Water Quality: EPA Should Improve Guidance and Support to Help States Develop Standards That Better Target Cleanup Efforts
Published: 2003-06-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Water quality standards comprise designated uses and water quality criteria. These standards are critical in making accurate, scientifically based determinations about which of the nation's waters are most in need of cleanup. GAO examined the extent to which (1) states are changing designated uses when necessary, (2) EPA is assisting states toward that end, (3) EPA is updating the "criteria documents" states use to develop the pollutant limits needed to measure whether designated uses are being attained, and (4) EPA is assisting states in establishing criteria that can be compared with reasonably obtainable monitoring data.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The extent to which states are changing designated uses varies considerably. Individual states made anywhere from no use changes to over 1,000 use changes during the 5-year period, from 1997 through 2001. Regardless of the number of use changes states made, nearly all states report that some water bodies within their states currently need changes to their designated uses. To do so, many states said they need additional EPA assistance to clarify the circumstances in which use changes are acceptable to EPA and the evidence needed to support those changes. While EPA has developed and published criteria for a wide range of pollutants, the agency has not updated its criteria documents to include sedimentation and other key pollutants that are causing approximately 50 percent of water quality impairments nationwide. In addition to needing new criteria documents, states need assistance from EPA in establishing criteria so that they can be compared with reasonably obtainable monitoring data. Changing either designated uses or criteria is considered a standards modification. Twenty-two states reported that an improvement in the process for changing designated uses would result in different water bodies being slated for cleanup; 22 states also reported that an improvement in the process for modifying criteria would have that effect. Collectively, 30 states would have different water bodies slated for cleanup with an improvement in the process of modifying standards.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Water quality standards comprise  designated uses and water quality  criteria.  These standards are  critical in making accurate,  scientifically based determinations  about which of the nation’s waters  are most in need of cleanup. GAO  examined the extent to which (1)  states are changing designated uses  when necessary, (2) EPA is  assisting states toward that end, (3)  EPA is updating the “criteria  documents” states use to develop  the pollutant limits needed to  measure whether designated uses  are being attained, and (4) EPA is  assisting states in establishing  criteria that can be compared with  reasonably obtainable monitoring  data.
The extent to which states are changing designated uses varies considerably.  Individual states made anywhere from no use changes to over 1,000 use  changes during the 5-year period, from 1997 through 2001.  Regardless of the  number of use changes states made, nearly all states report that some water  bodies within their states currently need changes to their designated uses.   To do so, many states said they need additional EPA assistance to clarify the  circumstances in which use changes are acceptable to EPA and the evidence  needed to support those changes.
While EPA has developed and published criteria for a wide range of  pollutants, the agency has not updated its criteria documents to include   sedimentation and other key pollutants that are causing approximately 50  percent of water quality impairments nationwide. In addition to needing new  criteria documents, states need assistance from EPA in establishing criteria  so that they can be compared with reasonably obtainable monitoring data.
Changing either designated uses or criteria is considered a standards  modification.  Twenty-two states reported that an improvement in the  process for changing designated uses would result in different water bodies  being slated for cleanup; 22 states also reported that an improvement in the  process for modifying criteria would have that effect.  Collectively, 30 states  would have different water bodies slated for cleanup with an improvement  in the process of modifying standards.
GAO recommended in its January  2003 report that the Administrator,  EPA (1) provide additional  guidance regarding use changes,  (2) follow through on plans to  assess the feasibility of establishing  a clearinghouse of approved use  changes, (3) set a time frame  specifically for the development of  sediment criteria, (4) develop  alternative, scientifically defensible  monitoring strategies that states  can use to determine if water  bodies are meeting their water  quality criteria, and (5) develop  guidance and a training strategy to  help EPA regional staff in  determining the scientific  defensibility of proposed criteria  modifications.  EPA agreed with  GAO’s recommendations and plans  to take steps to address them.
States Reporting That Different Water Bodies Would Be Slated for Cleanup if the Process of  Changing Standards Were Improved  www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-881T.
To view the full product, including the scope  and methodology, click on the link above.  For more information, contact John B.  Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or  stephensonj@gao.gov.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:  Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work assessing the  Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and states’ actions under the  Clean Water Act to improve water quality standards. Water quality  standards are critical in making accurate, scientifically based  determinations about which waters are most in need of attention. Without  accurate standards, our nation runs the risk of wasting valuable resources  by “overprotecting” some waters or facing unacceptable environmental  consequences by “underprotecting” others.
Water quality standards comprise two key components—designated uses  and water quality criteria. States are responsible under the Clean Water  Act both for determining uses and for setting criteria. Both actions require  EPA approval.
Designated uses identify the purposes for which a given body of water is  intended to serve, such as drinking water, contact recreation (e.g.,  swimming), and aquatic life support (e.g., fishing). Water quality criteria  are used to determine whether a water body is achieving its designated  uses by specifying pollutant limits, such as the maximum allowable  concentration of a pollutant, or an important physical or biological  characteristic that must be met (for example, an allowable temperature  range). To develop criteria, states rely heavily on EPA-developed “criteria  documents.” These documents contain the technical data that help states  adopt pollutant levels that, if not met, may preclude a water body from  supporting its designated uses. States may adopt these criteria as  recommended by EPA, adapt them to meet state needs, or develop their  own criteria using other scientifically defensible methods.
The Clean Water Act also requires that states periodically review their  standards and revise them as needed. Before any revisions can take effect,  however, a state must submit them to its EPA regional office for approval.  Periodic review and revision of water quality standards is important  because the standards serve as the foundation of several water quality  programs, such as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. Under  this key program, waters that do not achieve water quality standards are  listed as impaired and then targeted for cleanup. According to EPA, over  20,000 bodies of water throughout the United States are impaired by one  or more pollutants.
In recent years, questions have been raised as to whether current water  quality standards are accurate and, therefore, whether the right waters are  being targeted for cleanup. My testimony will discuss our January 2003  report on this subject, which was prepared at this Subcommittee’s  request. As requested, we examined the extent to which (1) states are  changing designated uses when necessary, (2) EPA is assisting states  toward that end, (3) EPA is updating the criteria documents states use to  develop the pollutant limits needed to measure whether designated uses  are being attained, and (4) EPA is assisting states in establishing criteria  that can be compared with reasonably obtainable monitoring data.
To respond to the request, we conducted a Web-based survey of the 50  states and the District of Columbia. We also interviewed officials from the  10 EPA regional offices and conducted site visits to Kansas, Montana, and  Ohio. We also met with, and obtained information from, officials from  EPA’s headquarters and the Association of State and Interstate Water  Pollution Control Administrators. Finally, we interviewed representatives  of various interest groups, such as Earthjustice and the American Farm  Bureau Federation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we found the following:    The extent to which states are changing designated uses varies  considerably. Individual states made anywhere from no changes to over  1,000 changes during the 5-year period, from 1997 through 2001.  Regardless of the number of use changes states have made to date,  however, nearly all states reported that they have water bodies within  their states that currently need changes to their designated uses.  According to the states, they have not made needed designated use  changes because of a number of barriers, including inadequate monitoring  data and resistance from interest groups and affected parties. Importantly,  another key reason has been uncertainty over the circumstances in which  use changes are acceptable to EPA and the evidence needed to support  those changes.
Many states said they need additional assistance from EPA to make  accurate and defensible decisions on what some believe will be a much  larger number of designated use changes in coming years. Specifically,  they cited a need for additional EPA guidance to clarify both the  circumstances under which use changes are acceptable and the type of  evidence needed to support those changes. EPA headquarters officials  acknowledge this need and have formed a national working group to  develop additional guidance on designated use changes. Such guidance  would also (1) help clarify to EPA regional officials what state-proposed  changes are acceptable and (2) promote more consistent review and  approval policies across EPA’s 10 regional offices.
As required, EPA has developed and published criteria for a wide range of  pollutants. However, EPA has not developed criteria for sedimentation  (e.g., sand and silt accumulation) and is currently developing the complex  criteria needed for nutrients (e.g., phosphorus from fertilizers and nitrogen  from animal waste). According to EPA data, sedimentation and nutrients  are key pollutants responsible for a relatively large share of the nation’s  impaired waters. Hence, it is not surprising that states responding to our  survey rank these two pollutants as their highest priorities for criteria  development.
Even when EPA has developed criteria documents, some states have  reported difficulty in using the documents to establish criteria in such a  way that the criteria can be easily compared with reasonably obtainable  monitoring data. As a related matter, states also expressed difficulty in  modifying the criteria they already have in place, when necessary, to  reflect new data or changing ecological conditions. While most states cited  resource constraints as a barrier that affects their ability to make criteria  modifications, more than half of the states also cited EPA’s approval  process—noting, for example, insufficient assistance from their respective  EPA regional offices in helping them understand the data necessary to  justify a criteria modification.
The difficulty states have had in developing accurate water quality  standards has important implications for their efforts to correctly identify  which of their waters are impaired. If they cannot use their standards to  accurately target their impaired waters, they risk focusing their limited  resources on cleaning up the wrong water bodies and/or exposing their  citizens to health and environmental risks. Thirty states reported in  response to our survey that if EPA improved the process of modifying  standards through changes to designated uses and/or criteria, they would  identify different waters for TMDL development. Significantly, this total  does not reflect the effects on lists of impaired waters of new criteria for  sedimentation and other pollutants being developed by EPA and the  states. These criteria are also likely to affect which waters states list as  impaired.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Designated uses are the purposes that a state’s waters are intended to  serve. Some waters, for example, serve as a drinking water source, while  others are designated to serve as a source of recreation (swimming or  boating) and/or to support aquatic life. The state must also develop water  quality criteria, which specify pollutant limits that determine whether a  water body’s designated use is achieved. These water quality criteria can  be expressed, for example, as the maximum allowable concentration of a  given pollutant such as iron, or as an important physical or biological  characteristic that must be met, such as an allowable temperature range.
To develop water quality criteria, states rely heavily on EPA-developed  “criteria documents.” These documents contain the technical data that  allow states to develop the necessary pollutant limits. EPA is responsible  for developing and revising criteria documents in a manner that reflects  the latest scientific knowledge. States may adopt these criteria as  recommended by EPA, adapt them to meet state needs, or develop criteria  using other scientifically defensible methods.
States are also required to periodically review both their waters’  designated uses and associated criteria, and make changes as appropriate.  Before those changes can take effect, the state must submit them to EPA  and obtain approval for them. EPA is required to review and approve or  disapprove standards changes proposed by a state within 60 to 90 days.
Figure 1 illustrates how states use water quality standards to make key  decisions on which waters should be targeted for cleanup. States generally  determine if a water body’s designated use is achieved by comparing  monitoring data with applicable state water quality criteria. If the water  body fails to meet the applicable standards, the state is required to list that  water as “impaired”; calculate a pollution budget under EPA’s Total  Maximum Daily Load program that specifies how compliance with the  standard can be achieved; and then eventually implement a cleanup plan.  Thus, as noted in 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences’ National  Research Council, water quality standards are the foundation on which  the entire TMDL program rests: if the standards are flawed, all subsequent  steps in the TMDL process will be affected.
section_title: States’ Practices in Changing Designated Uses Vary Widely
paragraphs: We asked the states to report the total number of designated use changes  they adopted from 1997 through 2001. While some states made no use  changes, others made over 1,000 changes. At the same time, nearly all  states told us that designated use changes are needed. Twenty-eight states  reported that between 1 to 20 percent of their water bodies need use  changes; 11 states reported that between 21 and 50 percent of their water  bodies need use changes; and 5 states reported that over 50 percent of  their water bodies need use changes.
These percentages suggest that future use changes may dwarf the few  thousand made between 1997 and 2001. For example, Missouri’s response  noted that while the state did not make any use changes from 1997  through 2001, approximately 25 percent of the state’s water bodies need  changes to their recreational designated uses and more changes might be  needed for other use categories as well. Similarly, Oregon’s response  noted that while the state made no use changes from 1997 through 2001,  the state needs designated use changes in over 90 percent of its basins.
Many states explained their current need to make designated use changes  by noting, among other things, that many of the original use decisions they  made during the 1970s were not based on accurate data. For example,  Utah’s response noted that because of concerns that grant funds would be  withheld if designated uses were not assigned quickly, state water quality  and wildlife officials set designated uses over a 4- to 5-day period using  “best professional judgment.” As states have collected more data in  ensuing years, the new data have provided compelling evidence that their  uses are either under- or over-protective.
In addition to changing designated uses for individual waters to reflect the  new data, some states are seeking to develop more subcategories of  designated uses to make them more precise and reflective of their waters’  actual uses. For example, a state may wish to create designated use  subcategories that distinguish between cold and warm water fisheries, as  opposed to a single, more general fishery use. Developing these  subcategories of uses has the potential to result in more protective uses in  some cases, and less protective uses in others.
section_title: EPA Assistance and Guidance Needed to Help States Make Defensible Designated Use Changes
paragraphs: According to responses to our survey, a key reason state officials have not  made more of the needed designated use changes is the uncertainty many  of them face over the circumstances in which use changes are acceptable  to EPA and the evidence needed to support these changes. EPA  regulations specify that in order to remove a designated use, states must  provide a reason as to why a use change is needed and demonstrate to  EPA that the current designated use is unattainable. To do this, states are  required to conduct a use attainability analysis (UAA). A UAA is a  structured, scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of  the use, which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic  factors. The results of a state’s analysis must be included in its submittal  for a use change to EPA. States that want to increase the stringency of a  designated use are not required to conduct a UAA.
UAAs vary considerably in their scope and complexity and in the time and  cost required to complete them. They can range from 15-minute  evaluations that are recorded on a single worksheet to more complex  analyses that might require years to complete. A Virginia water quality  official explained, for example, that some of the state’s UAAs are simple  exercises using available data, while others require more detailed analysis  involving site visits, monitoring, and laboratory work. In their responses to  our survey, states reported that the UAAs they conducted in the past  5 years have cost them anywhere from $100 to $300,000.
In 1994, EPA published guidance regarding use changes that specifies the  reasons states may remove a designated use. Nonetheless, our survey  shows that many states are still uncertain about when to conduct UAAs, or  about the type or amount of data they need to provide to EPA to justify  their proposed use changes. Forty-three percent of states reported that  they need additional clarifying UAA guidance. Among them, Oregon’s  response explained that water quality officials need guidance on whether a  UAA is required to add subcategories of use for particular fish species.  Virginia’s response indicated that the state needs guidance on what  reasons can justify recreational use changes, noting further that state  water quality officials would like to see examples of UAAs conducted in  other states. Louisiana’s response similarly called for specific guidance on  what type of and how much data are required for UAAs in order for EPA to  approve a designated use change with less protective criteria.
EPA headquarters and regional officials acknowledge that states are  uncertain about how to change their designated uses and believe better  guidance would serve to alleviate some of the confusion. Of particular  note, officials from 9 of EPA’s 10 regional offices told us that states need  better guidance on when designated use changes are appropriate and the  data needed to justify a use change. Chicago regional officials, for  example, explained that the states in their region need clarification on  when recreational use changes are appropriate and the data needed  to support recreational use changes.
In this connection, an official from the San Francisco regional office  suggested that headquarters develop a national clearinghouse of approved  use changes to provide examples for states and regions of what is  considered sufficient justification for a use change. A 2002 EPA draft  strategy also recognized that this type of clearinghouse would be useful to  the states. The strategy calls on EPA’s Office of Science and Technology to  conduct a feasibility study to identify ways to provide a cost-effective  clearinghouse. According to EPA, the agency plans to conduct the  feasibility study in 2004.
EPA headquarters officials have also formed a national working group to  address the need for guidance. According to the officials, the group plans  to develop outreach and support materials addressing nine areas of  concern for recreational uses that states have identified as problematic. In  addition, the group plans to develop a Web page that includes examples of  approved recreational use changes by the end of 2004.
The national work groups’ efforts may also help address another concern  cited by many states—a lack of consistency among EPA’s regional offices  on how they evaluate proposals by their states to change designated uses.  Some states’ water quality officials noted in particular that the data needed  to justify a use change varies among EPA regions. For example, Rhode  Island’s response asserted that the state’s EPA regional office (Boston)  requires a much greater burden of proof than EPA guidance suggests or  than other regional offices require. The response said that EPA guidance  on UAAs should be more uniformly applied by all EPA regional offices.  Several EPA regional officials acknowledged the inconsistency and cited  an absence of national guidance as the primary cause.
EPA headquarters officials concurred that regional offices often require  different types and amounts of data to justify a use change and noted that  inconsistency among EPA regional offices’ approaches has been a long- standing concern. The officials explained that EPA is trying to reduce  inconsistencies while maintaining the flexibility needed to meet region- specific conditions by holding regular work group meetings and  conference calls between the regional offices and headquarters.
section_title: EPA Has Not Developed and Updated Key Criteria Documents
paragraphs: While EPA has developed and published criteria documents for a wide  range of pollutants, approximately 50 percent of water quality impairments  nationwide concern pollutants for which there are no national numeric  water quality criteria. Because water quality criteria are the measures by  which states determine if designated uses are being attained, they play a  role as important as designated uses in states’ decisions regarding the  identification and cleanup of impaired waters. If nationally recommended  criteria do not exist for key pollutants, or if states have difficulty using or  modifying existing criteria, states may not be able to accurately identify  water bodies that are not attaining designated uses.
Sedimentation is a key pollutant for which numeric water quality criteria  need to be developed. In addition, nutrient criteria are currently being  developed, and pathogen criteria need to be revised. Together, according  to our analysis of EPA data, sediments, nutrients, and pathogens are  responsible for about 40 percent of impairments nationwide. (See fig. 2.)  Not surprisingly, many states responding to our survey indicated that  these pollutants are among those for which numeric criteria are most  needed.
Recognizing the growing importance of pathogens in accounting for the  nation’s impaired waters, EPA developed numeric criteria for pathogens in  1986—although states are having difficulty using these criteria and are  awaiting additional EPA guidance. EPA is also currently working with  states to develop nutrient criteria and has entered into a research phase  for sedimentation. EPA explained that the delay in developing and  publishing key criteria has been due to various factors, such as the  complexity of the criteria and the need for careful scientific analysis, and  an essentially flat budget accompanied by a sharply increased workload.  EPA also explained that for several decades, the agency and the states  focused more on point source discharges of pollution, which can be  regulated easily through permits, than on nonpoint sources, which are  more difficult to regulate.
section_title: States Need EPA Assistance to Establish Criteria That Can Be Compared to Reasonably Obtainable Monitoring Data
paragraphs: Even when EPA has developed criteria recommendations, states reported  that the criteria cannot always be used because water quality officials  sometimes cannot perform the kind of monitoring that the criteria  documents specify, particularly in terms of frequency and duration. Our  survey asked states about the extent to which they have been able to  establish criteria that can be compared with reasonably obtainable  monitoring data. About one-third reported that they were able to do so to a  “minor” extent or less, about one-third to a “moderate” extent, and about  one-third to a “great” extent. Mississippi’s response noted, for example,  that the state has adopted criteria specifying that samples must be  collected on 4 consecutive days. The state noted, however, that its  monitoring and assessment resources are simply insufficient to monitor at  that frequency. Mississippi is not alone: a 2001 report by the National  Research Council found that there is often a “fundamental discrepancy  between the criteria used to determine whether a water body is achieving  its designated use and the frequency with which water quality data are  collected.” To address this discrepancy, regional EPA officials have  suggested that EPA work with the states to develop alternative methods  for determining if water bodies are meeting their criteria, such as a  random sampling approach to identify and set priorities for impaired  waters.
If a state believes that it can improve its criteria, it has the option of  modifying them—with EPA’s approval. In fact, states are required to  review and modify their criteria periodically. A state might modify a  criterion, for example, if new information becomes available that better  reflects local variations in pollutant chemistry and corresponding  biological effects.
In response to our survey, 43 states reported that it is “somewhat” to  “very” difficult to modify criteria. Not surprisingly, a vast majority of states  reported that a lack of resources (including data, funding, and expertise)  complicates this task. Nevada’s response, for example, explained that, like  many states, it typically relies on EPA’s recommended criteria because of  limited experience in developing criteria as well as limited resources; in  many instances, developing site-specific criteria would better reflect  unique conditions, allowing for better protection of designated uses.  Significantly, however, more than half of the states reported that EPA’s  approval process serves as a barrier when they try to modify their criteria.  In this connection, respondents also noted that EPA’s regional offices are  inconsistent in the type and amount of data they deem sufficient to justify  a criteria change. Some regional officials told us that this inconsistency is  explained, in part, by staff turnover in the regional offices. Likewise, a  2000 EPA report found that less tenured staff in some regional offices  often lack the technical experience and skill to work with the states in  determining the “scientific feasibility” of state-proposed criteria  modifications. Our report concluded that additional headquarters  guidance and training of its regional water quality standards staff would  help facilitate meritorious criteria modifications while protecting against  modifications that would result in environmental harm.
section_title: Improvements to Designated Uses and Criteria Could Have a Large and Cumulative Impact on Impaired Waters Lists
paragraphs: Because designated uses and criteria constitute states’ water quality  standards, a change in either is considered a standards modification. We  first asked the states whether an improvement in the process of changing  designated uses would result in different water bodies being slated for  cleanup within their states, and 22 states reported affirmatively. We then  asked the states whether an improvement in the process of modifying  criteria would result in different water bodies being slated for cleanup  within their states, and 22 states reported affirmatively. As figure 3 shows,  when we superimposed the states’ responses to obtain the cumulative  effect of improving either designated uses or the process of criteria  modification, a total of 30 states indicated that an improvement in the  process of modifying standards (whether a change in their designated  uses, their criteria, or both) would result in different water bodies being  slated for cleanup.
Importantly, the 30-state total does not reflect the impacts that would  result from EPA’s publication (and states’ subsequent adoption) of new  criteria for sedimentation and other pollutants, nor does it reflect states’  ongoing adoption of nutrient criteria. As these criteria are issued in  coming years, states will adopt numeric criteria for these key pollutants,  which, in turn, will likely affect which waters the states target for cleanup.
To help ensure that both designated uses and water quality criteria serve  as a valid basis for decisions on which of the nation’s waters should be  targeted for cleanup, we recommended that the Administrator of EPA take  several actions to strengthen the water quality standards program. To  improve designated uses, we recommended that EPA (1) develop  additional guidance on designated use changes to better clarify for the  states and regional offices when a use change is appropriate, what data are  needed to justify the change, and how to establish subcategories of uses  and (2) follow through on its plans to assess the feasibility of establishing  a clearinghouse of approved designated use changes by 2004. To improve  water quality criteria, we recommended that EPA (1) set a time frame for  developing and publishing nationally recommended sedimentation criteria,  (2) develop alternative, scientifically defensible monitoring strategies that  states can use to determine if water bodies are meeting their water quality  criteria, and (3) develop guidance and a training strategy that will help  EPA regional staff determine the scientific defensibility of proposed  criteria modifications.
According to officials with EPA’s Water Quality Standards Program, the  agency agrees with our recommendations, has taken some steps to  address them, and is planning additional action. They note that, thus far,  EPA staff have already met with a large number of states to identify  difficulties the states face when attempting to modify their designated  uses. The officials also noted that, among other things, they plan to release  support materials to the states regarding designated use changes; develop  a Web page that provides examples of approved use changes; and develop  a strategy for developing sedimentation criteria by the end of 2003.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may  have at this time.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information, please contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512- 3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included  Steve Elstein and Barbara Patterson. Other contributors included Leah  DeWolf, Laura Gatz, Emmy Rhine, Katheryn Summers, and Michelle K.  Treistman.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.