DDW-2024-008042

November 2014

OPPORTUNITIES TO PROTECT DRINKING WATER
SOURCES AND ADVANCE WATERSHED GOALS
THROUGH THE CLEAN WATER ACT

A Toolkit for State, Interstate, Tribal and Federal
Water Program Managers

Page 2

Acronyms

ACWA Association of Clean Water Administrators
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BMP Best Management Practice
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GI Green Infrastructure
GWPC Ground Water Protection Council
HA Health Advisory
HWI Healthy Watersheds Initiative
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
IU Industrial User
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRWQC Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria
ONRW Outstanding National Resource Water
ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
OW U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
PWS Public Water System
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWPP Source Water Protection Plan
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UIC Underground Injection Control
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water
WBP Watershed-Based Plan
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit
WQS Water Quality Standards
Page 3

Table of Contents
i. Preface 4
ii. Executive Summary 5
Highlights of Desired Outcomes and Collaboration Opportunities 6
iii. Introduction 10
Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act Fundamentals 10
Coordinating CWA and SDWA Implementation 11
Quick Start to Coordination 12
I. Using Water Quality Standards 15
Introduction 16
Background 17
Desired Outcomes and Opportunities 20
Additional Resources 23
II. Using Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listings 25
Introduction 26 Background 26 Desired Outcomes and Opportunities 27 Additional Resources 29
III. Using Total Maximum Daily Loads 31
Introduction 32 Background 32 Desired Outcomes and Opportunities 35 Additional Resources 39
IV. Using National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs 41
Introduction 42 Background 42 Desired Outcomes and Opportunities 45 Additional Resources 50
V. Using Nonpoint Source and Clean Water Act 319 Programs 55
Introduction 56 Background 56 Desired Outcomes and Opportunities 58 Additional Resources 60
Appendices 62
Appendix A: List of NRQC-H, NRWQC-FWH, NPDWRs, MCLGs, and Health Advisories by Contaminant 62
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples of Protecting Water Quality and Sources of Drinking Water 64
Appendix C: Troubleshooting: Selected Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome 77
Appendix D: A Lens through which to View This Toolkit: The Watershed Approach 85
Appendix E: Online Resources for Toxic Endpoints, September 2013 91
Page 4

Preface

We live in times of both declining public agency resources and increasing complexity of
environmental and public health problems, like the increasing occurrence, intensity, and duration of
harmful algal blooms and precursors to disinfection by-products in drinking water. These and other problems are
compounded by population growth, climate extremes, and excess water in some places as well as insufficient water in
others.
Complex times demand creative and thoughtful approaches to challenges. It is critical that we find innovative solutions
that leverage expertise, resources, efficiencies, and authorities to achieve our Nation’s water quality and source water
protection goals.
As part of a State-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaboration initiative, a workgroup was formed to
identify opportunities to coordinate among clean water and drinking water programs. This workgroup recognizes that
many difficult issues cross program boundaries, and thus a coordinated approach has the potential to make greater
headway nationally. In developing the product that follows, the workgroup also drew on the experiences of states and
EPA practitioners managing these programs.
This Toolkit is a result of state and EPA collaboration. It could not have been developed without the time, effort and
dedication of those who contributed to it and particularly the expertise of the state and EPA regional participants who
are implementing the practices in this report. Specifically, the following entities have collaborated in the development
of this Toolkit:
 EPA Office of Water (OW) and Regional Offices
 Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and select state members
 Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and select state members
 Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and select state members
This initiative and Toolkit invite a more holistic and coordinated planning and funding approach between the clean
water and drinking water programs, and with other public and private partners at the federal, state, and local levels,
including water and wastewater utilities. The opportunities outlined in this Toolkit do not reflect all possible
environmental authorities that may work together to protect drinking water; it is beyond the scope of this document to
acknowledge all threats to, and challenges involved in, protecting drinking water. Instead, the suggestions below
describe the fundamental steps toward protective actions that may catalyze broader collaboration among a diversity of
programs and entities.
It is important to note that this Toolkit does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, tribes, or the
regulated community, nor does it confer legal rights or impose legal obligations on any member of the public. This
Toolkit does not constitute a regulation, nor does it change or substitute for any Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water
Act1 provision or EPA regulations. Rather, this Toolkit is designed to support discussion, institutional change, and
advance water quality goals and the protection of drinking water sources of public water systems (PWSs)2, also known
as source water protection.3

Page 5

Executive Summary

The goal of this State-EPA collaboration initiative is to show how state and federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) program staff and managers can more routinely and more intentionally coordinate
CWA and SDWA activities to achieve improvements in the quality of our waters. This Toolkit:
 identifies opportunities to reduce pollution in drinking water sources by using CWA tools;
 provides examples of on-the-ground implementation, and is intended to help readers understand how they can work
across program lines and agency boundaries;
 demonstrates how program managers can align their efforts to protect source water through a combination of
actions and institutional relationships that facilitate cross-program coordination at the national, regional, state, and
watershed scales to achieve common objectives; and
 shows how state clean water programs can leverage the high value consumers place on public health protection and
safe drinking water to increase public support for addressing surface and ground water quality challenges more
effectively.
EPA, other federal4 and state5 agencies, local governments and private organizations6 can support such collaborative
actions by providing technical, programmatic, financial and logistical assistance.
Following the Executive Summary, this document consists of an Introduction that describes the basics of the SDWA and
CWA and how they interact, including a “Quick Start to Coordination” section that offers some actions that states and EPA
regions can take more readily, likely with existing staff and resources. Following the Introduction, each section of the
Toolkit pertains to how specific CWA provisions and tools can be used to protect drinking water resources. The five
sections focus on, respectively, Water Quality Standards (WQS); Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listings;
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs); the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and Nonpoint Source
and Clean Water Act 319 programs. Sections describe a range of potential state activities that could enhance public
health protection under each of these provisions, as outlined in a format that includes:
 Background information on the provision or tool of the CWA;
 The desired outcomes of possible activities using that CWA provision;
 A list of key actions that could move CWA implementation toward achieving the desired outcome;
 A short list of additional references and resources.
Finally, the appendices provide additional resources. These include examples of states already implementing many of the
opportunities described in this document, as well as challenges faced and strategies for overcoming such challenges.
Each state’s water quality challenges, approaches to addressing these challenges, and program organization and
implementation are unique. The measures outlined in this document can be used together, and in collaboration with
partners outside of the state and federal water programs, to achieve both operational efficiencies and water quality
improvements. Clean water and drinking water program staff, state infrastructure financing staff, enforcement staff,
water and wastewater utilities, technical assistance providers, and other partners could work together to look holistically
at the pollutant sources and controls in a particular watershed and aquifer recharge zone. This coordination could include
an assessment of drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, and nonpoint source concerns and needs to help partners
develop creative and appropriate source water protection solutions.
The list below highlights specific opportunities and outcomes of such coordination.
Page 6
Executive Summary

water quality standards

Highlights of Desired Outcomes & Collaboration Opportunities
Recognizing that CWA and SDWA programs are implemented by the states, this list identifies voluntary state actions
that could be accompanied by EPA support where such support would facilitate implementation or improve efficiency.
These, and additional, outcomes and opportunities can be found in Sections One through Five.

 Desired Outcome: Appropriate designated uses are established to protect public
water supplies.
Opportunities
For states and tribes
 Identify waters with existing drinking water intakes. If intake waters are not designated for a public
drinking water supply use, consider doing so to facilitate human health protection; and
 For other waters, consider future drinking water supply needs when designating uses.

 Desired Outcome: Numeric or narrative criteria are adopted to protect public water
supply designated uses. A means of interpreting narrative criteria should also be adopted.
 Opportunities
For EPA program offices
 Continue revising Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) tables, where appropriate;
share information on recent updates to NRWQC for the protection of human health when released in
late 2014 and encourage state/tribal adoption of updated criteria values for public drinking water
supply uses.
 Where appropriate, continue working to develop NRWQC or Health Advisories (HAs) for pollutants that
are regulated as drinking water contaminants under the SDWA for which there are no standards under
the CWA.
For states and tribes
 If an EPA-recommended water quality criterion protective of a water supply use exists for a pollutant of
concern, states may adopt such a criterion.
 Where such a numeric water quality criterion does not exist in state WQS (and no EPA criterion exists),
states may adopt a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), a human HA value, a human health
benchmark for one or more pesticides, or other scientifically supported values.
 States may also interpret a narrative water quality criterion using any of the above values or derive a
target value using health effects resources.
For EPA program offices, states, and tribes
 Share information and identify approaches where states/tribes have developed numeric criteria values
for public water supply protection where no NRWQC are available (e.g., by using the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), HAs, pesticide benchmarks, MCLGs, etc.).
 Explore development of a model narrative criterion and interpretation that individual states can
customize to their circumstances.
water quality standards
Page 7
Executive Summary

monitoring, assessment, and impaired waters listing

total maximum daily loads

 Desired Outcome: Source waters used for public water supplies are assessed for
attainment of drinking water uses, and with stakeholder involvement.

 Opportunities
For states, tribes, and stakeholders
 State assessment methodology could describe a process for making assessment decisions about drinking
water use support.
 SDWA programs can provide CWA counterparts with drinking water intake locations and source water area
delineations via GIS to facilitate assessment and, if warranted, listing of waters for non-attainment of the
public water supply use.
 Drinking water utilities could provide source water monitoring data to State Monitoring, Assessment and
Listing Programs for making CWA section 305(b) assessment and section 303(d) listing decisions, as part
of the CWA provision to evaluate “all existing and readily available information” in listing decisions (40 CFR
section 130.7(b)(5)).
 States, tribes and EPA can develop formal communication/coordination channels among the programs at
the state and federal levels to achieve an effective, efficient way to accomplish this (note: could
implement as part of the EPA/State 303(d)/TMDL Vision effort).7

 Desired Outcome: TMDL priority setting and development are informed by drinking
water information.
 Opportunities
For EPA, states, tribes, and stakeholders
 Inform the priority setting and development of TMDLs through data sharing (e.g., SDWA programs and/or
utilities could provide turbidity levels, number of days system was impacted and treatment costs to
maintain compliance) and providing early input on developing TMDLs regarding source water concerns.
 CWA programs can help prioritize TMDL development based on source water protection needs. Many
states prioritize TMDL development for drinking water reservoirs. By working with the drinking water
program to provide sufficient and timely information, state CWA staff may rank drinking water sources as
high priorities for taking action to develop or implement TMDLs.
 State drinking water programs can share source water information (in GIS format if available), including
intake locations, source water monitoring data or data regarding PWS closures, etc. to aid in accurate
TMDL development. This information can help characterize the water body impairment(s), identify sources
of those impairments, and help identify mitigation measures.

Page 8
Executive Summary
point source controls

 Desired Outcome: NPDES permits reflect contaminants of concern to drinking water
systems.
 Opportunities
For state drinking water and NPDES programs in collaboration
 Locate permitted outfalls (using GIS mapping if possible) in relation to surface water intakes for PWSs.
 Inventory and describe available data about problems experienced by PWSs in the state attributed to
upstream pollutant sources.
 Develop an approach to cross-walking a PWS’s “pollutants of concern” with contaminants in an
upstream NPDES permittee’s discharge.
 Write effluent limitations and conditions to prevent harmful concentrations of contaminants of concern
from reaching the intakes of PWSs.

 Desired Outcome: NPDES permittees, producers, and operators adequately notify
downstream and affected drinking water systems of spills, CAF0 discharges, and intentions to
apply biosolids/manure or pesticides/herbicides.
 Opportunities
For state drinking water and NPDES programs in collaboration
 Where evidence indicates the presence of a pollutant of concern for a downstream drinking water
source, permits could include additional monitoring to collect the data necessary to quantify and model
the fate and transport of the pollutant of concern in the receiving water.
 State clean water and drinking water programs could work with their Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know programs to develop an emergency response plan regarding spills to surface
and ground waters that have the potential to impact drinking water intakes downstream.
For permit writers
 Upon renewal, NPDES permits with outfalls (or biosolid/manure or pesticide/herbicide application sites)
of concern to PWSs could include language requiring the permittee to provide notification (or in the
absence of a permit, asking producers and operators to provide 48 hours’ notification) to potentially
affected PWS operators.

point source controls
Page 9
Executive Summary

nonpoint source and section 319 programs

 Desired Outcome: Green infrastructure (GI) planning, stormwater, and
underground injection control (UIC) permits include consideration of drinking water
sources.
 Opportunities
For states and local entities, and developers
 Consider including smart growth techniques as a means to preemptively protect both water quality and
source water by avoiding some of the worst effects of unplanned growth.
 When considering ground water infiltration techniques to reduce surface water runoff and pollution, aim
to strike the right balance between protecting surface waters and increasing ground water recharge,
while minimizing risk to ground water quality.
 Practice rainwater harvesting, if local law/requirements allow, which can reduce demand for treated
drinking water while reducing stormwater runoff.

 Desired Outcome: Source waters (including ground water) are protected from
nonpoint source pollution using Nonpoint Source Management Plans, Watershed Plans, and leveraging
CWA section 319 funding.
 Opportunities
For EPA, states, tribes, and stakeholders
 State drinking water programs could engage in updates to the state Nonpoint Source Management
Program Plan to ensure priorities for source water protection are reflected in the plan (for example,
ground water protection activities are eligible for funding under section 319 if identified in the state
Nonpoint Source Program/Management Plan as a priority). Updates of state Nonpoint Source
Management Program Plans are conducted every 5 years.
 Consider state Nonpoint Source Management Plans when updating source water assessments and
implementing source water protection programs.
 Consider using source water protection areas as a priority for selecting CWA Section 319 watershed
projects.
 The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) set-asides under section 1452(g)(2) for state source
water protection program management and section 1452(k)(1) may be used in a variety of ways for
nonpoint source issues on shared projects that affect both nonpoint sources and source water
protection. State drinking water and nonpoint source staff could work with SRF fund staff to identify
opportunities to address nonpoint source pollution.
 The Clean Water SRF loans can be used to fund nonpoint source projects through the section 319
statutory mechanism. States may fund any projects eligible for section 319 funding, including source
water and ground water projects, using this approach.

point source controls
Page 10

Introduction
Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act Fundamentals
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets legal limits on the levels of certain contaminants in drinking water
provided by PWSs.8 These limits (e.g., Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)) reflect both the level that protects human
health (i.e., MCLGs) and the level that water systems can achieve using the best available technology. Besides
prescribing these legal limits, EPA rules set water-testing schedules and methods that water systems must follow. The
rules also list acceptable techniques for treating contaminated water. SDWA gives individual states the opportunity to
set and enforce their own drinking water standards if the standards are at least as strong as EPA's national standards.
Most states and territories directly oversee the water systems within their borders.9
Most of federal safety standards under SDWA apply after treatment of finished water. If drinking water does not meet a
standard, the PWS must treat the water to make it safe for human consumption. Reliably providing safe drinking water
to the public requires a multiple barrier approach. National drinking water standards and treatment at the PWS to meet
those standards are part of this approach, but protecting water quality at the source is also an important component of
protecting human health.
Preventing or reducing contamination of a water supply source can lower or avoid treatment costs and improve the
reliability of drinking water treatment. This is because protecting source water10 quality can both reduce harmful
disinfection by-products that are produced during treatment of drinking water sources and help plants avoid costly
measures like installing advanced treatment technology, connecting with another water supply that provides more
treatment, or identifying and developing a new water supply. As noted above, efforts to reduce contamination of
drinking water sources can also benefit other water quality goals, such as protecting aquatic life, recreation and fish
consumption. The converse of this is also true: that is, focusing on Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) that are
protective of aquatic life can lead to protection of a public water supply use, since AWQC for aquatic life protection are
usually more stringent than AWQC for human health protection as well as drinking water standards.
However, as the cross-program matrix in Appendix A indicates, there remain a significant number of pollutants for which
the NRWQC under the CWA and HAs under SDWA are less stringent than drinking water standards. We should also be
mindful of how we undertake such efforts because reducing one form of pollution could, in some cases, unintentionally
cause or exacerbate another (e.g., infiltrating polluted surface water to protect a stream’s water quality could
contaminate a ground water source of drinking water).
The Source Water Assessment Program requirements in the SDWA yielded source water assessments for PWSs in every
state, which included the delineation of watershed or wellhead contribution areas, identification of potential sources of
contamination, and susceptibility ratings that can be used to prioritize and implement protection activities. While these
assessments are an important source of information and can be used to develop protection plans, for the most part,
the SDWA does not confer any authority to protect surface water, which is often the source of drinking water. Protection
under the SDWA occurs primarily through voluntary coordination efforts at the local or watershed scale and other
federal and state regulatory programs, especially the CWA.
The primary objective of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation’s waters.”11 Therefore, unlike SDWA safety standards, CWA standards apply in ambient surface waters. In
meeting the objective of the CWA, each state must (1) designate the use or uses of its surface waters, (2) adopt
ambient water quality criteria (numeric or narrative) to protect these designated uses, and (3) protect high-quality
waters through anti-degradation provisions.
The attainment of state designated uses serves as the foundation for protecting water quality. Examples of designated
uses include recreational uses, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, drinking water supply,
agricultural, industrial, and navigation. Although the goal of the CWA is often referred to as ensuring all waters are
Page 11
Introduction
“fishable and swimmable,” the CWA also provides for protection of surface water sources of drinking water. For
example, when a state adopts or revises its WQS, the CWA states that “such standards shall be established taking into
consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultural, industrial, and other purposes …”12 (emphasis added).
To help states establish WQS, as required by the CWA, the EPA publishes NRWQC for specific pollutants under section
304(a) of the CWA. However, for many pollutants regulated by the SDWA as drinking water contaminants, there
currently are no NRWQC under the CWA, thus posing particular challenges in assessing and adequately addressing
those pollutants in surface waters that serve as a source of drinking water. The CWA, in efforts to further protect the
designated uses, requires the states to assess their surface waters’ quality to ensure that the WQS are met; identify
waters that are “impaired”, or fail to meet WQS; issue permitted effluent limits that control point sources of pollution;
and establish watershed management methods that better “control” nonpoint source pollution.13 This is described in
more detail later in this document.
Ground water is an important resource for many human uses and its contamination by land use or by surface water
management practices can reduce society’s options for fresh water resources. The SDWA assigns responsibility to
protect ground water to states by regulating the underground injection of fluids to prevent the contamination of
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and protecting drinking water wellhead areas from contamination by
unsafe practices.14 The CWA also addresses ground water protection15, mainly by authorizing states to use CWA funds
to monitor ground water quality, consider ground water in watershed management planning, consider impacts of
reduced surface water flow such as salt water intrusion into fresh water aquifers, and control the disposal of pollutants
on land or in subsurface excavations to protect ground water quality.16

Coordinating CWA and SDWA Implementation
To enhance cross program collaboration, consider that the various principal CWA tools can often be applied in ways
that are relevant to drinking water. Questions for consideration can include the following:
 Are public water supplies explicitly designated as such in a state's WQS?
 Are there NRWQC or AWQC for drinking water contaminants of concern and are they sufficiently protective?
 Do water quality assessments, impairment listings, watershed plans, and discharge permit procedures adequately
address drinking water contaminants of concern?
This document provides a path for EPA’s Office of Water (OW), EPA Regional CWA and SDWA program staff, and state
regulators to better collaborate, leverage and coordinate their support for a more comprehensive cross-program
approach. The following list of opportunities for inter-program coordination can improve many of the important
components of source water quality, public health protection, and watershed goals. Individual states will make
decisions on which of these or other items are most helpful to address their own water quality and source water
concerns based on specific circumstances and considerations.

A Lens through Which to View This Toolkit: The Watershed Approach
Users of this Toolkit should consider how to improve coordination between programs at the watershed scale. A
watershed approach is a coordinated framework for environmental management that focuses public and private sector
efforts to address the highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined geographic areas, taking into consideration
both ground and surface water flow. See Appendix D to read more.

Page 12
Introduction
Quick Start to Coordination
As mentioned above, state water quality programs vary in their challenges, priorities, and organization. However, there
are some key steps that drinking water and clean water quality managers can undertake relatively quickly to begin the
process of identifying areas that would most benefit from a coordinated implementation approach to water quality
improvement.
State SDWA Administrators can:
 Identify a state-wide priority list of drinking water contaminants of concern to public health, along with (where
they exist): a) their state-specific MCLGs and MCLs, and b) any precursors, if known, to contaminants of
concern (e.g., organic chemicals that can form disinfection by-products in a water treatment facility).
 Identify locations of these priority contaminant detections, including a) the communities and populations
impacted, b) their PWS intake locations, and c) potential sources of the contamination for the priority
contaminants (e.g., information that may be available in up-to-date state source water assessments or other
CWA databases or tools).
 Communicate with CWA counterparts within the state regarding the health risks associated with drinking
water contaminants and the limitations of treatment plants to fully remove contaminants from source water.
State CWA Administrators can:
 Identify pollutants affecting state waters for which there are no AWQC or for which the criteria only address
aquatic life impacts and that could benefit from a coordinated approach that addresses source water
protection. For example, harmful algal blooms present both aquatic life and human impacts by a) consuming
oxygen, which adversely impacts aquatic life; and b) generating algal toxins, which increase risk to human
health through possible drinking water and recreational exposure. Turbidity is another example where there
are SDWA standards to protect finished drinking water, but the CWA NRWQC only address aquatic life.
CWA/SDWA Administrators can:
 When each program is identifying priority pollutants for which to develop risk assessments (and so, possibly,
standards or criteria), consider opportunities where regulatory approaches could be developed in both
programs to ensure broader implementation. For example, EPA’s Office of Water is reviewing new disinfection
by-products for MCL consideration, and could consider using that information to develop new NRWQC for
turbidity/organics which would prevent formation of harmful levels of disinfection by-products.
 Undertake an assessment of states’ WQS to determine how they could be applied to implement a coordinated
approach for each priority contaminant of concern using impairment listings, TMDLs, and NPDES permits.
Resources for further information include:
 Appendix A provides a matrix of NRWQC and HAs compared to national MCLs. A state could use this
format to compare their state-specific AWQC and state-specific MCLs to identify priority contaminants
with currently protective state AWQC.
 Circumstances requiring complex analyses and planning (e.g., where WQS cannot be readily used or a
narrative WQS needs to be interpreted) are addressed throughout the topic-specific sections following
this Executive Summary.
Page 13
Introduction
 Where nonpoint source pollution presents the predominant water quality challenge and a public health risk
through drinking water exposure (e.g., from nutrient-fed algal blooms that can release cyanotoxins), conduct a
review of applicable nonpoint source authorities. Consider working through a state’s CWA and agricultural
program non-regulatory provisions, such as updating the state’s watershed management plan, to develop a
strategy for that pollution source and leveraging voluntary land conservation programs with Federal, state,
and local partners.
 Coordinate GIS projects to identify overlaps in priorities and water quality problems that could warrant
implementation of a unified approach to improving water quality and protecting source water, meet regularly
to assess progress and adapt the approach.

Endnotes
[1] See: <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/currentregulations.cfm>.
[2] “Public water system” or “PWS” (sometimes erroneously called a public water supply) is “a system for the provision to the
public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen
service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals.” See: §1401, SDWA.
[3] “Source water” (a.k.a., “sources of drinking water”, “drinking water sources”) is “untreated water from streams, rivers, lakes or
underground aquifers that is used to provide public drinking water, as well to supply private wells used for human
consumption.” See: SDWA, §1453(a)(2)(A) and: <http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/sourcewater/protection/
basicinformation.cfm>.
[4] e.g., US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
US Forest Service, and Agricultural Research Service.
[5] e.g. State Departments of Environment, State Health Departments, State Geologists, University Agricultural Extensions.
[6] e.g., Source Water Collaborative (SWC) and its members, National Endowment for Sustainable Forestry, U.S. Water Alliance.
[7] See: <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/programvision.cfm>.
[8] Under § 303(c), CWA, public water supply means source water. But the SDWA regulatory definitions [40 CFR § 141.2] speak
of “public water systems” (PWSs) which are typically the infrastructure beginning at the intake drawing from the source water
i.e., the public water supply under § 303(c), CWA.
[9] See: <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/currentregulations.cfm>.
[10] “Source water” includes surface water and ground water.
[11] §101(a), CWA
[12] §303(c)(2)(A), CWA
[13] §§303(c), 303(d), 305(b), 319, 402, 101(a)(7), CWA
[14] §§1421, 1428, SDWA
[15] e.g., §§106(e)(1), 319(b)(2)(a), 319(h)(5)(D), CWA
[16] §§106, 208, 319, CWA
Page 14
Introduction

Page 15

SECTION I
Protecting Water Quality and Sources of Drinking Water

Using Water Quality Standards


Protecting source water by
 Prioritizing TMDLs for impaired source waters
 Developing TMDLs in view of drinking water contaminants
 Supporting nonpoint source controls
 Identifying opportunities to protect waters that are not yet impaired

Protecting source water by
 Setting priorities in Watershed Plans
 Leveraging technical and financial resources across
programs
Protecting source water with
 NPDES effluent limits and other permit conditions
 Downstream notification
 Green infrastructure planning and stormwater
management
Protecting source water with
 Designated uses for sources of drinking water
 Numeric and narrative water quality criteria
 Anti-degradation tools
Water Quality Standards
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Point Sources Nonpoint Sources
Protecting source water with
 Assessment methodologies tailored to drinking water
 Data shared by drinking water stakeholders

Monitoring, Assessment, & Impairment Listing
Page 16
Section I: Using WQS
Introduction
Water Quality Standards are the foundation of the water quality-based pollution control approach described in CWA
section 303. In using section 303 to protect a public water supply, states and tribes typically:
1. Designated Uses: Designate the waterbody for public water supply (or similar) use (40 CFR section 131.10(a));
2. AWQC: Adopt water quality criteria to protect that designated use (40 CFR section 131.11);
 Criteria may be numeric (e.g., based on EPA’s NRWQC, or state-derived values approved by EPA); and/
or
 Criteria may be narrative (e.g., “no toxics in toxic amounts”).
3. Reasonable Potential: Determine if there is a “reasonable potential” for any NPDES permitted discharge to
“cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality
standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality” (40 CFR section 122.44(d));
4. WQ Assessments: Assess the status of waters for attainment of the WQS; and
5. Impairments: List waters as needing restoration through point and nonpoint source controls if the designated
use and/or water quality criteria are not met.
This section discusses some opportunities for utilizing WQS to protect drinking water. In addition, the “Water Quality
Standards” section of Appendix C highlights specific challenges faced by states in using WQS to protect drinking water
and describes how states can overcome these challenges.
Existing Information Sources
EPA has published NRWQC under the CWA for approximately two hundred pollutants1 including 120 to protect human
health,2 and HAs for just over 190 chemical pollutants,3 including 43 that are regulated as drinking water contaminants
under SDWA.4 EPA has also promulgated MCLs under the SDWA for about seventy drinking water contaminants.5
Appendix A contains a matrix comparing published NRWQC6 and HAs7 to federally promulgated MCLs. For a little more
than a third of the drinking water contaminants, there is no NRWQC or HA that is as protective or more protective than the
MCL.8 States could consider NRWQC, HAs, and EPA’s MCLs in this matrix to assess whether there are contaminants of
concern for drinking water use that do not have protective state water quality criteria and, if so, whether it is appropriate
to develop or update state water quality criteria to help address the issue. Note that the list of regulated drinking water
contaminants is subject to changes and additions through the SDWA’s Six Year Review9 and Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL)10 processes followed by rule development. The NRWQC and HAs are also subject to change as new peer reviewed
health effects information becomes available. However, SDWA standards have an even higher bar to meet to update or
add numeric standards, which can be an issue for addressing pollutants of concern on a regional scale that may affect
drinking water. Therefore, some states have developed their own CWA AWQC for pollutants without EPA-published NRWQC
or up-to-date MCLs when monitoring and toxicity information are available.
Some states may have few numeric criteria within their state WQS specific to a drinking water supply use and may,
instead, rely on a narrative criterion (e.g., “no toxics in toxic amounts”) applied on a site-specific basis. There are many
unique chemicals (for example, pesticides) used in different areas of the country. States may seek to determine which
specific chemicals need to be assessed for drinking water impacts in order to implement such criteria.

Page 17
Section I: Using WQS
Background
What are Water Quality Standards?
WQS define the water quality goals of a water body by designating the use or uses of the water and setting criteria
necessary to protect the uses. When establishing WQS, states and tribes must specify appropriate water uses to
be achieved and protected, and must take into consideration the use and value of water for public water supplies;
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; recreation in and on the water; and agricultural,
industrial, and other purposes, including navigation.11
WQS are defined in regulation at 40 CFR section 131.3(i) as “provisions of State or Federal law which consist of a
designated use or uses for the waters of the United States and water quality criteria for such waters based upon
such uses. WQS are established to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the
purposes of the Act.” The sections below describe designated uses and criteria in more detail.
Designated Uses
Designated uses are a state’s or tribe’s concise statements of its management objectives and expectations for
each of the individual surface waters under its jurisdiction. Designated uses are defined in regulation at 40 CFR
section 131.3(f) as “uses specified in water quality standards for each water body or segment whether or not they
are being attained.” Specific designated uses for each state’s or tribe’s waters are defined within that state’s or
tribe’s WQS regulations and can include (but are not limited to) the protection and propagation of aquatic life,
recreation, and public water supply. In designating uses, states/tribes can work with stakeholders to identify a
collective goal for their waters that they intend to strive for as they manage water quality. States and tribes could
evaluate the attainability of these goals and expectations to ensure they have designated the appropriate uses.
Designated uses are important because once states and tribes establish the appropriate use or uses for their
waterbodies, they can set the appropriate water quality criteria necessary to protect the use. Water quality criteria
serve as the regulatory basis for management actions such as NPDES permit limits, enforcement actions,
attainment decisions, and TMDLs.
Water Quality Criteria
Under CWA section 304(a), EPA establishes NRWQC for the protection of human health that can be adopted by
states and tribes into WQS and used to establish limits on contaminant concentrations in state waters. Criteria are
calculated for both the consumption of “water plus organisms” and “organisms only.” These criteria provide
contaminant concentrations that are protective of human health, but unlike federal MCLs, water quality criteria do
not consider treatment technology, costs, and other feasibility factors. These criteria account for bioaccumulation
of pollutants in fish, fish consumption rates, and direct drinking water intake. EPA’s NRWQC for the protection of
human health were not developed to serve as “at-the-tap” drinking water standards, and they have no regulatory
significance under the SDWA. EPA’s NRWQC are recommended values with no inherent regulatory impact until
adopted into state and tribal standards. Note that NRWQC and state AWQC are often more stringent than federal
MCLs, particularly for bioaccumulative compounds, because exposure to pollutants through fish consumption is
included in human health AWQC. Most waterbodies have multiple designated uses therefore most waterbodies
designated for public water supply use are also designated for aquatic life/fish consumption (hence the
“water+organisms” criteria). While this is almost universally true, the converse is not: there are numerous
waterbodies designated for aquatic life but not as public water supply waters (hence the “organism only” criteria).
Anti-Degradation
A state or tribe’s anti-degradation program provides a framework for protection of existing uses (that is, those uses
actually attained in a water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in a state's WQS)12,
which must be maintained and protected for all waters of the U.S. (called “Tier 1” protection). A state’s or tribe’s
program also provides a mechanism for the state to make decisions on whether to allow a lowering of high quality
water (called “Tier 2 review”).
A Tier 2 review is triggered in accordance with the state’s or tribe’s anti-degradation implementation methods. For
example, it is typically triggered when a facility proposes a new or expanded discharge into a water that the state
considers high quality, and which requires a permit under the CWA (e.g., NPDES permit, 404 permit). A state may
identify a water in its WQS as a high quality water on a water body-by-water body basis or on a parameter-by-parameter
basis. For example, a state may identify a high quality water upon determining, during the permit development process,
that the water has quality that is better than one or more of the state’s water quality criteria; that is, it has additional
assimilative capacity remaining for one or more of the parameters that would be discharged.
A state’s or tribe’s program also provides protection for the existing water quality (other than for rare exception) in any
waters that the state has identified as ‘outstanding national resource waters’ (ONRWs) in its WQS (called “Tier 3”
protection). A state or tribe also has discretion to design and apply levels of protection in between Tier 2 and Tier 3, if
they find it useful to employ protection less restrictive than Tier 3 but more restrictive than Tier 2 (i.e., “Tier 2.5”).

Who sets Water Quality Standards?
States and tribes have discretion when managing their WQS and designating uses, as long as they meet the
requirements of the CWA and the WQS regulation. States and tribes adopt WQS (through a public participation
process), and EPA reviews and either approves or disapproves any new or revised state or tribal water quality standard
for CWA purposes. EPA is also required to promulgate federal standards where the Agency finds that new or revised
state or tribal standards are not consistent with applicable requirements of the CWA, or in situations where the
Administrator determines that federal standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA.
The WQS regulation prohibits the removal of a designated use that would also remove an existing use13 (unless a use
requiring more stringent criteria is added, as the most sensitive use must be protected). Existing uses are defined as
“those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the
water quality standards.” Existing uses are known to be “attained” when both the use and the water quality necessary
to support the use have been achieved. A state or tribe could determine existing uses on a site-specific basis.

How can Water Quality Standards be used to protect drinking water?
How can designated uses be used to protect drinking water supplies?
States and tribes have flexibility in determining 1) whether or not to designate water bodies for a public water supply
use and 2) how to articulate such a use in their WQS. States may choose to designate water bodies for a public water
supply use on a state-wide basis, or on a waterbody-by-waterbody basis, depending on their particular management
goals and objectives.
A public water supply use typically includes waters that are a source for drinking water supplies and often includes
waters for food processing. These waters are also usually used for recreation and fishing. Where a water body contains
multiple designated uses, the most sensitive use must be protected (i.e., the use requiring the most stringent criteria).
Typically, waters designated for drinking water supply require treatment prior to distribution in PWSs. The SDWA’s
Page 18
Section I: Using WQS
Page 19
Section I: Using WQS
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (section 1412) require that PWSs meet national standards for over
90 chemical, microbial and radiological contaminants. The SDWA generally regulates finished water quality, not
source water quality.
When considering whether to designate a water body for use as a public water supply, states/tribes may wish to
consider current water supply needs, future needs and the water supply needs of downstream communities.
States and tribes also have the flexibility to remove a designated public water supply use (provided the water body
does not currently serve, or has not served since November 28, 1975, as a drinking water source) should they
determine that such a use is no longer a management goal for a particular water body or bodies. When removing a
public water supply use, states and tribes are to provide a rationale for the use removal that considers the use and
value of the water body. States and tribes may wish to consider using the factors specified in 40 CFR section
131.10(g) as a guide in their decision making process. Changes in a designated use are reviewed and approved by
EPA as a change to WQS.
How can water quality criteria protect a public water supply use?
When establishing numeric water quality criteria for designated uses, including for use as a public water supply,
States have several options per 40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)):
1. Adopting EPA’s NRWQC if such criteria are available;
2. Adopting modified NRWQC to reflect site-specific conditions; or
3. Adopting other numeric criteria based on a scientifically defensible method (e.g., HA values for
unregulated contaminants or MCLGs greater than zero).
In addition to establishing numeric water quality criteria, states and tribes also have the option of adopting
narrative criteria for non-toxic pollutants (40 CFR 131(b)(2)).
When establishing water quality criteria for toxic pollutants, the WQS regulation at 40 CFR section 131.11(a)(2)
requires that states and tribes “adopt criteria for such toxic pollutants applicable to the water body sufficient to
protect the designated use.” The regulation further specifies that, “where a State adopts narrative criteria for toxic
pollutants to protect designated uses, the State must provide information identifying the method by which the
State intends to regulate point source discharges of toxic pollutants on water quality limited segments based on
such narrative criteria.”
Where there are no numeric water quality criteria appropriate for a drinking water supply use in a state’s WQS, a
state can interpret their narrative standard in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, considering HA values
and MCLGs for noncarcinogens (see Appendix E for available sources of health-based endpoints for toxics). Since
detection, treatment feasibility and cost, as opposed to health risk alone, are used to develop MCLs, the decision
to use those values to interpret a narrative criterion would be made on a case-by-case basis. Permit writers and
WQS program staff may wish to collaborate to determine the most appropriate approach for interpreting the
narrative standard for use in the point source permitting process.

Page 20
Section I: Using WQS
Desired Outcomes and Opportunities
 Desired Outcome
Appropriate designated uses are established to protect public water supplies
States and tribes have discretion when it comes to designating water bodies for a public water supply or similar
use. Some states and tribes may apply a “blanket designation” of public water supply use to all waters in their
state/tribal lands, while others may designate a public water supply use on a waterbody-by-waterbody basis.
Increased communication between SDWA and CWA counterparts at the state/tribal level as part of the WQS
triennial review process to revise state WQS, may result in use designations that can enhance protection.
 Opportunities
For States and Tribes
State WQS and other CWA programs and SDWA programs can work together to:
 Identify waters with existing drinking water intakes. If those waters are not designated for a public
drinking water supply use, consider doing so to facilitate human health protection strategies that could
also support water quality protection, and vice versa.
 Consider downstream waters with drinking water intakes and whether upstream waters should be
designated as drinking water sources in order to ensure for the attainment of the use at the downstream
intake, per 40 CFR section 131.10(b).
 Consider future drinking water needs (e.g., population growth), so that water bodies can be designated
and protected for future use.
 If removing a public water supply use, consider whether or not the use is an existing use, per 40 CFR
section 131.10(g) and (h)(1).

 Desired Outcome
Numeric or narrative water quality criteria are adopted to protect public water
supply designated uses
Adopting numeric water quality criteria into state WQS, or adopting narrative water quality criteria with numeric
translators, can provide focused endpoints for permit limits, attainment decisions, and TMDLs or target values
for point source and nonpoint source watershed goals absent a TMDL. However, while most states have
waterbodies designated for use as a public water supply, many do not adopt or implement numeric or narrative
criteria specifically for drinking water source protection. Such numeric criteria may not be adopted because a
federal NRWQC or a state-derived numeric criterion is not available for a particular contaminant, or these values
may no longer reflect the most up-to-date science. As a result, these waters may not be assessed for
attainment, listed if impaired, or be afforded protection from point source discharges.
Page 21
Section I: Using WQS
Since the current list of federal NRWQC does not address all regulated drinking water contaminants, there is a
continuing need for new sources of water quality values for states to consider, especially for contaminants of
concern in a particular area.
When adopting water quality criteria to protect a public water supply, states/tribes could prioritize such criteria
adoption by first determining which pollutants pose a threat to the sources of drinking water within their state or
tribe, or within watersheds which drain to one or more public water supplies (using state source water
assessments, data from water utilities, or other sources).
 Opportunities
In general
If federal NRWQC or state-derived numeric criteria exist for the specific pollutants of concern, EPA encourages
states/tribes to adopt such criteria. If such criteria are not available, states/tribes can consider:
 A narrative criterion with a numeric translator for a pollutant of particular concern in the source water. An
example of a narrative criterion could be something like, “No toxic or other deleterious substances in
amounts that will impair waters for their best usages.” Resources for translating a narrative criterion into
a numeric target can be found in Appendix B.
 A MCLG in lieu of a NRWQC or state-derived numeric criterion. MCLGs are health-based numbers that are
analogous to water quality criteria.
 Other values, such as HAs or human health benchmarks for pesticides or other chemicals that do not
have MCLs. HAs often have both lifetime and shorter term exposure values, and provide information in
the event of an accidental release or spill. Human health benchmarks for pesticides reflect the most
recent cancer and noncancer endpoints for pesticides that do not have an existing MCL or HA value. The
endpoints are converted into a HA format for ease of use. These values are intended to support the
interpretation of monitoring data for public health risk. Acute and lifetime exposure values are provided.
For EPA program offices
 Continue revising NRWQC tables, where appropriate. Share information on recent updates to NRWQC for
the protection of human health when released in late 2014 and encourage state/tribal adoption of
updated criteria values for public drinking water supply uses.
 Where appropriate, continue working to develop NRWQC or HAs for pollutants that are regulated as
drinking water contaminants under the SDWA for which there are no standards under the CWA.
 Work to develop NRWQC for chemicals (e.g., total phosphorus, bromide) that can be converted to
disinfection by-products in downstream drinking water treatment facilities. This would likely include a
national effort to relate source water data (e.g., total phosphorus, chlorophyll, bromides, dissolved
organic carbon/total organic carbon, temperature) to finished water data (regulated and unregulated
disinfection by-products, type of disinfectant and dosage).

Page 22
Section I: Using WQS
For states and tribes
 If an EPA-recommended water quality criterion protective of a water supply use exists for a pollutant of
concern, states may adopt such a criterion.
 Where such a numeric water quality criterion does not exist in state WQS (and no EPA criterion exists),
states may adopt a MCLG, a human HA value, a human health benchmark for one or more pesticides, or
other scientifically supported values.
 States may also interpret a narrative water quality criterion using any of the above values or derive a
target value using health effects resources.
For EPA program offices, states and tribes
 Share information and identify approaches where states/tribes have developed numeric criteria values
for public water supply protection where no NRWQC are available (e.g., by using IRIS values, HAs,
pesticide benchmarks, MCLGs, etc.);
 Share examples of narrative criteria (and associated translators) that states and tribes have adopted to
protect public water supply and private drinking water uses, including protection from nutrient pollution
and explore the need for a model narrative criterion that protects drinking water sources and that states
can customize for their own use; and
 Explore the potential for developing a numeric “drinking water use” criteria component as a
complement to a criterion value that is based primarily on aquatic life protection and/or provide
guidance to states/tribes on how to develop such a number. Such numbers have been
developed through as HAs, which are similar to MCLGs in that they represent values below
which there are no observable effects.14 A ‘drinking water use’ criterion value may be an
acceptable alternative for those contaminants for which there are no NRWQC or inadequately
protective NRWQC, HAs, or other numeric values. Special consideration should be given to
interstate waters under this option.
 Consider how existing water quality criteria for recreation, fish, and aquatic life may also serve
to protect drinking water sources.
 Desired Outcome
State Water Quality Standards protect downstream public water supplies
The WQS regulation at 40 CFR section 131.10(b) requires that “in designating uses of a water body and the
appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of
downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and
maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.”
 Opportunities
For EPA program offices
 Educate/inform states and tribes on the regulatory requirements related to protection of downstream
waters in WQS;
 Highlight the efforts of the EPA-state workgroup on downstream protection in WQS, including the
templates for narrative criteria15 addressing downstream protection and EPA’s “frequently asked

questions” document on the protection of downstream waters in WQS16, as well as the forthcoming
decision tree tool on protection of downstream waters in WQS; and
 Share the summary of state downstream protection provisions and keep updated.
For state Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water directors
Promote WQS program managers, NPDES permit writers and SDWA programs working together to identify
waters with drinking water intakes and source waters of special interest, and consider downstream waters’
water quality standards when adopting designated uses and criteria for waters upstream of those waters.

 Desired Outcome
Use anti-degradation tools to protect high quality drinking water sources
A state’s or tribe’s anti-degradation program provides a framework for protection of existing uses (that is, those
uses actually attained in a water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in a
state's WQS),17 which must be maintained and protected for all waters of the U.S. (called “Tier 1” protection). A
state’s or tribe’s program also provides a mechanism for the state to make decisions on whether to allow a
lowering of high quality water (called “Tier 2 review”). A state’s or tribe’s program also provides protection for the
existing water quality in any waters that the state has identified as ONRWs in its WQS (called “Tier 3”
protection).
 Opportunities
For EPA program offices, states, tribes, and interested stakeholders
Identify ways CWA programs can protect high quality drinking water sources.
 Consider how state anti-degradation policies and implementation methods protect high quality drinking
water sources and identify gaps. For example, a state’s anti-degradation policy could provide special
consideration for identifying a water body as high quality if it is designated as a public water supply.
 Identify whether waters have ‘drinking water source’ as an existing use that is not a designated use – if
so, consider designating those waters as public water supplies to make it clear for a permit writer to
protect an existing use when deriving permit limits.18
 Where a state uses the “water body-by-water body” approach to identify high quality waters, consider
identifying drinking water sources as high quality waters for Tier 2 protection where those source waters
have quality better than required by one or more state water quality criteria.
 Consider identifying high quality drinking water sources as waters for possible Tier 3 (ONRW) protection
or “Tier 2.5.”
Additional Resources
 EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/
standards/handbook/
 EPA’s National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/
standards/criteria/current/index.cfm
Page 23
Section I: Using WQS
Page 24
Section I: Using WQS
Endnotes
[1] See: <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm>
[2] See: <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm#hhtable> and <http://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/recreation/index.cfm>
[3] See: <http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2011.pdf>
[4] See: <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm#hhtable” and “http://
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/recreation/index.cfm>
[5] See: <http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List> ; another 9 contaminants are regulated using treatment
techniques that do not list MCLs.
[6] See: <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm>
[7] See: <http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012.pdf>
[8] In some cases there is no §304(a) criterion or HA and in other cases the value is numerically greater than the MCL.
[9] See: <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/>
[10] See: <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/>
[11] §303(c)(2), CWA
[12] EPA considers the phrase “existing uses are those uses actually attained” to mean the use and water quality necessary to
support the use that have been achieved in the waterbody on or after November 28, 1975.
[13] See: <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/Smithee-existing-uses-2008-09-23.pdf>.
[14] The term for which is “no observable effect level” or “NOEL.”
[15] See: <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/narrative.cfm>.
[16] Frequently Asked Questions on the Protection of Downstream Waters in WQS. <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/
standards/library/upload/downstream-faqs.pdf >.
[17] EPA considers the phrase “existing uses are those uses actually attained” to mean the use and water quality necessary to
support the use that have been achieved in the waterbody on or after November 28, 1975.
[18] See: <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/concept.cfm>.

Page 25

Using Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired
Waters Listings

SECTION II
Protecting Water Quality and Sources of Drinking Water

Protecting source water by
 Setting priorities in Watershed Plans
 Leveraging technical and financial resources across
programs
Protecting source water with
 NPDES effluent limits and other permit conditions
 Downstream notification
 Green infrastructure planning and stormwater
management
Water Quality Standards
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Point Sources Nonpoint Sources
Protecting source water with
 Assessment methodologies tailored to drinking water
 Data shared by drinking water stakeholders
Monitoring, Assessment, & Impairment Listing
Protecting source water with
 Designated uses for sources of drinking water
 Numeric and narrative water quality criteria
 Anti-degradation tools
Protecting source water by
 Prioritizing TMDLs for impaired source waters
 Developing TMDLs in view of drinking water contaminants
 Supporting nonpoint source controls
 Identifying opportunities to protect waters that are not yet impaired

Page 26
Section II: Using Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listing
Introduction
States implement section 305(b) of the CWA to assess state waters every two years to determine the condition of
the waters. Part of this assessment is determining whether waterbody conditions are attaining WQS. Programs
implementing section 303(d) of the CWA identify waters that are not meeting state WQS (i.e., are impaired) or are
at risk of failing to meet state WQS (i.e., are threatened), and those in need of TMDLs to inform and guide
restoration efforts. States create a “303(d) list” of impaired waters comprised of waters that do not meet state
WQS. States will release a public notice of the 303(d) list and corresponding assessment methodologies for 30 to
90 days prior to final submittal to EPA for approval.
States and tribes have discretion when it comes to prioritizing waters for monitoring of water quality and for TMDL
development and assessment. Increased consultation between drinking water programs and CWA monitoring, 303
(d) listing, and TMDL programs can result in greater involvement of drinking water programs in the assessment
and listing process and improved efficiencies. Coordinated activities can expand awareness of, and accounting for,
source water protection concerns; improve source water quality leading to reduced treatment costs and harmful
disinfection by-products; and increase availability of water quality information.
This section is designed to facilitate state or regional efforts to apply the CWA’s 305(b) and 303(d) assessment
and listing processes to improve the protection of drinking water sources. This section provides ideas for practices
and considerations, and successes that draw upon the experiences of states and others who have undertaken
successful protection efforts.

Background
What is the 305(b) report and how does it relate to the 303(d) list?
Section 305(b) of the CWA requires states to report biennially on the health of their waters, including those waters
that are not listed as impaired. Information from this report, known as the 305(b) report or "biennial water quality
report to Congress," has historically been used in the development of the 303(d) list of waters, waters that have
not attained water quality standards. Most states compile the data and findings from the 305(b) report to produce
the 303(d) list. EPA recommends that states combine the 303(d) list with the 305(b) report to create an
"Integrated Report," due April 1 of even-numbered years.1 States are encouraged to use a five-category system for
classifying all water bodies (or segments) within its boundaries regarding the waters' status in meeting state WQS.
Category 5 designates waters to be placed on the section 303(d) list.2
What is the 303(d) Program?
The CWA section 303(d) Program encompasses activities primarily focused on the assessment and identification
of waters that are not meeting state WQS, as well as the development of TMDLs to inform restoration of those
waters. In the past two decades, the program has undergone a transformation from a relatively unknown set of
tools to a key and essential management strategy that enhances water quality knowledge and improvement
efforts. The section 303(d) Program is a key part of the CWA’s strategy for water quality attainment: translating the
WQS and goals of the states into analyses, pollution reduction targets, and thoughtful plans to achieve cleaner
water.

Page 27
Section II: Using Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listing
What is the 303(d) listing process?
Section 303(d)(1) requires states to identify waters within their borders for which technology-based effluent
limitations or other required pollution controls are not sufficient to implement any WQS applicable to such waters.
This list is often called the “303(d) list” or “Impaired Waters List” and includes waters that are impaired (do not
meet WQS even after pollution controls have been put in place) and threatened (usually interpreted to become
impaired within two years). CWA regulations direct states to evaluate "all existing and readily available water
quality related data and information" when developing their 303(d) lists (40 C.F.R. section 130.7(b) (5)). States are
then required to “establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and
the uses to be made of such waters.”3 Based on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, states develop TMDLs
designed to facilitate bringing those listed waters into attainment. After a TMDL has been developed, wasteload
allocations (WLAs) must be implemented through discharge permits under NPDES. EPA mandates that the 303(d)
list of impaired waters be developed under an assessment every two years and submitted to EPA for approval.
EPA policy allows states to remove water bodies from the list after they have developed a TMDL or after other
changes to correct water quality problems have been made. Occasionally, a water body can be taken off the list as
a result of a change in WQS or removal of designated uses; however, designated uses cannot be deemed
unattainable or removed until a thorough analysis clearly shows that they cannot be attained.4

Desired Outcomes and Opportunities
 Desired Outcome
Source waters used for public water supplies are assessed for attainment of
drinking water uses, and with stakeholder involvement
 Opportunities
For states in collaboration with utilities
The Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
Program identifies “Integration” of the CWA section 303(d) program with other relevant programs as a key
component to more effectively achieve the water quality goals of each state.5 As the plan is carried out, it may
provide further opportunities to address source waters effectively through section 305(b) assessment/reporting
and section 303(d) listing. State CWA programs can work collaboratively with SDWA programs in the following
ways:
Assessment and Listing Methodologies
 State assessment methodology could describe a process for making assessment decisions about
drinking water use support. For example:
 States may have narrative criteria that specify general conditions to protect the beneficial use
of waters for public and private drinking water supplies. Benchmarks or guidance values based
Page 28
Section II: Using Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listing
on drinking water contaminants or water conditions, such as turbidity, could be developed for
applying the narrative criteria in the assessment process.
 States may want to consider expanding or sharpening their definition of drinking water use,
particularly in terms of the distance upstream from intakes to ensure an actionable definition
is usable for the section 303(d) listing process.
 States may also have WQS that include an expectation that “adequate treatment” will be provided by
water supply operators.6 Drinking water programs may need to work with CWA programs to help
establish benchmarks for “adequate treatment” of surface water to be used as a public water supply
(e.g., no more treatment than that which is necessary to address naturally occurring pollutant
concentrations).
 In assessing waterbody condition, drinking water and 303(d) listing programs may find it
useful to look at different water quality concerns that have the same pollutant precursor.
Drinking water impacts can show up as downstream effects (e.g., harmful algal toxins and
disinfection by-products) related to upstream contaminants (e.g., excess nutrients). These
problems are multi-faceted as multiple drinking water issues can be caused by the same
contaminant.
 Prioritize monitoring in waters that are public water supply source waters to provide data for
assessment of those waters; including ground water sources under the influence of surface water.
SDWA programs can provide CWA counterparts with source water intake and wellhead locations via GIS.
303(d) listing programs may also benefit by using delineation maps of public water supply source water
areas developed by state SDWA Source Water Assessment/Protection Programs.
 Explore opportunities to consider upstream waters’ impacts to downstream drinking water sources as
part of states’ Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodologies.
 Consider waters used for drinking water as a factor when prioritizing waters for TMDL development. This
may identify actions to reduce contaminant levels in source waters, either to implement a TMDL, or
other criteria in the absence of a TMDL.
Monitoring Data Collection and Sharing
The CWA regulation at 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(5) directs states to “assemble and evaluate all existing and
readily available water quality-related data” and to actively solicit such data. Data-sharing can help avoid
duplication of efforts, fill gaps in water quality data collected by both programs, identify regional water quality
problems, and guide future sampling plans. Drinking water programs and utilities can become active and
engaged partners in 303(d) listing and other clean water programs by collecting and submitting high quality
data for assessment of water quality, and assisting with pollutant source identification. For example:
 SDWA programs can provide CWA counterparts with drinking water intake locations and source water
area delineations via GIS to facilitate assessment and, if warranted, listing of waters for non-attainment
of the public water supply use.
 Utilities may have monitoring data from untreated surface water for both unregulated (e.g., Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule) as well as SDWA-regulated pollutants for which water quality criteria exist
or could exist in the future. These data can help address gaps in water quality data collected by CWA
programs on waters designated as public water supplies, identify and characterize threats to and
impairments in source waters, and avoid duplication of efforts.
 Data may also be available from wastewater permit programs, CWA section 319 projects, TMDL reports,
universities, watershed groups, regional planning agencies, scenic river coordinators, and county soil
and water conservation districts.
Page 29
Section II: Using Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listing
 States, tribes and EPA can develop formal communication/coordination channels among the programs at
the state and federal levels to achieve an effective, efficient way to accomplish this (note: could
implement as part of the EPA/State 303(d)/TMDL Vision effort).
 Note that data used to determine impairment are subject to state specified data quality requirements.

Additional Resources
Funding Opportunities
Available federal funds from collaborations such as USDA Farm Bill Special Projects (Mississippi River Basin
Initiative, Gulf of Mexico Initiative, National Water Quality Initiative) and EPA Section 106 and Section 319 grants.
Useful Documents
 Western Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 2014 – 03: Water Resource Management in the West
 Western Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 2014 – 04: Water Quality in the West
 EPA Integrated Reporting Guidance at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/
guidance.cfm

Endnotes
[1] See: <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/overview.cfm>
[2] See: <http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/standardsacademy/page7.cfm.> This is the list of waters that require a TMDL.
[3] CWA § 303(d)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(A)
[4] See: <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/overview.cfm>
[5] See: <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/programvision.cfm>.
[6] §1412(b)(3)(C), SDWA

Page 30

Page 31

Using Total Maximum Daily Loads

SECTION III
Protecting Water Quality and Sources of Drinking Water

Protecting source water by
 Setting priorities in Watershed Plans
 Leveraging technical and financial resources across
programs
Protecting source water with
 NPDES effluent limits and other permit conditions
 Downstream notification
 Green infrastructure planning and stormwater
management
Protecting source water with
 Designated uses for sources of drinking water
 Numeric and narrative water quality criteria
 Anti-degradation tools
Water Quality Standards
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Point Sources Nonpoint Sources
Protecting source water with
 Assessment methodologies tailored to drinking water
 Data shared by drinking water stakeholders
Monitoring, Assessment, & Impairment Listing
Protecting source water by
 Prioritizing TMDLs for impaired source waters
 Developing TMDLs in view of drinking water contaminants
 Supporting nonpoint source controls
 Identifying opportunities to protect waters that are not yet impaired

Page 32
Section III: Using TMDLs
Introduction
This section is designed to advance coordination between those responsible for protecting and providing drinking
water and those responsible for the Clean Water Act’s TMDL programs. The goal is to involve TMDL programs in
helping to protect source waters, as well as for source water protection programs to be involved in TMDL
development and implementation. This section provides suggestions derived from TMDL and source water
protection programs on how to accomplish successful protection and restoration efforts.

Background
What are TMDLs?
A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet WQS,
and an allocation of that load among the various sources of that pollutant. As such, each TMDL is waterbody- and
pollutant-specific. TMDLs are required to identify one or more specific pollutant(s) of concern, which may or may
not be referenced as the cause of impairment in the state’s 303(d) list.
The CWA section 303(d) and implementing regulations require that TMDLs be developed for waters that fail to
meet state WQS. The section 303(d) List or Impaired Waters List contains the waters a state has identified as not
meeting one or more WQSs and that need a TMDL (for further information on WQS and 303(d) lists, please see
this Toolkit’s sections on those topics). The TMDL process is important for improving water quality and potentially
protecting source waters because it identifies pollutant allocations to specific sources within the watershed that,
when implemented, will meet WQS.
TMDLs must clearly identify the links between the waterbody use impairment, the causes of impairment, and the
pollutant load reductions needed to meet the applicable WQS.
In a TMDL, pollutant sources are characterized as either point sources that receive a WLA, or nonpoint sources
that receive a load allocation (LA). Point sources include all sources subject to regulation under the NPDES
program, (i.e., wastewater treatment facilities, industrial dischargers, some stormwater discharges, and
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)). NPDES permit effluent limits based on TMDLs, known as water
quality-based limits, must be issued for point sources. Nonpoint sources include all remaining anthropogenic and
natural background sources of the pollutant. TMDLs must also account for seasonal variations in water quality,
and include a margin of safety (MOS) to account for uncertainty in predicting how well pollutant reductions will
result in meeting WQS.
Note that states may use a TMDL-like process to focus on contaminants of concern. Such processes may have
even more opportunities for improving drinking water/source water.
Who develops, approves, and implements TMDLs?
TMDLs are normally developed by a state CWA agency and submitted to EPA for approval but can also originate
from a third party. The CWA requires public involvement in developing TMDLs, however, the level of cross-program
or citizen involvement in the TMDL process varies by state. Typically, the state will circulate draft TMDLs and issue
a formal public notice and allow 30 to 60 days for public comment prior to submitting the TMDL to EPA. In some
Page 33
Section III: Using TMDLs
cases, hearings are held as well. When EPA approves a TMDL, stakeholders participate in determining how the
TMDL could be implemented to reach allowable loading levels.
A third-party TMDL is a TMDL in which an organization or group other than the lead water quality agency takes
responsibility for developing the TMDL document and supporting analysis. A third party can be a watershed group,
municipal wastewater or stormwater discharger organization, industrial discharger entity, other unit of government
(such as a county, city, municipality, or land management agency), or nonpoint source organization (such as a farm
bureau, irrigation and drainage district, or landowner). For example, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
is developing TMDLs as a third party on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for
the Menomonee River, Kinnickinnic River, and Milwaukee River Watersheds, and for the Milwaukee Harbor
Estuary. The pollutants of interest there are fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorous, and sediment. See http://
www.mmsd.com/Report.aspx.
There can be multiple advantages to third parties developing a TMDL. Third parties are often very familiar with
local watershed issues and can provide valuable insights to the TMDL process. The involvement and economic
support of third parties can leverage state funds, as well as the resources and expertise of other agencies and
nongovernmental organizations. Third-party involvement in TMDL decisions may improve the level of stakeholder
support for the TMDL, increase the likelihood of effective implementation of pollutant controls, and increase the
degree of public understanding of TMDLs and water quality protection issues. State agencies, rather than third
parties, ultimately adopt TMDLs and submit them to EPA for approval. Thus, states would need to adopt the
elements of a TMDL developed by the third party.1
After a TMDL has been approved, state and local water quality management plans are updated and control
measures implemented. TMDLs, however, are not self-implementing. EPA does not and cannot enforce
implementation of a TMDL except in the case of setting more stringent permit limits for point sources. States may
have their own authority to enforce nonpoint source reductions. Thus, nonpoint source controls may be
established by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) through either voluntary or mandatory programs
for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and
demonstration projects.
Although states are not required under section 303(d) to develop TMDL implementation plans, many states
include implementation plans with the TMDL or develop them as a separate document. When developed, TMDL
implementation plans may provide additional information on how point and nonpoint sources contribute to the
impairment and how those sources are being controlled, or could be controlled in the future. When allowing for
nonpoint source controls, state implementation plans provide:
1. A reasonable assurance that the controls will be implemented and maintained, or
2. An effective monitoring program to demonstrate that nonpoint source reductions are taking place.
How can TMDLs be used to protect drinking water?
Source water program involvement both early and throughout the TMDL process can allow final TMDLs and
implementation plans to aid source water protection and avoid missed opportunities to protect drinking water.
The approach normally used to develop a TMDL for a particular waterbody or watershed generally consists of six
activities:
1. Identification of the pollutant of concern as defined in the section 303(d) list and a numeric water quality
target. (Note that the pollutant of concern is not always identified at the time of listing. A listing may be
for an “unknown” pollutant.)
2. Selection of study area’s “extent,” as in how far from the compliance point the TMDL analysis will extend
for the pollutant of concern -- the headwaters, upstream confluence, etc..
Page 34
Section III: Using TMDLs
3. Calculation of the waterbody assimilative capacity (i.e., loading capacity).
4. Estimation of the pollutant loading from all sources to the waterbody.
5. Analysis (and water quality modeling) of current pollutant load and determination of needed reductions
to meet the receiving water’s assimilative capacity.
6. Allocation (including a margin of safety) of the allowable pollutant load among the different pollutant
sources in a manner that WQS are achieved.
In each of these above steps, there are opportunities to address drinking water concerns. For example, state water
quality agencies might be able to utilize source water assessment information in developing TMDLs and
implementation plans.
Although TMDLs by definition are intended to restore the quality of impaired waters rather than protect existing
high quality waters, implementation of some TMDLs may help provide source water protection as a “co-benefit.”
Addressing TMDL pollutants not directly of drinking water concern can often lead to indirect source water
protection. For example, hundreds of TMDLs for aquatic life protection have been developed for reservoirs and in
many cases, protecting aquatic life has the additional benefit of protecting drinking water.
Since a TMDL is basically a pollutant budget for a water body or segment of a water body, and sets loading caps
for pollutants, TMDLs do not in themselves result in the attainment of those caps.2 Implementation of the TMDL is
a source water protection opportunity. For example, source water assessment information can be useful in framing
TMDL implementation goals that will address pollutant sources.
One tool for prioritizing source water is the Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) tool at www.epa.gov/
recoverypotential that evaluates the potential restorability of water bodies based on site-specific environmental,
social, and economic factors. There are many uses for RPS, including stakeholder information. Some users apply
screening results to identify the prospects for successful restoration and target these watersheds as a priority.
Others use the screening method to increase awareness of the relative difficulty of restoration in their watersheds,
and apply these insights to planning and implementing a best course of action. Among decision-makers and
communities alike, the relevance to human health or safety is a powerful criteria for determining the importance of
an activity. Associating water quality projects with public health and drinking water can generate significant public
support for restoration.

Page 35
Section III: Using TMDLs

Desired Outcomes and Opportunities
Participation in the TMDL development process by stakeholders like drinking water programs and the public can create
a shared understanding of public drinking water systems and the communities they serve. Such stakeholders may have
fresh insights into what is happening in a given watershed, and this knowledge can be a valuable perspective to help
state water quality agencies develop and implement TMDLs.
Once TMDL development is underway for a pollutant of concern that affects drinking water interests (e.g., pathogens,
nutrients), establishing controls on the pollutant source(s) could help protect aquatic life and source water. For
example, the control of nutrients for source water purposes may improve the availability of dissolved oxygen (DO) which
improves the aquatic habitat.
Source water programs working collaboratively with TMDL programs can:
1. Inform the priority setting and development of TMDLs through data sharing and reviewing draft TMDLs;
2. Support TMDL nonpoint source implementation activities for source waters by providing information from
source water assessments for targeting assistance; and
3. Enhance protection of vulnerable source waters based on quantifiable TMDL data.

 Desired Outcome
TMDL priority setting and development are informed by drinking water information
 Opportunities
For state CWA programs
 Inform the priority setting and development of TMDLs through data sharing (e.g., SDWA programs and/or
utilities could provide turbidity levels, number of days system was impacted and treatment costs to
maintain compliance) and providing early input on developing TMDLs regarding source water concerns.
 State And Regional CWA program staff could routinely (e.g., annually) check with their SDWA counterparts
for an updated list of pollutants of concern to PWSs and the waters where those pollutants have become
problematic.
 CWA programs can help prioritize TMDL development based on source water protection needs. Many states
prioritize TMDL development for drinking water reservoirs. By working with the drinking water program to
provide sufficient and timely information, state CWA staff may rank drinking water sources as high priorities
for taking action to develop or implement TMDLs.
 While CWA programs calculate a TMDL for each impaired segment, they might expand the scope of the
analysis to include tributary streams. While the listed water body may not be a primary drinking water
source, considering its contributions to downstream drinking water sources can facilitate holistic drinking
water protection efforts.
For state drinking water programs and utilities
 Share source water information (in GIS format if available), including intake locations, source water
monitoring data or data regarding public water system closures, etc. to aid in accurate TMDL development.
This information can help characterize the water body impairment(s), identify sources of
Page 36
Section III: Using TMDLs

those impairments and help identify mitigation measures. For example, state drinking water programs
could share data showing the measured turbidity levels and the number of days a PWS intake was
closed due to impaired source waters. Alternatively, the TMDL might be a joint opportunity to gather
data. Source water assessments or sanitary surveys3 can provide helpful information for TMDL
development.
 Developing data sets in source water assessments would make the information in the assessments
more useful to TMDL programs. That may be an incentive for source water programs to strengthen and
update source water protection plans and assessments. If these source water assessments were
updated and incorporated into section 319 nonpoint source plans, then the funding to implement
these plans and their relationship to an approved TMDL could be useful for all programs. However to
date, the source water protection plans written have often lacked the clarity and specificity needed to
be used for implementation with section 319 funds that requires nine defined elements to be included
in watershed based plans.
 Analyze the data for any possible trends over time to inform future section 303(d) listing decisions by
the CWA agency. Even if a source water is not currently impaired, an observed trend towards
impairment would be an opportunity to interject protection measures. Key to collaboration with the
CWA agency is ensuring early submission of any relevant pollutant information to inform the 303(d)
listing process, which is the basis for future TMDLs.
 During TMDL development drinking water programs can share information on susceptible areas
identified by updated source water assessments or protection plans. Identifying the most susceptible
source water areas can guide TMDL WLAs for point sources and LAs for nonpoint source pollution, and
the reduction targets for drinking water supplies. Susceptible source water areas are zones where
potential contaminant sources or land use activities have the greatest potential to adversely affect the
water supply.4 Also, when participating in the TMDL process, drinking water interests may be able to
provide input on the selecting TMDL endpoints (which may need to be different in zones surrounding
intakes), identifying potential pollutant sources, and selecting areas to focus pollutant reduction
activities during the implementation of the TMDL.
 Provide information/reminders of the contribution of ground water to stream flows as a way to address
both ground and surface water.
 Desired Outcome
Support TMDL nonpoint source control implementation
 Opportunities
For state drinking water programs
State source water protection programs can get involved early during the TMDL analysis and development
process. Once a TMDL is developed, source water protection programs can facilitate implementation of
nonpoint source controls by, for example:
 Raising awareness of the public health impacts of contaminant sources.
 Contributing local knowledge and contacts from existing source water collaborative efforts in a
watershed.

Page 37
Section III: Using TMDLs
For state CWA programs:
Where the TMDL analysis identifies nonpoint sources as a major cause of impairment, states can direct cost-
share grant funding, such as section 319 grants, toward implementation of BMPs. These grants can be used
to fund state programs for nonpoint source assessment and control as well as individual projects. The
funding can be targeted in TMDL areas to improve drinking water within the source areas if intakes and
source water protection areas are identified in the 319 workplan. This is part of the new 319 grants
guidance: “Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories” available at http://
water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/319-guidelines-fy14.pdf (See, also, Section V).

 Desired Outcome
Use TMDL process to protect vulnerable source waters that are not yet impaired
 Opportunities
For EPA program offices, states, tribes, and interested stakeholders
 Source water programs can look for ‘protection’ opportunities in the TMDL development process. In
developing a TMDL or series of TMDLs, consider setting protection goals for waterbodies included in
the analysis that are not currently impaired. TMDLs are typically written for restoring impaired waters;
however, states can prepare TMDLs geared towards maintaining a “better than WQS” condition for a
given waterbody-pollutant combination, and they can be a useful tool for high quality waters.
 A TMDL process may lead to the finding that, while major pollutant reductions are not needed, it is
important to have a plan in place that stresses protection and management of current conditions --
particularly in light of growth and development pressures. A TMDL can establish quantifiable goals to
maintain caps on current pollutant loads and identify any reductions necessary to maintain a margin of
safety and allow for future growth.
 TMDLs also may result in protection, even if protection is not typically their primary goal. A TMDL may
be under development for a source water based on impairment of a designated use other than
drinking water supply. Such a scenario is an opportunity to get involved and encourage protection from
degradation. Any pollutant reduction resulting from implementation of a TMDL in a drinking water
supply watershed will help advance protection efforts.

Page 38
Leveraging the 2013 TMDL Program Vision
Within the Section 303(d) program (Listing and TMDLs), EPA and the states have recently developed
together a Visioning Document entitled: A Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection under the
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. EPA will continue to work with states and tribes to strengthen capacities to
identify and address impaired waters. Several of the goals of the Vision document – Program Integration, Protection,
and Prioritization – are especially relevant to source water protection. Relevant excerpts from the document are
included below:
A. Program Integration: By 2016, EPA and the States identify and coordinate implementation of key point source and
nonpoint source control actions that foster effective integration across CWA programs, other statutory programs
(e.g., CERCLA, RCRA, SDWA, CAA), and the water quality efforts of other Federal departments and agencies (e.g.,
Agriculture, Interior, Commerce) to achieve the water quality goals of each state.
The intent of this Goal is to integrate the CWA section 303(d) Program with other relevant programs that play a role
in influencing water quality, in order to collectively and more effectively achieve the water quality goals of states,
tribes, and territories. Because TMDLs are not self-implementing, effective integration of key programs–especially
key CWA programs like listing and TMDLs, WQS, monitoring and assessment, CWA 319, CWA 404, and NPDES–is
important to realize the pollutant reduction goals identified in TMDLs or alternative approaches. It also is important
that integration occur among the different offices in charge of CWA programs within a department or agency as
well as between and among local, state, federal and tribal jurisdictions. Interaction between agencies and non-
governmental interests also may promote effective implementation. Integration is particularly important for
addressing nonpoint source impairments, especially in watersheds crossing multiple jurisdictions and those
involving different CWA programs. A consequence of not integrating effectively is less successful implementation,
especially for TMDLs or alternative approaches that include nonpoint source pollution that typically lie outside the
regulatory reach of the CWA.
This Integration Goal aims to overcome barriers in coordination by aligning diverse program goals for mutual
benefit. To achieve this, cross-program education will be important, in addition to active leadership and
engagement among groups managing these key programs. Sharing institutional knowledge and the history of
established networks will enable the next generation of state and EPA employees and managers to sustain
integrated successes.
B. Protection: For the 2016 reporting cycle and beyond, in addition to the traditional TMDL development priorities
and schedules for waters in need of restoration, States identify protection planning priorities and approaches
along with schedules to help prevent impairments in healthy waters, in a manner consistent with each State’s
systematic prioritization.
The intent of the Protection Goal is to encourage a more systematic consideration of management actions to
prevent impairments in healthy waters (i.e., unimpaired waters) in order to maintain water quality or protect
existing uses or high quality waters. Although protection of healthy waters is envisioned specifically as an objective
of the CWA to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters,”
protection efforts have lagged. Protection and restoration are interdependent goals regarding the “integrity of the
nation’s waters.” Protection of healthy headwaters and wetlands, for instance, helps reduce downstream
restoration challenges and costs, while restoration reduces risks to adjacent protected, healthy waters. Successful
restoration of impaired waters can lay the foundation for committed and continued protection of those same
waters.
Section III: Using TMDLs
Page 39
Section III: Using TMDLs

Although not all states may ultimately choose to use protection approaches, opportunities for protection within the
context of state-wide water quality goals can be an important component to achieving water quality objectives. For
example, setting CWA 303(d) Program priorities could involve consideration of the restoration potential of impaired
waters adjacent or upstream to healthy watersheds. Such coordinated efforts could lead to realizing more effective
results than isolated, individual protection or restoration actions. Also, under the protection Goal, healthy waters at risk
of becoming impaired could be identified as part of the CWA 303(d) Program prioritization process.
Some states have used their CWA 401 certification or anti-degradation programs to protect healthy waters and
habitats. Some Tribes have also promoted the concept of protection in their water programs. Protection provisions are
included in the CWA 303(d) regulations, including the opportunity to establish TMDLs for information purposes
(“informational TMDLs”) or the need to list threatened waters. EPA is also promoting a voluntary Healthy Watershed
Initiative (HWI) whereby it will work with state and other partners to identify healthy watersheds and to develop and
implement healthy watershed protection plans to maintain the integrity of those waters. Likewise, states could consider
leveraging their existing work to identify high quality waters and ONRWs for anti-degradation purposes.
C. Prioritization: For the 2016 integrated reporting cycle and beyond, States review, systematically prioritize, and report
priority watersheds or waters for restoration and protection in their biennial integrated reports to facilitate State
strategic planning for achieving water quality goals.
The intent of the Prioritization Goal is for states to express CWA 303(d) Program priorities in the context of the state’s
broader, overall water quality goals. The CWA 303(d) Program provides an integrating function because it translates
state water quality standards into pollution reduction targets for the point source permitting and nonpoint sources
management programs as well as other programs outside the CWA.
Linking the CWA 303(d) Program priorities with those of other programs can aid in strategically focusing limited state
resources to address priority waters through water quality assessments, TMDL or alternative approaches, water quality
protection strategies, implementation actions and follow-up monitoring. Establishing CWA 303(d) Program priorities will
lead to more efficient and effective program management, yielding faster progress toward water quality improvement
and protection.
Additional Resources
 EPA, 2013: Final “A Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection under the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) Program” http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/programvision.cfm
 EPA, 2013: “Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories” http://
water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/319-guidelines-fy14.pdf
 http://www.waterrf.org/ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/4007_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
 EPA/Water Environment Federation, Third Party TMDL Development Toolkit http://water.epa.gov/
lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/ToolkitWebVersion.pdf
Endnotes
[1] WERF, Drinking Water Source Protection through Effective Use of TMDL Processes [Project #4007] Order #: 4007; Fall
2010; Principal Investigators: Karen S. Sklenar & Laura J. Blake “http://www.waterrf.org/
ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/4007_ExecutiveSummary.pdf”
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Sanitary survey is on-site review of a public water system’s water source, facilities, equipment, operation, and mainte-
nance.” See: <http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/dwatraining/sanitarysurvey/index.cfm>.
Page 40
Section III: Using TMDLs
[4] WERF, Drinking Water Source Protection through Effective Use of TMDL Processes [Project #4007] Order #: 4007; Fall 2010;
Principal Investigators: Karen S. Sklenar & Laura J. Blake “http://www.waterrf.org/
ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/4007_ExecutiveSummary.pdf”
Page 41

Using National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Programs

SECTION IV
Protecting Water Quality and Sources of Drinking Water

Protecting source water by
 Setting priorities in Watershed Plans
 Leveraging technical and financial resources across
programs
Protecting source water with
 NPDES effluent limits and other permit conditions
 Downstream notification
 Green infrastructure planning and stormwater
management
Protecting source water with
 Designated uses for sources of drinking water
 Numeric and narrative water quality criteria
 Anti-degradation tools
Water Quality Standards
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Point Sources Nonpoint Sources
Protecting source water with
 Assessment methodologies tailored to drinking water
 Data shared by drinking water stakeholders
Monitoring, Assessment, & Impairment Listing
Protecting source water by
 Prioritizing TMDLs for impaired source waters
 Developing TMDLs in view of drinking water contaminants
 Supporting nonpoint source controls
 Identifying opportunities to protect waters that are not yet impaired

Page 42
Section IV: Using NPDES
Introduction
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by
regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into surface waters.1 NPDES permits contain several
components that can be used to help protect public water supplies:
1. Technology-based effluent limits are based on national minimum performance standards for publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) and many categories of industrial dischargers.
2. Water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) are based on applicable WQS of the receiving water and
reflect a positive determination that, without such limit, the discharge will exceed or has the reasonable
potential to exceed those standards.
3. Monitoring and reporting requirements can be used to identify pollutants of concern in the discharge and
alert permitting authorities when permit violations occur.
4. Standard conditions are uniform in all permits, but several can be relevant to protecting drinking water,
such as a 24-hour reporting requirement of events that result in the discharge in excess of certain permit
effluent limits, rules for any anticipated noncompliance, and, for POTWs, notification of new pollutants or
change in pollutant volume or character.
5. Special conditions may include best management practices, special studies, and pretreatment
requirements.
For more information on NPDES technology-based and water quality-based limits, monitoring and reporting
requirements, standard conditions, and special conditions, please see the NPDES Permit Writers Manual http://
cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/writermanual.cfm.

Background
What are Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits?
State water quality standards consist of designated uses, water quality criteria to protect these uses, an anti-
degradation policy to protect existing uses and high quality waters, and general policies addressing
implementation issues. NPDES permits establish discharge limits that are necessary to ensure compliance with
applicable state water quality standards. When technology-based effluent limits are not sufficient to attain state
water quality standards applicable to a receiving water, WQBELs must be established. WQBELs must control all
pollutants that the permitting authority determines are or may be discharged at levels that will cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above a state water quality standard in receiving
waters. WQBELs are numeric discharge limits calculated on the basis of allocating, to the discharger, its share of
the total allowable cumulative discharge of pollutants that will achieve the water quality standard in-stream
concentration. WQBELs include consideration of, among other factors, upstream concentrations, effluent
concentration and flow, and the flow of the receiving waters. State water quality standard implementation
procedures address these factors and are used by NPDES permitting authorities to develop permit limits. The
implementation procedures may also include detailed information for establishing a dilution allowance or
Page 43
Section IV: Using NPDES
regulatory mixing zone, to allow for mixing of effluents with receiving waters, as authorized under the state’s water
quality standards.
States establish water quality criteria for aquatic life and human health protection; the latter may consider human
health from exposure to pollutants through recreation, drinking water, and/or fish consumption. Where multiple
criteria for a pollutant apply to a receiving water, effluent limits (where necessary) must derive from and ensure
compliance with all of the applicable criteria. Where a specific numeric criterion does not exist, permitting
authorities may calculate a site-specific water quality target concentration based on an interpretation of an
applicable narrative water quality criterion and use that numeric target to establish WQBELs. Alternatively,
permitting authorities may use indicator parameters to control pollutants of concern.
Who Develops WQBELs?
Permit writers (or water quality modeling specialists) in each state or EPA Region (where a state does not have
NPDES authority) use state and federal regulations and relevant data to determine what WQBELs could be
included in each NPDES permit.
How Can WQBELs Be Used to Protect Drinking Water?
Where numeric criteria have been established to protect the receiving water as a public water supply, WQBELs
derived from these numeric human health criteria would be required for any point source discharge found to have
“reasonable potential.”
In cases where numeric human health criteria for specific pollutants of concern are not found in state water quality
standards, states or EPA may develop effluent limits based on applicable narrative water quality criteria.
Information that might be used to interpret the narrative criteria and develop site-specific water quality targets
(and WQBELs derived from these targets) to protect drinking water include MCLGs, MCLs and HAs established
under SDWA; as well as health advisories using information under other statutes and regulations (e.g., human
health benchmarks for pesticides calculated from information developed under FIFRA and risk-based screening
levels calculated for use in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
remediation and removal programs). States may also consider the acceptable risk level established for
carcinogens under their water quality criteria for human health protection.
What are Pretreatment Local Limits?
Generally, POTWs are designed to treat domestic wastewater only. However, POTWs also receive wastewater from
industrial (non-domestic) users (IUs). The general pretreatment regulations establish responsibilities of federal,
state, and local government, industry and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control pollutants
from the IUs which may pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or which may contaminate
sewage sludge. Categorical pretreatment standards are national standards developed by EPA for IUs in specific
industrial subcategories. “Local limits” are designed to address the needs and concerns of a specific POTW, its
sludge, and its receiving waters. The federal regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 403.5(c)
and section 122.44(j)(2)(ii) require POTWs to evaluate the need for local limits and, if necessary, implement and
enforce specific limits as part of pretreatment program activities.
Who Develops Pretreatment Local Limits?
Municipalities with state or EPA-approved pretreatment programs develop their own local limits.
How Can Pretreatment Local Limits Be Used to Protect Drinking Water?
The Local Limits Development Guidance document2 discusses the need to address impacts to downstream
drinking water facilities, in the context of identifying and protecting the designated uses of the state water quality
standards or applicable criteria for the POTW effluent receiving water body. Pollutants of concern to drinking water
Page 44
Section IV: Using NPDES
intakes could be the subject of particular interest when developing local limits. In the context of resource
protection, the guidance discusses the incorporation of ground water protection, water reclamation and reuse
projects, and UIC requirements into the determination of effluent-quality based headworks loading assessments
(i.e., determinations of what concentrations of certain pollutants can be received at the point at which wastewater
enters a wastewater treatment plant without violating local pretreatment program requirements).
Another concern, when considering the potential impacts of industrial users in connection with impacts on sources
of drinking water, is the likely large number of IUs who have, over time, ceased discharging to POTWs and found
other means of disposal of their wastes (e.g., landfills, unlined pits), which, in turn, may be problematic for ground
water at the source of disposal. In addition, pollutants may be reintroduced to POTWs from disposal facilities (e.g.,
as leachate from landfills) and need to be addressed.
What is Green Infrastructure?
Stormwater runoff is a major cause of water pollution in urban areas. When rain falls in undeveloped areas, the
water is absorbed and filtered by soil and plants. When rain falls on roofs, streets, and parking lots, however, the
water cannot soak into the ground. In most urban areas, stormwater is drained through engineered collection
systems and discharged into nearby waterbodies. The stormwater carries trash, bacteria, heavy metals, and other
pollutants from the urban landscape, degrading the quality of the receiving waters. Higher flows can also cause
erosion and flooding in urban streams, damaging habitat, property, and infrastructure.

Green Infrastructure (GI) uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create healthier
urban environments. At the scale of a city or county, GI refers to the patchwork of natural areas that provides
habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water. At the scale of a neighborhood or site, GI refers to
stormwater management systems that mimic nature by soaking up and storing water. Note that, for the purposes
of this document, Low Impact Development (LID) and GI are interchangeable terms. Both refer to an approach to
land development that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible.
Who Approves GI projects?
Local governments typically make decisions about whether and how to use GI to manage stormwater. However,
some of these applications may fall under the jurisdiction of state and/or federal permitting programs or
regulations (e.g., Class V Underground Injection Control Regulations).
How Can GI Be Used to Protect Drinking Water?
By managing runoff at its source, GI reduces the volume of urban runoff that enters storm sewer systems. Lower
runoff volumes translate into reduced combined sewer overflows and reduced stormwater discharge volumes.
These changes translate, in turn, into lower pollutant loads to receiving waters. GI techniques can also be used to
treat stormwater that is not retained on site. By mimicking natural processes of infiltration, GI helps to mitigate
excess sedimentation in reservoirs, mobilization of pathogens, flooding, and erosion to surface waters due to high
volumes of stormwater runoff.
However, infiltration also increases recharge to ground water aquifers and USDWs. Therefore, while green
approaches have a proven track record and offer an attractive and more sustainable infrastructure option, their
siting and use needs to consider the potential for contaminating ground water sources of drinking water. A best
practice when considering infiltrating stormwater is to strike the right balance between protecting surface waters
and increasing ground water recharge, while minimizing the risk to impairing ground water quality.
Some geologic/hydrologic conditions increase susceptibility of ground water to contamination from infiltration
because of their decreased ability to filter out contaminants in stormwater (e.g., karst terrain and highly permeable
soils). In these areas, practices that introduce stormwater directly into the subsurface and bypass natural methods
Page 45
Section IV: Using NPDES

of filtration may contribute to the presence of contaminants in USDWs. Such practices may include infiltration
basins, infiltration trenches, porous pavements, rain gardens, swales and filter strips, detention ponds, and
stormwater dry wells.
Prevalent contaminants is another key factor to consider when developing GI solutions. For example, metals may
be captured within the first soil layer. Chloride, however, is a pollutant of concern that is often not retained within
the soil and flows into source waters. In cases of highly soluble and mobile contaminants such as chlorides, source
reduction is a recommended complement to GI practices.
Adverse consequences of GI can be minimized by considering surrounding geology and landscape, land use,
potential contaminants, and nearby wellhead protection areas when siting GI projects. Note that stormwater
infiltration to a hole that is deeper than it is wide or via a subsurface fluid distribution system may be subject to
SDWA and UIC requirements. EPA guidance on GI solutions includes warnings to consider siting, soils, type of
stormwater, and mobilization, when considering development of GI. Some of the newer GI designs may be able to
better protect against this leaching of pollutants more effectively, but more research is needed.

Desired Outcomes and Opportunities
 Desired Outcome
NPDES permits reflect contaminants of concern to drinking water systems
Significant potential exists for writing NPDES permits that are more protective of drinking water sources.
WQBELs in permits must be based on WQS and are developed when there is a finding that the pollutant of
concern will cause or has the reasonable potential to cause an excursion above any applicable WQS, including
criteria for the protection of drinking water sources in cases where the WQS include public water supply as the
designated use. Permit writers often face challenges when developing WQBELs for pollutants of concern to
drinking water sources because many states rely on narrative water quality criteria, rather than numeric
criteria. These states would need to interpret the narrative criteria on a case-specific basis, a process that can
be limited by available data for the specific waterbody and access to tools to interpret narrative criteria. For a
more detailed examination of WQS and recommendations for how appropriate criteria can be adopted to
protect PWSs, please see Section I of this document.
State Water Directors, NPDES staff, and drinking water staff can work together to increase the level of
protection that NPDES permits provide. A starting point for protection of public water supplies is to bring the
contaminants of concern to PWSs to the attention of permit writers. Analysis could be based on source water
quality data, MCL violations, or information found in the source water assessment for a particular water
supply. A useful tool in this process is a matrix of contaminants of concern indicating whether a contaminant
is covered by an existing Federal or state MCL, or a state numeric WQS.
An additional layer of protection could be that EPA’s selection of state permits for review, as part of its regular
oversight duties, be based on proximity to downstream drinking water intakes. Reviews of those permits be
conducted in “real time” as the permits are being developed, rather than retrospectively. This would provide
enhanced assurance that the permits are protective of the drinking water use. The permit application
Page 46
Section IV: Using NPDES
requirements could also be enhanced to require more information as to the nearest downstream drinking
water systems.
 Opportunities
For state water directors and permit writers
 Matrix of Contaminants: Develop, for consideration by state CWA and SDWA staff, a state-specific
matrix comparing state numeric water quality criteria within state WQS, with state MCLs3 as well as
other contaminants of concern to sources of drinking water that may not yet be regulated. As a starting
point for reference, one could use the national-level matrix comparing MCLs and nationally
recommended water quality criteria (See Appendix A).
 Locate permitted outfalls (using GIS mapping if possible) in relation to surface water intakes for
PWSs.
 Inventory and describe available data about problems experienced by PWSs in the state attributed
to upstream pollutant sources (e.g., monitoring data, epidemiological data).
 Georeference all such data. Develop a systematic approach to working through – on a stream
reach-by-stream reach basis – available data on pollutants of concern.
 Develop an approach to cross-walk a PWS's “pollutants of concern” with the contaminants in each
upstream NPDES permittee’s discharge to identify pollutant loadings that may benefit from further
analyses.
 Water Quality Standards: States could adopt numeric WQS for contaminants regulated under the
SDWA that would help ensure that PWS standards are achieved without the need to provide additional
drinking water treatment; or alternatively, numerically interpret, on a site-specific basis, a narrative
WQS to provide the necessary ambient target value to support the development of protective WQBELs.
 Conditions in General Permits: In instances where the permit writer does not review site specific
information for permits (i.e., general permits), states could evaluate how special conditions in general
permits can be written to protect drinking water and public health by requiring the identification and
assessment of drinking water intakes as part of the permit application process. This can lead to a
greater awareness of their proximity to drinking water intakes and flag potential issues for permit
writers for public notice requirements and permit review.
For permit writers
 Permit Limits: Write effluent limitations and conditions to prevent harmful concentrations of
contaminants of concern from reaching the intakes of PWSs.
 Once WQSs for the protection of public water supplies are in place and there are specific numeric
criteria or a narrative criterion that allows the permit writer to consider such impacts, permit
writers will be better able to write permits with appropriate ambient targets.
 Where a state has not established a water quality criterion for a specific chemical pollutant that is
present in an effluent at a concentration that causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an excursion above a narrative criterion, the permitting authority must establish
effluent limits. 40 CFR section 122.44(d)(1)(vi) provides specific approaches that must be used to
develop the effluent limitations when this situation occurs.
Page 47
Section IV: Using NPDES
 When setting permit limits, permitting authorities could take into account the potential effect of
multiple dischargers on a receiving stream. As multiple discharges of different quality comingle in
a water body, a synergistic or chemical reaction may result that may be of concern to the PWS.
 Reasonable Potential Analysis Examples: Examples can be developed to assist permit writers with
conducting “reasonable potential” analysis (to determine whether a discharge has the reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any applicable ambient water quality
standard) where excursions of a narrative criterion might occur at a downstream drinking water
intake point.
 Monitoring Requirements: Where evidence indicates the presence of a pollutant of concern for a
downstream drinking water source, permits could include additional monitoring to collect the data
necessary to quantify and model the fate and transport of the pollutant of concern in the receiving
water (e.g., significant dischargers of phosphorus upstream of a drinking water source could be
required to measure downstream phosphorus and chlorophyll).
For state drinking water staff and NPDES staff in collaboration
 State Contaminants List: The state drinking water program could develop a checklist that includes a
comprehensive list of contaminants of concern under SDWA – both statewide and for particular
geographic settings. Then, the state can develop numeric water quality criteria or interpret a narrative
WQS for those pollutants of concern from which a permit writer can derive a permit limit.
 List of Drinking Water Intakes: Each state could establish and maintain a shared and geo-referenced
database between drinking water and NPDES staff detailing locations of drinking water intakes and
wells and specific contaminants of concern at those intakes or wells, as well as suspected sources of
those contaminants e.g., from updated state source water assessments. (Note that some sources of
contaminants may be best addressed by nonpoint source control programs or ground water protection
programs outside the scope of NPDES).
 Prioritizing Inspections and Enforcement in Highly Susceptible Drinking Water Areas: Drinking water
protection staff could assist permitting programs to prioritize resources for inspections and
enforcement in areas that have the greatest potential to impact drinking water supplies.
 Narrative Criteria Protocol: If the state does not have a protocol for translating a narrative criterion, the
drinking water program, the WQS program, and the permitting program could collaborate in developing
a protocol to protect the sources for PWSs. If there is no numeric or narrative standard, there is no
defensible basis for the permit writer to conduct reasonable potential analyses and develop a permit
limit.
For pretreatment program staff and/or POTWs
 Consideration of Downstream Drinking Water: Managers of local pretreatment programs (at POTWs)
could take into account any impacts downstream of the POTW discharge when considering developing
local limits. In addition, POTWs need to include other potential pollutant pathways such as land filled
sludge generating leachate that is reaching receiving streams or ground waters, thereby affecting
source water.
 Pretreatment Intake Analyses: POTWs should review full analyses of industrial and commercial waste
that they accept, including trucked-in waste, when determining potential pollutants of concern for local
limits development.

Page 48
Section IV: Using NPDES
 Watershed Planning: As mentioned in the previous section, a systematic and intentional review of
pollutants of concern to downstream drinking water intakes could be conducted. WQS and the
associated beneficial uses, including downstream uses, could be clearly identified when determining
pollutants of concern during the development of POTW local limits. These could be part of watershed
planning.
 Desired Outcome
NPDES permittees, producers and operators adequately notify downstream and
affected drinking water systems of spills, CAFO discharges, and intentions to apply
biosolids/manure or pesticides/herbicides.
Drinking water treatment facilities are not always given timely or complete notice of spills or other instances
of non-compliance by upstream industrial or municipal dischargers, CAFOs, biosolid/manure spreading
applications, and operators who apply pesticides/herbicides. This lack of information can make the process of
providing safe drinking water more difficult and expensive for these facilities. When notified early on, PWSs
can take preventative actions such as requesting that customers reduce demand, adding activated carbon,
shutting down their intake, etc.. Farms, ranches, and CAFOs that have discharges and/or conduct biosolid/
manure spreading applications in some (or many) cases may not be required to have a permit or are self-
permitting, but can also directly impact drinking water systems, particularly after a rain event. NPDES permits
are routinely required to contain some notification conditions, but these typically stipulate only that EPA and/
or the permitting authority, and not necessarily the PWS, be notified of spills and intentions to apply
pesticides/herbicides. In many cases, a permitting authority may later determine that a divergence from
NPDES permit limits could be considered an instance of non-compliance, long after the effects have reached
downstream sources. It is recommended that permit writers consider including, where appropriate, permit
conditions with limitations or notification procedures that more effectively and in a more timely manner
protect drinking water sources and inform PWSs e.g., permit writers could include the contaminant Time of
Travel from the discharge point to the downstream drinking water intake(s) in the permit. At a minimum,
better coordination and communication between the upstream dischargers (including agricultural producers
and pesticide/herbicide application operators) and downstream users will result in safer and more reliable
drinking water.
 Opportunities
For state drinking water staff and NPDES staff in collaboration
 List of Critical Permits: State clean water and drinking water regulatory authorities could coordinate
regularly (e.g., at least on an annual basis) to develop and update a list of NPDES permits which are up
for renewal linked to the closest downstream drinking water intake or to intakes that are located within a
particular distance (e.g., 10 river miles, 3,000 feet on a lake) or dilution factor4 from the discharge
point.). The state’s Source Water Assessment Reports may be a useful resource for this exercise, as they
typically include geographically referenced PWS intakes and NPDES-permitted outfalls.
 Emergency Planning: If they are not already, the state clean water and drinking water programs could
work with their Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know programs to develop an emergency
response plan regarding spills to surface waters that have the potential to impact drinking water plants
downstream. Examples of such agreements can be found in Appendices B and C.

Page 49
Section IV: Using NPDES

For permit writers
 Notification Requirements in Permits: Upon renewal, NPDES permits with outfalls (or biosolid/manure or
pesticide/herbicide application sites) of concern to PWSs (as discussed in the previous bullet) could
include language requiring the permittee to provide notification (or in the absence of a permit, asking
producers and operators to provide 48 hours’ notification) to potentially affected PWS operators.
 The details of a notification plan are likely best left to negotiations and discussions between the
dischargers or operators of CAFOs and application sites, and the PWS operators. Such discussions
allow affected parties the opportunity to reach a mutual agreement that considers their unique
circumstances. That being said, a permit writer may want to include, as a permit condition, a
qualitative description of the objectives of such notification (e.g., that it be timely; that it be given to
those likely to be impacted, taking into consideration dilution and time of travel; that it be developed in
consultation with the downstream user(s)).
 PWS operations that are located within the pre-determined distance or time of travel (e.g., 48 hours)
from an NPDES permitted outfall may be listed in the NPDES permit to avoid confusion as to which
entities require notification.
 Producers that operate farms, ranches, and CAFOs (that may or may not be required to have a permit
or may be self-permitting), can be asked to provide advance notification (e.g., 48 hours) to the public
water supply, of their intent to discharge or conduct biosolid/manure spreading applications.
 Desired Outcome
GI planning, stormwater, and UIC permits include considerations of drinking water
sources.
 Opportunities
For states and local entities, and developers
 Review local codes and ordinances for compatibility with GI: local codes and ordinances, such as
minimum parking requirements or landscaping codes, can sometimes pose barriers to the
implementation of GI.
 Consider including smart growth techniques as a means to preemptively protect both water
quality and source water by avoiding some of the worst effects of unplanned growth.
 Consider use of enhanced or constructed wetlands, and conservation land and buffers, as
pretreatment or post treatment for drinking water utilities or POTWs, respectively.
 When considering ground water infiltration techniques to reduce surface water runoff and
pollution, aim to strike the right balance between protecting surface waters and increasing
ground water recharge, while minimizing risk to ground water quality.
 GI practices could prioritize roofs to ground water over street/parking lot to ground water.
 Consider the siting and construction cautions mentioned under the discussion “For Developers”
below, when evaluating applications for GI facilities.
Page 50
Section IV: Using NPDES
For drinking water, stormwater, and UIC program staff in collaboration
 Drinking water staff can work directly with CWA stormwater programs on MS4 permits and UIC
program staff on prioritizing and implementation of UIC inspections and permit conditions.
For state UIC program permit writers
 Notify PWSs of UIC injection activities within a source water protection area.
 Consider potential drinking water health impacts from contaminants in the wastewater discharge.
For developers
 Use Appropriate GI Practices: Site GI projects properly to avoid unintended consequences. Note that
ground water infiltration may be subject to the UIC Program under SDWA if the method of infiltration
entails a hole in the ground that is deeper than it is wide,5 or involves subsurface distribution systems
or the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a well.
 Practice rainwater harvesting, where appropriate, which can reduce demand for treated drinking water
while reducing stormwater runoff. While infiltration-based GI practices can augment ground water
supplies, care should be taken in siting these practices. To avoid contamination of ground water,
practitioners should be aware of the presence of contaminants in soils or runoff, as well as the
proximity of proposed practices to wells and wellhead protection areas. Practitioners should use this
information to select projects that minimize the risk to ground water resources. The state’s Source
Water Assessment Reports are helpful tools in determining the location of drinking water wells and
wellhead protection areas, as well as karst topography and areas with shallow depth to ground water.6
Additional Resources
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits: Regulations and Guidance
 40 CFR section 122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions - “…. each
NPDES permit shall include conditions meeting the following requirements when applicable.
(d) Water quality standards and State requirements: any requirements in addition to or more stringent
than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards under sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318
and 405 of CWA necessary to:
(section 1) Achieve water quality standards established under section 303 of the CWA, including
State narrative criteria for water quality.
(section 6) Where a State has not established a water quality criterion for a specific chemical
pollutant that is present in an effluent at a concentration that causes, has the reasonable potential
to cause, or contributes to an excursion above a narrative criterion within an applicable State water
quality standard, the permitting authority must establish effluent limits using one or more of the
following options:
(A) Establish effluent limits using a calculated numeric water quality criterion for the pollutant which the
permitting authority demonstrates will attain and maintain applicable narrative water quality criteria and
Page 51
Section IV: Using NPDES
will fully protect the designated use. Such a criterion may be derived using a proposed state criterion, or an
explicit State policy or regulation interpreting its narrative water quality criterion, supplemented with other
relevant information which may include: EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook, October 1983, risk
assessment data, exposure data, information about the pollutant from the Food and Drug Administration,
and current EPA criteria documents; or
(B) Establish effluent limits on a case-by-case basis, using EPA's Nationally Recommended Water Quality
Standards supplemented where necessary by other relevant information; or
(C) Establish effluent limitations on an indicator parameter for the pollutant of concern, provided:
(1) The permit identifies which pollutants are intended to be controlled by the use of the effluent
limitation;
(2) The fact sheet required by 40 CFR section 124.56 sets forth the basis for the limit, including a
finding that compliance with the effluent limit on the indicator parameter will result in controls on the
pollutant of concern which are sufficient to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards;
(3) The permit requires all effluent and ambient monitoring necessary to show that during the term of
the permit the limit on the indicator parameter continues to attain and maintain applicable water
quality standards; and
(4) The permit contains a reopener clause allowing the permitting authority to modify or revoke and
reissue the permit if the limits on the indicator parameter no longer attain and maintain applicable
water quality standards.”
 NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual (September 2010) – Chapter 6 discusses development of WQBELs,
primarily based on numeric WQS or Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) requirements to implement narrative
standards where applicable.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control (TSD). Technical guidance for assessing and regulating the discharge of toxic substances to the
waters of the US. Provides guidance to permitting authorities on effluent characterization and WLA
development.
 2012 Edition of Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories - <http://water.epa.gov/action/
advisories/drinking/upload/dwstandards2012.pdf>.
 Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides - EPA has developed human health benchmarks for
approximately 350 pesticides to enable our partners to better determine whether the detection of a
pesticide in drinking water or source waters for drinking water may indicate a potential health risk. This
table includes benchmarks for acute (one-day) and chronic (lifetime) exposures for the most sensitive
populations from exposure to pesticides that may be found in surface or ground water sources of drinking
water. <http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=HHBP:home>.
 “Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites” <http://www.epa.gov/
reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/>.This website was developed with DOE's Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL) under an Interagency Agreement as an update of the EPA Region 3 RSL Table,
Region 6 HHMSSL Table and the Region 9 PRG Table. Here you will find tables of risk-based screening
levels, calculated using the latest toxicity values, default exposure assumptions and physical and chemical
properties, and a calculator where default parameters can be changed to reflect site-specific risks. Values
are reported for cancer and non-cancer risk screening in specific tables for various exposure routes,
including tap water.
Page 52
Section IV: Using NPDES
Local Limits in the Pretreatment Program: Regulations and Guidance
 40 CFR section 403.5(c) When specific limits must be developed by POTW.
(section 1) “Each POTW developing a POTW Pretreatment Program pursuant to section 403.8 shall
develop and enforce specific limits to implement the prohibitions listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of
this section. Each POTW with an approved pretreatment program shall continue to develop these limits
as necessary and effectively enforce such limits.
(section 2) All other POTWs shall, in cases where pollutants contributed by User(s) result in Interference
or Pass-Through, and such violation is likely to recur, develop and enforce specific effluent limits for
Industrial User(s), and all other users, as appropriate, which, together with appropriate changes in the
POWT Treatment Plant’s facilities or operation, are necessary to ensure renewed and continue
compliance with the POTW’s NPDES permit or sludge use or disposal practices.”
 Local Limits Development Guidance
This manual provides guidance to municipalities on the development and implementation of local
controls for discharges of industrial or commercial wastes to sewage treatment facilities. This manual
provides technical assistance and guidance on: Determining pollutants of concern; Collecting and
analyzing data; Calculating maximum allowable loadings; Designating and implementing local limits to
protect wastewater treatment and collection systems; and Performing annual reviews and periodic re-
evaluations. See discussions in chapter 3.2.2 for identifying Pollutants of Concern based on Water
Quality Standards or Criteria, and chapter 5.2.2 for Calculation of Allowable Headworks Loadings for both
Water Quality Standards or Criteria and Resource Protection.
 EPA Supplemental Manual on the Development And Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations
Under the Pretreatment Program: Residential and Commercial Toxic Pollutant Loadings and POTW
Removal
This manual provides information related to residential and commercial sources of toxic pollutants and
estimated removal efficiencies of municipal treatment processes.
Noncompliance Notification: Regulations
 40 CFR section 122.41 (l)(2) Anticipated noncompliance
“The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility
or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
 40 CFR section 122.41 (l)(6) Twenty-four hour reporting
(i) The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any
information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the
noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the
noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken
or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.

Page 53
Section IV: Using NPDES
 40 CFR section 122.41 (l)(7) Other noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under paragraphs (l) (4), (5), and
(6) of this section, at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information
listed in paragraph (l)(6) of this section.
 40 CFR section 122.41 (m)(3) Notice- (i) Anticipated bypass
If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least
ten days before the date of the bypass.
 40 CFR section 122.41 (m)(3) Notice- (ii) Unanticipated bypass
The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required in paragraph (l)(6) of this
section (24-hour notice).”
 State-specific Rules may also apply:
For example, Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-33-08(F) – Notification to public water supply
operators: Permits for facilities designated by the director as major discharges, in the following locations,
shall require the permittee to notify the public water supply operator as soon as practicable after a
discharge begins that results from a spill, separate sewer overflow, bypass, upset, or combined sewer
overflow that reaches waters of the state: (a) Discharges within three thousand feet of a public water
supply intake located in a lake; or (b) Discharges within ten stream miles upstream of a public water
supply intake located in a reservoir or any other surface water of the state.
Green Infrastructure: EPA Fact Sheets and Memos
 Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Stormwater Runoff to Prevent Contamination of
Drinking Water
A resource for professionals and citizens involved in planning and decision-making in the areas of
stormwater management and source water protection.
 Memorandum: Achieving Water Quality Through Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Plans
In October 2011, EPA’s Office of Water (OW) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) issued a joint memo encouraging EPA Regions to assist their state and local partners in pursuing
an integrated planning approach to CWA waste and stormwater obligations. The memo identifies GI as
one example of a comprehensive solution that can improve water quality while supporting other quality of
life attributes that enhance the vitality of communities.
 Memorandum: Protecting Water Quality with Green Infrastructure in Water Permitting and Enforcement
Programs
In April 2011, EPA OW and OECA jointly issued a memo supporting the use of GI. The memo reaffirms the
commitment of both offices to work with interested communities on incorporating GI into stormwater
permits and into remedies for non-compliance with the CWA.
 Memorandum: Clarification on Which Stormwater Infiltration Practices/Technologies have the Potential
to be Regulated as "Class V" Wells by the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
In June 2008, EPA issued a memo reaffirming its support of the use of infiltration practices for managing
stormwater, and providing an overview of UIC program requirements for stormwater infiltration practices
Page 54
Section IV: Using NPDES
that are classified as Class V wells. The memo is supported by a guide describing the major types of
stormwater infiltration practices and explaining which practices are generally considered class V wells.
 Memorandum: Use of Green Infrastructure in NPDES Permits and Enforcement
In August, 2007, EPA issued a memo encouraging the incorporation of GI into NPDES stormwater permits
and CSO long-term control plans. Additionally, the memo states that GI can and will be used in future EPA
enforcement activities.
 Memorandum: Using Green Infrastructure to Protect Water Quality in Stormwater, CSO, Nonpoint Source
and other Water Programs
In March, 2007 Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water, issued this memo to
promote GI as a viable stormwater management solution.
 Incorporating Green Infrastructure Concepts into TMDLs
EPA fact sheet summarizes how GI/LID practices can be incorporated into TMDLs, and examines how
these concepts have been applied in two recent TMDLs.
 Factsheet: General Accountability Considerations for Green Infrastructure
Accountability considerations are important in all actions involving permits or enforcement orders,
regardless of the approaches used to achieve compliance with established standards. This factsheet
discusses six accountability mechanisms that may be applied to permits or enforcement actions that
include GI.
 Factsheet: GPR Crosswalk Table <http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/Green-Project-
Reserve.cfm>.
If they are looking for just a fact sheet, there is a GPR Crosswalk fact sheet under the guidance tab that
lists eligible green expenses at http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/upload/GPR-Crosswalk-
Table.pdf. What is helpful about this fact sheet is that it says what is considered green under each type of
project, i.e. what is considered green in a 319 project. Note that the CWSRF is a state run program so
the reader contact their state office about how they are implementing the GPR requirement.
Endnotes
[1] Point source means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, such as a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,
discrete fissure, or container. It also includes vessels or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
By law, the term "point source" also includes concentrated animal feeding operations, which are places where animals are
confined and fed. By law, agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture are not "point
sources". <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/faqs.cfm?program_id=45#109>.
[2] Local Limits Development Guidance available at <http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/final_local_limits_guidance.pdf>.
[3] That is, MCLs which are at least as protective as the federal MCLs and which, in some states, may exist for additional
contaminants beyond the Federal minimums.
[4] See: <http://nhd.usgs.gov/” and “http://nhd.usgs.gov/applications.html”>.
[5] See: §1421, SDWA and <http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/regulations.cfm>.
[6] See: <http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class5/types_stormwater.cfm>.

Page 55

Using Nonpoint Source Control and Section 319
Programs

SECTION V
Protecting Water Quality and Sources of Drinking Water

Protecting source water by
 Setting priorities in Watershed Plans
 Leveraging technical and financial resources across
programs
Protecting source water with
 NPDES effluent limits and other permit conditions
 Downstream notification
 Green infrastructure planning and stormwater
management
Protecting source water with
 Designated uses for sources of drinking water
 Numeric and narrative water quality criteria
 Anti-degradation tools
Water Quality Standards
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Point Sources Nonpoint Sources
Protecting source water with
 Assessment methodologies tailored to drinking water
 Data shared by drinking water stakeholders
Monitoring, Assessment, & Impairment Listing
Protecting source water by
 Prioritizing TMDLs for impaired source waters
 Developing TMDLs in view of drinking water contaminants
 Supporting nonpoint source controls
 Identifying opportunities to protect waters that are not yet impaired

Page 56
Section V: Using NPS Control and CWA Section 319 Programs
Introduction
This section is designed to help improve coordination between those responsible for protecting and providing
drinking water and those responsible for the nonpoint source program under CWA section 319. Nonpoint source
pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources.
Nonpoint Source Management Programs in each state support and promote collaborative efforts of state, federal,
and local agencies as well as private organizations to achieve nonpoint source goals. Nonpoint source programs
include the management or regulation of forestry, agriculture, grazing, transportation, recreation, hydro-
modification, marinas, urban development, land use planning, fish and wildlife habitat, riparian and wetlands
protection/restoration, public education, and other activities that affect the quality of the state’s waters. Each
state’s nonpoint source program must meet the requirements of section 319(h) of the federal CWA and the EPA
section 319 Program Guidance (April 2013).
The goal in this section of the Toolkit is to involve state nonpoint source programs in helping to protect source
waters, as well as for source water protection programs to be involved in watershed planning and nonpoint source
activities to restore and protect water quality threatened by nonpoint source pollution. This Toolkit provides ideas
on practices and considerations based on the experiences of states in integrating nonpoint source tools and
source water protection. For more information on collaboration with stakeholders that may be involved in local
watershed efforts to control nonpoint source pollution and protect source water, please refer to the Source Water
Collaborative Toolkit http://www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/swp-usda/.

Background
What is Nonpoint Source Pollution?
Nonpoint source pollution is caused by water moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up
and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal
waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water. These pollutants include:
 Excess fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from agricultural lands, managed forest lands and
residential areas;
 Oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production;
 Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest lands, and eroding stream banks;
 Salt from irrigation practices, and road runoff, and acid drainage from abandoned mines;
 Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and faulty septic systems.
 Atmospheric deposition and hydro-modification.

Page 57
Section V: Using NPS Control and CWA Section 319 Programs
What is the Section 319 nonpoint source program?
The 1987 amendments to the CWA added section101(a)(7) and established the section 319 nonpoint source
program. Section 101(a)(7) states, “It is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of
pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met
through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.”
Under section 319, states, territories, and tribes receive grant money (for which they provide matching funds) to
implement state Nonpoint Source Management Programs. Activities funded under the section 319 program
include non-regulatory and regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance,
education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects to achieve water quality goals. Federal
funding provided under section 319(h) is modest relative to the challenges of nonpoint source pollution
nationwide, but it is an important tool for states to use to leverage other funding sources through state nonpoint
source management programs. Find more on CWA section 319 at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/cwact.cfm.
What are state Nonpoint Source Management Programs?
Individual state programs develop state Nonpoint Source Management Program plans which in turn are approved
by EPA. The state Nonpoint Source Management Program plan outlines the state’s approach to addressing water
quality impacts from nonpoint sources of pollution. The plan provides a framework for controlling nonpoint source
pollution; please see section 319 Program Guidance: Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source
Management Program (April 2013)1 for more information.
What are Watershed-based Plans?
Since the late 1980s, organizations and agencies have moved towards managing water quality by using a
watershed approach, which includes stakeholder involvement and management actions supported by sound
science and appropriate technology. The watershed planning process works to quantify specific water quality
problems and identify actions to achieve water quality goals. National experience indicates that state watershed
based plans (WBPs) containing nine elements2 identified in EPA’s Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect our Waters3 provide an effective, integrated approach to addressing the diverse needs of each
watershed. WBPs provide a watershed-specific roadmap to guide cost-effective, well-informed restoration and
protection efforts. EPA continues to emphasize WBPs as the primary planning framework for section 319
watershed projects. Under the section 319 grants guidelines, states must use at least 50 percent of the annual
appropriation of section 319 funds to implement watershed projects guided by WBPs.

Page 58
Section V: Using NPS Control and CWA Section 319 Programs

Desired Outcomes and Opportunities
Cross-program coordination can benefit both programs by identifying shared goals and highlighting potential synergies
to achieve them. State drinking water and nonpoint source staff may consider policies and partnerships to enhance
coordination with each other, as well as with state and local public and private partners involved in source water
protection. Some potential outcomes and opportunities may include:
 Desired Outcome
Source waters (including ground water) are protected from nonpoint source pollution
using Nonpoint Source Management Plans, Watershed Plans, and leveraging CWA
section 319 funding.
 Opportunities
For state drinking water and CWA programs
State drinking water programs could engage in updates to the state Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan
to ensure priorities for source water protection are reflected in the plan (e.g., ground water protection activities are
eligible for funding under section 319 if they have been identified in the state nonpoint source program/
management plan as a priority). Updates of state Nonpoint Source Management Program Plans are conducted
every 5 years. State source water protection programs and source water collaboratives can aid in the development
and implementation of state nonpoint source management program plans. For example:
 CWA 319 Projects: Source water protection areas can be prioritized in selecting section 319 projects.
 Monitoring and Assessment Data: Source water monitoring data, compliance data, assessment maps, and
susceptibility ratings from PWSs can be used to inform WBPs (e.g., to prioritize drinking water sources for
inclusion in WBPs).
 Hydrogeology: Drinking water program hydrologists and their detailed knowledge of ground water hydrology
can be beneficial in nonpoint source plan development by identifying aquifer recharge zones for protection,
and where ground water contributes significantly to the base flow of certain stream reaches which may
affect surface water quality for better or worse depending on the ground water quality.
 Watershed Metrics: The nonpoint source program prioritization process could include drinking water program
and source water protection program metrics. For example, a watershed could be prioritized by the acres or
percent of its area that constitutes wellhead protection areas.
 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Funding: Technical assistance from personnel involved in source
water protection planning can benefit nonpoint source WBP development or updating. Federal and state
drinking water agencies can provide additional insight to state nonpoint source staff and other participants
(e.g., local funding availability from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)4).
 Local Intelligence: Source water programs and collaboratives can utilize local knowledge and contacts to
provide additional leverage to limited federal and state resources by engaging water systems, either
financially or logistically, in watershed planning and management projects.
 State drinking water programs (and PWSs where possible) could share data and other information, including
source water assessment maps and susceptibility ratings to help inform state Nonpoint Source Management
Program Plans and local WBPs and to identify sources of nonpoint source pollution.
Page 59
Section V: Using NPS Control and CWA Section 319 Programs

 State drinking water programs, utilities, and source water collaboratives could consider State Nonpoint
Source Management plans when updating source water assessments and implementing protection
programs.

 Desired Outcome
Financial and technical resources are leveraged and used for the multiple benefits
of protecting drinking water and achieving nonpoint source pollution control and
watershed goals
 Opportunities
For state drinking water and CWA programs
 The Drinking Water SRF set-asides under section 1452(g)(2) for state source water protection program
management and section 1452(k)(1) may be used in a variety of ways for nonpoint source issues on
shared projects that affect both nonpoint source issues and source water protection. State drinking water
and nonpoint source staff could work with SRF staff to identify opportunities to address nonpoint source
pollution. Source water protection projects can be funded through either the drinking water SRF’s so-
called 15 percent set-aside for certain source water protection activities e.g., to provide loans for
voluntary protection plans and land use changes under 1452(k)(1)(A) and provide grants for wellhead
protection under 1452(k)(1)(D) [but no more than 10% of a state’s annual allotment may be used for any
either of those options], as well as through the Clean Water SRF, which allows a state to fund projects
through the section 319 statutory authority. See http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/index.cfm
and your state’s web site for more information.
 The Clean Water SRF loans can be used to fund nonpoint source projects through the section 319
statutory mechanism. States may fund any projects eligible for section 319 funding, including source
water and ground water projects, using this approach.
 While the section 319 guidelines provide flexibility for states to fund protection activities in unimpaired
waters, the program remains focused on restoration efforts for impaired waters. Therefore, it may be
helpful for state drinking water program staff to be familiar with the state’s section 303(d) list of impaired
waters, to identify linkages to source water protection opportunities for inclusion in the next update of the
state’s watershed management plan.
 States could prioritize waters for providing protection prior to further deterioration and inclusion on the
303(d) list. Source Water Assessment Program susceptibility determinations could be used to help
identify which waters qualify for nonpoint source funding. See, also, the HWI.5
 State drinking water and nonpoint source staff could work together to coordinate with other public and
private partners, such as USDA NRCS and Farm Service Agency; private foundations; watershed
coalitions; and others, to leverage and prioritize technical assistance, funding, and monitoring
opportunities based on common goals e.g., to use cost sharing to implement nonpoint source controls.
 State drinking water program staff could also be familiar with TMDL efforts to address nonpoint source
pollutants which impair drinking water sources. Drinking water program staff can contribute expertise,
data, or other support to develop and implement TMDLs account for the impairment of drinking water
sources. See Section III of this Toolkit for more detail on TMDL opportunities.
Page 60
Section V: Using NPS Control and CWA Section 319 Programs

 State drinking water programs, if involved in local watershed plan development, can encourage water
systems to provide financial, logistical, and other support for nonpoint source, source water protection
activities (large/very large water systems would be more likely than small to have this capability). PWSs have
local knowledge of watersheds and are “eyes on the ground.” Their data and information can be useful for
identifying nonpoint source program priorities and useful in related programs such as WQS and TMDLs.
 Desired Outcome
CWA programs can work collaboratively with SDWA programs
 Opportunities
For CWA programs and SDWA programs
Collaborate to work with partners on additional funding opportunities such as USDA Farm Bill Special Projects
(Mississippi River Basin Initiative, Gulf of Mexico Initiative, USDA NRCS National Water Quality Initiative) and EPA
CWA section 106 and section 319 grants. To view more information on these grants and initiatives, see “Additional
Resources” below.

Additional Resources
 Source Water Collaborative Collaboration Toolkits: Protection Drinking Water Sources through Agricultural
Conservation - <http://www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/swp-conservation-partners-toolkit/>.
 Section 319 Grants Guidelines - <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/319-guidelines-fy14.pdf>.
 CWA Section 319 program information - <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/cwact.cfm>.
 Key Components of Nonpoint Source Management Plans - <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/
key_components_2012.pdf>.
 EPA’s Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters - <water.epa.gov/
polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm>.
 Fact Sheet – Using DWSRF Set-Aside Funds for Source Water Protection - <http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/dwsrf/
pdfs/source.pdf>.
 TPL report (RE: NC, CWSRF)
 USDA Farm Bill Landscape Initiatives - <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/
initiatives/>.
 EPA CWA section 106 grants - <http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwf/pollutioncontrol.cfm>.

Page 61
Section V: Using NPS Control and CWA Section 319 Programs
Endnotes
[1] See: <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/key_components_2012.pdf>.
[2] See: <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/319-guidelines-fy14.pdf>.
[3] See: <water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm>.
[4] See: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/>.
[5] See: <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/concept.cfm>.
Page 62

Appendix A
List of NRQC-H, NRWQC-FWH, NPDWRs, MCLGs, and Health Advisories by
contaminant.
Note: Drinking Water Contaminants in red indicate that no NRWQC exists or criteria (HH and FWH) are less protective
than the MCL.
Page 63

Page 64

Appendix B
State-Specific Examples of Protecting Water Quality and Sources of
Drinking Water

Page 65
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
Water Quality Standards
New York
New York State has designated more than 50% of its lakes (by surface area) as "source of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes." Waters under this classification include:
 Class AA fresh surface waters: Waters that, if subjected to approved disinfection treatment, with additional
treatment if necessary to remove naturally present impurities, meet or will meet New York State
Department of Health drinking water standards and are or will be considered safe and satisfactory for
drinking water purposes.
 Class A fresh surface waters: Waters that, if subjected to approved treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration and disinfection, with additional treatment if necessary to reduce naturally present
impurities, meet or will meet New York State Department of Health drinking water standards and are or will
be considered safe and satisfactory for drinking water purposes.
New York has adopted ambient WQS for several hundred substances to protect this designated use. Additional
protection is provided by (separate) finished drinking water standards. Some of the challenges faced by New York
in protecting public water supplies include difficulty and lack of resources in addressing the breadth of
contaminants through substance-specific criteria (including contaminants of emerging concern).
NY is also working to develop AWQC for phosphorus that are protective of finished drinking water by targeting
regulatory endpoints for disinfection by-products and arsenic under the SDWA, as well as cyanotoxins from harmful
algal blooms.1
North Carolina
North Carolina has designated more than 50% of its lakes (by surface area) with the use of "source of water supply
for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes." North Carolina has also adopted ambient WQS for
substances to protect this designated use. State regulations allow surface water standards for the protection of
human health to be derived using formulas identical to those prescribed for derivation of federal MCLs – but
additionally protect for the consumption of fish and shellfish. The State also adopts federal MCLs as finished
drinking water standards.
The following are a few of North Carolina’s Classifications (Designated Uses) of Water Supply (WS) waters. The
same numerical and narrative water quality criteria apply to all Water Supply classifications. The standards are
calculated to protect human health through consumption of fish and water. Examples of water supply
classifications include:
 Water Supply I (WS-I): Waters protected for all Class C uses plus waters used as sources of water supply for
drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection for their water
supplies. WS-I waters are those within natural and undeveloped watersheds in public ownership. All WS-I
waters are High Quality Waters (HQW) by supplemental classification (See full description of Class C waters
below).
 Water Supply II (WS-II): Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes where a WS-I classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-
II waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. All WS-II waters are HQW by
supplemental classification.
Page 66
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
 Water Supply III (WS-III): Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes where a more protective WS-I or II classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected
for Class C uses. WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds.
Michigan
Michigan WQS are set at levels designed to protect surface waters of Michigan at the point of public water supply
intake and in contiguous areas as determined necessary for assured protection. Michigan uses a water body by
water body approach to designate public water supply use. Michigan has a current list of community water
supplies using surface waters. Michigan’s administrative rules include procedures to calculate water quality values
to protect drinking water sources from contaminants whose concentrations exceed Human Non-Cancer Values
(HNV) and Human Cancer Values (HCV). These values apply to surface waters protected as drinking water sources,
and assume a person consumes 2 liters of water per day. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(Michigan DEQ) has a list of almost 300 parameters with their HNV and HCV for drinking water and non-drinking
water uses.
Wisconsin
Implementation of Wisconsin’s existing surface WQS may present some mutual benefits to both
the CWA and SDWA programs. Aside from the surface water quality criteria for toxic substances, the state’s
existing WQS include criteria for the protection of recreation and fish consumption and aquatic life uses that may
also serve to protect existing public water supply source waters. For example, implementation of statewide
phosphorus criteria should result in decreased cultural eutrophication, which in turn, should reduce the magnitude
and frequency of for cyanobacterial blooms that can produce toxins and cause undesirable taste and odor effects
for public water supply waters.
Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listings
Ohio
Ohio’s CWA program collaborates closely with its SDWA program to assess surface waters for attainment of the
public water supply beneficial use, and the two programs share CWA section 106 funds to accomplish this
activity. Ohio EPA’s Division of Drinking and Ground Waters (DDAGW) completes the public water supply
beneficial use assessment for the Agency’s Integrated Water Quality Report. Both SDWA PWS compliance
monitoring data and raw water quality data collected by the two programs are used to complete the assessment.
As part of the assessment process, treatment information is obtained from utilities to determine if treatment
beyond conventional processes was needed and if compliance monitoring data can be used as representative of
source water conditions. State programs also use data collected from Drinking Water Source Assessment Reports
and TMDL Reports to determine future sampling sites.
Ohio sets water quality criteria for the public water supply use with the assumption that only conventional drinking
water treatment is needed to meet WQS. In the case of pollutants for which EPA has not published NRWQC, Ohio
bases its criteria to protect this use on SDWA MCLs.
To ensure that CWA program officials can readily identify locations of public water system intakes for permitting
and assessment purposes, DDAGW shares statewide GIS data layers of surface water intakes and the watershed
area that contributes water to each intake (information included in the SDWA program’s Drinking Water Source
Assessment Reports). In Ohio, the public water supply beneficial use water quality criteria apply only within 500
yards of an active public water system intake. There has been some initial discussion between the CWA and
SDWA programs to evaluate whether it would be desirable to expand the public water supply beneficial use zone
to be consistent with Ohio’s Source Water Assessment and Protection corridor management zone, 10 miles
upstream from the intake.
Page 67
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
Oregon
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality SDWA staff coordinate regularly with CWA staff to revise standards
and new stream listings for “water quality limited” streams in Oregon. The CWA 2010 Integrated Report applied
the narrative criterion in state rules (OAR 340-041-0007(11)) that establishes the statewide goal of protecting the
potability of drinking water. The current applicable narrative standard does not specify measurements or limits for
protecting potable drinking water. Oregon DEQ has in the past used the existing numeric criteria as a substitute
quantitative target for protecting all beneficial uses along with other information documenting impacts from
turbidity on specific fish, shellfish, and drinking water uses in waters throughout the state. For the 2010 §305(b)
assessment, Oregon DEQ’s nonpoint source specialist obtained records from PWS operators for various drinking
water systems in Oregon. Available data included the number of shutdowns occurring in a PWS and source water
turbidity levels at the time of the shutdown. Oregon DEQ reviewed the information to determine how many
shutdowns were related to turbidity levels that exceeded the system’s operating capacity and treatment levels
which prevented the PWS from providing drinking water from the surface water source.
Oregon DEQ’s drinking water source protection methodology includes evaluating data showing the measured
turbidity levels and the number of days any PWS was closed. For their 2010 Integrated Report, this resulted in
listing specific source waters as “Category 5: Water quality limited, 303(d) list, TMDL needed”. Anecdotal reports
or un-validated shutdowns reported in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) were not sufficient for
Oregon DEQ to determine that the levels exceeded natural conditions, and these systems were assessed as
“Category 3: Insufficient data to determine whether a designated use is supported”. Five water systems had
sufficient data of high quality to determine that PWS shutdowns were occurring over a number of years. DEQ
proposed that these five water bodies be on the Water Quality Limited 303(d) list due solely to drinking water
beneficial use limitations.
Oregon DEQ’s drinking water protection staff and CWA implementation staff also developed a consistent
methodology to include the data for drinking water MCLs into the existing water quality criteria under the CWA for
purposes of the 303(d) data queries. The first step is a thorough cross-walk of MCLs versus existing WQS. There
are 3 MCLs that are more stringent than the water quality criteria. These 3 chemicals were added to the 303(d)
query to establish the Integrated Report lists. There were 25 chemicals that have MCLs under SDWA, but no
current water quality criteria under the CWA. Under the Oregon methodology, if the MCL is exceeded in source
water, the data point goes into Category 3(b) of the Integrated Report (Insufficient data to determine whether a
designated use is supported, but some data indicate nonattainment of a criterion). If the MCL is exceeded in post-
treatment water samples (SDWIS data), and has at least 2 relevant data points, the source water goes into
Category 5. For those source waters listed under Category 5, Oregon DEQ will need to consider any progress
toward additional treatment for those chemicals before proceeding toward TMDL development. In practice, if a
PWS has received funding for a drinking water treatment upgrade, Oregon DEQ will need to consider whether there
is a need for further reductions through a TMDL.
For CWA Integrated Reports, Oregon DEQ routinely requests that stakeholders including local, state and federal
agencies, a local interest groups and watershed councils submit water quality data to be considered for inclusion
in the CWA 303(d) list and 305(b) assessment. In the most recent calls for data, this has included a direct mailing
to PWS operators, requesting that they submit water quality data for raw water prior to treatment. The goal is for
Oregon DEQ to develop a more thorough data set with which to compile the future reports, including raw data at or
above the PWS intakes.
Other Examples
Use of external data in drafting of 303(d) list
 Ohio EPA Credible Data Program: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/credibledata/index.aspx.
 Washington Ecology: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/WQpolicy1-11ch1.pdf.
Page 68
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control: https://www.scdhec.gov/environment/
water/tmdl/#2.
 Colorado’s Monitoring Partnerships and Data Sharing Network: http://www.coloradowaterquality.org/.
Engaging citizen stakeholders and data sharing
 Washington Department of Ecology has developed a 303(d) List Query Tool and Interactive Mapping Tool
that provides the ability to search listed waters based on multiple criteria.2 Washington Ecology has also
provided GIS map layers with multiple layers of data to provide a visual overview of the state’s listed
waters.
 Ohio EPA engages citizens using interactive Google maps that allow the public to view location-specific
water chemistry data, drinking water advisories, and NPDES permit information.3
Use of listing to reduce pollutants prior to TMDL development
 In issuing permits, The Washington Department of Ecology reduces the amount of pollutants allowed to
be released into waters that appear on the 303(d) list, even before a TMDL is completed. See also
pp. VI-35 – VI-40 of WA’s Permit Writer’s Manual4 and 40 CFR 122.4.
Total Maximum Daily Loads
Missouri
Intensive corn production in the watershed around Missouri's Vandalia Lake contributed high levels of the
herbicide atrazine to the lake water. In the late 1990s, water quality data showed atrazine levels at approximately
89 parts per billion (ppb), far exceeding the 3 ppb water quality criterion required for finished drinking water. As a
result, Missouri added Vandalia Lake to the state's 1998 and 2002 CWA section 303(d) lists of impaired waters.
To address the contamination, federal, state and local watershed stakeholders worked with farmers to implement
BMPs to improve the quality of their drinking water source. State and federal incentive programs provided funds
through local organizations to support organizing, planning and implementing the project. Atrazine levels
dropped, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) removed Vandalia Lake from the state's
2006 303(d) list for atrazine.
This project ultimately brought together new partnerships and a greater awareness of how to jointly resolve water
quality problems. Many groups collaborated by sharing data and organizing the Vandalia Watershed Management
Committee, which included University of Missouri Outreach and Extension, the USDA NRCS and the City of
Vandalia. Committee members included municipal employees, elected officials, residents, landowners, operators
and Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Other collaborators joined, including MDNR, the Missouri Department
of Conservation, the Mark Twain Water Quality Initiative, the Missouri Department of Health and other agencies.
See http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/mo_van.cfm.

Texas
Aquilla Reservoir was built in 1983 for water supply, flood control, and recreation purposes. Corn and sorghum
production comprise 40 percent of land use in the watershed. The reservoir is the sole source of water for the
Aquilla Water Supply District's treatment plant.
During the late 1990s, monitoring of finished drinking water showed that atrazine concentrations consistently
exceeded state and federal drinking water standards mandating a MCL of 3 micrograms per liter (3μg/L). Three
consecutive MCL violations led the state to place the reservoir on its 303(d) list of impaired waters in 1998
without a WQS. This led the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Texas State Soil and
Page 69
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) to establish a TMDL for atrazine. EPA approved the TMDL in 2002 that
required the reservoir to maintain a running annual average atrazine concentration not to exceed the 3μg/L MCL
for 2 consecutive years. This would amount to a 25 percent atrazine load reduction.
State, federal, regional, and local agencies collaborated to reduce reservoir pollution, protect against new
pollution sources, and monitor progress through water quality testing. Agricultural producers, affected water
supply companies, government agencies, and other stakeholders formed the Texas Watershed Protection
Committee, which identified BMPs for use in the watershed and documented BMP adoption. The committee also
worked to increase pesticide dealers' awareness of the problem and gain their assistance and support in solving
it. Finally, corn and sorghum producers received technical and financial assistance to implement the BMPs.
Project leaders also targeted urban areas for atrazine reductions. They prepared fact sheets about atrazine and
alternative lawn management. Through the Texas Master Gardener program, they delivered television public
service announcements about proper application and storage of herbicides and pesticides. Finally, they
distributed fact sheets and general articles to local newspapers, to feature columnists, and at local meetings.
These efforts led to a 60 percent atrazine load reduction, far exceeding the TMDL. Over 2 consecutive years of
monthly reservoir sampling showed atrazine concentrations well below the 3μg/L requirement. The waterbody
now meets atrazine concentration standards, and TCEQ has recommended that it be removed from the state 303
(d) list (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/tx_aquilla.cfm).

Utah
In 1941, the Bureau of Reclamation completed construction of the Deer Creek Reservoir, located on the Provo
River in Wasatch County, Utah. Since that time, Deer Creek Reservoir has become a vital source of drinking water
for over one million people, as well as a source of irrigation water and a popular recreation destination. In 2002,
the EPA approved a TMDL for the reservoir’s coldwater aquatic life use. This use was impaired by low DO levels at
the bottom of the reservoir caused by excessive phosphorus loading and high surface water temperatures.
Nonpoint source runoff from urban areas and agricultural activities also contributed to the impairment.
The TMDL process provided stakeholders with a framework for compiling, analyzing, and understanding data for
parameters affecting DO levels in the Deer Creek Reservoir. As a result, stakeholders were able to participate in
the development of a TMDL that established quantifiable goals to maintain current phosphorus loads and
identifies phosphorus reductions necessary to maintain a margin of safety and allow for future growth. The TMDL
brought together Wasatch, Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Midway Fish Hatchery, Jordanelle Reservoir Water
Quality Technical Advisory Committee, five regional conservancy districts, and Utah Department of Environmental
Quality. These groups collaborated to plan nine projects focused on agricultural BMPs, CAFO cleanup,
streambank restoration, load reduction from the reservoir’s fish hatchery, and a comprehensive nutrient
management plans for feedlots casing water quality impairments.
At the time of TMDL development, data analysis of DO levels, temperature, algae levels, water clarity, and fishery
health, all showed signs of improvement. Analysts attributed these results to years of water quality improvement
projects and programs. Although the TMDL development process did reveal improvements in water quality, it also
highlighted the sensitivities of Deer Creek Reservoir. The final TMDL report states that although major
improvements are not needed, it is important to have a plan in place that stresses protection and management of
current conditions – particularly in light of growth and development pressures in Wasatch County. See: http://
water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/deercreek.cfm.

Page 70
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Programs
WQS/Permit Limits and Conditions: Examples of states where NPDES permits reflect contaminants of concern to
drinking water systems.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania’s WQS include the designated use of public water supply for all surface waters statewide.
Pennsylvania implements certain parameters of concern for drinking water intakes in accordance with their
regulations, which state that “the water quality criteria for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), nitrite-nitrate nitrogen,
phenolics, chloride, sulfate and fluoride established for the protection of potable water supply shall be met at
least 99% of the time at the point of all existing or planned surface potable water supply withdrawals…” NPDES
permit writers document the nearest downstream drinking water intake and determine if the permitted discharge
will meet the state requirement. An analysis may be done on a case-by-case basis where there has been a
determination of potential drinking water impacts from other parameters contained in a discharge. In such cases,
the permit writer can use the drinking water MCLs as a guide if no specific state numeric water quality criteria
exist.
West Virginia
West Virginia has a statewide designation of water supply for all surface waters, except those sources determined
to be unsuitable because of insufficient flow or hydrologic modifications. Concentrations of those pollutants for
which there are water quality criteria to protect the water supply use must be achieved within ½-mile above a
water supply intake, requiring the calculation of WQBELs if necessary to achieve these criteria.
Oregon
Oregon requires suction mining permittees (700M) to identify public and domestic drinking water intakes and
ensure that there is no visible turbidity plume at the intake.
New York
New York’s Priority Waters Listing is a mechanism to document contaminant issues for use by permit writers.
County Water Quality Coordinating Committees are a forum for PWS and local health departments to raise these
concerns locally and transfer to state.
WQS/Permit Limits and Conditions: Examples of consideration of downstream drinking water in pretreatment.
EPA Region 6/New Mexico
The Farmington, New Mexico NPDES permit5 contains requirements to reduce salinity in order to meet drinking
water requirements in the Colorado River. The basin-wide Colorado Salinity Control Program (CSP) was
established by EPA in December 1974. The permit limits daily maximum TDS to 400 mg/L net increase over
finished drinking water concentrations. The permit requires that the city complete a BMP that will have two
parts. The first part of the BMP is for residential customers and requires the city to design a citizen education fact
sheet on TDS reduction, to be distributed through its water billing. The goal of the TDS reduction fact sheet will be
to inform the public about how they can reduce salinity return to the city by limiting water softener usage and
using alternative water softener alternatives, such as dryer sheets as a substitute for liquid fabric softeners. The
second part of the BMP will be for the city to conduct a commercial/industrial (CI) user impact analysis on TDS
discharges to the city and to reevaluate local limits for TDS. The city would be required to implement changes if
the survey indicates that reductions could be passed on to significant CI users through creation of new local limits
for TDS as part of its pre-treatment policies.
Page 71
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
Florida
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Florida DEP) provides guidance, including a computer program,
to assist POTWs in deriving pretreatment local limits to achieve water quality needs under different effluent
disposal options. Effluent disposal options include drinking water standards, as well as water reuse irrigation on
different types of soil, direct discharge to both fresh and marine waters, and underground injection to meet
primary and secondary ground water standards. The Florida guidance can be accessed at http://
www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/downloads/LLIDS2001v2_Manual.pdf.
Florida
The Florida DEP has AWQS for Class III marine waters for bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and
dibromochloromethane. The City of St. Augustine, FL investigated effective chlorine-free disinfection methods due
to growing concerns regarding these trihalomethane compounds (i.e., disinfection by-products). The St. Augustine
wastewater treatment plant changed its disinfectant treatment from chlorine to peracetic acid (PAA). A benefit of
PAA disinfection is the absence of chlorinated disinfection byproduct formation. A study found that two
trihalomethane species from the chlorinated effluent were more than double their surface water limits while the
concentrations in PAA treated water was below laboratory detection limits. To date, the system has reduced
pathogen loads sufficiently; eliminated the presence of chlorinated disinfection byproducts in the facility’s
discharge; and lowered overall chemical use and costs associated with disinfection. Please see this Water
Environment Foundation article for more information: http://www.wef.org/publications/page_wet.aspx?
id=12884903117&page=feature.
Emergency Planning: Examples of States where NPDES Permittees Notify Downstream Drinking Water Systems of
Spills
Ohio
Ohio EPA has an Emergency Response Program that has well-established procedures for collecting spill
information and disseminating it to all of the necessary stakeholders. The Emergency Response Program details
are covered on their website: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/ersis/er/er.aspx. Also attached is an example of
an investigation report that details how they handled a pollution incident that may impact a public water supply.
Virginia
Virginia Executive Order 41 requires state agencies to be prepared for all disasters and to ensure the continuity of
state government operations. In response to the state order, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
developed the Pollution Response Program (PREP), which is equipped to manage incidents such as oil spills, fish
kills, and hazardous materials spills. PREP staff often assist local emergency responders, other state agencies,
federal agencies, and responsible parties. Incidents can be reported by anyone using an online form or a 24-hour
number. The 2010 Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Manual contains in its
“Conditions Applicable to All VPDES Permits” a provision directing permittees to call this 24-hour reporting
number for emergencies related to unauthorized discharges, unusual or extraordinary discharges, and incidents
of noncompliance.
Emergency Planning: Examples of Notification Requirements in Permits
Ohio
The Ohio Administrative Code states, “Permits for facilities designated by the director as major discharges, in the
following locations, shall require the permittee to notify the public water supply operator as soon as practicable
Page 72
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
after a discharge begins that results from a spill, separate sewer overflow, bypass, upset, or combined sewer
overflow that reaches waters of the state: (a) Discharges within three thousand feet of a public water supply
intake located in a lake; or (b) Discharges within ten stream miles upstream of a public water supply intake
located in a reservoir or any other surface water of the state.”
Additionally, the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSD), Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern
Kentucky (SD1) and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) have developed a website to
provide Ohio River water quality information and river conditions in the Greater Cincinnati area
(www.recr8ohioriver.org). This website provides an excellent example of overcoming interstate notification
barriers.
Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)/Bypass Notification Form (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/
approvals/ssoform.pdf) states that “all responsible officials whose duties include management of resources
which may be affected by the SSO discharge” must be contacted within 24 hours of an overflow. A list of relevant
agencies includes “Drinking Water Resource Managers.”
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia has an early warning system concerning spills and emergency conditions. They received EPA funding
to assist them in developing the warning system. The city has also developed a protocol called “River
Cast” (www.phillyrivercast.org), which is based on synthesizing information about fecal coliform levels, historical
data, flows, and weather conditions in order to support real-time assessments of the condition of the river.
West Virginia
The City of Elkins, WV NPDES Permit: section f(2)(h)(9) (Combined Sewer System Overflows; Public Notification)
contains the following condition: “The permittee shall notify the water treatment facility when CSOs upstream of
the City’s water intakes become active in order to avoid impact to the City’s water intakes. The permittee shall
document these notifications in a log.”
Examples of States where NPDES Permittees Must Notify Affected Drinking Water Systems of Manure/Biosolid and
Herbicide/Pesticide Applications
Michigan
Michigan's aquatic nuisance program issues permits to apply herbicides and pesticides in areas that may impact
surface water intakes. Permit conditions may require the permittee to notify the operator of affected water
systems 48 hours before applying chemicals. That permit condition remains in effect as permits are re-issued.
Consider Local Environment in Plans and Guidance: Examples of States where GI Plans Include Considerations of
Drinking Water Sources
District of Columbia
The District’s 2013 Stormwater Management Guidebook and regulations provide guidance on selecting the
proper BMPs for sensitive areas, also known as hotspots. Some BMPs (porous pavement and infiltration basins,
for example) are simply not permitted, whereas others (bioretention and sand filters) are permitted with certain
exceptions, such as the installation of an impermeable liner. When the guidebook and regulations are properly
followed, certain BMPs are permitted due to their ability to reduce the flow of pollutants to surface waters while
still protecting ground water.
Page 73
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
The Navy Yard is an example of GI complete recycle solutions used in an area of high soil contamination.
Specialized liners and drainage devices were used to ensure that the surrounding soils would not contaminate
the stormwater effluent.
Ground Water Discharges: Examples of States where UIC Permits Include Considerations of Drinking Water Sources
Michigan
Discharges of wastewater to ground waters of Michigan require a permit. Permit writers routinely check whether
the requested discharge is located within the delineated 10-year time of travel capture zone (wellhead protection
area) of a community or non-community public water supply well. If it falls within the delineation, the permit writer
notifies the public water supply by copying the draft permit and the final permit. Administrative rules and permit
conditions require dischargers to notify the public water supply should a discharge limit be exceeded. Discharge
limits are based on drinking water standards, if available. When a contaminant is not regulated, the discharge
limit is health based. A desired outcome is a routine check, similar to the ground water discharge permit
procedure, on delineated areas by other CWA programs that manage watersheds and issue permits.
Nonpoint Source Control and Section 319 Programs
EPA’s section 319 nonpoint source success stories website (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/)
features stories about primarily nonpoint source-impaired waterbodies where restoration efforts have led to
documented water quality improvements. The website highlights a number of success stories where 319 programs
have benefited source water protection and drinking water supplies including.
Nebraska 319 Request Related to Ground Water Protection
Nebraska’s recent discussion with EPA illustrates how section 319 funding may be used for ground water
protection and restoration activities. Because Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has included
ground water protection as a priority in its Nonpoint Source Management Plan, ground water activities are eligible
for section 319 funding. Nebraska approached EPA with a request to consider the local ground water
management plans developed within the state as alternatives to the nine- element watershed-based plans (EPA’s
grants guidelines require watershed project funds to be used for the implementation of nine-element WBPs). EPA
responded that Nebraska may fund ground water protection and restoration activities under the “protection”
exemption to the WBP requirement. Although the ground water management plans do not need to meet the nine
elements of a WBP, the alternative plans must meet the five basic elements listed in EPA’s guidelines. The next
step is for Nebraska DEQ to work with its partners to develop and revise the ground water management plans for
watershed project funding so that they can adequately meet the five elements listed in the section 319
guidelines:
 Identification of the causes or sources of nonpoint source impairment(s), water quality problem(s), or threat
(s) to unimpaired, high quality waters;
 Watershed [or ground water/aquifer] project goal(s) and explanation of how the proposed project(s) will
achieve or make advancements towards achieving water quality goals;
 Schedule and milestones to guide project implementation;
 Proposed management measures (including a description of operation and maintenance requirements) and
explanations of how these measures will effectively address the nonpoint source impairment identified
above; and
 Water quality results monitoring component, including description of process and measures (e.g., water
quality parameters, stream flow metrics, biological indicators) to gauge project success.
Page 74
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
New York
Upper West Branch, Delaware River is a significant source of drinking water for NYC and is impaired for
phosphorus. Project partners developed a voluntary, incentive-based program with farmers to implement BMPs,
including whole farm plans (WFP) on dairy farms. A decrease in phosphorous loadings will benefit both drinking
water supply and ecological uses.
New York’s Priority Waters Listing is a mechanism to document contaminant issues for use by permit writers.
County Water Quality Coordinating Committees are a forum for PWS and local health departments to raise these
concerns locally and transfer to state.
North Carolina
Mills River has been the focus of numerous restoration efforts, including: obtaining conservation easements,
restoring riparian buffers and stream banks, moving two pesticide chemical mixing stations away from river
banks, stabilizing logging roads and cattle fencing. The effort brought together many project partners, which
leveraged both EPA’s section 319 Watershed Management and section 1452 Source Water Protection grant
funds.
North Carolina
One of the Enabling Source Water Protection Project recommendations for North Carolina was to work with
partners to enhance Clean Water SRF support of drinking water protection, GI, and other environmentally
innovative activities. The North Carolina drinking water protection program was successful in getting the Clean
Water SRF program to provide five extra points in its priority rating system for wastewater loan applications for
projects in areas that are covered by an approved source water protection plan. While this is a small number of
points in relation to the total of 100 available points, it was enough to elevate source protection projects over
competitors with otherwise-similar values. Adding these points to the loan application also encouraged interest
from the wastewater community and served as a new educational opportunity for promoting source water
protection.
Illinois
Charleston Side Channel Reservoir is a drinking water supply reservoir that was listed as impaired under CWA
section 305(d) for several pollutants (phosphorus, sediment, manganese). Project partners installed shoreline
stabilization structures and other BMPs, including agricultural conservation tillage and nutrient management
planning.
Iowa
In Lake Icaria, sediment loading from agricultural practices led to impairment. State and federal agencies worked
with landowners to implement BMPs.
Missouri
Cameron Lakes, Mark Twain Lake, and Smithville Lake were listed as impaired because atrazine concentrations
exceeded the MCL established for public drinking water supplies. Conservation tillages BMPs were implemented,
along with selected atrazine application methods.
Maine
Cobbossee Lake has a long history of nuisance algae blooms that turned its once sparkling clear, trout-filled
water murky green. The dedication of the Cobbossee Watershed District (CWD) and the local municipalities
and water districts that engaged in remedial work and source protection activities made a visible improvement
Page 75
Appendix B: State-Specific Examples
to the lake. The CWD is a unique entity created by state legislation and given land use authority, as well as a
mission of monitoring and education. Cobbossee Lake, although not noted in the 319 summary as such, is the
receiving water for 10 or so recreational and other public water supply lakes in the watershed. Many lakes in the
watershed have benefitted received from 319 projects to enhance watershed protection activities and improve
lake water quality. While the above success story examples are primarily focused on surface water, section 319
can be used for ground water protection and restoration activities, as long as the activities align with the priorities
included in the state Nonpoint Source Management Program plan. The section 319 program guidance, Key
Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management Program (November 2012), includes elements
which encourage overlaying the section 319 program with ground water protection efforts. (Specifically, see
elements 3 and 5 of the program guidance).

Endnotes
[1] See: <http://www.awwa.org/publications/journal-awwa/abstract/articleid/36464584.aspx>.
[2] See: <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/ListDifferences.html>.
[3] See: <http://www.epa.state.oh.us/gis.aspx>.
[4] See: <https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/92109.pdf>.
[5] See: <http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/NPDES/Permits/NM0020583-Farmington.pdf>.
Page 76

Page 77

Appendix C
Troubleshooting: Selected Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome

Page 78
Appendix C: Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome

This guide seeks to acknowledge that the desired outcomes enumerated earlier may remain difficult to achieve.
Appendix B provides concrete examples of how state programs and interstate organizations are protecting drinking
water using CWA-related tools, but these models may not be realistic for all areas due to complicating factors. Some of
these challenges are listed below, not to discourage the use of this guide, but to recognize the reality for many working
on these issues and to invite the development of creative solutions. Examples of such solutions are noted below.

Selected Challenges and How They Can Be
Overcome
Water Quality Standards
 Drinking water contaminants of concern may not have NRWQC. Many states seek to establish water quality
criteria for drinking water contaminants in the absence of NRWQC. This may involve numerically translating
narrative criteria.
 Example approach: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
established water quality criteria for drinking water contaminants in the absence of NRWQC. These
include contaminant-specific criteria, calculated using dose-response data from scientifically valid
studies on oncogenic and non-oncogenic effects of pollutants (e.g., IRIS assessments, National
Toxicology Program studies, and CA risk assessments), and derived according to procedures contained in
New York's regulations (http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4591.html).
NY also has generic default standards for organic contaminants that are in one of several specific
chemical groups such as halogenated alkanes, halogenated ethers, halobenzenes, and more. These
"principal organic contaminant" standards are 5 ug/L for each individual contaminant, and mirror
drinking water standards (MCLs) promulgated by the New York State Department of Health. Finally,
criteria may be correlated with a chemical for which a standard or guidance value has been established.
The standard adopted by New York is the most stringent of the values derived using these procedures.
In addition to these standards, New York also has established "guidance values" for a number of specific
contaminants, derived using the same rigorous procedures used for ambient standards. New York uses
these guidance values in the absence of standards for specific substances, and evaluates guidance
through extensive internal and public review. New York's ambient water quality guidance values have
been effectively employed for 30 years; they numerically translate the state's narrative standard for, in
effect, ‘no toxics in toxic amounts.’
 Water supply may need to be protected from precursors to disinfection by-products when the precursor is not
itself a significant human health or aquatic life threat. In recent years, some states have faced the challenge of
establishing a standard for bromide in ambient water. Bromide does not, in and of itself, harm most aquatic life
or humans. However, bromide can react with chemicals used in the drinking water treatment process to produce
harmful by-products. EPA does not currently have a NRWQC to address these “created” contaminants and the
state does not have the resources to address the issues.

Page 79
Appendix C: Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome
 Example approach: In North Carolina, a specific company was responsible for introducing bromides into
one of North Carolina’s surface water bodies. After the company was made aware of the issue, it took a
progressive stance in assisting the affected treatment plants with finding a solution. However, an added
challenge is that bromide was introduced to the company’s wastewater effluent by technology to reduce
air pollution through the Clean Smokestacks Act. Pending resource availability, the state could derive
water quality criteria for bromides that would be protective of downstream public water supply uses.

Monitoring, Assessment, and Impaired Waters Listings
 A public water supply use may not be distinct from other public health uses in a state’s code, making it difficult to
assess waters for public water supply uses. For example, a public health and welfare use may contain a
designation (or subcategory) for public drinking water supply. CWA criteria may differ depending on the surface
water classification. For example, if the water is classified to include consumption of fish the lipid value of
representative fish can vary, impacting the criteria calculation. Bundling a public drinking water supply use with
other human uses can be a barrier in making assessment decisions.
 Example approach: In Wisconsin, the public health and welfare use found in the state code at NR 102.04
(7) contains a designation (or subcategory) for public drinking water supply. EPA Region 5 and Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) are reviewing the current rule language to determine if
revisions are necessary to clarify the existing language regarding public water supply. WDNR will also
identify priority and supplemental indicators of water quality that could be added to Wisconsin’s baseline
monitoring program. Those data could then be used to assess the public health and welfare use of the
state’s surface waters as part of its biennial water quality reporting.
 Assessments can also be limited by a lack of monitoring for contaminants of concern. Many human health criteria
for carcinogens and non-carcinogens are not routinely monitored in waters designated for public water supplies.
 Example approach: In Wisconsin, substances with human health criteria are reviewed to determine which
substances are pollutants of concern will be incorporated into the WDNR’s water monitoring program.
Additional parameters that could serve as indicators of water quality for public water supply source
waters could be identified, monitored, and assessed. This, however, would be an additional demand on
WDNR’s already limited staff and fiscal resources.
 The following additional challenges present obstacles to the assessment of drinking water sources.
 PWSs are not monitoring for chloride, sulfate, or TDS because they are not regulated as drinking water
contaminants. This may lead to a lack of data on contaminants of concern, especially emerging contaminants.
Furthermore, PWSs don’t necessarily want to be “credible data collectors” for state CWA decisions because source
water monitoring is not required for compliance with the SDWA and is costly.
 Some PWSs selectively pump from a variety of sources. Therefore, we don’t always easily know that a water body
is impaired based on PWS data.
 It is challenging to address OC, a precursor of total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), because OC can indicate a healthy
watershed but may also result in drinking water issues. This is also the case with bromide.
 Incorporating drinking water source data into the Integrated Reporting could be very valuable. However, the
availability/accessibility of paper or electronic records from disparate sources; and differences between WQS and
drinking water standards and building a methodology around them, can be very challenging.
Page 80
Appendix C: Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome

Total Maximum Daily Loads
 TMDL implementation can alter pollution levels in ground water. Ground water protection concerns are not explicit
in TMDL programs, which focus on surface waters. However, TMDL implementation can alter pollution levels in
ground water, as in the case of nitrate. One challenge is to craft efforts that protect both surface and ground water,
as opposed to harming one while protecting the other. There are many ways to do this: for example, TMDL
implementation can help reduce surface contaminants through stormwater infiltration.
 Currently, source water assessments lack quantitative data on specific contaminants, hindering the development
of quantitative targets for TMDLs. Since source water assessments can help state CWA staff better understand the
threats to drinking water but are relatively qualitative, instead of quantitative like TMDLs, the assessments can be
difficult to apply to inform the development of TMDLs.
 TMDLs must be implemented to be effective. TMDLs without implementation do little to protect surface water
bodies, and a strong emphasis should be placed on identifying funding sources to assist with implementation
efforts e.g., sections 106 and 319 grant programs in addition to DW and CW SRF programs.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Programs
 NPDES permits don’t always reflect contaminants of concern to drinking water systems due to a lack of
information and quantitative water quality criteria. A key challenge in using the matrices like the table in Appendix
A is determining which particular contaminants are problematic for a given public water system in a given stream
reach. Making such determinations typically requires gathering information from both the public water system (to
the extent that analyses of their intakes have been conducted) as well as the state. Medium to large PWSs
typically have some ambient water quality data collected from their intakes, while small water systems typically do
not. Similarly, in an era of constrained state resources, states may not have up-to-date ambient water quality data
for the locations of concern.
A further complication is that some of the contaminants of concern are “emerging” and may not yet have either a
federal or state regulatory status nor definitive information about how significant a concern they may be (e.g.,
cyanotoxins, perfluorinated compounds, pharmaceuticals and personal care products).
Finally, state source water assessments may have examined contamination source information, but not
necessarily specific pollutants. The records of the state assessments may or may not be stored electronically.
 Example approach: Pennsylvania’s WQS include the designated use of public water supply for all surface
waters statewide. Pennsylvania implements certain parameters of concern for drinking water intakes in
accordance with their regulations. In part, their regulations state that, “the water quality criteria for TDS,
nitrite-nitrate nitrogen, phenolics, chloride, sulfate and fluoride established for the protection of potable
water supply shall be met at least 99% of the time at the point of all existing or planned surface potable
water supply withdrawals…” NPDES permit writers document the nearest downstream drinking water
intake and determine if the permitted discharge will meet the state requirement. An analysis may be
done on a case-by-case basis where there has been a determination of potential drinking water impacts
from other parameters contained in a discharge. In such cases, the permit writer can use the drinking
water MCLs as a guide if no specific state numeric water quality criteria exist.

Page 81
Appendix C: Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome
 Where a state has a designated use for public water supply but does not have appropriate numeric water quality
criteria for pollutants of concern, the permit writer does not have numeric criteria upon which to calculate a permit
limitation(s). All states have both numeric and narrative WQS. Those states that rely chiefly on narrative standards,
or whose numeric standards may not address the contaminant(s) of concern, would need to interpret their narrative
standard on a case-specific basis. States interpreting narrative standards may be limited by available narrative
translators and could benefit from identification of data and information (from EPA as well other sources) to support
those efforts.
 There is no “one size fits all” approach to defining how far downstream from a discharge a permit could consider
possible impacts. This is likely to vary from site to site and requires data and information to support these decisions.
In order to ensure that NPDES permits consider downstream drinking water intakes, a clear understanding of where
those intakes are located in relation to NPDES-permitted facilities is necessary. Such compilations of “paired
facilities” may not currently exist, in many cases.
 Example approach: Adequate analyses of current and projected downstream considerations require
application of modeling techniques to project concentrations likely to occur at the drinking water intake.
States might gain access to and experience in using models that would be considered satisfactory for
state use.
 Permits may reach across state boundaries for considering drinking water intakes. The standards among states
may not be consistent. If the downstream state’s standard is stricter, the upstream state must ensure it is met.
 Challenges remain in setting water quality-based effluent limits and connecting NPDES permitting and pretreatment
programs. The principal barrier for setting of local limits is analogous to the set of challenges associated with
developing WQBELs for NPDES dischargers to protect downstream sources of drinking water – namely, establishing
a firm legal and technical basis for those limits.
Municipalities may be hesitant to calculate local limits for reasons beyond those associated with the technical
challenges of developing NPDES-imposed federal and state pretreatment requirements. These impediments could
include reluctance, on the part of the municipality, to impose expensive limits on industries that could detract from
the overall economic vitality of the city.
State and Regional pretreatment programs are often not located within the same office as the NPDES permitting
program and are managed separately.
 Example approach: Florida Department of Environmental Protection provides guidance, including a
computer program, to assist POTWs in deriving pretreatment local limits to achieve water quality needs
under different effluent disposal options. Effluent disposal options include drinking water standards, as
well as water reuse irrigation on different types of soil, direct discharge to both fresh and marine waters,
and underground injection to meet primary and secondary ground water standards. The Florida guidance
can be accessed at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/downloads/LLIDS2001v2_Manual.pdf.
 NPDES Permittees Don’t Always Notify Downstream Drinking Water Systems of Spills. Interstate notification can be
even more challenging, when industrial plants or wastewater treatment plants in one state affect drinking water
facilities in a state downstream.
 Example approach: Ohio EPA has an Emergency Response Program that has well-established procedures
for collecting spill information and disseminating it to all of the necessary stakeholders. The Emergency
Response Program details are covered on their website: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/ersis/er/
er.aspx. Also attached is an example of an investigation report that details how they handled a pollution
incident that may impact a public water supply.
Page 82
Appendix C: Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome
Furthermore, the Ohio Administrative Code states, “Permits for facilities designated by the director as
major discharges, in the following locations, shall require the permittee to notify the public water supply
operator as soon as practicable after a discharge begins that results from a spill, separate sewer
overflow, bypass, upset, or combined sewer overflow that reaches waters of the state: (a) Discharges
within three thousand feet of a public water supply intake located in a lake; or (b) Discharges within ten
stream miles upstream of a public water supply intake located in a reservoir or any other surface water of
the state.”
Additionally, the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSD), Sanitation District No. 1 of
Northern Kentucky (SD1) and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) have
developed a website to provide Ohio River water quality information and river conditions in the Greater
Cincinnati area (www.recr8ohioriver.org). This website provides an excellent example of overcoming
interstate notification barriers.
 GI for stormwater management can have unintended consequences in certain situations. For example, infiltration
might contaminate an aquifer or where clay soil would poorly absorb the infiltration or where karst regions would
transmit contaminants to underground sources of drinking water.
 Example approach: The District of Columbia’s 2013 Stormwater Management Guidebook and
regulations provide guidance on selecting the proper BMP(s) for sensitive areas, also known as hotspots.
Some BMPs (porous pavement and infiltration basins, for example) are simply not permitted, whereas
others (bioretention and sand filter) are permitted with certain exceptions, such as the installation of an
impermeable liner. When the guidebook and regulations are properly followed, certain BMPs are
permitted due to their ability to reduce the flow of pollutants to surface waters while still protecting
ground water.
Nonpoint Source Control and Section 319 Programs
 Drinking water utilities and communities may be reluctant to implement source water protection programs. One
challenge may be overcoming hesitancy or indecision (including time/expertise/resource constraints) for drinking
water utilities or the communities they serve to initiate and incorporate source water protection efforts into their
infrastructure or capital improvement planning processes.
 Example approach: More data would help make a better case to drinking water utilities on potential
realized benefits associated with source water protection and encourage utilities to incorporate source
water protection planning as part of their Capital Improvement Planning Processes. The more that
drinking water utility managers and leaders of the communities served by the utilities support source
water protection, particularly through CWA programs like 319, the more effectively they can protect
public health.
 Another challenge is the need to explore the possibility of developing 319 projects to establish baseline and
ongoing monitoring for pollutants that threaten downstream drinking water utilities. These ongoing monitoring
projects would be informed by the utilities by identifying pollutants of concern and would serve as one possible way
to hardwire integration.
 We need to better integrate drinking water source protection into watershed planning. It can be challenging to
incorporate source water into watershed plans, and examples of where this has been done successfully would be
helpful. It also would be helpful to identify the key steps in phases of watershed planning projects that outline how
to incorporate source water in each phase.

Page 83
Appendix C: Challenges and How They Can Be Overcome
 One challenge related to integrating source water protection into clean water programs is that the current focus is
on phosphorus, not nitrogen. While identifying areas with high phosphorous loading, we may also investigate nitro-
gen levels in those same areas.
 It should be noted that the section 319 NPS Program strongly encourages section 319 resources to be used on
impaired waters (which may or may not be upstream of drinking water sources) either on the 303d list, or on ones
for which TMDLs have been developed. As such, the parameters to be monitored using 319 funding would likely be
predefined as pollutants suspected of causing the impairment(s).
 Water quantity considerations are not always considered in section 319 watershed plans. We should consider
water quantity/water budget issues in developing 319 watershed plans. More generally, we need to better under-
stand ground water and surface water interactions, especially where depletion or contamination of ground water is
impairing surface water, and where protection of ground water (quality and quantity) would restore surface water.
 The NPS challenge is large, yet relative to the national scope of the NPS problem, section 319 funds to states are
relatively small. Therefore, while 319 funds are important resources, it remains critical for states to leverage state
and other project funds and continue to strengthen existing partnerships and programmatic relationships as well
as to develop new partnerships to achieve water quality goals.
 There is a need to change the way we’ve traditionally measured BMP performance. BMPs put in place by
landowners to reduce fertilizer from entering surface waters do not necessarily prevent nitrogen from entering the
ground water which may contaminate underground drinking water supplies or travel underground to reach a
surface water.

Page 84

Page 85

Appendix D
A Lens through which to View This Toolkit: The Watershed Approach

Page 86
Appendix D: The Watershed Approach

Drinking water data and information can play an important role in state initiatives to prioritize watersheds for water quality
improvements, and can also play an important role in implementing individual CWA programs within the watersheds.
Including drinking water in the watershed approach provides opportunities to involve nontraditional partners and local
citizens in the water quality protection effort. In polls at the national and local level, safe drinking water is consistently
ranked as one of the top citizen concerns in terms of environmental issues. Successful implementation of the CWA can be
enhanced by including drinking water interests, data, and expertise.
While each of the sections in this document pertain to individual CWA provisions and tools, these tools can be
coordinated and, in collaboration with partners outside of the state and federal water programs, can achieve both
operational efficiencies and water quality improvements as part of a holistic “watershed approach.” Many states have
initiated some form of a watershed approach designed to coordinate the implementation and timing of various CWA
programs.
There are many ways to apply a watershed approach in planning and implementing a state’s water quality work. Using
watersheds as a way to focus on individual geographic areas provides opportunities to coordinate and leverage water
quality improvements. Within the watershed, multiple resources can be focused to solve water quality issues -- cross-
program, cross-media (if necessary), and multi-agency (if possible). Individual water quality programs will likely be more
inclined to share data and information when the work is coordinated and leveraged.
In this document, a watershed refers to not only traditional surface water drainage areas, but the same concepts can be
applied to a ground water aquifer and its recharge area. It is important to note that any watershed approach must
consider the ground water component that is an integral part of the water cycle in that watershed.
Using a watershed or aquifer-shed approach for strategic planning and management is an effective way to collaborate
with relevant partners to determine statewide priorities that are protective of water quality. As part of a larger effort at the
state level, this type of approach can involve NPS, 303(d) Integrated Reports, point source permits, stormwater, drinking
water, toxics monitoring, spill response, and more. Drinking water data and PWS information can be included in planning
and developing the watershed and aquifer-shed approach at the state level, including prioritizing for assessments and
monitoring. Further, drinking water source protection staff, resources, and grants become an integral part of the
watershed restoration effort.
For example, a watershed approach could be used to plan GI solutions that address water quality and/or drinking water
concerns, before funding grey infrastructure projects that can potentially increase utility rates. Gray infrastructure
generally refers to more centralized, end-of-pipe practices for stormwater management and wastewater treatment, such
as stormwater detention ponds or wastewater treatment plants. GI, in contrast, refers to more distributed practices that
restore or mimic natural processes. GI spans many spatial scales, from interconnected networks of natural and
undeveloped areas that maintain and support ecosystem services, to stormwater controls embedded in the built
environment that enhance infiltration, evapotranspiration, and stormwater harvesting and use.
If a grey infrastructure project or upgrade is determined to be necessary in a rural community, these same partners can
work together, along with the USDA Rural Utilities Service and technical assistance providers such as the Rural
Community Assistance Partnership and the National Rural Water Association, to help communities address violations and
develop infrastructure projects that consider wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water funding and operational needs
within a community or watershed.
In addition, source water protection projects, conservation, and practices that are designed to improve water quality can
also be coordinated with agricultural and forestry partners such as the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) (visit the online coordination tool at: www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/swp-usda for more information), Farm
Service Agency, and Forest Service; private foundations (e.g., the William Penn Foundation); nonprofits (e.g., The Nature
Conservancy), and others, to leverage and prioritize technical assistance, funding, and other opportunities based on
common goals. Additional, state-specific examples of application of a watershed approach may be found below.
Page 87
Appendix D: The Watershed Approach
Implementing Watershed and Aquifer-shed Planning Approaches at the State
Level
Colorado
Upper Arkansas River Basin: The Colorado Drinking Water Program awarded a source water protection grant to
the Upper Arkansas Council of Governments (UAACOG) to develop and implement the Upper Arkansas River
SWAP and NPS Program Integration Action Plan. The plan is based on the associated Source Water Protection
Plans (SWPP) in Lake, Chaffee, and Fremont Counties and is aimed at improving water quality, promoting
sustainable recreation areas, and preserving and restoring wetland and aquatic ecosystems for fish and wildlife
through a holistic watershed planning effort by connecting all of the various water resource planning efforts in the
Upper Arkansas River Basin. Potential cooperating agencies include multiple federal and state agencies, as well
as County Commissioners; county planning departments; and conservation districts. The Action Plan is comprised
of six measurable outcomes and anticipated next steps include the need to: identify a cooperating agency to
advance the SWPP into a watershed protection plan; examine stream segment impairments (303d and TMDL
lists) in SWAP areas; and leverage the holistic watershed plan for NPS funding for implementation projects that
address metals, E. coli, nutrients, sediment, or other impairments in the area.
Oregon
Water quality restoration is generally addressed by most CWA agencies on using a parameter-by-parameter
approach. In Oregon, TMDLs have been developed based on consent decrees and have not always addressed
the most pressing environmental issues in the basins for which they were developed. This approach has been
driven largely by lawsuits, CWA requirements for listing waterways, and individual parameters identified through
limited monitoring within each watershed. As an example, many TMDLs were developed to address temperature
only because this data was more abundant when the state determined water quality listings prior to 1990.
By moving into a watershed approach, the Oregon DEQ has sought to address water quality issues in a
comprehensive manner that integrates the multiple sub-programs in water quality and other cross-media
programs. Under this new evolving strategy, Oregon DEQ has developed the groundwork for improved water
quality assessments (Integrated Reports) and implementation plans for restoration and protection. The new
strategy created basin teams that will use local expertise to prioritize the water quality problems, develop plans
to address the water quality problems, implement and assess the effectiveness of the solutions.
The first step in the process is to develop a preliminary list of concerns in the basin and the probable stressors.
This will allow the team to focus on the water quality problems that pose the most significant environmental
threats in the basin, including impacts to ground water and drinking water. The team evaluates existing data
sources, such as:
 Most recent 303(d) list and Integrated Report database
 Any other data sources described in past CWA strategic plans
 305(b) report
 Source water assessment reports
 Ground water quality reports
 Recent LASAR (Oregon DEQ Laboratory database) data
 Recent SDWIS data from Oregon Health Authority (drinking water regulatory monitoring)
 Other Oregon DEQ toxics data
 Oregon DEQ technical reports (e.g. lab assessments, mixing zone reports)
 Agency Toxics Reduction Strategy list of high priority toxic chemicals
Page 88
Appendix D: The Watershed Approach
 USGS data
 Oregon Health Authority data on public health advisories (fish consumption, etc.)
 Other agencies’ technical reports and data
 Readily available reports from the geographic areas (e.g. Watershed Analyses, ESA reports, etc)
 Data from point sources and permits
 Land use information
 Emission inventories
The basin team requests data from Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Oregon Department of Forestry
(ODF) about pesticides used in the basin. Oregon ODA staff has information about product use, product registration,
etc. that may help Oregon DEQ staff determine whether particular pesticides are likely to be present in the basin.
Oregon ODF has data on forestry applications of pesticides after harvest within each basin.
The purpose of the data review is to identify contaminants of concern in the basin, based on their impact on
beneficial uses. For the drinking water contaminants of concerns, the Oregon DEQ drinking water staff provides a
consistent package of information to each basin team. A series of questions are answered through database
queries that provide important information on the PWSs and drinking water within each basin. This information is
included in the assessment report for each basin or watershed that Oregon DEQ is working on. The questions are
highlighted below, along with the methodology or template for answers:
Are there drinking water intakes on the rivers/streams in the basin?
Identify the number of public drinking water systems within the basin that are supplied in whole or in part by surface water intakes.
Create a list of systems and indicate the number of people served (data provided by the Oregon Health Authority). Indicate the num-
ber of PWSs relying in whole or in part on ground water and population served.

Has the drinking water program identified water quality problems in the basin and do we know the contributing
sources of these problems?
Use SDWA monitoring data (SDWIS) and CWA data to provide the results of each of the following data queries:
 Number of water systems served by surface water that have experienced contamination problems in finished water
 Contaminants of concern found in the raw drinking water if sampled as part of Oregon DEQ’s Drinking Water Source
Monitoring Project
 Number of systems required under SDWA to conduct E.coli monitoring to determine if they are at risk from cryptosporid-
ium or other pathogenic microorganisms entering the drinking water supply; provide summary of results number of
systems with elevated turbidity and/or disinfection by-products
 Number of PWSs served by surface water and ground water that have closed or modified a source due to contamination
 A list of the potential sources of contamination identified within drinking water source areas that pose the greatest risk
to the source waters
 A link to the executive summaries of the individual PWS Source Water Assessments
 Number of potential sources of ground water contamination discharging to surface water
 Number of systems within a quarter mile of surface waters or within a half mile of surface waters
 Number of systems that have experienced ground water contamination problems and list the contaminants.

Do we need to collect additional data to determine if the source water is being impacted (if so, is there a plan)?
Discuss what the existing data shows---for example, if there are potential ground water impacts to surface water but very little
data in surface water upstream of intakes. Point out that the SDWA monitoring is required for finished (post-treatment) water
only and that there are no requirements for testing other contaminants that pose potential risks to PWSs, including “emerging
Page 89
Appendix D: The Watershed Approach
After the basin teams collect the data and information for the watershed(s), the next step is developing a set of
priorities. There are several approaches which may be considered when ranking the priorities in the basin:
comparison of all collected data to water quality criteria; watershed/landscape modeling; relative risk analysis
based on identified stressors; or some combination of approaches. The information from one or more of the
prioritization processes is used to develop the draft list of priority pollutant/parameters in the basin. The basin
team will also consult with staff from land quality and air quality to identify cross media and cross program
priorities. These priorities should be integrated into the entire process, through implementation and evaluation. If
a TMDL is in place in the basin, the team will incorporate that data and identify implementation actions in the
basin that include both TMDL parameters and other priorities.
The next step is to develop the implementation plan to reduce the loading of priority contaminants of concern.
Implementation plans include identifying these important elements:
 Beneficial uses
 Impairment(s) to be addressed
 WQS, if applicable
 Drinking water MCLs, if applicable
 Causes of impairment or potential pollutant sources
 Lists of local sources of information, advisory committee members, etc.
 Management measures, including:
 Permits
 TMDLs, with pollutant load reductions
 Pesticide Stewardship Partnership
 Plans from other land managers, including Federal agencies like Bureau of Land Management and USFS
 Ground water management areas

contaminants” such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals associated with personal care products, and many ubiquitous pesticides and
semi-volatile and volatile organic chemicals. Indicate if more data is needed in the basin to help assess whether source water is
being negatively impacted by potential sources of contamination, such as biosolids applications, high density septic systems,
pesticide applications, and forest management practices. List and/or discuss important data gaps including:
 Additional monitoring for toxics in areas upstream from drinking water system intakes
 Location and extent of existing and future biosolids applications sites
 Increased monitoring of pharmaceuticals, personal care products and other emerging contaminants in vicinity of
high density septic systems and biosolids application sites
 Data to assess transport of contaminants via ground water inputs to surface water
 Data to better characterize the risk of algal toxins to PWSs
 Data to better characterize the risks to PWSs from elevated turbidity associated with forest management practices
and roads
 Data to better characterize correlations between storm events and impacts to PWSs from specific contaminants
including fecal coliform and turbidity
 Analysis of land use patterns and disturbances and how they relate to source water turbidity.
Page 90
Appendix D: The Watershed Approach
 NPS reduction strategies
 Oregon ODA-managed lands-- update SB1010 watershed plans
 Oregon ODF-managed forest lands--enforcement if water quality problems related to forestry are identified
 Toxics reduction strategies described in the “Oregon DEQ Agency Toxics Reduction Strategy”
 Source reduction strategies identified in SB 737 Legislative report
 Locations where increased flows are needed to meet WQS and beneficial uses
 Existing strategies developed or implemented to reduce pollutants affecting public drinking water intakes or
wells
 Estimate of load reductions expected from management measures
 Description of the critical or sensitive areas, identified by monitoring, GIS, or modeling in which priority
measures will be needed to reduce loading
 Identify other stakeholders responsible for implementing management control measures
 Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed and their associated costs
 Identify funding sources including CWA 319, Clean Water SRF, Drinking Water SRF, USDA, Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board funding, other grant or loan programs
 Information and education component that identifies the outreach that will be used to implement the plan
 Schedule for implementing the management measures outlined in the plan, both for point and nonpoint
sources
 Description of the criteria and milestones to measure progress in implementing the management measures
 Set of criteria that can be used to determine whether the load reductions are being achieved over time, and
whether the measures are sufficient (example: water quality benchmarks to measure with monitoring).
 Monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time
 Management measures will vary according to the parameter of concern. For example, if an NPDES facility is
identified as a source of a priority parameter (especially upstream of a drinking water intake), the team may
examine the following options:
 Revisit permit limits
 Evaluate pre-treatment requirements
 Identify the facility for funding for improvements

Page 91

Appendix E
Online Resources for Toxic Endpoints, September 2013
 IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) – EPA: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS
 Drinking Water Science and Regulatory Support – EPA: http://water.epa.gov/drink/standards/hascience.cfm
 Pesticide Chemical Search – EPA: http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=CHEMICALSEARCH:1:0::NO:1
 Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides – EPA: http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=HHBP:home:10774339089885
 PPRTV (Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund) – EPA: http://hhpprtv.ornl.gov/quickview/pprtv.php
 HEAST (Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables for Superfund) – EPA: http://epa-heast.ornl.gov/heast.php
 ITER (International Toxicity Estimates for Risk): http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?iter
 OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) – California EPA: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/allphgs.html
 Minnesota Department of Health: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/gw/table.html
 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: http://www.nj.gov/dep/standards
Page 92

Page 93