commissions

that receive grants from EPA to help finance water

monitoring and wasteload allocation programs.

Scope

This guidance covers two principal areas. One is

an outline of the objectives of the water monitoring program to conduct sound assessments of the

quality and condition of the Nation’s waters and

make the necessary control decisions where they

are needed. The second is a description of the

process for calculating total maximum daily loads

and wasteload allocations for point and nonpoint

sources of pollution. As used in this document. the

phrase “wasteload allocations for point and nonpoint sources" is equivalent to “wasteload allocations for point sources” and “load allocations for

nonpoint sources,” as defined in the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation (40 CFR

130.2). Annual program priorities are not addressed in this document: they an included in the

annual Agency Operating Guidance.

Implementation

EPA will evaluate how well this guidance is being

implemented by the States and will continuously

work towards improving EPA and State water

monitoring and wasteload allocation programs.

The actual effectiveness of State and EPA programs will be judged to a great extent by the

degree to which they in fact deliver Information that

State and EPA administrators need to manage for

environmental results. This will include periodic

reviews of State and EPA programs by EPA. such

as reviews conducted under the Office of Water's

portion of the Agency operating Guidance and the

Office of Water's Evaluation Guide, as well as possible audits of State programs by the Regional

offices. In conducting periodic reviews. EPA will be

reviewing indicators (including resource and performance estimates outlined in the annual Office

of Water portion of the Agency’s Strategic Planning

and Management System, SPMS) to assess the

effectiveness of the State programs. Specific

measures in these systems will include information needed by the EPA Regional offices to answer

the following types of questions:

• Did the monitoring program provide adequate

support for making important water qualitybased regulatory decisions? For Instance, in

looking at all the water quality standards revisions, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)/

wasteload allocations (WLAS), water qualitybased permit issuances, and nonpoint

source control decisions performed by the

State, did the State have available the water

quality and effluent data and analyses it needed at the time those regulatory decisions were

made? For those decisions where the data

were not adequate, were the data gaps the

result of applying rational priorities to the use

of resources?

• Did the State use EPA recommended methodologies for relating water quality conditions

to effluent limitations? For instance, did the

State calculate TMDLs and did they develop

a WLA using technically valid methods to arrive at water quality-based controls that meet

water quality standards? Did they follow all of

the requirements of the regulations, including the antidegradation provisions, in developing TMDLS?

• Did the State allocate resources to operate

acceptable monitoring and wasteload allocation programs? For instance, did the State devote needed resources for developing water

ix
program implementation by the Regions and the

States for ambient monitoring, water quality analyses, TMDLs, and data reporting. EPA Headquarters also performs national assessments and

evaluates the national water quality effects of water

programs.

The EPA Regional offices provide overall policy,

guidance, and overview of program implementation

by the States to ensure that they are operating adequate monitoring programs in accordance with

Section 106(e) of the Clean Water Act. The Regional offices review State programs to ensure that adequate State resources from Section 106 and 205(j)

grants are directed to priority activities in monitoring, water quality analyses, TMDLs, and data

reporting. The Regional offices also provide technical assistance and training for States in water

monitoring and wasteload allocation-related activities, ensure that needed water quality-based controls are developed by the States, that data are

entered into the national data system, and that appropriate quality assurance procedures are used.

The States have primary responsibility for preparing water quality analyses and TMDLs, States perform monitoring and wasteload allocation activities,

prepare assessments and evaluations as required

by the Clean Water Act, and ensure that needed

environmental data are provided to EPA.

Summary

The Guidance for State Water Monitoring and

Wasteload Allocation Programs is summarized

in the matrix on the following page. Chapter references are included to expand on the activities

presented.

•

• Did the State conduct chemical and/or biological monitoring to confirm and/or characterize

pollution problems in all the waters identified

as 'partially supporting" or "not supporting

designated uses"? If such monitoring was not

conducted for some of these waters, was the

decision not to monitor based on a rational

method for setting priorities?

•

•

•

guidance, technical assistance, and overview of

quality-based controls, assessing water quality conditions and trends, ensuring compliance with NPDES permits, and other activities?

Did the State use effluent data to help target

ambient water quality monitoring activities. If

so, did they consider areas where both technology and water quality-based controls are

in place?

Did the State develop enough data to evaluate changes or trends in all of the waters indentified as "partially supporting" or "not

supporting designated uses"? If such monitoring was not conducted for some of these

waters, was the decision not to monitor based

on a rational method for setting priorities?

Did the State make progress in reducing the

amount of "unassessed" waters (number of

stream miles, shore miles, acres, etc.) reported in their biennial Section 305(b) reports? If

so, did the reduction represent the results of

actual monitoring, or use of a technically valid

method of projecting water quality (e.g., EPA's

bioscreening guidance)?

Did the State undertake any monitoring

and/or screening programs to identify new or

emerging problems (e.g., previously unknown

toxic pollutant contamination)? For instance,

did the State conduct monitoring or screening to evaluate "unassessed waters"?

Responsibilities of EPA Headquarters,

EPA, Regional Offices, and the States

The EPA Headquarters provides overall policy,

x
t 

11 i . 1 

. 

. 

- 

. 

- 

. 

- 

- 

. 

- 

- 

b I 

- rl 

. 

-- 

13 

c r f 

. 

II 

t h I 

- 1 

. 

s t 

- af 

. 

I-== . . . 

-- 

. 

. 

- 

. 

- .- 

, 

d 

- - 

-_ 

1 

I 

, 

l rww . 

-- 

. 

- 

. 

. 

-.- 

a- . 

* 

. . 

--. _ __ -- -. 
s 

Ii 

I1 4 1 

- 

- 

- 

. 

- 

. 

- 

- 

. 

- 

. 

- 

- 

h I 

- Ill 

. 

. 

b 

. 
SECTION I 

WATER QUALITY 

PROGRAM MONITORING 
CHAPTER 1 

OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY 

PROGRAM MONITORING 

Under the Clean Water Act, the States and interstate agencies, in cooperation with EPA, are to perform the water quality monitoring necessary to 

establish and revise water quality standards, calculate total maximum daily loads, assess compliance with permits, and report on conditions and 

trends in the ambient waters. Figure 1-1 describes 

the annual process for evaluating existing data and 

program needs, establishing priorities, and implementing work activities. This process is 

described as follows: 

A. Determine Water Quality Needs 

Water quality information (including data on point 

and nonpoint source dischargers) is reviewed by 

the States to determine the existing and predicted severity of pollution in its waters. This information includes chemical screening data, 

bioscreening data (including data on numbers and 

kinds of fish), data collected by dischargers on 

receiving water quality, fish kill data, information 

collected from the NPDES Permit and Enforcement programs (e.g., Form 2c and Discharge 

Monitoring Report data), results of analyses of the 

dilution available to dischargers. reports from earlier water quality analyses, citizen complaints. 

results of intensive surveys and fixed station 

monitoring, data on existing land uses, and any 

other data on water quality. 

To evaluate the severity of pollution. States need 

to make evaluations based on the most accurate 

data available. This includes chemical and biological Information and. where quantitative data are 

lacking. qualitative data such as direct observations or professional judgment. Where States do 

not have information, routine monitoring activities 

will provide much of the information needed to fill 

data gaps. The types of information to be used for 

making sound evaluations are described below. 

1. Chemical Screening Data 

Ambient chemical data representing water 

column, sediment, and tissue samples are 

1 

used in the evaluation of water use support. 

Analyses of these data, collected through 

fixed station monitoring, intensive surveys or 

special studies, should be conducted for 

those parameters appropriate for the designated use of the water body. 

2. Biomonitoring Data 

a. 

b. 

Bioassays. Biological tests are methods 

for assessing the toxic effects of discharges on aquatic life and screening for 

human health hazards. Toxicity tests have 

been developed which provide rapid and 

economical results making them adaptable for use in assessing hazards associated with complex effluents. (A 

discussion of assessing risk to aquatic life 

and human health is available in EPA’s 

“Technical Support Document for Water 

Quality-Based Toxics Control", see Reference 1.) 

Biosurveys. Where the designated use of 

a water body Includes the support of 

aquatic life, the biological information 

needed to assess whether uses are maintained can be obtained from general surveys of fish, macroinvertebrate and other 

biological communities, fishery studies, 

tissue analyses, habitat analyses, creel 

censuses, capture-recapture/removal 

sampling, and other quantitative measures. Where resources allow, more indepth studies on the survival, propagation, production, dispersion. community 

structure. and species diversity should 

also be included as a pan of the biosurvey. These biosurveys are described in 

Chapter 4. 

3. Professional Judgment/Direct Observation 

Whenever possible, quantitative assessments should be made based on biological, 

physical, and chemical data. However, for 

some waterbodies States do not have 

detailed data with which to make these quantitative assessments so that the complete- 
ngun 1-l 

AnnuJ Proceu for Estdbhlng Monltodng Priorltkr and Thcting Impl~mentatlon 

I A. Detormina Water OUMY Neda 

I A8v1ew efflusot data guherod through thr 

I NPDES permrt program as w&l aa 

b~oscramng data. chemccrl scroorving 

data. clMtn complaints. fish kit1 d8t& drrtr 

from pewous water quahty analyses (fixed 

station. intensive suWoy, and biOlOgM 

/ momtotlng data), and llsb of walers not 

fully mwtwig uses [!%cWn 30S(b)lw 

: those waton needing tMOL’r [section 

303Ml. 

8. Dotwmina Opamthg Pmgmn 

I 

Determmr whom intensive sum and 

I 

fixed stations are n8ad.d fur pita 

pefmtts, trends VarUharkoy 

Pracects. 

c Estabwl moritlor 

EstUish pnordiee for achmmg 

environmental results based on severity ct 

$milutian, uses d watar, and the neel for 

actlon to meef opwatmg program needs. 

1 

! 

1 0. Cemo(ota Monltodnq Chocicllrt 1 

I t. 3bnltc?mckl~toEPAu 

PutotthoAnnudWofkPmar8m I 

EPA rwwowe Me Stm checklists and. of 

neodW. requests more detaded 

descriotions for sooctfic or01w 

r f. Implwnant Program 

Carry c-A monltonng actiwtles as spec~kad 

in the tW205(i) work prognm tc nake 

construction grant decisions, ISSUO perm\ts. 

mpiwnant baa manrgoment practices, 

ac 

Canduct ‘Wtu” studies to assess 

efbuivoness of pollution controls and 

I 

aftainmont of dosigmtod asea. 

Ragaft dam and prepam repan’s. 

NOTE: EPA and Uw State continua to 

discusa the work dunng ttto year ana at 

muI-you and mdof-yoar rewwa 
ness of data varies Given those IimitatIons 

and until such time as quantiWv0 asses+ 

moms can be made. it is rscommondad that 

the States array all avaiiablo inf0nnaIion and 

make informed evah~ati~n~ bd oc1 thatm 

data. For Instance, when a State may not 

have the blological studies necessary to 

evaluate suoport of the aquatic life for a river. 

It it perfectly reasonable to rety upon a companson of chemical data and water quality 

cnterta violations tempered where appr0- 

pna!c by professional iudgment. 

Another example 0f the usa of professtonai 

judgment is applying stream sunr0y inform& 

tron from a series of typical streams to other 

streams (where passibk) Ot similar size and 

watershed characteristics (vegetative c0ver. 

soils. land use patterns, and topography) 

within the same aquatic e00fegion. AquatIc 

ecaragian maps for aft EPA Rogioru are avaiiable to assist in this (see RtMence 2). Pr0fessional judgment of the water pdlution control 

staff is valuable for ass~saing data in stream 

loadings, dilution ratio3, stream modais, or 

other direct and indirsct data where chamicai 

and biol0@cal intonnation is lacking. A 

detailed description of the typos of pmfe+ 

sional judgment ir&rmatM that can be used 

in evaiuatiny designated usoa are identified 

in EPA-‘s Use Attainability T&hMai Support 

Documents (set Referencr 3). 

Other techniques for evaluating the existing 

or predicted severity of pollution include the 

review of data on fish kill report& citizen corn= 

pla~gs, and methods taii0rW by the anaiyst’s 

judgment to evaluate water use support using available data fr0m intonaiva sum 

fixed stations, or data fmm d&hargora The 

physical condition of water bodies as wail as 

data on adjacent land usua should also ba 

used. 

The list of waiem not m0otirtg dosignotod 

uses and the list at waters nooding new or NF 

vtsed water quality-based controls a:so pm 

vlde useful information for evaiurtiorr. States 

are to prepare d list of water b0dioa when 

uses are impaired or thrsa&nuA and submit 

this list to the EPA Regional qffko along with 

descrip3va information aa t0 why the w8tor 

body da-es nat me@ its dosigna!md usea 

States should update tires. lists through the 

biennial Section 305(b) report. The States 

sh0uid al80 identify and list waters that ~11 

need new or revised total maximum dally 

loads and wastetoad allocations. 

EPA headquarters will maintain a composite 

list of water bodies not meettng designated 

uses and. over timd. a list of the waters needing new or revised total maxlmum dally loads. 

These will be maintamed as a computer file 

which WIII be accessible by the Reglons and 

tke States. AS new waterbodies are added to 

these lists, the States are asked to Identify 

each with a River Reach File number (wherever available) to facilitate data handling. The 

EPA Regional offices are responslbls ‘or 

managing the li.sts of water bodies prepared 

by the Stat= 

8. Determine Operating Program 

Monitoring Needs 

State operating program needs are requirements 

for water monitoring that exist f0r reasons that may 

not be based entirely on water quality. They may 

be based on State initiatives or program priontles 

such as monito.ing for developing wasteload allocations for expiring NPDES permits. obtaining 

ccnstruction grants to rund munk3pal treatmecrt facilities, or conducting surveys of nonpomt source 

impa0& In addition. these could be for special lake 

sunnys, trends monitoring, special key projects. 

07 other State program requirements. 

To ensure that ail State program needs are Included in the annual plan for data collection. a list of 

spWfic data needs should be requested from all 

State officea These other offices may include the 

Stats permit office, municipal treatment office. the 

rnonikdng affh or other offices that may 

have needs for water quality intormatlon. By rn- 

@grating needs for wster quality earty In the planning/budgoting pmoess, maximum utility can be 

achieved with the tMiiabk mso~fces. 

In preparing a list of waten where water monltoring data are most needeo to make water qualitybased decisions t0 prevent or reverse conditions 

when designated uses are impvred or threatoned, Statm should tabulate these waters as 

snown on Tabto l-l. Thi8 tabio lists wateo most 

needing monitoring as ranked by the State and 

should be dewMpad as part of the State’s unrfied 

priority waterbady list. 

3- 
c Estabbtl Priorities 

Ntorcom~ng~~&tor monitoring have been 

MnHedandavail8btoambientmd8tnuontdata 

h8wbe8nawuaM. t.hmonMngnquinrrwrrts 

~e8ch8ctivity8ndthootfoctonSt8tmr8sources 

stwuld b8 estimated. When needs axcoed awilable rosourcsa aitornativos such aa cooperative 

monitoring projacb (so0 Mmfonco 4) may be 

cormdwdtoconsoIid8t8or”pigQybrdr”monitorlng activitim with othor Fedor&, Stab, or local 

agmcms Agroornontswitt~ diachargm m&y Jso 

k established as a source of data on receiving 

waton where controls haw bwn impl.m~~M. 

Bawd on ttve sovWty of poWion, tha duign8t- ti~dm0suw~~ti-- msaMyofm8tingprognm~st8tusnould 

dotormino whora monitoring actiMa ara most 

naodui. In dotarmining those priority actbitio8, 

Statms should considu ttw unifkd prtority w8tmrbody list 1r7 accordanca with EPA guid8na and 

asses their long-rango (goneralty M yeam) ob 

~activa to meat the gorl of nsaOrinq tfw pw, 

chemical. and biologic84 intmgrity uf all Stat. 

w8ms Thy should thw rnak# duisiona that will 

hdpm8mdchiMmisgoaJ.OHI~itls8xp8cted thl Sta& nuWtoring programs will omphasiza 

monitoring ntiod ?or environmont& results and 

dwmphasiza monitoring for short-term operating 

ProgM n.wa 

0. Complete Monitoring Checklists 

A’Wth8 monitoring priorMa m been set by the 

State, they s!!uld ba dascribod in thetr annual 

wuk pmgmma Monitoring Chaclrlists (SM APPendlx 8) should bo completed to provide EPA web a 

minimum of inform8tion on monitonng act~wt~es 

planned by th@ %U tar the budget par (although 

the Rogion8l ,,Ylccr may request additional Information on a v baa&. One Monltorlng 

Chackliat may doscribo a numbw of similar actw 

ti~(~,rfi~Stsfklln~)ffitmayd~nbe 

a mon complax singk activity (e.g., 2n wonsi de 

sway for 8 complex was&load allocation study). 

This chacklist is to be dw8lopad in conjunctron 

with the EPA Regional offi- as a part of the 

moniloring discuWon in the State’s annual work 

prognm.(OthuwtMtksmybodiscussed~r the 

work progrwn, such as infrequent or wtgular 

monitoring for background Ieuela for whrch a 

chukiid is na noaaiuq) This checklist rs ~rttendedtohoIpthoS~pi8nmonitoringactrvftresand 

sows as a moans for the Rwional offices to track 

Stats acUvitios that am funded, at least In pan, D’,’ 

EPA gwMs. Data from tha chocklists are also 

nwdod by EPA HoWqu8rtw to ass835 the national pmgmm kg., on a nrtional basis. tracking 

the typos d parwnm States are monitoring, the 

amount of d8t8 collactod, tyF*s of surveys conducted, the uses of the da&, etc). THIS includes 

4 
assessing implementation of the Guldrnca for 

Stat. Water Monitoring and Wutoload Allomtlon Programs and as a source of information for 

EPA program reviews under the Ag8ncy Qponting Guidrnca and the Office of Water Accountabllity System. 

Frequently, State priortties or operating program 

needs necessitate changes in a State’s planned 

monltonng activities. If the changes am srgnificant, 

a new or uodated checklist IS sent to the Regional office along with a brief explanation of the 

changes. IfJhe Regional office agrees that the pi% 

posed changes am of i relatively minor nature, 

subrnisWn of revised checklists is not necessary. 

It is important that revised checklists for major 

changes be sent to the EPA Regional office. 

Checklists for completed su~vdys am not normally expected since water quality data is to be pmwded to EPA, and periodic reviews will provide 

sufficient Informatton on the sta!us of individual activities. 

Along with theso checklists. States strould submit 

(1) a State map or other suitable scale map showing the location of the waters discussed in the 

checklist and (21, if available, a copy of the QA/OC 

project plan for each activity (or reference an existing WOC project plan). If the project plan is not 

available. the Stat8 and the Regional office will 

agree upon a schedule for Its submission. 

E. Submit Chwkfists to EPA as Part 

of the Annual Work Program 

In r8vlBwtng planned monitoring activities, the EPA 

Regional offices will conside the techmcal aspects of each monitoring activity along with overall pmgi am activities and priorities contained in the 

annual State 106 and 205(j) work program. They 

will also assess how WI thy reflect national pmgram priontiea and national ope%ting guidance. 

Bchnical aspects Include the balance between 

ambient fixed staticns and intenswe su~vdys, the 

balance of bdogtcal and chernlcal monitonng, the 

use of effluent and instr8am toxicity testtng, study 

design, parametnc coverage, sampling frquency. and the feaslbllity of cooperat% with other 

State agenclez. federal agencies. or ;ndividual dischargers for activities that directly or *ndirectty 

&fact water quality. Nabonal program pnonties am 

provtded In the EPA’s operating guidance and in 

netional policies (see References I, 3.4. and Ap 

pendix A). 

F. Implement Program 

Momtoting Checklists included as part of a State’s 

approv8d Section 106 ana 205(j) rvork program 

descnbe work that IS to be camed out by thi Stale. 

and the aoprocmate data IS 10 bs reported to EW 

(see Chapter 6). Followup monltortng (I e.. “afrer” 

studies) are also important to assess compliance 

with controls and the attainment of designated 

uses. Technical reports documenting “before” 

conditions, controls Implemented. and “tier” conditions are strongly encouraged by EPA. 

The EPA Regional offices will evaluate the ptr)gress made by the States dunng periodic revrews 

(such as midyear and end-of-year reviews) of I he 

Stats monitoring activities. These penodic revews 

will evaluate the work that has been completed by 

the States, the manner in which It has been done, 

thework that remains to bq-done. and howwell !he 

profecfs address State and national monitonng pri 

onties. 

References 

1. TechnIcal Support Document for Water QuaIli*!. 

Based Toxics Control, Office of Water, U.S. ! 

vlronmental Protectjon Agency, Septeml *c 

i 985. 

2. Aquatic Ecoreglon Mao of the USEP4 Reglor:s 

I-X. June, 1965. Office of Researcn ant Sevelopment. U.S. EnvIronmental Protec:lon 

Agency, Corvallis. Oregon. 

3. Tbchnical Support Manual: W&sr 6ody Surveys 

and &sessments for Conducting Use ArtatrIabdity Analyses. Office of Water Regulations i:flC 

Standards, U.S. &lronmental Prctec ,$?n 

Agency, Washington, DC.: 

Volume 

Volume 

Volume 

II 

- General. Novecnber 1983 

I - Estuanne Systems. Novemt:er 

1903 

I’ 1: - Lake Systems. November !“84 

4. Planning anl Managing Cooperative MCII GI.orlng Prqects. Office of Water, U.S. Envlronnlental Protecalon Agency, Washington, D.C.. (July 

1984) EPA 44OM-84-018 
CHAPTER 2 

MONITORING FOR WATER 

QUALITY-BASED CONTROLS 

The development of controls based on receivmg 

water quality IS a very high pnonty. It mvolves the 

collectlon and analysis of effluent and amkent 

data 10 develop water quality-based NPOES permlt limits and assess compliance with these permits. If also involves the collec!ion of data necessary for satablishtng water quality-based targets 

for nonpomt source This type of monitoring thus 

supports the standards-to-permits process. 

Overview of the 

Standards-to-Permiti Pmcem 

The general elements of the standards-tckpernr 5 

process are shown in figure 2-t; these elements 

are also addressed in the Water Quality Planning 

and Management Aegulatlon (40 CFR Parts 35 

and 130. Federal Regislw a 1734. dated January 

11. 1985). The firs4 element in the process is to 

identify waters needing water quality-ba!W controls and set control priorities in accordance with 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. This section requires States to establish -ator qualitybased control pnonties taking into account the 

uses of the waters and the severity d the poJlution. 

In setting pnontles. S&es may consider the 

amount of cleanup progress possible with the 

cvallable retources. and the need to make deoiflons on expinng permits and on constmction 

grants In areas whw information is not rvsikbk 

or is msuffiaent 10 assess the mrgnitudo UI the 

pollution problem, additional water qudity data 

shouMbecdkcbsd.~shouidusok 

given to acquiring data from coopomtive monitoring efforts earned out by dischugon. public interest groups. ~miversities, and otnon (see 

Reference 1). A more dotaiM discussion on the 

identrficatton of wa!en still needing water quality= 

based coIltro/s is given in Chpgtor 7. 

The second element in the process is to tiew 

and, if necessary, revise the wa!@f quaiity star+ 

dardsfOfth~S@bCtOdWUlKbody.~W6tUQwc 

ity Standards flegulation (40 CFR 131) mts forth 

the policies and procedures States are to use In the 

development. review, revIslon. and approval of 

water quality standards. This regulation has been 

revised and consolldafed, wiln tne changes apparing in &&m/&gist61 98: 51400 (November 

8,1983). EPA has retained the concept of allowlng 

the State to s&o! spmfic water bodies for an 

in-depth review, and, where needed. It would 3e 

logical to review standards in the waters ldentlfiea 

in the first element of the process. 

Whore existing water quality standards are rict 

adequate, States are 10 adopt numertcal or narrative criteria for the toxic or other pollutants ot concern. Where nimative cntma are adopted. the 

States should indicate as part of its water quallty 

star&&s submission how it intends to lmplemenr 

theso criteria. 

EPA recommends adopting twsnumbsr ac: 

and chronic criteria (defined In ReferenLe ;? 

whenever needed. National cntena may Be USCC~ 

directfy, or may be adopted using site-soec:IIc 

criteria development protocols outhned ,n :fw 

MUuOualitySMchdSHand&ok(see Reference 

3). Although the new water quaMy standards rccj~- 

lation requires that the State’s process for ;mo@ 

menting their narrative cntenon be descrroec 2 y 

the State, there is no requirement that this concent&on be adopted as a numerical cntenon IFI Slate 

water quality standards pnor to use rn deverczlnq 

water quaM)+-based controls. Additional tecnnlcal 

inform&on on use attainability is available :om 

the Ttiicd Support Manual series. Volumes 1 

II, and III (see Raferences 4, 5, 6). 

The third ebnent ol the process IS to use ufater 

quaky m as the basis for develop!ng water 

quafity-bas3d effluent limitations. i.e.. wasrfzloaa 

allocations. For nontoxic pollutants such as 31cchemical oxygen demand (which may debress 

di!&oIved oxygeci I~eIs in the recclvmg .Wer’ 

uld nutrient8 (which may cause eutruphicallon). 

matharna!ical models may be used io deterrtllne 

tho pdlution loading consistent with the v,‘ater 

quality staMards and w&Late pJmt-source/ 

nonpoint-source tradeoffs. In some noncomplex 

7 
flgun 2-1 

General Elwnonts of the Water Quality-Based Standards-to-Permits Pmou 

1. Idontifv Waton Nwding W&of au8lity-Baad tintmla 

l Sot conno pnofitlos 

l Implornont local moeitofing pfognm. if WCUsaq 

* 

2. Rwiow and ReviWRuiflnn Water Quality Standards 

, \ 

4 t 

3. OovoloP W8tof Qu8lity48sod Aoquiromonts 

4. Upd8to watar amllty Hmagemont Plans With 

. 

l Ldt of warn nooding w8tor quality-based controls ana pnontler 

l TMOU and l fflum limds 

l feulble nonpoint source controls 

l Aevmd water quality stmdafds 

I Implomont Cantroh 

. Issue water qu8lity-hsod pofmits 

l MUu water qu8lity-Wsod construchion gnnt do&ions 

l Imclement noncomt soun8 cuntruts 

$ 

l Monitor mun~c~~aUindu.stnal sources for compliance 

l Pedom amblwt monaonng to eocumwic prwtoaor~ of dewgnaw uses 

. . 

8 
situauons. s1mp1e dilution equstiOn8 may be ada 

quate for these analyses Final technical guidance 

on the use of mathematioaf models for developing 

wasteload allocations IS available from EPA for a 

number of pollutants and types of receivinq waters 

(see References 7 through 13). 

For toxrc pollutants such as heavy metals. water 

quality analyses can be done usmg one or both of 

two techntques: the pollutaht-specific approach 

and the bromoirrtonng approach. The pollutantspec~tic approach IS best suited for sttuation? with 

a few wellch aracsemzed polh,aants or whet I human 

health IS a concern. The biomonitonng approach 

should be used when the eftluont is Complex or 

when Interactions of effiuents in the recolving 

water am of co~~cern. In many cases, both approaches will be needed. &dkcussad in hctbn 

II, EPAbnpares technical guidance on the development of ~OXICS controls using the pollutantspectfic and the biomonitoring approaches. 

A! this pomt, the State Water Quaiity Management 

Plans should be updated to include any revisions 

to the list of waters needing water quality-based 

controls. any revisions to established State priorities. existing water quality standards. wasteload ak 

IocationMotal maxlmum daily loads, and effluent 

limtts. 

The next element, which may actually occur before the water quality-based limits are incorporated Into water quality management plans, 1s to 

lncorpOraf- the water quality+ased limitattons rnto 

permcts for Indufirral or municipal facilities zr as 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for nonpoint 

source conlrols. Monltonng may also be required 

of-dlschargors fwlth appropriate quality control by 

the regulatory authority) 11 existing Information IS 

lnadectuate to determrne whether water qualitybased controls are needed. As wtth perrnrts, construction grant decisions also must be based on 

the most stnngent of technology-based or water 

quallty-based limitations. fh8se decisions are 

coordrnated x) that the decision taken on the treatment facllity 13 generally consistent with the limitations IIT the permit. (The word “genmlly” IS used 

stmoly to recognize those instances where fac:!ities that needed to meet permit limrts are not eligtble for Federal construction grants. such as when 

advanced treatment facilities are found not to be 

eligible accordm to EPA’s policy on advanced 

treatment revlew see Reference 141.) 

Once water quality-based controls are In place. 

dischargers are required to provide repons on 

compliance with NPOES permit limits. They al5(1 

may be required to assess the Impact of thetr CMcharge on the rececvcng water to ensure that Ine 

expected water quality IS obtatned and water quality standards are met (cf. Chapter 3, hlonltonng for 

Compliance and Enforcement). Effluent and ambisnt datacollcctioli reaumments may be wntten 

into the permits of &chargers (with appropriate 

quality contra! by the regulatory authority) for ~aentidying waters needing controls. developing Rontmk and assessing the effeczlveness or thebe 

controls to ensure that the designated use IS matntamed. If a State has not been approved to Implemertt the NPOES program. permtttmg ?na 

compliance reviews of all permittees In that Stste 

are the msponsibiiity of the EPA. In a State with approved NPDES authority, EPA retains overslg;nr 

nsgonsibility for the State compliance progr km 

and authority to COnd@JCt compliance and enfortement In that State as necessary. 

EPA Responsibilities 

EPA Headquarters is responsible for seeing that 

the mandates regarding TMOLs In the CX P 

Water Act are carrled out, provrding overslgtli :f 

the Regional offices and the States. deve!oo+g 

wajteload allocatlng program pokey ana ?;.I,*- 

ar.ce, developing computer software for talc: :!- 

lng wasteload allocations. developing !ecynl 31 

guidance documents, and providing !ec.‘lr,l,.-6. 

training and assIstanc6. 

The EPA Regtonal offices are responsible !c : : sslsting Yeadquanen In devetoplng policy ant 

guidance and distnbuting this policy and gulcance 

to the States. awarding grants to !he States :o crovids them with resources for developmg and #mplementing wasteload allocations, and provtdmc 

oversight and technccal assistance IQ the States 

In addition, the Regional offices are resDonqlbtE 

for revlewtng and approving. or disapprovrng ?cr 

State’s: wasteload allocation ProceSL :hE 

wasteload allccatlon element of the annua 

106/205(j) work program; the list of waters -eri 

WUs. L&s. or TMOLs are needed: tw ri r:rr 

rar,krng of these waters: and SCXI~IC Wl i\s. ;\s 

or TMDk The EPA Regtonar offices L:- !S’ 

responsible for reporting on State Implemcv *‘c’ 

to Headquarters. 

9 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

a 

Planning and Managing Coopwativa Monitor-t 

ing Projw US EPA, Office d Water. vVashington. DC.. (July 7994) EPA 44014-8eo18. 

Gurdelines for Denwng Numencal National 

Water Ouality Cfitena for the Protection of 

pSuatic L1f0 and its Ua w RO@lw, Vol. 

45,paga7934U’Jwombu~t98d~ix 

8. (This guldanca has been revised and pubtuthedinthe~RqrsIwSoo5OPR3U784, 

JuIy 29.1985.) 

Water Quelity Stan- Handbook, U.S. EPA, 

offlC8 of Water R8gul8!loM and Standarda 

Washington. DC, D@c8nlkr 1963. 

lbcflnicalsupportMunrJ:~Survsyr 

and &mmswnm for Conductfng &a&ability 

Analyses Volume I. U.S. EPA, OHka of Water 

Regulations and Stan- Washington. DC 

November 1983 

Twhnicai Support Manual: Watubdy Su~syb 

and Assessments for Conducting Attainability 

Anal- Votumo II: Estuarina Systems. J.S. 

EPA, Otfico of Wator’Regulationr and Stand&s, Washington, D.C, Juna 1994. 

Ttinrcal Sum Manual: Watwbody Survwys 

and &essmonts for Conducting Attainability 

Anafysw. Volume 111: Lakes. U.S. EPA, Ottice 

of Water Regulaons and Standan% Washington, DC., Novsmbor 1984. 

7. 

a 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13 

14. 

Twhnical Guidanca Manual for Pertormmg 

w Allocattons, Book II: Streams and 

RtwxCh8@w1.600100ImpacuQ3otw 

3 1983) EPA-uOM-two2a 

Technical Guidance Manual for Perfarmmg 

West&ad Allocations, Book II: Streams and 

Riven: Chapter2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impsta (NlMmb8r 34 1993) EPCc4001444-021. 

Twhnicrl Guidance Manuai for Pertwmcng 

Wasteload Allocations, Book II: Streams and 

R/VdO; Chaptmr 3 Toxic Substances (June ra 

1984) EPA44oiS. 

T&&al Guidance Manual for Pertormlng 

Wm Allocationa 8ook IV: Lakes and 

Impou&wms; Cha@w 2 NutnentlEutrophlcation Impacts, (August 29. 1963) 

EPA440I4-84479. 

Twhnical Guidance Manual for PerformIng 

Wpswod Alboattons, Book VII: Perrn~t Averaging Periods, (September 29. 1984) 

EPA44II484-023 

WaZar Quality ksassmmt: A Screenmg Pm 

cadun for Toxic md Conventional Pollutants. 

(August 29.1983) EPA600164244 a. b, c. 

Twhnicd Support Document for Water 

haMy&ud Totics Cmtrot. U.S. EPA. Office 

of Water, Washington, DC.. September 1985. 

Policy for Review of Advanced Treatment 

KMh$g. Fgai Rty~sfec Vol. 49. page 

. I 
CHAPTER 3 

MONITORING FOR COMPLIANCE 

AND ENFORCEMENT 

Sectron 402 of the Clew Water Act authorizes the 

creation of the National Fo!!utant Oischarge EIiminatron System (NPDES) to issue permits for Qischarges Into nav!gaM waters, The NPOES permit 

is the pnnclpa! regulatory tool for reducing the 

quantity of pollutants discharged to the nation’s 

waters and for ob*a!ning data on point-source dlscharges. Pemrits issued pursuant to Sodion 402 

of the Act contain specific and kgally enforceable 

efflcrent limitations and self-monitoring requiremerits. 

As used by EPA, “compliance monitoring” is a 

generic term which includss all activities taken by 

Fedora! or State regulatory agencies to ascertain 

a permittee’s adherence to the conditions of ib 

NPOES permft. Genera!!y, compliance monitoring 

data collected as part of the NPOES program are 

used In compliance eva!uations and in support oi 

8nforcement actions. Data collect8d in conjunohon 

with complimce momtoring is also an essential 

element of a complete watsr monitoring program. 

P rot Tam Description 

The prrmav functions of the compliance monitormg progran are the d8termination and ver!ficahon 

of compliance w!th permrt conditiorls Including effluent limrtatrons and compliance schedu!es. 

Mon!toring information can a!so be required from 

a discharger utilizing authority provtded to EPA 

under Section 308 of the Clean Water Au. EPA 

may rsquir8 dischargers to cplleot and submit 

physical. ch8mioal. and bidogioa! data on the 

effluent and. where pedinent. ambient conditions 

In the waten that receive the efftuent. The information derived from th8s8 programs p;us permit 

application data IS an important pert of the Marmatron need8d to identify and set limits for waten 

needing wa;er quality-based contrvis. 

Compliance -0nitonng cornpriM two 8lements: 

Cm?n!ianm Rwdw and Comg?Jiuw hspecdon. 

Sulaance for ampliance monrtoring and 8nfomement is provided in the lE&rwmoIlt Manago.lnont 

System Guide (currently be!ng revlsec). TLe+e 

activities are descnb8d below. 

Cofnpllanco rrvlow 

Campliurce r8view IS the process of determlntnq 

thecompliance status of the perm!ttee. The review 

coven a!I written mctena! re;at!ng to the status ct 

a ponn+tee’s compliance with an NPOES Dermlf 

including Discharge Monitorrng Reports (OMR). 

Compliancs Sch8dule Reports (CSR), and Compliance Inspection Repons (CfR). These matena!s originate from the permIttee. regulator! 

authorities. or third panies including public and 

private interest groups. Perrnitteegenerated. setfmonitoring data reported in the OMRs are the IarGes! source of information-used tu monttor NPOES 

compliance 

If 3 Stats has not been given authwration *T ‘- 

~~NTWM the NPOES program, compliance rewcws 

of 41 permittees In the State are the responst;ll . 

ty of tne EPA. In a State that has NPOES aumo: - 

tation, EPA rstains oversight r8spons!bWy ‘or :! P 

State compliance program and may conuuc: CCFpliance monitonng and enforcement In the S:: *o 

zt necessary. EPA uses the computenzeu Per1 I[ 

Compliance System (PCS), the Quanerly krcompliance Report QUCR). State audits. ano F ?A 

Stat8 Enforcement Agreements to cverdlew 

NPOES State activlhes. 

The States’ biennua! Section 305(b) reporrs #qeluding the lists of waters not meeting uses arc 

waters n8eding tota! maxtmum dally loads) Tay 

p;ovide historical data on water problems IO nelc 

dev8lop inspection plans. These r8ports and 11s~ 

shou!d aid EPA and the States tn Id8ntlfylng pvt. 

source polluticn discharges fern permlnees ?a. 

prevent attainment of doslgnated usets) In recetv 

rng watt Citir8n complamts dlso pfwde use+L 

input to complianc8 revi8w. 

NPOES permits contain specific Iimlts (in conren 

Vations and/or loadings) on the pollutants CIS 

charged by a facility. The psrmit also rsqulres tht 

permtttw to conduct se!f-mon!tonng of ttle effluer 

11 
and sport this information to EPA in a Dischaqe 

Monitoring Report (DMRj. Monthly ratxrting is 

usually required of mapr soufws tiich are evalu-, 

ated by EPA within 30 days of racapt. Oraft EPA 

policy requires entry of this data into the Agency’s 

data management system, PCS. 

The PCS contams effh~ent data from the Oisclwgo 

Monitoring Reports Parametnc data inciudss convermonal pollutants (e.g.. BOO, rs$ and nutnants) 

and toxtc pcl!utants requt:ti by the permrt. Oatais avarlable 1f7 PCS for 3 to 5 years on many facliities. with OMR data being ente,W on major pcrmittoes in PM. All pararMric data is entared 

usmg STORET parameter codaa which will alroW 

sasy cross-fefefancing of PCS data and water 

qudity data. PCS will also contain all the permit 

pollutant limits. 

Orm aspecific faility has been identified as having apparent permit violations, EPA or the ap 

proved Stam proceeds to review the facility’s 

compliance hIstory. A number of data managemont mechanisms (in&ding the compliance 

tracking systems) prwlde the nacsu;ry Inform& 

tion. These are: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

bruit Compliance System (PCS), a data 

management system for stonng and retriawng 

all relevant tacts about a facility’s perrnlt conditions. its seff-rnonltoriny data, the inspections 

performed. and any enforcement actions 

taken. 

The Strategic P Mning W hlan;6gement System (SPMS) and the Otfico of Water Accountability System, tm, tracking sys:ams that provtae 1nf0miatHxl on pemtttwswith compUnca 

problems and on State and Regional annual 

v.wk programs. 

The Quarterly Noncompliance Reports 

(ONCRL which pmwde tha cornplianca hisaory 

of slgnlficant violators. 

Compliance mvmw lbcuseson tha mmituc@ frmquency and duration ol vioI&o~ and any corractive action taken 5 the pwnittoo. It is used 13 

tdmtdy slgnlficant mit MoMions and to provida 

lnformatlon for detefmmlny appfopnata enforce= 

ment followup action. IdentMation of significant 

vlolatlons dunng compliance rovim may provide 

the b-s for requestmg a surwy of the mWting 

water to evatujte water qualia impacts. 

ComplrMco ICompliance Inspectton refers to all field-mlated 

regula!ory activities conducted to venfy permit 

compliance status. Such field acrlvlttes may Incfude evaiution Inspections (nonsampling), sari++ 

pling inspections, other specialized Inspections, 

and remote sensmg, depending on the need br 

compliance InformatIon. C;ompliance msoection 

are conducted by all States and EPA. Each year 

EPA provides trammg for S;ato and EPA compliance. COfUn inspectl~rls, such as OtaSnOStlC Inspections (01) and FMormance Audit InspectIons 

(PAI), In addition to prov,ding lnformatlcn to support enforcement action, also ud a permittee rn 

s/aluating the facility’s probbms. Compliance Bie 

monitoring Inspetzions (Cal) an SpecIfically targetod at facllitior whose effluent is suspected or 

idont!fied as causng toxiuty problems that threaten the ecological balance of the recetving waters. 

BiomcnWing is a toxicity-screening tool that may 

be used in lieu of more resource-jntenscve pollutant sampling and analyses. 

A Comulianca Evaluation Inspection (CEI) provides baSc Morrnatian common to all compliance 

InspecUons and is undertaken for one or more of 

the following purposes: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Ensure that permit requirements ars being 

met. 

Check the completeness and accuracy of 

psrmitrw’s performance and compliance 

records. 

Assess the adequacy of the permlttee s self 

monitonng and reporting program. 

Evaluate the pemvttee’s operation and Manntenaxe activities. 

Obsofve the status of constructlon required 

by the permit. 

Addms watef quality and other specific 

problems and follnwup In areas where water 

quality-based controls were implemented. 

Formoredotaikdguidancoonpmcaduresforconducting a Compliance Evaluation InspectIon. refer 

to the NPOES Compliance Evaluation and lnspection ManuPl (see Rderenco 2) and the NPOES 

Compliance lnspocaon Manual (sea Reference 9). 

A sampling Inspection involves effiuent samplmg 

or bmnmiturifq and should satisfy all of the - 

purposes. It may ba appropr~ato In the case of 

some facilitioa to ramp10 or monltof In-plant 

proces~s and tnfluonl XNNCNS to verrfy permit 

requiremcsnta (Sea Rehrances 1, 5, and 9 for 

datailed guidance on conducting sampling inspections.) Procedures are currently bemg developed 

17 
for pr8trwtment aspects of both sampling and 

nonsampling inspectiona 

Followup monltodng 

Once wzuer qualily-b;ued controls are in platxt, followup monitoring is needed 10 ensure that the 

NPOES permit limits 30 met and that the expected water quality is obtained. L&chargers are roqurred to provrds report.3 3n compliance wtth 

permr~ limtls and also may be required to assess 

the impact of thetr discharge an the receiving 

water. States may require dischargen to monitor 

aa needed to supplement State &nd RegIonal 

regulatory monitoring. Effluent and ambient data 

colleuion and reporting requirements (as well as 

QCVQC req~irementsf may be writ-ton into permits 

to identify the effbctiveness d these controls 10 

ensure that use is maintained or restored (see 

Reference 10). 

Quality Control 

Since the NPOES compliance monitoring system 

relies heavily on sample analyses performed by 

the permit&es. marntainmg high da!a quality remams top pnonty. The Discharge Monitoring 

Repon Quality .&suranco (OMRQA) program 

serves as a basis for both data quality evaluation 

and adminwawe followup. A Performance Audit 

Inspection (PAI) of both field and laboratory 

resources and techniques (~88 Reference 8) may 

result due to failure to pertorm adequately on 

OMRQA. 

Monitoring to Support Enforcement 

Section 309 of the Clean Wetor Ac! authorizes the 

Agency 10 bnng civil or criminal action against 

facilities who violate their NPOES parmit conditions. The EPA Regions and the approved States 

have specrfic prowduns kw reviewing selfmonltorlng and Inspection data and for deciding 

what type of enforcement acticn, if any, is wamnted. In cases where a factli;y has recmved an order 

(or the State 8quivakmt) imposing legally binding 

requirements for returning 10 and mamtainmg 

compliance with permit conditions, EPA or the 

States conduct periodic inspections to venfy that 

these requirements are being fulfilled. 

In cases when the regulatory agency coitects 

samples for evidence in judicial procedures, 

thoroughly documented cham-of-custady procb 

dures whl be used as described cn the referenced 

NPOES Inspection Manuals. 

Annual State/EPA Compliance 

Inspection Plans 

The AgOnCy’S annual operating guidance directs 

that a Compliance Inspection Plan be developecc 

for each State as pan of the annual ETb 

Region/State agreement process. Thts platI 

should be incorporated as part of the Section 106 

grant documents and included tn the State/EPA 

agreement. 

Program Responsibilities 

EPA Headquarters ovenws and coordlnaIt 

regIona/ activities. provides technIcal assstancc 

to Regional offices upon request, and cevetcc-- 

policy, guidance. and regulations. 

The EPA Regional offices implement ,OIIC) 

guidance, and regulations In nondereqated State: 

oversee and coordinate aCtiVtt1eS .n ceresatsc 

States. and provide technical assistance :O :bc 

States. 

States, whgch are dslegatej the NPOES prcqram. 

monitor perm~ttws and Implement the NPDES 

program. In nondelegated States, these responsibrlities are assumed by the EPA Reglonal off ice. 

with States providing input on a case-oy-case 

basis. 

i%rmittws conduct self-ronltonng and reDoR 

these data to EPA. 

13 
Rdwencea 

1. 

2. 

3 

4 

5. 

8. 

7. 

Compliance Biofnonitofing Inspection Manual b4cD42. EPA, 1981) 

Compliance Evaluation Inspection Mnuel 

(MC&75. EPA. 1981) 

Compliance Evalua!i~n and Thb&hOfNng 1 

Muntcrpal Wamwuer Treumem facrlitws 

(EPA430/9-78-001) 

Compliance Flow Measurement Inspection 

MamaI (MCD-n, EPA, 1981) 

Compliance S&mpling Inspc!M Manual 

(MC&51, EPA, 1979) 

MuIti-M~CompiianceAuditI~~ 

up1 EPA 291/2-83402) 

Performance Audit Inqmcth Manual (EP& 

330/l-79004). 

a 

a 

lo. 

11. 

WOES Corn- bpeuion Manual (EPAI 

owEP6/84) 

Tiihnical Support Document for Water 

Chdybad Tbxb Control. U.S. EPA, Otfice 

of Wutor, September 1985. 

AWfWM- urn from Deputy AdmtnlstrttoI to Aasiaurt Administrator. Regtonal 

Adminim et J.. Implementmg the State/ 

hdoral Pamerslvp rn Enforcement: State/ 

Pedofd Ghwcwwm ‘Aqrwments,” June 26, 

1964. 

+ncy Momowdum from Assistant Admmistr8tor for Wuof to Regional Admwdtraton. 

Guidance for Oversight of NPOES Permits. 

July a 1985 

14 
CHAPTER 4 

WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS 

The Congress, EPA progam managers, and State 

admtnrsttraton need to assess the quality of the 

aquatic enwonment so that they can make deck 

sions concerning water program prionties and 

regularly provide reports 10 the public on the state 

of the environment, Important trends over time, 

and accomplishment% They also need to evaluate 

the effectiveness of control measures. National, 

regional, and State assessments provide this type 

of cntwxl dormation; environmental statutes, 

regulattons, and policies provide the mechamsms 

through which these assessments are conducted. 

Program Description 

States are to conduct statewide assessments of 

water quality conditions and trends that correspond to measures expressed in the Section 

305(b) guidance. In conducting these assessments the States should address their waters usIng the following order of prtonty: 

1. 

2. 

3 

4 

Waters that are not supporting deslgnated 

uses and are Pnonty Waten (Priorrty Waters 

are those waters for which pollutant abatement and control decisions are most neeaed 

to prevent or reverse the impatrment of a 

destgnated use). 

Waters r-at are not supponing designated 

uses and. while not currently designated as 

Pnonty Waters, will likely become Pnority 

Waten In the near futun. 

All other waters that aft not supporting desqnated uses or are threuenod and are not included under the above categories. 

Al! other waters not included under :he above 

categories. 

In conductmg theso assessments, the State 

should carry out the follomng types of actmties as 

pan of a balanced monitoring program: 

l Monitor the number and kinds and the gene+ 

al health of biological organisms and the 

presence of toxics in fish, theIlfish, and sediments. The purpose of this type of monitoring is to detect toxtcs rn the food Chain. ovaluate trends. and establish baselines for necessary control actlons. 

Monitor chemical and biological parameters 

for the purpose 0: determInIng statewltie 

water quality :renas. This ,s ;aclcular’y ,seful for documentmg trends In water quallty 

resulting from pollution abatement and control actions. fhls monltonng mcludes :he !ISsue analysis described above. 

Monitor chemical and biological parameters 

using simple monitonng surveys mcludmr~ 

where appropriate, bioscreening sur\/eys w 

periodic sampling at fixed stations for the PLII. 

pose of evaluating unassessed waters. States 

are encouraged to conduct short-term TOXIC. 

ity tests and brosurveys m these waters. 

Each of these activities IS discussed below. 

1. Mon&oflng the Numkr and Klndr and the 

GenofaI Ho&h of 8lologkrl Organisms and tt~r 

Resenca of Toxia in Fish, ShellfIsh, and Scr 

iment8 

States should conduct broassessments Inc!uclr~~ 

monitoring the number and krnds and gene!: 

health of blological organisms and the zeserx r 

of toxics in fish, shellfish, and sedments v 

monitoring the Wmber and krnds of broloqlc;. 

organisms, the States are encouraged to !ocus (:I 

the fish community where practmtble. Ctherwx 

the States should monitor other available CICICC;~- 

cal commumties. Whrle this monitoring shcu~a ze 

conducted in waters not supponing desgnalea 

uses due to toxcs, the States may also elect to monitor for toxics in waters meeting designated uses 

if an emerging toxics problem is suspected 01 :o 

wmply venfy the absence of problems. Where ~fl~s 

monitoring is conducted to screen !or :O*ICS 

problem&, brosurveys are recommended. ‘Nflere 

thts monitoring ts done routinely to assess :renCs. 

fixed stations are recommended. 

In analyzing tisssr;e, each State snould acdress 

those problem pollutants that are of special 01 local concam. In addition. each State IS encourw?a 

to analyze tissue for the toxicants listed tn Table 4 -1. 

which are known to bioaccumulate In tissue. 
lMO4-1 

oooz3 

39105 

PcBt 09515) (39519) 

All tissue sampling ganerally sholJM k carried out 

in the fall of the year. This is because pesticides 

am most heavily usBd during the ag4culturaf gruwing saas@n and pestiddo residues are ofton more 

severe at this time. Than are also more resident 

populations of fish in tha fall since migrations 

usually occur In the sprtng and, rim tha summer 

months are ths Miw feeding wason for fish, food 

cham rWttlonsh~ps are better dofined and peak In 

the fall. 

InaMuctlngtissuoanalyswUwSt8tosmustwt 

teasonabk objoctivos. It human health is the 

prima consi&fatkm. tha St8taa shoulc analyze 

fish fillets. If aquatic life impacts or “eariy waming” screening IS tM prima con8idwation. two 

replicate whok Ash cofnpoaito samples of a 

reprosarltativa fish spacia should ba ulsltyred. l 

Each composite sample should indude at least 

five fish, teach of approximately tha Juno site. 

Commwcirlfyorrecr-~thWyimportiwts;ndes 

should bo collecfed whofever posaiblo, and rcsident tisk are pretwrwd over migratoq fish. 80= 

causa of thmr groat watar-flltoring capubili,rea, 

shellfish are axceNtt concmtraton of contaminants. ThWOfOW wharevrr poss;lble. repre 

sentativa shellfish samples should be collected 

and analyzed. espectally In estuanne snvtronmerits. 

Where tissue samples reveal eletvated levels’ ’ of 

a particular toxicanttsj, sediment samples should 

be collected and analyzed for these toxicants, 

wherever possible. 

2. hblltortrlg of seIectod Aro# forma Purpoao 

of Determining Statewide Trenda 

States should continue to monitor waters that colIectivoly will help them evaluate statewide water 

quafity trends. Monitoring conducted In these 

watWbo&a should be designated to show the 

curront condition of the waterbody and whether 

that condition is improving, staying the same, or 

getting worse. Prionty should be given to waterbodies where control actions have taken place. 

The States should carefully sdect areas for the 

purpose of determining statewide trends. A statie network of reaches selected according to a 

predetermined statistical desigriwrll help ensure 

the development of informative water quality 

trends. state arm 13 select parameters that mea+ 

ure water quality in terms of the waterbody’s 

designated usa and sito-spacifk condiilons. They 

should also monitor ;or toxics In tissue at these 

sWs. States must also sel6ct a sampling frequency that provides sufficun; InformatIon for cornouting reliable trends (sea Rmfsrence 1 for EPA 

guidance on computing water quality trends). It IS 

expected that States will continue to maintain a 

fixed- station network or some other valid ap 

proach for computing statewide water quallty 

trends. 

3. MfmItodng of Watofs That H8vo Not &en 

-- 

States shouM continua to btoaden the data base 

for assessing water quality cqnditions throughout 

the Stat.. States should collect informatlan for 

‘Fleaouch IS cumntfy undWry to dotomne the aopfopnrtaness of antiyang spoc~fic organs ln com3arlson with filkt and who10 IIUUO anaJpu. Tochnlcal 

gwlana on thn subject Mould be avulabia tn the near 

future. 

l ‘Elwatmd levob am defined hero to ba l xcoaCanco~ 

of Stat0 w8tu ~udtty standards 3Wd cntona and/or 

FDA action kvd8, or level8 of Stat@ :oncom (when 

numenc cntmns 00 not uut). 
previously unassessed waters using less 

nsou&ntensive monitoring suv or wcth park 

odic monitonng at fixed stations. These surveys 

might include screenmg biosurveys or simple 

chemrcal/physlcal measurements. Where 

resources allow. short-term toxtcity tests should be 

employed. etspeclally where toxlclty IS suspected. 

Data from these assessments will allow EPA and 

;rle States 10 (1) ch=k for any emerging problems. 

(2) ensure that existmg water quality is maintained. 

(3) prwarz more recresentative water quality trend 

assessments, and (41 prowds a baseline of water 

quality agalna which future water quality conditions can be cornpar&. This latter purpose is most 

important to ensuru successful stujies of me water 

quality effects of future point and nonpoint source 

dischargen. 

Scresmrrg btosun/eys generally involve bnef site 

visits in which water quality is evaluated using a 

checklist of simple field indicators such as habUt 

conditions or tP.8 composition of the biological 

community. EPA 1s prepanng a Bioscr-ning 

Handbook which WIII provide additional guidance 

on blosuNety screening techniques (see Reference 2). Nw toxic:ty tests are also available for 

sensrtive and fairly economical screening of ambient wat-c3 and effluents (see Reference 3). At 

fixed stations. States should collect information 

that will best measure the degree to which designated uses are bemg attained. 

As a target. the States should assess approximately 20 percent of these unassessed waters per year 

until all waters that the States believe should be 

monitored are monitored. This process should be 

repeated every 6 years and shouid be synchronized with the &year trend-asse?rsment cycle 

as described in the Sectton 305(b) gUldanC8 

document. 

Conduct National Suweys to 

Supplement State Analyses 

me Office of Water WIII conduct national assessments as needed to meet immediate needs. &- 

sessments ongoing or planned by the Office af 

Water include: (1) completing th8’Natlonal DIOXin Study, (2) pacicipattng In the kational Surface 

Watsr Survey (on atmospherrc depos1113n). 13; 

evaluating persistent and bloaccumulattve ~OIIUtants as a followup to the National Dloxln Stul:~. 

and (4) evaluating toxlcants In sedrments ‘rV!~~8~ 

mart of the%i effons irra becng condlJc!ed at !tle 

Federal levd, it ts IiWy that the States WIII Se asKed 

to provide scms InformatIon. Ounng the design 

phase of any natlocal assessment, the degree r,f 

involvement by the States will be carefully evaluated wlthin the framework of the Section 106 do 1. 

nual work program. 

References 

Methodologies for Cbterm~nlng Trends In ‘Nater 

Quality Oata (see dratt as Apparlalx 3 I,’ 

Guidance. 1988 State Water Quality Asses!. 

merits, June 1985). 

&. Guidance on Biosurvey Techniques J* ce 

preparation).’ 

3 Technic21 Support Document !or Nater ZLa ’ ,’ 

based Toxics Control. U.S. Z?4. Cffrce cf ‘:/a!+*~ 

3eptem her 1985. 

‘Coplos of these documents will be mace akallaclt : + 

the Monltonng Branch. Monltonr?y ano t a!a SLc.coT: 

Divwon. Otfice of Watw as tnmy are comcletec 

17 
CHAPTER 5 

QUALITY ASSURANCE 

Etfecttve quality assurance and quality control 

(WQC) procedures and a clear daiineation of 

CWOC resoonsbilitier are eS8ntiJ to ensure !he 

,rrlity of envlrunmental moniionng data. Those 

procedures must be applied thalghout the measurement and assessment process, including field 

Sampi acqUiSition, sUnpi pf8S8rMiOri and control, laboratory an&ysoa, and data Wssment. 

The term “quality amtrd” fdem to the routine ap 

~lication of pfo~eduros fof obtaining prexfib8d 

standards of pwformanca in th8 monitoring and 

m8asufWrlent p- Th8 t@fW! “CjUdity Wrante” includes the quaiity control functions and 

involves a totatty int8gmted pfogmm for ensuring 

th8 reliability of monitoring and measurement 

data. It involves a system for integrating quality 

planning. quality cont,ol, and quality assessment 

efforts The commitment of Mpiewi managem8nt 

to the a program is of key impOMC8 for its success Managemsnt must also b8 invdved in m 

iishing data quality obj8Ctives designed to m8et 

the intended us8 of 8nvifWImti monitoring 

data. 

Program Description 

The EPA WCX program requires that ail EPA n& 

tional program officc~, EPA A8gional offices, and 

EPA laboratones partitipute in a centrally pknn8d. 

direCted. and coordinated Agency-wide WQC 

program. Thus mquiremont also applies to efforts 

camed out by the States and i-8 agenciw, 

that are supported by EPA through grants, contracts, or other tormalkad l grwnents. fh8 EPA 

CM program is bas8d upon EPA o&r 5330.1. 

“Policy and Program A8quirernents to Inpi8rnent 

the Quality ksumnce Program” (SW Rofefence 

1). whtch d8scrib8s the pclicy, objectives, and 

responslbliities of all EPA Program and Regional 

offices. 

Each office or laboratory that gorwrates data under EPA’s WQC pmgmm tnusl implement. al a 

mmimum, the presCrib8d pnxedures to ensure 

that preci-n, accuracy, compk&noae, cornpan+ 

biiity, and representatkenoss of data are Known 

and aocumented. In addition, EPA’s QAJQC proce 

dures apply throughout the study design. sample 

collection. sample custody, laboratory analys!s. 

data review (including data 8clttmg and storage). 

hnd data analVSiS and -epontng phaS8S. 

Data Quaiity Objectives 

A full assessment of th8 data quality needed to 

meet the intsnded us8 should be made pnor !o 

spscification of QNOC COntKris. fh8 determrnation of data quality is accomplished through the: tie 

V8fOpm8flt Of dataquaiityobj8CWes. oata qualIly 

obj8~tives (WOs) are qualitative and quantltarrve 

statements d8velop8d by dam users to specrty the 

quality of data n8ed8d to support specific Ccc Isions or mgulatory actions. Establishment cf 

ms iN!ves interaction of decrsronmaken and 

the teChnical 3aff. 

The process for developing 000s includes a !%: -,? 

stage ifWWg input by the dflcrsronmaker rec& .- 

ing the information nesded, reasons for the new 

how the information wail b8 us8d. and sgemficall, n 

of any time and resource constramts. The ‘TLI 

stag8 in developing 3Ws involves clanficarlor~ L I 

the specific pmbl8m. Hem. the technrcal nail dl‘c 

d8cisionmak8r interact to 9StaDliSh a detarfcc 

sp8cification of the problem and any constfb~~ .j 

Impos8d on data colleCtion. The third staqe :nvoives dev8lopmg altematne approaches :o cata 

COlleCtiOn, s8tecting the approach to be usea. ant 

establishing th8 final data quality obfeCWes. @xe 

the data coli8~hon approach and data quaMy oojectives have b8en established. a clear understanding of what dsta quality IS to b8 expected will 

help ensum that the effort wlli be succes.sfuI. 

R8femnce 2 descnb8s the process tar aevewlng 

Ws in more detarl. 

Quality htufaance Program Plans 

and Project Plan3 

To provide ad8quato COntrOl and guidance. !he 

Agency’s QA program mlies on the develoun Cot 

19 
and imp&n- of two PA docum8nta: the QA 

Program Plan and the m PrOj8C? PtUr. thee8 

pimps are required of a11 recipients of EPA gm 

and assistance programs. Grant regulations, 40 

CFR Pan 30. r8quln submission of CIA PrOgram 

Plans to EPA as a prior condition of mceivlng an 

EPA grant. CM Pml8c! PIans also must be deve= 

tooed according to an acceptabta scheduio within 

thb t% Program Plan. 738 m PfOgMI PiM (SO0 

Wefence 3) dexnb8s management poliu8a organizatloli, obpctwes. ptinCioi8s. and g8n8mi 

proceoures that estabiun how data of known and 

aCC8ptabt8 qU&ity wiit b8 produced. 

~C3APmj8ctPfand8scnbosanddofinosw8cific objectives. wtwork dosign, pmc8duroS. 

rnltw an4 controb mu will bo appli8d to a 

specific prqact to ensure the production d data d 

known and accept&k quaMy. ‘Itvo guidance 

dOCUm8fttS am availabio to assist in praparation 

of the DA Project Plan: a general guidance documont (s88 hf8f8nC8 4) and a man dotaiM 

gurdance document that combin8s a work plan 

with the QA Project Plan (se8 Rmce 5). Th8s8 

guidanadocumentsaho~guid~onme 

us8 of a short form for limited suweys. 

me following information should bo included in a 

QAPfojectPtan:designatedQA~andpmf8ct 

offtc~ proi8ct descnption (including the obf8ctivea th8 monitoring network, etc): a sch8dul8 of 

tasks and products; the proj8ct organization and 

respon~bliities; a specification of data quillity n 

quirements for the intend8d us8 (including preciuon. accuracy, comparability, cofnpI8t8n8s and 

-1; sampling pmcedures(incfudmg pmsuvation, sampio custody, instrument and 

8qutpmrnt calibration. and maint8rwtco); qualityciYntrolprocaduressuchasfwdMrllrs, I&and 

reagent blank. blind fieid spitas and dupiici8s. 

lab spikes and dupikatu, standmd r8fwnc8 

materials, etc; the procadures for m documenWon, data reduction and reporting, data vatidation, and p8rformanco and systems audits; other 

ch8cks for quality control. handling outlien and 

cO~~~CWN aCtiOnS, and mpOft!9 doCum8nting 

msuits as well as dimepanda WIUI original plans 

Docum8nted OA progmms with sp8ahc controia 

d8acrib8dcM8nsunm8l~andutiliid~ 

vironmental monitoring data. In recognition d the 

hazards of utilizing data of unknown and susp8ct 

quality, a QA Program Plan with w8ll-conc8iived 

000s is an e%SOntiti pert of 8v8ry activtty 

d8sign8d to achieve sound environmental msults. 

EPA Reqmnsibilitles 

EPA H8adqUaH8n is mepcnsibie for providing 

guidance for developing mquirad Quality &surante Program Plans and Quality Assurance 

?toj8ct Ptar~. This indud8e updates necessUted by n8w Agency roquimments and additional 

technic& guid8nc8 for the RegIonal otfices and 

Strtn tc~ devotcp sound plana in addition, Headquartam ie r8qmdblo for demiowg Data Quality 

Objecttva for Ouality &SUMC~ Plans that will 

m8ot the Hoadquwtom data uu naedu and pm 

vide guidance to the Regions on application of the 

000 davalopmurt proc8sa. 

EPA Rag&U otIic8s am msponsibk for developing Quality Aaaururca Program Plans and Quaiity France Project P!ar18 for the activities that 

thy conduct. In ad&M, thy are responsible for 

ensuring thnt Statms prepare M Program Plans 

and Projmct Plana in confonanc8 with grant re 

quiramonta spociflti in 40 CFR Part 30. fh8 

Regiona are mponribte for d-loping 000 re 

quirementa compatible with H8adqUaRer’S re 

quirem8nts and m88ting tha Regions’ spectfic 

needs. The Regions are aiso msponslbie for assisting the States in dow+o@ng m requirements 

that meet State n88da 

Refmncus 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

EPA Order 538al. Policy and Program Ra 

quitwlent to Impi8mM th8 Quality AssUmXe 

Program, April 17,1984. 

Tha Dovotopment of Oata Ouatity Obt8ctives. 

pmpamd by tha EPA Ouali 

Management Staff and the 008 

&surance 

Workgroup. 

s8ptomber25,1984. 

GuidJin8s &Td SpWfkXttOn8 for Prepanng 

Ouailty Assurance Pro ram Plans. 

QAMS4lO4190, September 1 aa 

Intenm GuidMnu and Sp8cifications for 

Prepuin Qu8My Aaauranco Prof8ct Plans, 

QAMS-Ol518Q Ooc8mber 198Q 

Guidance for Preparation of Combined 

-ity kawancePm@ctflansforEm+ 

fonm8ntal Monitoring, OWRSQCrl. May 1904. 

20 
CHAPTER 6 

DATA REPORTING 

There are two principal vehicles for ihe States to 

use in reporting water quality monitoring data to 

EPA. The first is through the statewide water quality report required by Section 305(b) of the Clean 

Water Act. The second reporting vehicle is the 

transmission of monitoring data as technical 

reports or as data entered into EPA data systems. 

in accordance with EPA’s Water Quality Monitoring Policy for inland and coast4 waters (see Appendix A), all water quality data collected by the 

States for dsvdoping water quality&wd controls 

and all appmpriafo data for water quality assessments and screening are to be reported to EPA by 

entering these data into SrORET or by providing 

a hardcopy of dam in STORETcompatible format. 

Ail data should be submitted to EPA by the States 

within 60 days of the time that the data was 

reviewed and appruvd. All technical reports 

should include cross-mkmnces to STORET. 

EPA Headquarten and the Regional offices will 

use these data to track implementation of State 

programs funded under Section 106 of the Clean 

Water Act. The EPA RegIonal offices will revtew 

both the quality and the quantity of the data 

reported by the States. 

Data on Water Quality Assessments 

In accordance with EPA’s Water Quality Monrtoring Policy for inland and coastal wa140, States are 

required to report approprkte water quality data 

collected in conjunction with w quality asses 

ments to EPA. The States and EPA Regional 

otfices wdl discuse the State monttoring programs 

to determm whrt data is appropriate and the form 

In whtch It rs to be reported. tissments data to 

be reported to EPA include data from the foiiowmg: 

1. nxodst8tMoopof8MfoWatWquMty~ 

sesment8(I~,~quolltycon8rtloneand 

trendr only) - Phys~N chemical. and biobglcal da!a on water col;lmn, sediment, and tissue samples. 

2. Intanshm sum conducted for water quaC 

ity aseesunants (Lo., water quailty cond!- 

tbrta ad tnmda only) - Physical. cfienllc;.: 

and blologmJ data on water column, sea! 

ment. and tissue samples at representawe 

stations that accurately represent the conuttions during the survey. States me also to pre 

pare brief abstracts of the rntenslve sur~oy 

summarizing the results of the survey brlo 

submit them (0 the EPA Regional office A< 

agreed upon by the Regional office and I@ 

State. States are strongly encouraged 10 oevelop complete technical repons descrlbmg 

the water quality conditions and trends four+ 

Copies of these completed technical reporls 

should be forwarded to the Aegronat office 

Where an “tier” study IS conducrec. .: 

thorough discussion of prewous conclitton: 

control actions, present conditions. an0 *I 

effectiveness of the controls shourd 3e ,‘, 

eluded. 

Data on Water Quality-based Contmr$ 

In accordance with EPA’s Water Quality Monr!c” 

mg Policy for Inland and Coastal Waten. States brl 

required to report all water quality data collec:eu 

In conjunction mth water quality-based ccntrols :o 

EPA, The States and EPA Reqlonal offices W~II 

jomtly determine the form in wClich it IS to be SL~L. 

mrtted. This includes data from all phases of The 

process, as follows: 

I. w8t.r quay sbndwd8 rwvi8ws - All pnva- 

~cai. chemical, and biological data on water 

column, sediment..and tissue samples collected In areas to revmew or revrse water =;ualsty z:andards. 

2. TMDWLk - Ail phys~cd, chemrcat. and 

bioioglcal data on water column, sodim ! i:. 

and tissue 9afvples colkcted 10 detsrnlllSe 

which waterbodies wrll require TMDLs 

wasteload allocations or data collected in GUI v 

lunctton with develoomg a TMDL or a waste2? 
3. 

IoQd allocation. Whore an intensive survey is 

conducted, data is to be from ropresentativa 

stations that accura!Jy represent the conditions dunng rho sum. States are also 

strongly encouraged to develop complete 

technical reports descnbing the Water qudity conC!tlons and trends found; the causeis) 

of the problem. trends, and needed CcntrOl 

activities to ensure thorough analysis of the 

monttonng data and to assist In convinsmg 

dischargers of the need for controlc. Coc~crs 

of these completed technical reports should 

be fonnarded to the EPA Rqional office. 

States shollld also pnpors briaf abstracts Of 

the survey afhr compietk~n and submit thorn 

to the EPA Regional offlca, as agreed upon 

by the Regional offko and the Etato. 

Followup monitoring - AU physicid. chem- 

~cal. and biological dat8 on water colulTtn, 

sediment, and tissue samples collected by 

ditihargers (with appropriate quality control 

3y the delegated authority) or the State in 

areas when water quality-based controls 

were implemented to ensure that water qualsty stmdards am bang m8intained. Sampling 

‘-equency. parameter coverago. duration, 

and data entry requirements are to be agreed 

upon by the EPA Regional office and the 

State for these areas. 

Data on Compliance Monitoring 

Alt appropriate data collected in conjunction with 

compliance reviews IS to k stored in m0 Agency’s 

Permit Compliance System Me Chapter 3). 

Data Reported Through Section 

305(b) Reports 

States are reourred to report data and analyses 

of data in tha Sectim 3OS(b) reports. They are also 

requostMl to participate In the development of the 

EPA Regional Environmental Management 

A- EMAs). SOUM XHb) d me cl~ii~ watff 

Act requires each State to submit a biefV!ial repon 

to the EPA dexnbing the quality of State waters. 

Theso refxxts are to indudo the foilowlng: an analysis of the extent to which State waters pfowde for 

the protection and propagation of baianced shellfish, fish. and wildlife popula!ions and rocreatlon 

in and on the water: an analysis of the extent 70 

which population control actions have acnleveo 

this Iovol of water quality: recommendations for 

noedod additional actions: estimates of the environmefW impacts, economic and social costs 

and ban&a and d8to ol achieving this level of 

wrtor quality; and a description of the nature and 

extent of nonpoint soums d pollution and recommondrtionr for thtiir control. 

In the you3 in which it is prmpared. the brennlal 

water quality assossmant (Section 305(b) rsponJ 

5iahW the require for the annual water quaIity report under Section 205(j). In years when the 

assessment rapoft is not required, States may 

satisfy the annual Section 205(i) report reqclrs 

ment by csflifying th8t the most recently suomltted Section 305(b) repott is cuvent or by suoplylng 

an upda!o of the reiavant Section(s) of Its Sectton 

305(b) report (SW the 442 CFR Par: :t: retgulatlcn, 

Specific guidance on the preparation and contents 

of the Section 305(b) report 1s provided by 5%. 

The guidance uses many of the indicators :hat 

wwo druslopod through the joint EPNC,tate Evaluation of Progress (=P) project and shares xmmon indicator3 with the Administrator’s Strategic 

Plannmg and Manrgemm System (SPMS) ant 

the Agency’s Operating Guidance. It is also consister,t with EPA requirements for tpe contmulng 

piannmg process and the preparation of annual 

work programs. 

22 
SECTION II 

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND 

WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS 
CHAPTER 7

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND

WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS

The Clean Water Act requires the States and EPA

to institute water quality-based controls in areas

where technology-based controls are not sufficient

to meet water quality standards. In so doing, the

States are to determine the total maximum daily

loads (TMDLs) for a particular waterbody and develop wasteload allocations (WLAS) for point

sources and load allocations (LAS) for nonpoint

sources. (These terms are defined in the Water

Quality Planning and Management Regulation, 40

CFR Section 130.2.)

A recent court decision has brought previously unrecognized duties relative to the development of

TMDLs and WLAs to EPA’s attention. The United

States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

(see Reference 1) stated that:

If a State fails over a long period of time to submit proposed TMDLs, this prolonged failure may

amount to the "constructive submission” by that

State of no TMDLs. (Scott Decision. p.8)

We think the States’ inaction here, in view of the

short statutory deadlines may have ripened into

a refusal to act. A refusal to act would amount to

a determination that no TMDL is necessary and

none should be provided. In effect, we may have

a “constructive submission” of no TMDLs. As a

matter of law, under CWA Section 303(d) (2) . . .

a State determination to set no TMDLs must be

reviewed by the EPA, and the EPA is then required to approve or disapprove the submission.

(Scott Decision, p.10)

In addition, we think that the CWA should be

liberally construed to achieve its objectivesin this case, to impose a duty on the SPA to establish TMDLs when the States have defaulted

by refusal to act over a long period. (Scott Decision, p.10)

Therefore, if a State defaults, EPA must act to identify the waters needing new or revised TMDLs and

establish such TMDLs as necessary to carry out

the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act.

Process for Identifying Waters

and Developing TMDLs

An overview of the process for identifying waters

needing new or revised TMDLs, establishing priorities, and developing the needed pollution controls is provided in Figure 7-1. In carrying out this

process, States evaluate environmental data and

perform analyses to identify waters needing new

or revised TMDLs. The States then establish priorities for developing TMDLs as part of the overall State priority waterbody list. Once EPA has

approved the list of waters needing new or revised

TMDLs and the priority ranking for these waters,

States should prepare Monitoring Checklists (see

Appendix B) describing the wasteload allocation

work to be done during the coming year. The list

of waters and their priority ranking are submitted

as part of the annual 106/205(j) work program of

the biennial Section 305(b) report, and the check

lists are submitted as part of the annual Section

106/205(j) work programs. States implement the

approved programs and submit the resulting

TMDLs to EPA for approval. Once approved, the

TMDLs and their component WLAS and LAS are

incorporated into the water quality management

plans. (Also see the Water Quality Planning and

Management Regulation [40 CFR Parts 35 and

130; 50 174 January 11, 1985.)

Identification of Waters Needing

New or Revised TMDLs

In accordance with the Clean Water AU. States and

to identify and prepare a list of the waters within

their boundaries for which existing pollution control requirements are not or will not be stringent

enough to meet the applicable water quality standards over the next 5 years. These are the water

quality limited segments that need new or revised

TMDLs. This list is one component of the State priority waterbody list. Existing pollution control

requirements that States should consider in

23
Th. m for Id.nUfylng W8t.n Nudlng TMOb, Est8bll8blng Priodth, 

utd DmmIoping NootM PolluUon Control8 

t t + 

Evaluatm W8t.r Ch~ity Neo& owolop Ll8t of W#mn 

eioscfumg d8m. cn0me8t swotwg e Apprcved list of waters needing rlew or 

data. dnaly3m of dilution 8Wlrbla to rovisul TMDU. [La goes IntO 305(b) 

dr$cnargem destmp modding, citizen rwort of annual lOWOS(j) work program]. 

r,omplants, fish ~111s. hlstortz water quality 

and~ruulc,frumRxodst8tbalisBof 

wamm not My muting usu 19 305(b)], 

and liss of vmtom neuliq TMOb + 

(9 303(d) 1. E8tdllrh Pdodtkr 

\ GIwonrnonW mults to bo obmmd. 

sewlty of pollution, us88 of waton. new 

* for action to moot program goals. action to 

moat program goals. 

* 

CompWa Yonltoring Chockll8ts for WU8 

6nof choctlists doscnbing work to be dOnO 

that year far oath prqec!. States suomrt 

thw aa gW of thtir 10&205 Ij) work 

Prog-s. 

&I programs EPA and the States conttnur to 

24 

EPA apprwos Mo Stafu’ prowsad TMDb 

or e8tablishu ?MOb a8 mcem8Q to 

carry out rho goats of tha Clean W8t.r Act. 

. 
identifying theSo waters include: 

l Tiihnology-based eff!uent limitations rb 

quimd by: 

- Sections 301 (b), 306, 307, Or Other SUCtlons of the CWA 

- State or local authonty Preserved by See 

tton 510 of the OVA (or) 

- Federal law. fegulatlon. treaty, permit, 

lease, or other authority 

l Water quality-based .effluent limitations requlrea by: 

- Seaon 301 (b) (1) (C) of the CWA and II+ 

corporated Into an approved NPOES 

pefrm 

- State or local authority preserved by Sectlon 510 of :he CWA (or) 

- federal law, regulation, treaty, permit, 

lease. or other authority 

l Other pollution control requtnments (e.g., 

8est Management Practices) required by 

stthsr Federal. State, or local authority. 

Guidance on using simple screening methods for 

identifymg waters needing new or revised TMDLs 

is provided in Reference 2. The use of biologIcal 

rests for scteenmg for aquatic life impacts and 

health hazards is provided in Reference 3. In additton, guidance is available on identitying waters 

presently not meeting designated uses (see Chap 

ten 2 and 4). 

The process for Identlfymg waters needing new or 

revised TMDLs IS shown in Figure 7-2. A bnef discusston of this process follows. 

Section 303(d) ot the Clean Water AC! requires 

each State to IdeWy those waters withill 11s 

boundanes for which new or revised TMDLs are 

needed to implement water quality stvrdards Further, It requrres each Stat. to establish a priority 

ranking for these waters. The list of waton needing new or revised TMOLs should include all segments where TMDU are needed lo support 

permits or constrution grants during the coming 

year. This list should be incorporated into the 

States’ prionty waterbody tist 10 assure that 

programmatic interrelationships are recognized 

and that proper sequencing of acrlvtties occurs. 

Many of these waters do not fully support doago 

nated uses; Oth8fS may fall into the “threatened” 

categcty. States may choose to submit this informa!lon to EPA along with the Section 106/205((i) 

work program. or they may elect 10 report this 

information in the Section 305(b) report. 

Factors thal States should carefully consider In setting priorities include: 

The severity of the potlktton and the uses ot 

the waters 

National polic!es and pnonties I~ documents 

such aa the iWcy for the Owdooment of 

Water Quality-Based Permit Lm~tatxxs ‘cf 

Titc mllut3nts, hltcy for me Rlwew ot AuVance lbatment(A77 Prop%. and the EPA’s 

annual Operating Guldancs 

Court orders and decisions 

Short-term water program needs: e.g.. 

wastebad allocatrons needed for permits mat 

are coming up for revsions or for constf~ction grant applicattons EPA IS developtng additional guidance or crltena for approval of 

State identifications of waters needing new or 

r8viSed mob and thetr priority ranktngs. 

EPA Regional offices will review the State lists and 

determine whether they have listed al t of the waters 

needing TMDLJ and whether the State pnorttles 

are acceptable. me Regional officss snould work 

with the States cn needed changes to the 11~1 01 

waters identified or their priority ranking, Inc!ud. 

ing waters that now support the designated USC’ 

but may soon need TMOts to prevent future wak: 

quality problems. & resources allow. EPA beat. 

quarters w~tl work wrth the Regtonal offices ant :Y 

States to Improve the imtral State lists !o ensurc 

that all significant toxics problems are Inc1I;cec. 

and to account for new Information on effluent :wcentrations asscclated with best avallacle tec:nci 

ogy (BAT), new water quality crrtena. etc. 

In cases where additional monltonng or voceltr$ 

is needed to determine if a TMDL IS neeaec. :re 

Regional office and the State should negotlare a 

xhedulo for doing Ihis monitoncg and moaelq 

as part of the Safe’s section 106 or 205(j) work pfc b 

gram. If the work program does not provice for eoing this work on the high-ononty waters in d !lmery 

manner, then the Regional office will perform :?IS 

work consistenl with the avallabillty of resource< 

If EPA determines that a particular water S~OLIC 

be listed. out the State-does not agree 10 !ISI :I .n 

a timely manner, then EPA must add thts watt] :Q 

the list. Once the list tdentifytng waters neecing 

TMOti and thetr pnonty ranking rs approvea. i’le 

State shalt incorporate the list into the current water 

quality management (WQM) plans. 

25 
- 

26 
Developing TMDb 

Each year tha Regional offic8 Md the States 

should reach agreement on work plans Fr developtng TMDLs as part of thotr anrlual SectIon 

106 and 205(j) grant negotiations. To accomplish 

rhts, each State should prepare a V&A element in 

Its annual work program that is submitted 13 EPA 

for approval. These submlss~ons should include 

a Momtonng Checklist (see Appendix 6) for each 

WU protect (or group of similar and stralghtrorward WtA prq%ts) that the State plans to locus 

on in the next fiscal year 

One way that States could show their priority ranking is given in T&IO 7-l. For exarnplo, if a particularStatephnstodewHopTlUD~fwfiwsq)ments 

during the coming fiscal year, and if there are an 

additional five segmena for which the State feels 

it should develop ThADl~as soon as resources be 

come avatlable, their priority lists could be configured as shown in the ta&ls States may asslgn 

the same priority ranking to groups of waen, 

provided that these groups do not include too 

many segments. Such groups may be particularly appropriate for segments In which no ThADL de 

velopment IS planned for the next fiscal year, 

because a less detarled prionty ranking IS needed for lower pnonty WlA projects. States may find 

it helpful to include additional information tn the 

table. such as: segment descnpton (e.g.. State IO 

numbers, River Fleacn file numoen or USGS 

hydrokgcal codes if River Reach numben are not 

avai!able), segment length, parameten causing 

the Water quality problems. uses supponed or mpamM. or specral segment desrgnatrons (e.g. 1 pnonty waters or national resource waters). 

An overview of the process for cakulattng TMDLs 

is provided in Ftgure 7-3. 

If a State is planning to develop relatively slmpls 

and routine WLAS for a number of segments during the coming year, It may submit one Monttonng 

Checklist for these WIA prolec!s rather than a 

separate checklist for each rndividual project. 

However, in any segment where developing waste 

load allocations is more complex or IS crrtical to the 
EPA disapproves a %ata’s priority rank; g of these 

watws or the checklist, then the Regr.x and State 

arWo~accqH&M~stothspnonty 

nuking and tha chacklhts 

In accotduro with tha a~prwed pnority ranking 

for thaw watm and the annull work program. 

awn Sm daMop$ its pmpoaaI TMDb for thaw 

pollutmta th8t m expactmd to cau30 water quality standafds viMtim (includiirg gwwnc toxicrty) 

and for the appmwd lid of wrten identified as 

nadrlgnwrof~mO~statwmexpect- 

@dtOWbWEPA’!,gu~ittnyWi~to~8iVO 

funding for advmcod tnatmmt (An prqacts. 

stat.8 arm mrmwgad to uw EPA’S gulaarlcs 

m~~m$MO& copieaofwhich may be 

Mm+oad Albcabcn CoonMatar in wch RagimJ offIce. 

If tha Smm choose8 not to drwlop the needed 
TMDb for appropriate poil~tant~ on a timely basis. 

EPA will establish the TMOLs This Will b8 done by 

focusing available EPA resourc83 on the moSj cntcal water quality problems. 

SOCQO~ 303(d) (2) of the CWA requires EPA 10 aPprove of disaoofove all Of the States’ prOpOSed 

TM01 f. EPA ma], nor Clel8gat8 this r8sponslb~lity 

The most 9ffiCl8nt way 10 meet this requir8ment IS 

10 tallor EPA’s level of rwicw to what is reasonable arVY appropriate (s88 A8f8renC8 1). Thus. 

wh8re a State haS dearly d8&b8d its TMOvWLA 

piocbss in its continuing planning process (as r8- 

qulred under 40 CFA Part 130.7 [a]) and EPA has 

approv8d this ptUC8sS. the R8gional OffiC8 may 

satisfy the Act’s r8quir8ment for rwi8w of all 

TMDLs by:. 

. Conducting an in-depth rwi8w of a sample of 

the state’s TMOLs to d8termine how WeI1 the 

State IS lmplsmenting Its approved TMOU 

WU process. 

l Conducting a l8U detailed rev18w Of each Of 

the State’s other TMOLa. 

In either cas8. EPA must, at a minimum. d8t8rTMO 

Whether the State’s prOpOSed TMOb are “established at a level nscessary 10 Impl8m8nt the applicable water quality standards with seasonal 

vanations and a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning me relationship b8tW88n effluenr limrtatlons and water 

quality” (C*.VA S8ction 303 [d] [ 11). %r those 

States that do no’: hav6 an approved WU ?‘ocess. 

Reg!ons ar8 expected to condua In-depth rwtevvs 

of all 01 the proposed T9OLs. When Regions 

rw18w the stat8 TMOLs. th8y Should ako consider 

how well the States are following the EPA technlcal guidance for conductmg wast8load albcaoons. 

for those WU pr0j8tzts tha! EPA reviews rn deNad, 

States should prepare a r8port ciescrrbing 8aCh 

PmleCt and submit it to th8 R8gional office !Or ap 

proval. TM SubmlSslon should contain: (1) the 

proposed TMOk WLAs. Lk?. and (2) supponmg 

lnformatlon that th8 R8glon will n88d tc evaluate 

the State’s water quality analysis and determme 

whether 10 appraa or disapprove th8 proposed 

TMOLs. WM. and LAS Gtinng th86r grant negotladons. Regions and States should reach m agrsa 

ment on !h8 spwific Information that these 

wasteload allocation reports should contarn and 

determine the lndivtdual ‘NU propcts for which 

such r8porW are necessary. 

If EPA disapproves a Sate’s TMOL and the State 

does not agree lo correff the problems. !hen WA 

shall. within 30 days of the disapproval date. establish such TMOLs as necessary to rmplemenl 

the water quality standards. However, the Region 

should inform the State that EPA would prefer :o 

haV8 the State develop tQe T54CLs. since !ne s?cE 

llr,)e avarlabte for EPA’s edtacllslirnent of tne 

TMOk wculd hkelv necessitate usmg slmpllstx 

and 3verty ConservLitive :ec>nlques :n Zeve’cclrq 

the TMOb and also because negztlve pubmty 

might aris8 snould EPA b8 forced LI step In. 

Quality Assurance for 

Wasteload Allocations 

Quality assurance requirements must be met to 

obtain grants under whch wasteload allocatlons 

are performed. In addillon. specific lechnlcal 

QAfQC controls are necessary In the use of envmxMn8ntal data and mOdeIS. Considerations also 

apply, however. when utilirlng models, sucfl as 

waSteload allocation models when Involve “real” 

environmental data as well as parametnc an6 

math8matiCal relatlonsh!ps. In such cases. modf 

sensitivity studies can Mp establrsh the levers 01 

QA/m re!qurred for specific data. kr exarrcie. Fe 

allowable range of irncertainty in the data CJP ze 

esmblrshed through model sensitMy stuoles ‘h:s 

allowable range of uncenunty may I.ldicate. !cr PXample. the need for tight limits on precislor: ‘cr d 

particular pollutant parameter. The general ‘5 

qulremsnts for quality assurance are clsctissec n 

Chapter 5. 

EPA Responsibilities 

EPA Headquarters IS responsible for seeing :haf 

th8 mandates regarding TMOLs in tne Clean 

Water Act are carrred out. provlulng oversight zf 

th8 RegIOnal offices and the State. develO&l G 

wasteload allcrcation Drogram PCIIC~ a# c: 

gulcance. developing ComPutef S2fWare ‘Cr calculating wasteload arloca;rons. ceve!oolng :cc?- 

rical guidance documents. and provlclng 

technIcal truning and assistance. 

The EPA RegIonal offices are resoocsrble for dsscstrng Headquaners tn developing pOlic/ and 

&loance and distnbutmg this poky IId guidance 

to the Slates. awarding grants 10 tne States :o 

29 
pmvido them with resources for developing and, 

implementing wasteload allocationa and providing technical assistant to the Star- In addition. 

the Regional otfices are responsible for reviewing 

and approving, or disapproving, each State’s: 

wasteload allocation process: the wast0408d alIe 

cation element of the annual lOU2Os(j) work program; the list of watetn where WLAS, LAS. or 

TMOLs are needed; the priority ravkigg of these 

waters; and spmcific WLAa LAS, or TMD& The 

EPA Regional offices are also vnsible for 

reporting on State implementa!ion to Headquarters. 

1. Scott hcbion (Scott v. EPA. Nos. 81-2884 and 

81-2885. decided on August 16. 1984). 

2. Water Oualii Assessment: A Screemng Proca 

duro for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants 

@ugusl29.1983) EPA-600/6-82-004 a. b. c. 

3. Ttinical Support Document for Water Ouality 

based Taxtcs Control, U.S. EPA, Office of Water. 

September 1985 

4. &aft Guidance cn the Development and Use 

of Priority Waterbody Lists, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Wa!er, Washington, D.C. (July 1985) 
Appendix A 

MONITORING POLICY 

INLAND AND COASTAL WATERS 
Monitoring Strategy, U.S. EPA, Office of Water 

June 1984 

Purpose of This Policy 

The purpose of this policy is to establish overall 

goals and objectives for those key elements of the 

water quality monitoring program that are most 

needed to achieve the “fishable/swimmable” goal 

of the Clean Warm Act (CWA), to implement applicable EPA regulations, and to implement the EPA 

Environmental Monitoring Policy. Water quality 

monitoring is required by the Clean Water Act and 

provides the data needed to regulate sources of 

water pollution, assess the quality of the Nation’s 

waters and evaluate the environmental effectiveness of national water quality programs. 

Scope of This Policy 

“‘Water quality monitoring” is defined as the set of 

activities that provide chemical, physical geological, biological, and other environmental data required by environmental managers. For the 

purpose of this policy, water quality monitoring is 

limited to those activities involved in the EPA and 

State implementation of the Clean Water Act in 

inland/coastal waters “Regulatory monitoring” is 

the collection and analysis of effluent and ambient 

data needed for establishing water quality-based 

permit requirements and for assessing and enforcing compliance with permits Regulatory monitoring also provides data necessary for establishing 

wafer quality-based controls for nonpoint sources 

Regulatory monitoring for assessing and enforcing compliance with permits is not addressed in 

this policy. 

Statement of Policy 

Major Objectives: This policy establishes three 

major objectives for the Nation’s water monitoring 

program: 

1. Advance the Regulatory Monitoring 

Program 

Regulatory monitoring for establishing and 

enforcing water quality-based permit requirements and determining needed nonpoint 

source abatement actions is the highest priority of this policy. The goal is to strengthen 

the process for identifying waters not fully 

meeting designated uses and provide comprehensive reliable data to EPA Regions and 

States for water quality management. construction grant and permit decisions. Attention should be given to identifying new 

problems as well as controlling known problems. 

In view of the need for regulatory monitoring 

data on sources of pollution and impacted 

waters, EPA may require dischargers to coIlect chemical, physical, and biological data 

on their effluents and ambient conditions in 

their receiving waters as a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirement. Ambient data requirements 

in NPDES permits will be established, in consultation with the State and the dischargers. 

when the potential exists for non-attainment 

of water quality standards. EPA will also support State requirements for data collection by 

dischargers. 

II. Conduct Sound Assessments 

Water quality assessments are defined as the 

analysis of environmental data to determine 

the quality of the ambient environment. Assessments are usually done for fairly large 

geographical areas, such as States, and may 

use a number of different kinds of data, e.g., 

concentrations of pollutants in receiving 

waters, number of reported fish kills, and 

the amount of impact detected in natural biological communities. Projections of future 

A-1 
111. 

conditions may also be done using detwtedambienttfendsanddataon~~pdlut10n loads. 

Nat~onu. reqonal and State aS8SSmMFs of 

water quality are to bo done at least every 2 

year3 using, at a mmimum, irlfOrrIW.tiorl collected to meH th3 requirements of Sec!ions 

305(b) and 2Osci) of 0-9 OVA. On a gyS~ cyCIO. beginning in 15~4 the States wtll suemlt long-term trend informalion a2 pM of 

thJf Section 305(b) reports. To support 

these and other aurumenta each Stat. 

will develop site-specific monitoring plana 

for waton not mHCing designated uses. 

The88 plans am to k drwlOp8d fOIlowing 

EPA guidance and u) to be negotiated ba 

twoen the Regions and the States. The 

Office of Water will supplement the Section 

305(b) information to the extent necesw 

to dwivo sound nltional rstimatos and to 

answer questions of immediate interest to 

progmm man- Aegion8la8s8ssments 

shall be pNorm.d a8 needed for Environmental Mknrgement Reporta Additional 

assessments of spocitic wltef quality prob 

Iems will be performed on an as-needed 

basis. lo the extent feasible. data will be extracted from ongoing regional and Stat0 

regulatory monitoring. 

EvJwta control Frogmma 

EPA wtll utllire its forma! p-ogram management and repomng systema for gutding EPA 

and State water quality monitoring actiwtles 

and for evaluating EPA and State performance. 

Program eahaion studies USI waer quailty assessmonu to evalu8!0 the affects of 

pollution control progmfnr on onvironmental conditbons. Program evaluation studio 

wtll be performed as noodd to ovalwe the 

envwonmsnW rawits of mrpr nutionai ore 

grams. To the oxtwt feas~bb, data will be extracted from ongoing regional and Stat0 

regulatoq monitonng studies. 

Program Support Functions 

The following program support functions must be 

accomplished if the major o@eUMs are to be met: 

Imprwtng EPA -M of tha Stmtm EPA is 

required to provide oversight of the States’ Implementation of the Clean Water Act. In order IO 

provido adequate oversrght. the EPA must have 

adequate information on both water quality conditions and pollution control MMties in each 

Stata Thwefom all agpropriate State water qtiahty 

data nocessq to l nsurm Implomentatlon of the 

Ckan Water Act must bo reported to EPA via entry into SrORET or In SrOREkompatrble format. 

this indudoa appropriate assessment data; 

appwriato screening data; and all regulatory 

monitoring d8t8, including data needed for apprw8l8 of w8tar quJity standards, and wasteload 

Jlocrtlont/tow maximum daily loads. 

In add&&n. Regions must ensure that they have 

adoqUa in&ndon on the water quality monitoring program in each Statc If a State’s proposed 

work program for a Section 106 grant falls to address a national priority monitoring actMy that the 

Regional Administrator considon essential. the 

Re#onnl Adminm my award an amount less 

than the allotment dwivad under the national alIocaUon formuIr until the State’s woti program 

shows tM the natton& priority actiwty is adequate 

ly address& 

The indtvidual State allotments derived from the 

national aNcation formulr npresont funding targets 8nd am nu individual State entitlements. The 

funding targoU are used to guide the dOWtlopfm+nt 

of%tawo&progromsand~uabasoof discussion batwman the Regional Mmmistrator and 

the Sme during negotiations over the final work 

progarn.?roactualgfantawardisbasedonthese 

negotiations bet-n the State ant Regional Administnaor and ir det8nnined by annual State pm 

gram activitlos. The Stat. and Regional Adminastratw agrw upon the State’s annual activities and 

a funding Iti commensurate with those activ\- 

ties. The Regiona Administrator may determme 

that a State’s proposed actwtiesdo not represent 

a bJ8xsd wetor quality managemom approach 

consistent with nebon8l pno*tles contarned In na. 

tion& and regional guidance If a State work program does not admquamly adores8 a pnority 

acthty contained in national and regioaal guide 

ante. the Regional Administrator may award less 

than the State’s initial funding allotment IJ accordance with 40 CFR 35143(b). 

ERA Regions will work closely with the States 

through the Section 108 program pknning process to ensure that the combined effort of the 

A-2 
Flogions and Statas reflect national monitoring prioritks and support EPA regulations and policies. 

m Dlb Qwlfty: QlJaiity assurance/quality control will continue to be a high pnont)b The 

goal is that all data used by EPA or States for decisionmakmg will be of known and sufficient quality tcr the intended uses. Also, for monitoring us& 

for national and reglonal assessments, where 

feasibb, the data should be of comparable qua!ity to allow for offGive use of regional and national data bases. 

Mamgmmt The goal is that data q&ems 

will be made more u&u! so that EPA aFd State 

managers will be able to use ambient data and a+ 

sessments to d&ermine the environmental ~tnpacts of do&ion& This will be accomplished by 

crossdinkhtg oxisting data systems and deveioping inte&b data retrieval and analysis mechanisma usabl* by line managers. 

Roles of the EPA and the States in 

Implementing this Policy 

v Provide ovpr@l policy, guidance, technical assistance, and uvewiew of pr@ 

gram implementation by the Regions and States. 

Specific responstbilities follow: 

Preparo guidance and ensure that techntcal 

training and technical a%Wancb is avarIable 

for monitoring, water quality analysis. and 

data reporting. 

Perform national assessments and evaluate 

the natiorlal water quality effects of CWA 

ProgramS. 

Make nattronal data systems more useful for 

natiorrd. regional, and State managem by upgrading and cross-linking the e%icting systerns and dev8+oping interxtive data retrieval 

and an-8 mechanisms Iw line managers. 

Continue support of the River Reach and Industrial FaciUty Okcharge files. 

Ensure that appropriate quality assurance/ 

quality control procedures are used In all nabonaJ data collection efforts and provide 

needed laboratory capability for national 

studioa of pollutants requiring special analyses, e.g.. dioxm. 

Prepare Headquarters budget requests, and 

in consultation with the Regions, prepare requests for regional and State water quality 

a 

monitoring and analysis programs. 

Peer review major agency program actrvltle: 

involving water monltonng and consult with 

other program offlcas on water monrtonng ac. 

tivities. 

Regional ofkea: Provide overall policy. guldante, and ovewtew of program impkmentation by 

States. Provide ovenlght ot tha States to ensure 

thal adequate Stats resources from Sectrons 

106/205(j) grants are directed to pr~onty actlvttres 

or: monitoring, water quality analysis, and aatr; 

-fling. Provide technical assistance and training for States. Ensure thal ntied water quality. 

based controls are developed. and provide needed water quarity-based controls If the State falls 10 

act in a timely manner. Implement Section 106(e) 

requirement for adequate State monltonng proqrams. Ensure,thar data are entered into natlonal 

data moms. Specific responsibilities follow: 

l Ensure that the ap,xopriate regulatory monitoring is p&ormed by States, the Region. or 

dischargers needed fur developrng and urnpkMnerrting water quiI@4lased controls and 

identifying neecied nonpoint source controls. 

This includes data requirud to identify water, 

needing water quality-based controls. datr; 

needed to develop controls, and data need 

ed to assess the effectiveness of controls. En. 

sllre that the developed controls arc 

implemented, and provide controls of the 

State faik to act in a timeiy manner. 

l Provide technlcal assistance and tramrng _) 

the Stares. Ensure that each Regional off r~ ( 

has the capabMy to conduct water qualIt) 

monitcring and analyses. For work mvolvinc_ 

toxics, where feasible. tho Aegron is expected to have a camtMy In both the pollutanrspecific and the biomonitonng approaches. 

l Ensure that appropriate quality assurance/quality co&l procedures are used for 

all regional and State water quality data i~rt(i 

?or all data used In regional deasronmak~r i;‘, 

incfuding data reported by permittees. 

l Perform regional water quality assessments. 

primarily based on State data. as needec; :o 

prepare Environmental %lanagemc ,I! 

Reports. 

l Ensure that regional data systems are CO %‘Ipatible with and do not unnecessanly du& 

:ate national data systems. Ensure that data 

collected by the States and the Regions are 

A3 
emwed Into tne nat~ond system, rncludir\8 

data needed to update the lndustnal &crlitIes 

Dscchafge 610. 

States: Perform regulatory momtonng. assessments and orogram evduatww as nwded to meet 

the rsquwemetnts or the Clean Water Act. States 

have the pnmuy responslbtlity for monitonng and 

water quallty analysis. In carrymg out this respons~b~ltty, States are exp4med tc fmplement a 

balanced momtorrng program. Specific responibllities follow: 

l As the first pnonty, States Should Collect and 

andyre data as needed to make water quak 

sty management decnions: 

- Identify: (a) waters not iuliy supporting 

des!gnated uses and (b) priority waterbodies, i.e., those waters most needing 

water quality-based and nonpomt source 

controls or other actions to prevent or 

reverse an impurw,snt of the designated 

use. Oetwmine the reason!s) for nonsupport and the actbns nemled to prevent of 

rwwse the impairment d me use. tndude 

this Information In the biennial Sectlon 

305(b) report to Congress. Focus on tox9~s as well as convent*onal cIollutant3. 

Simple screenmg techniques may be appropnate for many srtuaticns. 

- Owelop :.eeded wate: quality-based conUo1s for both conventional and toxic pallutants. For toxic& use both the pollutantspecific and the biomonltonng techmques, as appmonate. 

As needed to supplement State and 

regional reguktoty monltortng, ,tirlte etfluent and amblent data collection re 

qUirementS into permits for identifyng 

waters neeCing controls. developtng czntrolr. and arusssing the effectiveness of 

theso controls to ensure that use IS maintained or fastorad. 

PeMm any addbonal monitonng needed for 

the Section 3CHb) report to Congress, tnctuding monitoring needed to determme the status of waten not mesting designated uses 

and the reason(s) tar nonattamment. 

Ensure that needed envwonmental data are 

provrded to EPA, including appropriate assessment data; appropnat~.screentng data; 

and all regulatory data including data need. 

ed for approvals of water quality standards 

and wasteioad Jlocatrondtotal maximum 

daily loads. 

Ensu:e that aopropriate quality assurance/quality :ontml pmce&res are used for 

ail data used in State decwonmaklng and for 

all data reported to EPA, mludlng data 

repotted by dischargen. 

A4 
Appendix B 

MONITORING CHECKLISTS 

Form A: 

For intensive SurveyslWasteload 

Allocations/Special Studies 

Form 8: 

For Fixed-Station Networks 
Preparation and Submimion of 

Monitoring Checklist.3 

Monitoring checklists should be prepared veach 

State to descrtbe their planned monitoring and 

wasteload allocation zctivlties rn the upcoming 

(budget) year. One Form A checklist descnbing 

planned Intensive surveys. wwteload allocatIons, 

or special studies shoufd be prepared for each survey/study or group of activities requiring similar 

monrtonng (such as groups of intensive surveys 

that are conducted for the same purpose but on 

different waterways). One Form 6 checklist 

describing fixed-station networks should also be 

prepared for each network of stations When 

reporting on groups of intensive suw. wasteload allocations, special studies, or when reporting on fixed-station nenm>rks, the States should 

attach a list of the locations (i.e., sites for the surveys/studies and stations for networks) with key I+ 

cation tnformation (see instructions for completing 

the forms). Other informahon may also accompany 

these forms, such as maps, outlines of proposed 

studies, or other rnformation to help explain or darify the submission. 

States are to work with the EPA Regional office in 

developrng their annual 106QUS(i) work programs 

and thay should submit completed checklists to 

the Regional offices as part of the work programs. 

these checklists are intended as plannrng documents and are not Intended to replace detailed 

study plans or prefect plans The States and the 

%?gional office should work together during thetr 

preparation and implementation, and the Regional 

office should use these checklists to track planned 

State activltres that are funded, at least in part, by 

EPA grants. 

Modifications to checklists that ti been submitted to EPA may be necessary as State program 

needs change or new information becomes available. When changes or revisions are necessary, 

the States should contac! the Regional otfice to 

discuss these changes. If the Aogton agrees that 

!he proposed changes are al a rwhtively minor nature. SubmtsSon of revised checklijb is not nece 

sary. It IS important that revised checklists be sent 

to the EPA Regional office for major changes. 

Ch6cklists for completed surveys are not normally expected smcb water quality data is to be pruvided to EPA and periodic reviews will provde 

suff icrent status. 

States are strongly encouraged to prepare wmten 

reports adequately descnblqg the study, dates. 

purposes, findings, etc. and provtde copies of 

them to EPA (see Chapter 6). Wntten reports 

should also include referenclbl 10 data in the 

SlDRET data system. 

Instructtons for Completing 

Monitoring Checklist 

Form A-Intensive Surveys Wasteload 

AllocatlonrlSpocial Studies 

Prtmafy water-Name of the waterbody on which 

the survsy/study will be conducted. If more than 

one, wnte as pnmary/secondafy. 

m town-If feasible, the name of the nearest 

city or town of sufficient size to locate the area on 

a map. 

S-The State in which the survey WIII be conducted. If interstate, write as pnmarylsecondary 

PWmed sbrt dat+-The estimated date that fieldwork for the survey WIII begin. 

flanned and date-The estimated date that the 

fieldwork will be completed. 

EPA River Resch number-The River Peach File 

number(s) for the affecmd reach(s). If the Reacn 

Number is not known (and cannot be provided by 

EPA), the USGS HydralogIc Unit Code may se 

used. This code consists of four separate 2.atglt 

codes that identity the USGS Regton. Subreqcn. 

Accounting unit, and Cataloging unit. River mile: 

of upstream and downstream limits or other 

descriptors may be added to the Comments sec. 

tlon to help locate the site. 

Dedgnete&rcfwl use=Deslgnated use or uses 

of the waterbody( 

~typr,prlmfw~wrpo~* 

niflcant land uMheck. as appropriate. Mow 

than one for each may be checked. 

Number of samples by media-Gve estimated 

numbers of samples for eacn media. as appropriate. 

Sourcea of pcoblem843ve the estimated number of facilities (or discharge points, 11 nonpoll~t 

sources) to charactertze the causes of pollution lr* 

the study areas that are bemg assessed In the 

survey. 

B-1 
ornwMc~:PWW#oko)cJ*- 

icrJ -ramen&-Chack which media will bo 

assessed in the survey. as appropriate. 

Sentpie fmqwmy--Check anticrpated frequency 

of sampling. Addltronal comments or @xpMrtiOn 

nay be ~rttten IR the Comments section on pg. 2. 

Data to be eriWd Into ~~4hackwhethar alt, some, or l~~ne of the data by media) will bo 

entered by the Stat. intb STWET. Also, add the 

antiapated date when all data (by media) ~111 be 

entwd. If da,ukwill not be entered into mRm by 

the State, g&a the dam thet “hq” d the data 

mli be sent to EPA. 

I- auwmy tar modollng(mockl daurlp 

t&n-If the intensive surwy(S) ia dona to c&bmte 

a model. check the appropriate item doscribing 

special conadorations for the planned surv8y. 

ouallty m8umnce- self a%plana!ory. 

Comments-Can be used to pfuvido cle8f/concise explanations of other sections of the checklist. If more space is needed, the rwerso of the 

form may be us&. 

st8te contac&Self explanatory. 

GUm8tad-Provid~~mate8ofworkyears and any contractor m anticiprted for 

operatmq thosurwy, wsumoadal~,or~ 

cral study. These should include dl B for planmng, firld work. lab work, quality assurance/ 

quaMy control, e& Also indudo an 88tima!a of ttH 

~ntofthrtf3afcost:hatirfundufbygf8nuurk 

dsr Section 106 and 205(j) of the Clean Water Act. 

If other EPA grant funds are used, specrfy 

source(s) of funds. 

Name of notworf+S elf 8xplanatofy. 

Network pwpcuW=Chock why the notworlr is 

operated. More than one may be checked, as appropflafe. 

wwh=k~hnedtrsqu=yfor 

cobctmg and analyzing samples at eacn station. 

Also, indlcata in the Comments section if modifi- 

?zations are fWceS8afy (for OxAmple, 11 sampling 13 

curtailed during the winter months). 

OItr to k an’bt’d Ifi $TOm-Check whether 

JI, soma or mne of the data (by media) mll be OS 

temd into mRm Also, add the anticipated date 

whan all dam will be entered. If the ikta ~111 not be 

entoW into mRE!‘, Micato tha data that “hard. 

copy” of tha appropriate data ha agreed upon by 

the Raqronal office) WIII be smt to EPA. 

chdty Blf explanatory. 

~QtolMatuy.canbeusedtop~ 

vide deubnci8e exptanations of othar sections 

of the cnockllat(such as sampling frequencres or 

parameter covarago where there may be signdicant varim boomon smtions). If more space IS 

nwaaaafy, the rueme of the form may be used. 

stata corrtrct-self oxpknatoq. 

Esthmbd meoufwwPruvid0 estimates of bvorkyesus and any contractw costs antictpated for 

opantinq the natwork. fheso should include all 

costa for planning, fioid wor)(. lab work, quaMy 

assuranca/quJlty control, etc. Also, inciuda an 

sstim~od~~olthe~~th~ishrndedbygriulblu~saction 106or 2osot theClean 

Water Atz If other EPA fund:, are used, s~sc~fy 

sourcets) of funds. 

Atbrch+dIbtofmodiodngstWonrForstations that are in sTc)RFT. the followmg Information (at a minimum) should be prowdbd for 

each station: 

1. SKIRET Agency co40 

2. Storm Statjon number 

3 EPA Rlw Reach number (or USGS 

Hydmtogic Unit if the Reach number IS 

unknown). River mik may also be 

added to help locat@ each We. 

For stations tt,at ara nti in SrORm the fol- ’ 

Iowing information (aI a minimum) should be 

pruvidod for each station: 

; 

1. Nure af waterbody i 

2. EPA River Reach number (or USGS 

Hydrologic Unit if tha Raach number rs 

unknown). River mile may also be 

, 

added to hJp locata each site. I 3. hlitude-longitude coordinates 

4. Neareat town 

s state 

0-2 
MONlTOAlNG ClltCKLISr-rorm A, rnronrrvo aurvaysd ~1da~a1u4~ AIIUCIL~~~ 13 2p,CL.aI dayudca 

state ot Fv 

hlmvl- NoawtTbwt SW PtMMa stut oate: 

EPARlVWRMCk- (or USGS btydmlogbc Numqw If UnNnowft~ , Ptannoa Ena Oate: 

I 

oaqnatea us0 Aclua uu 

watoroody pp.: fury curpoY8l: NumOu ot Sampros oy Moata: 

= Stmun = Conaltlolls 6 lmna 

- Law 

Sud8CI *alof 

6aun staus 

- mgounamon~ 

= 

= = uv~oloac allocallal-COnVwlllonal 

= -w/w 

;rcbnC hater 

WaaotoM attocatlon-tollcl 

watand = 

= = Moouc8mfalolvvulhcpm 

=- 

.-. Seament 

‘, Mumcloa pofm~wcomotlulco 

-cirouMrrvw ; muatna ~WcOmg(uncI ~- Fwurnodhm 

--cy smdams attnllmoln 

slgntlkml Lmwuw: = 

- waeonlrotr-~ - EMuom 

=-maomu -NsmaomlMrnB 

= Inauslnu z ottlor 6lologlcal 

=*9”cu”m 

= shcutturu - Ctnw 

= Mmmg 

Urbu, - -~-------- 

= 

= cmc@Ishooptng 

- - -- 

sourea ot hHOtRShROW-): 

- MuncyW. mmvy - Nonpam SOWCI. agncu1tum - nuaraous w8se 01rwu1 

- MunKloat. soamauy - NonpoInt SoUfc~. s1vmJ1tum - ~azalaou~ w*rnr starage 

- Mlmcmal. aavoncad - Nonoomt soufco. urOan - %Jvwawrgy 

- wustna oofmmn. maps - Eu~roonlcu~on _- Otnrf ,ImJ 

-- lnauanal ~ttoe. nilnor - M~maramago - ------ -- -- - 

- Slofm or comoma swu - bna6aoosa1 - ___. -_ --. ------_ 

- OdlGu -1 - lrn~loll --- -_-_-- _ --- 

PARAMETRIC COVERAGE 

ftwmKdMoalJmm.nm aloloQaMo-nts Ckom~car Moasuromonts 

- 

.- “NV z Pbnrton water 

Cotumn Sod8ment 

-- 

- nmlta g F&ssue Owowd ozvgen 

_ Clmwotoqcai 

Oxvgrn cmanaq 

5 Murolnwnoemtos Nulrwws 

.- ElfhJmt olousay sollaor 

.-t--=9- 1: stmambou8ay 011 ma grrrsa 

: : SOOCIOS 6 aworwy 3rgmcs 

Motels 

-- - ---- bsrtclaos 

Cdnlars an0 3~~~s 

-- hunan urn 

ha0onuctms -m--e-- 

__._ 

--- 

Ufnqwncl: ~-Q-w: - -ww=v: 

c-b c o* OYIV 

c: uum##raov iY Muttwtoouary Mulllolo aer say 

-. 

L n ----- .-__-__ 

G 0 -_. - - - - - _ _ 

mmh UUNOdWSTORET? Dualok uttaw Into STOAIT 7 

cma CM0 CPwtw 

oau to 00 ontetw IntO SToA6T 1 

cm8 CM0 Rncu vn No Prnlal 

En. ow: Ea. Dam Es or.: 
I YOOELlNd 

I I 1 zvrr 

- -NC I 

1 1 MoWtName: , Otku OsalQn cenmttorm 
st8ta ot PY 

, motCOMMENTS 

ATTACH LlST OF ALL STATlONS IN THIS NETWORK (Sea InstructIons) 

1