dEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
4304
EPA 822-B-00-008
December 2000
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria Recommendations
Information Supporting the Development
of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria
Lakes and Reservoirs in
Nutrient Ecoregion VI
-------
EPA-822-B-00-008
AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS
INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE AND TRIBAL
NUTRIENT CRITERIA
FOR
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS IN NUTRIENT ECOREGION VI
CORN BELT AND NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
including all or parts of the States of:
South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio
and the authorized Tribes within the Ecoregion
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
DECEMBER 2000
-------
FOREWORD
This document presents EPA's nutrient criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient
Ecoregion VI. These criteria provide EPA's recommendations to States and authorized Tribes
for use in establishing their water quality standards consistent with section 303(c) of CWA.
Under section 303(c) of the CWA, States and authorized Tribes have the primary responsibility
for adopting water quality standards as State or Tribal law or regulation. The standards must
contain scientifically defensible water quality criteria that are protective of designated uses.
EPA's recommended section 304(a) criteria are not laws or regulations - they are guidance that
States and Tribes may use as a starting point for the criteria for their water quality standards.
The term "water quality criteria" is used in two sections of the Clean Water Act, Section
304(a)(l) and Section 303(c)(2). The term has a different impact in each section. In Section 304,
the term represents a scientific assessment of ecological and human health effects that EPA
recommends to States and authorized Tribes for establishing water quality standards that
ultimately provide a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants or related
parameters. Ambient water quality criteria associated with specific waterbody uses when
adopted as State or Tribal water quality standards under Section 303 define the level of a
pollutant (or, in the case of nutrients, a condition) necessary to protect designated uses in ambient
waters. Quantified water quality criteria contained within State or Tribal water quality standards
are essential to a water quality-based approach to pollution control. Whether expressed as
numeric criteria or quantified translations of narrative criteria within State or Tribal water quality
standards, quantified criteria serve as a critical basis for assessing attainment of designated uses
and measuring progress toward meeting the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act.
EPA is developing section 304(a) water quality criteria for nutrients because States and
Tribes consistently identify excessive levels of nutrients as a major reason why as much as half of
the surface waters surveyed in this country do not meet water quality objectives, such as full
support of aquatic life. EPA expects to develop nutrient criteria that cover four major types of
waterbodies - lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, estuarine and coastal areas, and wetlands -
across fourteen major ecoregions of the United States. EPA's section 304(a) criteria are
intended to provide for the protection and propagation of aquatic life and recreation. To support
the development of nutrient criteria, EPA is publishing Technical Guidance Manuals that describe
a process for assessing nutrient conditions in the four waterbody types.
EPA's section 304(a) water quality criteria for nutrients provide numeric water quality
criteria, as well as procedures by which to translate narrative criteria within State or Tribal water
quality standards. In the case of nutrients, EPA section 304(a) criteria establish values for causal
variables (e.g., total nitrogen and total phosphorus) and response variables (e.g., turbidity and
chlorophyll a). EPA believes that State and Tribal water quality standards need to include
quantified endpoints for causal and response variables to provide sufficient protection of uses and
to maintain downstream uses. These quantified endpoints will most often be expressed as
numeric water quality criteria or as procedures to translate a State or Tribal narrative criterion
into a quantified endpoint.
-------
EPA will work with States and authorized Tribes as they adopt water quality criteria for
nutrients into their water quality standards. EPA recognizes that States and authorized Tribes
require flexibility in adopting numeric nutrient criteria into State and Tribal water quality
standards. States and authorized Tribes have several options available to them. EPA
recommends the following approaches, in order of preference:
(1) Wherever possible, develop nutrient criteria that fully reflect localized conditions and
protect specific designated uses using the process described in EPA's Technical Guidance
Manuals for nutrient criteria development. Such criteria may be expressed either as
numeric criteria or as procedures to translate a State or Tribal narrative criterion into a
quantified endpoint in State or Tribal water quality standards.
(2) Adopt EPA's section 304(a) water quality criteria for nutrients, either as numeric
criteria or as procedures to translate a State or Tribal narrative nutrient criterion into a
quantified endpoint.
(3) Develop nutrient criteria protective of designated uses using other scientifically
defensible methods and appropriate water quality data.
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director
Office of Science and Technology
in
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document provides technical guidance and recommendations to States, authorized
Tribes, and other authorized jurisdictions to develop water quality criteria and water quality
standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to protect against the adverse effects of nutrient
overenrichment. Under the CWA, States and authorized Tribes are to establish water quality
criteria to protect designated uses. State and Tribal decision-makers retain the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance when appropriate and
scientifically defensible. While this document contains EPA's scientific recommendations
regarding ambient concentrations of nutrients that protect aquatic resource quality, it does not
substitute for the CWA or EPA regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. Thus it cannot impose
legally binding requirements on EPA, States, authorized Tribes, or the regulated community, and
it might not apply to a particular situation or circumstance. EPA may change this guidance in the
future.
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nutrient Program Goals
EPA developed the National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria
(National Strategy) in June 1998. The strategy presents EPA=s intentions to develop technical
guidance manuals for four types of waters (lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, estuaries and
coastal waters, and wetlands) and produce section 304(a) criteria for specific nutrient ecoregions
by the end of 2000. In addition, the Agency formed Regional Technical Assistance Groups
(RTAGs) which include State and Tribal representatives working to develop more refined and
more localized nutrient criteria based on approaches described in the waterbody guidance
manuals. This document presents EPA=s current recommended criteria for total phosphorus, total
nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and turbidity for lakes and reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion VI (Corn Belt
and Northern Great Plains) which were derived using the procedures described in the Lakes and
Reservoirs Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
EPA's ecoregional nutrient criteria are intended to address cultural eutrophication- the
adverse effects of excess nutrient inputs. The criteria are empirically derived to represent
conditions of surface waters that are minimally impacted by human activities and protective of
aquatic life and recreational uses. The information contained in this document represent starting
points for States and Tribes to develop (with assistance from EPA) more refined nutrient criteria.
In developing these criteria recommendations, EPA followed a process which included, to
the extent they were readily available, the following elements critical to criterion derivation:
! Historical and recent nutrient data in Nutrient Ecoregion VI
Nutrient Data from Legacy STORET (from 1990-1998) were used to assess historical
and recent nutrient conditions and develop reference conditions in Ecoregion VI
! Reference sites/reference conditions in Nutrient Ecoregion VI
Reference sites/reference conditions in Nutrient Ecoregion VI were based on the lake
population distribution approach using a representative sample of all lakes within the
Ecoregion (see Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual-Lakes and Reservoirs, April
2000, EPA-822-BOO-001. States and Tribes are urged to determine their own reference
sites for lakes and reservoirs within the ecoregion at different geographic scales and to
compare them to EPA's reference conditions.
! Models employed for prediction or validation
EPA did not identify any specific models used in the ecoregion to develop nutrient criteria.
States and Tribes are encouraged to identify and apply appropriate models to support
nutrient criteria development.
v
-------
! RTAG expert review and consensus
EPA recommends that when States and Tribes prepare their nutrient criteria, they obtain
the expert review and consent of the RTAG.
! Potential Downstream effects
EPA encourages the RTAG to assess the potential effects of the proposed criteria on
downstream water quality and uses.
In addition, EPA followed specific QA/QC procedures during data collection and
analysis: All data were reviewed for duplications. All data are from ambient waters that were not
located directly outside a permitted discharger. The following States indicated that their data
were sampled and analyzed using either Standard methods or EPA approved methods:
Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, Minnesota, Ohio and Michigan.
The following tables contain a summary of Aggregate and level III ecoregion values for
TN, TP, water column chl a, and turbidity:
BASED ON 25th PERCENTILE ONLY
Nutrient Parameters
Total phosphorus (|ig/L)
Total nitrogen (mg/L)
Chlorophyll a (|ig/L) (Fluorometric method)
Secchi depth (meters)
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion VI
Reference Conditions
37.5
0.781
8.59
1.356
For subecoregions 46, 47, 48, 54, 55, and 57 the ranges of nutrient parameter reference
conditions are:
BASED ON 25th PERCENTILE ONLY
Nutrient Parameters
Total phosphorus (|ig/L)
Total nitrogen (mg/L)
Chlorophyll a (|ig/L) (Fluorometric method)
Secchi depth (meters)
Range of Level III Subecoregions
Reference Conditions
10-90
0.63-1.43
4-14.4
0.87-2.6
VI
-------
NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
This document is available electronically to the public through the INTERNET at:
(http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/nutrient.html). Requests for hard copies of the document
should be made to EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP),
11029 Kenwood Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242 or (513) 489-8190 or toll free (800) 490-9198.
Please refer to EPA document number EPA-822-R-00-008.
vn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thankfully acknowledge the contributions of the following State and Federal
reviewers: EPA Regions 5, 7, and 8; The States of South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska,
Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio and the Tribes within the
Ecoregion. EPA Headquarters personnel from the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
Office of Wastewater Management, Office of General Counsel, Office of Research and
Development, and the Office of Science and Technology. EPA also acknowledges the external
peer review efforts of Eugene Welch (University of Washington), Robert Carlson (Kent State
University), Steve Heiskary (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), Greg Denton and Sherry
Wang (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation), and Gerhard Kuhn (U.S.
Geological Survey).
Vlll
-------
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4a
Figure 4b
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3a-f
LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Aggregate Ecoregion VI 7
Aggregate Ecoregion VI with level III ecoregions shown 9
Sampling locations within each level III ecoregion 11
Illustration of data reduction process for lake data 20
Illustration of reference condition calculation 21
Lake and reservoir records for Aggregate Ecoregion - Corn Belt
and Northern Great Plains 12
Reference conditions for Aggregate Ecoregion VI lakes 14
Reference conditions for level III ecoregion lakes 15
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ii
Disclaimer iv
Executive Summary v
Notice of Document Availability vii
Acknowledgments viii
List of Tables and Figures ix
Table of Contents x
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Best Use of this Information 4
3.0 Area Covered by This Document (waterbody type and ecoregion) 6
3.1 Description of Aggregate Ecoregion Vl-Corn Belt and N. Great Plains 6
3.2 Geographical Boundaries of Aggregate Ecoregion VI 6
3.3 Level III Ecoregions within Aggregate Ecoregion VI 7
4.0 Data Review for Lakes and Reservoirs in Aggregate Ecoregion VI 9
4.1 Data Sources 10
4.2 Historical Data from Aggregate Ecoregion VI (TP, TN, Chi a, Turbidity) 10
4.3 QA/QC of Data Sources 10
4.4 Data for All Lakes/Reservoirs within Aggregate Ecoregion VI 10
4.5 Statistical Analysis of Data 13
4.6 Classification of Lake/Reservoir Type 19
4.7. Summary of Data Reduction Methods 19
5.0 Reference Sites and Conditions in Aggregate Ecoregion VI 22
6.0 Models Used to Predict or Verify Response Parameters 22
7.0 Framework for Refining Recommended Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs in
Aggregate Ecoregion VI 22
7.1 Example Worksheet for Developing Aggregate Ecoregion and Subecoregion Nutrient
Criteria 23
7.2 Tables of Refined Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Aggregate Ecoregion VI and
Level III Subecoregions 24
7.3 Setting Seasonal Criteria 25
7.4 When Data/Reference Conditions Are Lacking 25
-------
7.5 Site-Specific Criteria Development 26
8.0 Literature Cited 26
9.0 Appendices 27
XI
-------
1.01 INTRODUCTION
Background
Nutrients are essential to the health and diversity of our surface waters. However, in
excessive amounts, nutrients cause hypereutrophication, which results in overgrowth of plant life
and decline of the biological community. Excessive nutrients can also result in potential human
health risks, such as the growth of harmful algal blooms - most recently manifested in the
Pfiesteria outbreaks of the Gulf and East Coasts. Chronic nutrient overenrichment of a waterbody
can lead to the following consequences: low dissolved oxygen, fish kills, algal blooms,
overabundance of macrophytes, likely increased sediment accumulation rates, and species shifts of
both flora and fauna.
Historically, National Water Quality Inventories have repeatedly shown that nutrients are a
major cause of ambient water quality use impairments. EPA's 1996 National Water Quality
Inventory report identifies excessive nutrients as the leading cause of impairment in lakes and the
second leading cause of impairment in rivers (behind siltation). In addition, nutrients were the
second leading cause of impairments reported by the States in their 1998 lists of impaired waters.
Where use impairment is documented, nutrients contribute roughly 25-50% of the impairment
nationally. The Clean Water Act establishes a national goal to achieve, wherever attainable, water
quality which provides for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and
recreation in and on the water. In adopting water quality standards, States and Tribes designate
uses for their waters in consideration of the Clean Water Act goals, and establish water quality
criteria that contain sufficient parameters to protect those uses. To date, EPA has not published
information and recommendations under section 304(a) for nutrients to assist States and Tribes in
establishing numeric nutrient criteria to protect uses when adopting water quality standards.
In 1995, EPA gathered a set of national experts and asked the experts how to best deal
with the national nutrient problem. The experts recommended that the Agency not develop single
criteria values for phosphorus or nitrogen applicable to all water bodies and regions of the country.
Rather, the experts recommended that EPA put a premium on regionalization, develop guidance
(assessment tools and control measures) for specific waterbodies and ecological regions across the
country, and use reference conditions (conditions that reflect pristine or minimally impacted
waters) as a basis for developing nutrient criteria.
With these suggestions as starting points, EPA developed the National Strategy for the
Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (National Strategy), published in June 1998. This
strategy presented EPA's intentions to develop technical guidance manuals for four types of waters
(lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, estuaries and coastal waters, and wetlands) and,
thereafter, to publish section 304(a) criteria recommendations for specific nutrient ecoregions.
Technical guidance manuals for lakes/reservoirs and rivers/streams were published in April 2000
and July 2000, respectively. The technical guidance manual for estuaries/coastal waters will be
published in spring 2000 and the draft wetlands technical guidance manual will be published by
December 2001. Each manual presents EPA's recommended approach for developing nutrient
criteria values for a specific waterbody type. In addition, EPA is committed to working with
States and Tribes to develop more refined and more localized nutrient criteria based on approaches
described in the waterbody guidance manuals and this document.
1
-------
Overview of the Nutrient Criteria Development Process
For each Nutrient Ecoregion, EPA developed a set of recommendations for two causal
variables (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) and two early indicator response variables
(chlorophyll a and some measure of turbidity). Other indicators such as dissolved oxygen and
macrophyte growth or speciation, and other fauna and flora changes are also deemed useful.
However, the first four are considered to be the best suited for protecting designated uses.
The technical guidance manuals describe a process for developing nutrient criteria that
involves consideration of five factors. The first of these is the Regional Technical Assistance
Group (RTAG), which is a body of qualified regional specialists able to objectively evaluate all of
the available evidence and select the value(s) appropriate to nutrient control in the water bodies of
concern. These specialists may come from such disciplines as limnology, biology, natural
resources management- especially water resource management, chemistry, and ecology. The
RTAG evaluates and recommends appropriate classification techniques for criteria determination,
usually physical within an ecoregional construct.
The second factor is the historical information available to establish a perspective of the
resource base. This is usually data and anecdotal information available within the past ten-twenty
five years. This information gives evidence about the background and enrichment trend of the
resource.
The third factor is the present reference condition. A selection of reference sites chosen to
represent the least culturally impacted waters of the class existing at the present time. The data
from these sites is combined and a value from the distribution of these observations is selected to
represent the reference condition, or best attainable, most natural condition of the resource base at
this time.
A fourth factor often employed is theoretical or empirical models of the historical and
reference condition data to better understand the condition of the resource.
The RTAG comprehensively evaluates the other three elements to propose a candidate
criterion (initially one each for TP, TN, chl a, and some measure of turbidity).
The last and final element of the criteria development process is the assessment by the
RTAG of the likely downstream effects of the criterion. Will there be a negative, positive, or
neutral effect on the downstream waterbody? If the RTAG judges that a negative effect is likely,
then the proposed State/Tribal water quality criteria should be revised to ameliorate the potential
for any adverse downstream effects.
While States and authorized Tribes would not necessarily need to incorporate all five
elements into their water quality criteria setting process (e.g., modeling may be significant in only
some instances), the best assurance of a representative and effective criterion for nutrient
management decision making is the balanced incorporation of all five elements, or at least all
elements except modeling.
-------
Because some parts of the country have naturally higher soil and parent material
enrichment, and different precipitation regimes, the application of the criterion development
process has to be adjusted by region. Therefore, an ecoregional approach was chosen to develop
nutrient criteria appropriate to each of the different geographical and climatological areas of the
country. Initially, the continental U.S. was divided into 14 separate ecoregions of similar
geographical characteristics. Ecoregions are defined as regions of relative homogeneity in
ecological systems; they depict areas within which the mosaic of ecosystem components (biotic
and abiotic as well as terrestrial and aquatic) is different than adjacent areas in a holistic sense.
Geographic phenomena such as soils, vegetation, climate, geology, land cover, and physiology that
are associated with spatial differences in the quantity and quality of ecosystem components are
relatively similar within each ecoregion.
The Nutrient ecoregions are aggregates of U.S. EPA=s hierarchal level III ecoregions. As
such, they are more generalized and less defined than level III ecoregions. EPA determined that
setting ecoregional criteria for the large scale aggregates is not without its drawbacks - variability
is high due to the lumping of many waterbody classes, seasons, and years worth of multipurpose
data over a large geographic area. For these reasons, the Agency recommends that States and
Tribes develop nutrient criteria at the level III ecoregional scale and at the waterbody class scale
where those data are readily available. Data analyses and recommendations on both the large
aggregate ecoregion scale as well as more refined scales (level III ecoregions and waterbody
classes), where data were available to make such assessments, are presented for comparison
purposes and completeness of analysis.
Relationship of Nutrient Criteria to Biological Criteria
Biological criteria are quantitative expressions of the desired condition of the aquatic
community. Such criteria can be based on an aggregation of data from sites that represent the
least-impacted and attainable condition for a particular waterbody type in an ecoregion,
subecoregion, or watershed. EPA's nutrient criteria recommendations and biological criteria
recommendations have many similarities in the basic approach to their development and data
requirements. Both are empirically derived from statistical analysis of field collected data and
expert evaluation of current reference conditions and historical information. Both utilize direct
measurements from the environment to integrate the effects of complex processes that vary
according to type and location of waterbody. The resulting criteria recommendations, in both
cases, are efficient and holistic indicators of water quality necessary to protect uses.
States and authorized Tribes can develop and apply nutrient criteria and biological criteria
in tandem, with each providing important and useful information to interpret both the nutrient
enrichment levels and the biological condition of sampled waterbodies. For example, using the
same reference sites for both types of criteria can lead to efficiencies in both sample design and
data analysis. In one effort, environmental managers can obtain information to support assessment
of biological and nutrient condition, either through evaluating existing data sets or through
designing and conducting a common sampling program. The traditional biological criteria
variables of benthic invertebrate and fish sampling can be readily incorporated to supplement a
nutrient assessment. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this tandem approach, EPA has initiated
pilot projects in both freshwater and marine environments to investigate the
-------
relationship between nutrient overenrichment and apparent declines in diversity indices of benthic
invertebrates and fish.
2.0 BEST USE OF THIS INFORMATION
EPA recommendations published under section 304(a) of the CWA serve several purposes,
including providing guidance to States and Tribes in adopting water quality standards for nutrients
that ultimately provide a basis for controlling discharges or releases of pollutants. The
recommendations also provide guidance to EPA when promulgating Federal water quality
standards under section 303(c) when such action is necessary. Other uses include identification of
overenrichment problems, management planning, project evaluation, and determination of status
and trends of water resources.
State water quality inventories and listings of impaired waters consistently rank nutrient
overenrichment as a top contributor to use impairments. EPA's water quality standards
regulations at 40 CFR § 131.11 (a) require States and Tribes to adopt criteria that contain sufficient
parameters and constituents to protect the designated uses of their waters. In addition, States and
Tribes need quantifiable targets for nutrients in their standards to assess attainment of uses,
develop water quality-based permit limits and source control plans, and establish targets for total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
EPA expects States and Tribes to address nutrient overenrichment in their water quality
standards, and to build on existing State and Tribal initiated efforts where possible. States and
Tribes can address nutrient overenrichment through establishment of numerical criteria or through
use of new or existing narrative criteria statements (e.g., free from excess nutrients that cause or
contribute to undesirable or nuisance aquatic life or produce adverse physiological response in
humans, animals, or plants). In the case of narrative criteria, EPA expects that States and Tribes
establish procedures to quantitatively translate these statements for both assessment and source
control purposes.
The intent of developing ecoregional nutrient criteria is to represent conditions of surface
waters that are minimally impacted by human activities and thus protect against the adverse effects
of nutrient overenrichment from cultural eutrophi cation. EPA's recommended process for
developing such criteria includes physical classification of waterbodies, determination of current
reference conditions, evaluation of historical data and other information (such as published
literature), use of models to simulate physical and ecological processes or determine empirical
relationships among causal and response variables (if necessary), expert judgement, and evaluation
of downstream effects. To the extent allowed by the information available, EPA has used elements
of this process to produce the information contained in this document. The values for both causal
(total nitrogen, total phosphorus) and biological and physical response (chlorophyll a, turbidity)
variables represent a set of starting points for States and Tribes to use in establishing their own
criteria in standards to protect uses.
In its water quality standards regulations, EPA recommends that States and Tribes establish
numerical criteria based on section 304(a) guidance, section 304(a) guidance modified to reflect
site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods. For many pollutants, such as
toxic chemicals, EPA expects that section 304(a) guidance will provide an appropriate level of
-------
protection without further modification in most cases. EPA has also published methods for
modifying 304(a) criteria on a site-specific basis, such as the water effect ratio, where site-specific
conditions warrant modification to achieve the intended level of protection. For nutrients,
however, EPA expects that, in most cases, it will be necessary for States and authorized Tribes to
identify with greater precision the nutrient levels that protect aquatic life and recreational uses.
This can be achieved through development of criteria modified to reflect conditions at a smaller
geographic scale than an ecoregion such as a subecoregion, the State or Tribe level, or specific
class of waterbodies. Criteria refinement can occur by grouping data or performing data analyses
at these smaller geographic scales. Refinement can also occur through further consideration of
other elements of criteria development, such as published literature or models.
The values presented in this document generally represent nutrient levels that protect
against the adverse effects of nutrient overenrichment and are based on information available to the
Agency at the time of this publication. However, States and Tribes should critically evaluate this
information in light of the specific designated uses that need to be protected. For example, more
sensitive uses may require more stringent values as criteria to ensure adequate protection. On the
other hand, overly stringent levels of protection against the adverse effects of cultural
eutrophication may actually fall below levels that represent the natural load of nutrients for certain
waterbodies. In cases such as these, the level of nutrients specified may not be sufficient to
support a productive fishery. In the criteria derivation process, it is important to distinguish
between the natural load associated with a specific waterbody and current reference conditions,
using historical data and expert judgement. These elements of the nutrient criteria derivation
process are best addressed by States and Tribes with access to information and local expertise.
Therefore, EPA strongly encourages States and Tribes to use the information contained in this
document and to develop more refined criteria according to the methods described in EPA's
technical guidance manuals for specific waterbody types.
To assist in the process of further refinement of nutrient criteria, EPA has established ten
Regional Technical Advisory Groups (experts from EPA Regional Offices and States/Tribes). In
the process of refining criteria, States and authorized Tribes need to provide documentation of
data and analyses, along with a defensible rationale, for any new or revised nutrient criteria they
submit to EPA for review and approval. As part of EPA's review of State and Tribal standards,
EPA intends to seek assurance from the RTAG that proposed criteria are sufficient to protect uses.
In the process of using the information and recommendations contained in this document,
as well as additional information, to develop numerical criteria or procedures to translate narrative
criteria, EPA encourages States and Tribes to:
• Address both chemical causal variables and early indicator response variables. Causal
variables are necessary to provide sufficient protection of uses before impairment occurs
and to maintain downstream uses. Early response variables are necessary to provide
warning signs of possible impairment and to integrate the effects of variable and potentially
unmeasured nutrient loads.
• Include variables that can be measured to determine if standards are met, and variables that
can be related to the ultimate sources of excess nutrients.
• Identify appropriate periods of duration (i.e., how long) and frequency (i.e., how often) of
occurrence in addition to magnitude (i.e., how much). EPA does not recommend
-------
identifying nutrient concentrations that must be met at all times, rather a seasonal or annual
averaging period (e.g., based on weekly measurements) is considered appropriate.
However, these seasonal or annual central tendency measures should apply each season or
each year, except under the most extraordinary of conditions (e.g., a 100 year flood).
3.0 AREA COVERED BY THIS DOCUMENT
The following sections provide a general description of the aggregate ecoregion and its
geographical boundaries. Descriptions of the level III ecoregions contained within the aggregate
ecoregion are also provided.
3.1 Description of Aggregate Ecoregion VI- Corn Belt and Northern Great Plains
The rolling plains and flat lake beds of Region VI are dominated by extensive, highly
productive cropland. Moist, fertile soils are characteristic and are often more nutrient-rich than
those of Regions IV, VII, VIII, and IX. Perennial streams, lakes, and concentrations of seasonal
wetlands occur. Corn, soybean, and livestock farming is common and feedlots occur. Many
urban, suburban, and industrial areas are also found in Region VI. This land use mosaic differs
from the rangeland of Region IV, the winter wheat, grain sorghum, and feedlots of Region V, the
dairying and silage corn of Region VII, and the forest, cropland, and pastureland of Region IX.
The regions nutrient-rich soils significantly influence surface and subsurface water quality.
Elevated concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus are significant water quality problems in many
basins and are a byproduct of nutrient-rich agricultural runoff and wastewater treatment effluent;
dissolved oxygen depletion occurs in sluggish, warm rivers that have high nutrient levels.
Pesticides are widely used on cropland in the Corn Belt and Northern Great Plains (VI) and have
contaminated surface waters. High concentrations of suspended sediment are found in many
streams especially those in flat, agricultural areas with clayey soils and artificial drainage. Fecal
coliform bacteria levels in streams have been elevated by feedlots, municipal wastewater effluent,
urban runoff, and livestock operations. Lakes occur especially in the northern part of the region;
they are used for fishing and recreation and are important wildlife habitat. Those that are found in
Region VI range from mildly eutrophic to hypereutrophic. Eutrophic conditions are also found in
southwestern portions of Lake Michigan and Lake Erie.
3.2 Geographical Boundaries of Aggregate Ecoregion VI
As this ecoregion's name suggests, it encompasses areas of the northern midwest where
corn production dominates land usage. The eastern portions of North and South Dakota and
Nebraska form the northwest boundary of the ecoregion. A small corner of northeast Kansas is
included in the region. Also, most of Iowa, the northern half of Illinois, central Indiana, the
southern and western portions of Minnesota and western Ohio are included in ecoregion VI. In
addition, very small segments of Wisconsin and Michigan are included in this ecoregion.
-------
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6
Figure 1. Aggregate Ecoregion VI.
3.3 Level III Ecoregions Within Aggregate Ecoregion VI
46. Northern Glaciated Plains
The Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregion is characterized by a flat to gently rolling landscape
composed of glacial till. The subhumid conditions foster a transitional grassland containing
tallgrass and shortgrass prairie. High concentrations of temporary and seasonal wetlands create
favorable conditions for waterfowl nesting and migration. Though the till soils are very fertile,
agricultural success is subject to annual climatic fluctuations.
47. Western Corn Belt Plains
Once covered with tallgrass prairie, over 75 percent of the Western Corn Belt Plains is now used
for cropland agriculture and much of the remainder is in forage for livestock. A combination of
nearly level to gently rolling glaciated till plains and hilly loess plains, an average annual
precipitation of 63 - 89 cm which occurs mainly in the growing season, and fertile, warm, moist
soils make this on of the most productive areas of corn and soybeans in the world. The region is
also one of major environmental concerns regarding surface and groundwater contamination from
fertilizer and pesticide applications as well as livestock concentrations.
48. Lake Agassiz Plain
Glacial Lake Agassiz was the last in a series of proglacial lakes to fill the Red River valley in the
three million years since the beginning of the Pleistocene. Thick beds of lake sediments on top of
glacial till create the extremely flat floor of the Lake Agassiz Plain. The historic tallgrass prairie
7
-------
has been replaced by intensive row crop agriculture. The preferred crops in the northern half of
the region are potatoes, beans, sugar beets and wheat; soybeans, sugar beets, and corn
predominate in the south.
54. Central Corn Belt Plains
Extensive prairie communities intermixed with oak hickory forests were native to the glaciated
plains of the Central Corn Belt Plains; they were a stark contrast to the hardwood forests that grew
on the drift plains of ecoregions to the east. Ecoregions to the west were mostly treeless except
along larger streams. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the natural vegetation was gradually
replaced by agriculture. Farms are now extensive on the dark, fertile soils of the Central Corn Belt
Plains and mainly produce corn and soybeans; cattle, sheep, poultry, and especially hogs are also
raised, but they are not as dominant as in the drier Western Corn Belt Plains to the west.
Agriculture has affected stream chemistry, turbidity, and habitat.
55. Eastern Corn Belt Plains
The Eastern Corn Belt Plains is primarily a rolling plain with local end moraines; it had more
natural tree cover and has lighter colored soils than the Central Corn Belt Plains. The region has
loamier and better drained soils than the Huron/Erie Lake Plain, and richer soils than the
Erie/Ontario Hills and Lake Plain. Glacial deposits of Wisconsin age are extensive. They are not
as dissected nor as leached as the pre-Wisconsin till which is restricted to the southern part of the
region. Originally, beech forests were common on Wisconsin soils while beech forests and elm-ash
swamp forests dominated the wetter pre-Wisconsin soils. Today, extensive corn, soybean, and
livestock production occurs and has affected stream chemistry and turbidity.
57. Huron/Erie Lake Plain
The Huron/Erie Lake Plain is a broad, fertile, nearly flat plain punctuated by relic sand dunes,
beach ridges, and end moraines. Originally, soil drainage was typically poorer than in the adjacent
Eastern Corn Belt Plains, and elm-ash swamp and beech forests were dominant. Oak savanna was
typically restricted to sandy, well-drained dunes and beach ridges. Today, most of the area has
been cleared and artificially drained and contains highly productive farms producing corn,
soybeans, livestock, and vegetables; urban and industrial areas are also extensive. Stream habitat
and quality have been degraded by channelization, ditching, and agricultural activities.
-------
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6
Ecoregion ID
Figure 2. Aggregate Ecoregion VI with level III ecoregions shown
Suggested Ecoregional subdivisions or adjustments.
EPA recommends that the RTAG evaluate the adequacy of EPA nutrient ecoregional and
subecoregional boundaries and refine them as needed to reflect local conditions.
4.0 DATA REVIEW FOR LAKES AND RESERVOIRS IN AGGREGATE
ECOREGION VI
The following section describes the nutrient data EPA has collected and analyzed for this
Ecoregion, including an assessment of data quantity and quality. The data tables present the data
for each causal parameter- total phosphorus and total nitrogen (both reported and calculated from
TKN and nitrite/nitrate), and the primary response variables— some measure of turbidity and
chlorophyll a. These are the parameters which EPA considers essential to nutrient assessment
because the first two are the main causative agents of enrichment and the two response variables
are the early indicators of system enrichment for most of the surface waters
(See Chapter 5 of the Lakes and Reservoirs Nutrient Criteria Guidance Manual (U.S. EPA, 2000a)
for a complete discussion on choosing causal and response variables.)
-------
4.1 Data Sources
Data sets from Legacy STORET were used to assess nutrient conditions from 1990 to
1999. The following States submitted nutrient data to Legacy STORET: North Dakota, South
Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Kansas. This data is
from January 1990 to September 1998. EPA recommends that the RTAGs identify additional data
sources that can be used to supplement the data sets listed above. In addition, the RTAGs may
utilize published literature values to support quantitative and qualitative analyses.
4.2 Historical Data from Aggregate Ecoregion VI ( TP, TN, Chlor a and Secchi Depth)
EPA recommends that States/Tribes assess long-term trends observed over the past 50
years. This information may be obtained from scientific literature or documentation of historical
trends. To gain additional perspective on more recent trends, it is recommended that States and
Tribes assess nutrient trends over the last 10 years (e.g., what do seasonal trends indicate?)
4.3 QA/QC of data sources
An initial quality screen of data was conducted using the rules presented in Appendix C.
Data remaining after screening for duplications and other QA measures (.e.g., poor or unreported
analytical records, sampling errors or omissions, stations associated with outfalls, storm water
sewers, hazardous waste sites,) is the data used in statistical analyses.
States within Ecoregion VI were contacted regarding the quality of their data. The
following States provided information on the methods used to sample and analyze their waters:
Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Minnesota, Ohio, and Michigan. In all cases, States indicated a
Standard method or an approved EPA method was used. S. Dakota, North Dakota and Kansas
did not provide information prior to the publication of this document.
4.4 Data for all lakes/reservoirs within Aggregate Ecoregion VI
The map in Figure 3 shows the location of the sampling stations within each sub ecoregion.
Table 1 presents all data records for all parameters for Aggregate Ecoregion VI and
subecoregions within the Aggregate Ecoregion. The map indicates that stations are present in all
subecoregions and somewhat uniformly scattered within the subecoregions. There is a degree of
concentration of stations near what are presumed to be population centers.
10
-------
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6
Lake and Reservoir Stations
I . f ""-^ ,* « % •
V »H f '* '"
* **
Level III
] 48
54
1 55
I 57 100 0 100 2W
| US
Stations
Figure 3. Map of sampling locations within each level III ecoregion
11
-------
Table 1. Lake records for Aggregate Ecoregion VI - Corn Belt and Northern Great Plains
# of Lakes
# of Lake Stations
Key Nutrient Parameters
(listed below)
- # of records for Secchi
depth
- # of records for Chlorophyll
a (all methods)
- # of records for Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
- # of records for Nitrate +
Nitrite (NO2 + NO3)
- # of records for Total
Nitrogen (TN)
- # of records for Total
Phosphorus (TP)
Total # of records for key
nutrient parameters
Aggregate
Ecoregion
IV
531
1320
33, 073
8741
8277
10,455
74
11,139
71,759
Sub
ecoR 46
103
172
2463
302
1166
898
67
1440
6336
Sub
ecoR 47
125
208
6060
1892
2088
2704
0
2770
15,514
Sub
ecoR 48
18
23
134
18
170
145
7
190
664
Sub
ecoR 54
224
813
24,114
5378
4014
5660
0
5672
44,838
Sub
ecoR 55
58
93
301
1151
780
989
0
1008
4229
Sub
ecoR 57
10
11
1
0
59
59
0
59
178
12
-------
Definitions used to complete Table 1:
1. # of records refers to the total count of observations for that
parameter over the entire decade (1990-1999) for that particular
aggregate or subecoregion. These are counts for all seasons over
that decade.
2. # of lake stations refers to the total number of lake and
reservoir stations within the aggregate or subecoregion from
which nutrient data were collected. Since lakes and reservoirs can
cross ecoregional boundaries, it is important to note that only
those portions of a lake or reservoir (and data associated with
those stations) that exist within the ecoregion are included within
this table.
4.5 Statistical Analysis of Data/Potential Reference Conditions
EPA's Technical Guidance Manual for Developing Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and
Reservoirs describes two ways of establishing a reference condition. One method is to choose the
upper 25th percentile (75th percentile) of a reference population of lakes. This is the preferred
method to establish a reference condition. The 75th percentile was chosen by EPA since it is likely
associated with minimally impacted conditions, will be protective of designated uses, and provides
management flexibility. When reference lakes are not identified, the second method is to determine
the lower 25th percentile of the population of all lakes within a region. The 25th percentile of the
entire population was chosen by EPA to represent a surrogate for an actual reference population.
Data analyses to date indicate that the lower 25th percentile from an entire population roughly
approximates the 75th percentile for a reference population. See case studies for Minnesota lakes
in the Lakes and Reservoirs Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Document (U.S. EPA, 2000a)
and the case study for Tennessee streams in the Rivers and Streams Nutrient Criteria Technical
Guidance Document (U.S. EPA, 2000b), and the letter from Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation to Geoffrey Grubbs [TNDEC, 2000]). New York State has also
presented evidence that the 25th percentile and the 75 percentile compare well based on user
perceptions of water resources (NYSDEC., 2000)
The following tables 2 and 3a-f, present the potential reference conditions for both the
aggregate ecoregion and the subecoregions using both methods. However, the reference lake
column is left blank because EPA does not have reference data and anticipates that States will
provide information on reference lakes. Appendix A provides a complete presentation of all
descriptive statistics for both the aggregate ecoregion and the level III subecoregion.
13
-------
Table 2.
Reference conditions for aggregate ecoregion VI lakes.
Parameter
TKN (mg/L)
NO2 + NO3 (mg/L)
TN (mg/L) - calculated
TN (mg/L) - reported
TP (Kg/L)
Secchl (meters)
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - F
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - S
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - T
No. of
Lakes
N++
313
368
NA
3
393
387
1
224
164
Reported values
Min
.0945
0
.0945
1.68
2.5
.089
18.8
.32
0.66
Max
4.355
9.513
13.867
2.445
1000
5.03
18.8
147.45
134.97
25th Percentiles based on all
seasons data for the Decade
P25* all seasons +
.765
.016
.781
1.68
37.5
1.356
18.8
8.59
17.26
Reference Lakes * *
P75 all seasons
P25: 25th percentile of all data
P75: 75th percentile of all data
** as determined by the Regional Technical Assistance Groups (RTAGs)
+ Median for all seasons' 25th percentiles. E.g. this value was calculated from four seasons' 25th
percentiles. If the seasonal 25th percentile (P25) TP values are - spring lOwg/L, summer
l5ug/L, fall 12wg/L, and winter 5ug/L, the median value of all seasons P25 will be llug/L.
++ N = largest value reported for a decade / Season.
TN calculated is based on the sum of TKN + NO2+NO3
TN reported is actual TN value reported in the database for one sample.
F Chlorophyll a measured by Fluorometric method with acid correction.
S Chlorophyll a measured by Spectrophotometric method with acid correction.
T Chlorophyll a b c measured by Trichromatic method.
NA Not Applicable
Table(s) 3a.-f. present the potential reference conditions for lakes and reservoirs in the
Level III subecoregions within the Aggregate Ecoregion. The footnotes for Table 2 apply to tables
3a-f.
14
-------
Table 3a. Reference conditions for level III ecoregion 46 lakes.
Parameter
TKN (mg/L)
N02 + N03 (mg/L)
TN (mg/L) - calculated
TN (mg/L) - reported
TP (Kg/L)
Secchl (meters)
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - F
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - S
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - T
No. of
Lakes
N++
66
58
NA
2z
69
55
24
Iz
Reported values
Min
0.69
.003
0.69
1.83
15
0.2
2.84
19
Max
3.89
.635
4.525
2.45
970
3.0
40.63
19
25th Percentiles based on all
seasons data for the Decade
P25* all seasons +
1.41
.022
1.43
1.83
90
1.46
6.5
19 zz
Reference Lakes * *
P75 all seasons
Table 3b. Reference conditions for level III ecoregion 47 lakes.
Parameter
TKN (mg/L)
N02 + N03 (mg/L)
TN (mg/L) - calculated
TN (mg/L) - reported
TP (Kg/L)
Secchl (meters)
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - F
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - S
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - T
No. of
Lakes
N++
81
79
NA
92
108
Iz
57
16
Reported values
Min
0.15
0
0.15
15
0.175
18.8
3.25
4.0
Max
4.23
5.76
9.99
847.5
4.195
18.8
129.5
128
25th Percentiles based on all
seasons data for the Decade
P25* all seasons +
0.957
.0065
.9635
55
1.23
18.8
14.6
14
Reference Lakes * * II
P75 all seasons
15
-------
Table 3c. Reference conditions for level III ecoregion 48 lakes.
Parameter
TKN (mg/L)
N02 + N03 (mg/L)
TN (mg/L) - calculated
TN (mg/L) - reported
TP (Kg/L)
Secchl (meters)
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - S
No. of
Lakes
N++
8
8
NA
Iz
11
6
3z
Reported values
Min
0.59
.006
.60
2.14
22.5
0.61
4
Max
1.76
.06
1.82
2.14
325
2.75
15.5
25th Percentiles based on all
seasons data for the Decade
P25* all seasons +
0.62
.007
.63
2.14zz
51.25
1.98
4
Reference Lakes * *
P75 all seasons
Table 3d. Reference conditions for level III ecoregion 54 lakes.
Parameter
TKN (mg/L)
N02 + N03 (mg/L)
TN (mg/L) - calculated
TP (wg/L)
Secchi (meters)
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - S
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - T
No. of
Lakes
N++
102
167
NA
165
197
133
133
Reported values
Min
0.18
.003
0.18
5.75
0.114
0.57
0.66
Max
2.3
7.85
10.15
656.25
4.43
134.6
125.9
25th Percentiles based on all
seasons data for the Decade
P25* all seasons +
0.62
0.015
0.63
20
1.44
7.85
7.64
Reference Lakes * * II
P75 all seasons
16
-------
Table 3e. Reference conditions for level III ecoregion 55 lakes.
Parameter
TKN (mg/L)
NO2 + NO3 (mg/L)
TN (mg/L) - calculated
TN (mg/L) - reported
TP (Kg/L)
Secchl (meters)
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - F
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - S
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - T
No. of
Lakes
N++
47
47
NA
47
20
7
14
Reported values
Min
0.188
0.025
0.213
3.75
0.229
2.75
1.4
Max
1.83
6.197
8.03
455.88
1.06
21.66
28.89
25th Percentiles based on all
seasons data for the Decade
P25* all seasons +
0.525
0.257
0.782
35
0.87
5.27
5.45
Reference Lakes * *
P75 all seasons
Table 3f. Reference conditions for level III ecoregion 57 lakes.
Parameter
TKN (mg/L)
NO2 + NO3 (mg/L)
TN (mg/L) - calculated
TN (mg/L) - reported
TP (Kg/L)
Secchl (meters)
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - F
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - S
Chlorophyll a («g/L) - T
No. of
Lakes
N++
9
9
NA
9
Iz
Reported values
Min
0.4
0.025
0.425
8
2.6
Max
1.05
9.13
10.18
140
2.6
25th Percentiles based on all
seasons data for the Decade
P25* all seasons +
0.5
0.535
1.04
10
2.6 zz
Reference Lakes * *
P75 all seasons
17
-------
Definitions used in filling Tables 2 and 3 - Reference Condition tables
1. Number of Lakes in Table 2 refers to the largest number of lakes and
reservoirs for which data existed for a given season within an aggregate nutrient
ecoregion.
2. Number of Lakes in Table 3 refers to the number of lakes and reservoirs for
which data existed for the summer months since summer is generally when the
greatest amount of nutrient sampling is conducted. If another season greatly
predominates, notification is made (s=spring, f=fall, w=winter).
3. Medians. All values (min, max, and 25th percentiles) included in the table are
based on waterbody medians. All data for a particular parameter within a lake
for the decade were reduced to one median for that lake. This prevents over-
representation of individual waterbodies with a great deal of data versus those
with fewer data points within the statistical analysis.
4. 25th percentile for all seasons is calculated by taking the median of the 4
seasonal 25th percentiles. If a season is missing, the median was calculated with 3
seasons of data. If less than 3 seasons were used to derive the median, the entry is
flagged (z).
5. A 25th percentile for a season is best derived with data from a minimum of 4
lakes/season. However, this table provides 25th percentiles that were derived with
less than 4 lakes/season in order to retain all information for all seasons. In
calculating the 25th percentile for a season with less than 4 lake medians, the
statistical program automatically used the minimum value within the less-than-4
population. If less than 4 lakes were used in developing a seasonal quartile and or
all-seasons median, the entry is flagged (zz).
Preferred data choices and recommendations when data is missing
1. Where data are missing or are very low in total records for a given parameter, use 25th
percentiles for parameters within an adjacent, similar subecoregion within the same aggregate
nutrient ecoregion or when a similar subecoregion can not be determined, use the the 25th
percentile for the Aggregate ecoregion or consider the lowest 25th percentile from a subecoregion
(level III) within the aggregate nutrient ecoregion. The rationale being that without data, one may
assume that the subecoregion in question may be as sensitive as the most sensitive subecoregion
within the aggregate.
2. TN calculated: When reported Total Nitrogen (TN) median values are lacking or very low in
comparison to TKN and Nitrate/Nitrite-N values, the medians for TKN and nitrite/nitrate-N were
added, resulting in a calculated TN value. The number of samples (N) for calculated TN is not
18
-------
filled in since it is represented by two subsamples of data: TKN and nitrite/nitrate-N. Therefore,
N/A is placed in this box.
3. TN reported: This is the median based on reported values for TN from the database.
4. Chlorophyll a: Medians based on all methods are reported, however, the acid corrected medians
are preferred to the uncorrected medians. In developing a reference condition from a particular
method, it is recommended that the method with the most observations be used. Fluorometric and
Spectrophotometric are preferred over all other methods. However, when no
data exist for Fluorometric and Spectrophotometric methods, Trichromatic values may be used.
Data from the variance techniques are not interchangeable.
5. Periphyton: Where periphyton data exist, record them separately For periphyton-dominated
streams, a measure of periphyton chlorophyll is a more appropriate response variable than
planktonic chlorophyll a. See Table 4, p. 101 of the Rivers and Streams Nutrient Technical
Guidance Manual (U. S. EPA, 2000b) for values of periphyton and planktonic chlorophyll a
related to eutrophy in streams.
6. Secchi depth: The 75th percentile is reported for Secchi depth since this is the only variable for
which the value of the parameter increases with greater clarity. (For lakes and reservoirs only.)
7. Turbidity units: All turbidity units from all methods are reported. FTUs and NTUs are
preferred over JCUs. If FTUs and NTUs do not exist, use JCUs. These units are not
interchangeable. Turbidity is chosen as a response variable in streams since it can be an indicator
of increasing algal biomass due to nutrient enrichment. See pages 32 -33 of the Rivers and
Streams Nutrient Technical Guidance Manual for a discussion of turbidity and correlations with
algal growth.
8. Lack of data: A dash (-) represents missing, inadequate, or inconclusive data. A zero (0) is
reported if the reported median for a parameter is 0 or if the component value is below detection.
4.6. Classification of Lake/Reservoir Type
It is anticipated that assessing the data by lake type will further reduce the variability in the data
analysis. There was no readily available classification data in the National datasets used to develop these
criteria to make this assessment for this ecoregion and set of subecoregions, but it is strongly encouraged
that this assessment be made before a State or Tribe develops a final criterion.
4.7. Summary of Data Reduction Methods
All descriptive statistics were calculated using the medians for each lake within ecoregion
VI, for which data existed. For example, if one lake had 300 observations for phosphorus over the
decade or one year's time, one median resulted. Each median from each lake was then used in
calculating the percentiles for phosphorus for the aggregate nutrient ecoregion/subecoregion (level
III ecoregion) by season and year (Figure 4a & b).
19
-------
Observations for All Lakes/Reservoirs
Ecoregion
Winter
Spring
Data Reduced
to
Median Value
for each
Lake/Reservoir
by
Season
Summer
Rainy Lake Median
Fish Reservoir Median
Swan Lake Median
Moon Lake ...
Timber...
Rainy Lake Median
Fish Reservoir Median
Swan Lake Median
Moon Lake ...
Timber...
Rainy Lake Median
Fish Reservoir Median
Swan Lake Median
Moon Lake ...
Timber...
Fall
Rainy Lake Median
Fish Reservoir Median
Swan Lake Median
Moon Lake ...
Timber...
Figure 4a. Illustration of data reduction process for lake data.
20
-------
Select 25th Percentile
from Distribution
of Median
Values
25th
Winter
25%
25%
Spring
Summer
25%
Fall
TP
TN
TKN
N02+N03
DO
SECCHI
Calculate Median
Value of the
25th Percentiles
for the Four Seasons
JHalfvalues -^J
Below Median ^~~^
25%
1 1
)25% 25%
Season A Season B
75%
L, Halfvalues
i-"""^ Above Median
1 1
25% 25%
Season C Season D
Median = Reference Condition for the Ecoregion
Figure 4b. Illustration of reference condition calculation.
21
-------
5.0 REFERENCE SITES AND CONDITIONS IN AGGREGATE ECOREGION VI
Reference conditions represent the natural, least impacted conditions or what is considered
to be the most attainable conditions. This section compares the different reference conditions
determined from the two methods and establishes which reference condition is most appropriate.
A priori determination of reference sites. The preferred method for establishing reference
condition is to choose the upper percentile of an a priori population of reference lakes. States and
Tribes are encouraged to identify reference conditions based on this method.
Statistical determination of reference conditions (25th percentile of entire database.) See Tables 2
and 3a-f in section 4.0.
RTAG discussion and rationale for selection of reference sites and conditions in Ecoregion VI.
The RTAG should compare the results derived from the two methods described above and present
a rationale for the final selection of reference sites.
6.0 MODELS USED TO PREDICT OR VERIFY RESPONSE PARAMETERS
The RTAG is encouraged to identify and apply relevant models to support nutrient criteria
development. The following are three scenarios under which models may be used to derive criteria
or support criteria development.
• Models for predicting correlations between causal and response variables
• Models used to verify reference conditions based on percentiles
• Regression models used to predict reference conditions in impacted areas
7.0 FRAMEWORK FOR REFINING RECOMMENDED NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR
LAKES AND RESERVOIRS IN AGGREGATE ECOREGION VI
Information on each of the following six weight of evidence factors is important to refine
the criteria presented in this document. All elements should be addressed in developing criteria, as
is expressed in our nutrient criteria technical guidance manuals. It is our expectation that EPA
Regions, States, and Tribes (as RTAGs) will consider these elements as States/Tribes develop their
criteria. This section should be viewed as a work sheet (sections are left blank for this purpose) to
assist in the refinement of nutrient criteria. If many of these elements are ultimately unaddressed,
EPA may rely on the proposed reference conditions presented in Tables 3a-f and other literature
and information readily available to the HQ nutrient team to develop nutrient water quality
recommendations for this ecoregion.
22
-------
7.1 Example Worksheet for Developing Aggregate Ecoregion and Subecoregion Nutrient
Criteria
Literature sources
Historical data and trends
Reference condition
• Models
RTAG expert review and consensus
Downstream effects
23
-------
7.2 Tables of Refined Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Aggregate Ecoregion VI and
Level III Subecoregions for TP, TN, Chi a, Turbidity (where sufficient data exist)
Aggregate Ecoregion VI- Corn Belt and N.
Great Plains
Total Phosphorus (|ig/L)
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Chlorophyll a (|ig/L or mg/m2)
Secchi depth (meters)
Other (Index; other parameter such as DO)
Proposed Criterion
Literature sources
• Historical data and trends
Reference condition
Models
RTAG expert review and consensus
24
-------
Downstream effects
Ecoregion #46-Northern Glaciated Plains
Total Phosphorus (|ig/L)
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Chlorophyll a (|ig/L or mg/m2)
Secchi depth (meters)
Other (Index; other parameter such as DO)
Proposed Criterion
7.3 Setting Seasonal Criteria
The criteria presented in this document are based in part on medians of all the 25th
percentile seasonal data (decadal), and as such are reflective of all seasons and not one particular
season or year. It is recommended that States and Tribes monitor in all seasons to best assess
compliance with the resulting criterion. States/Tribes may choose to develop criteria which reflect
each particular season or a given year when there is significant variability between seasons/years
or designated uses that are specifically tied to one or more seasons of the year (e.g., recreation,
fishing). Using the tables in Appendix A and B, one can set reference conditions based on a
particular season or year and then develop a criterion based on each individual season. Obviously,
this option is season-specific and would also require increased monitoring within each season to
assess compliance.
7.4 When Data/Reference Conditions are Lacking
When data are unavailable to develop a reference condition for a particular parameter(s)
within a subecoregion, EPA recommends one of three options: 1. Use data from a similar
neighboring subecoregion. E.g., If data are few or nonexistent for the northern cascades, consider
using the data and reference condition developed for the cascades; or 2. Use the 25th perecentiles
for the Aggregate ecoregion or 3. Consider using the lowest of the yearly medians for that
parameter calculated for all the subecoregions within the Aggregate Ecoregion.
25
-------
7.5 Site-specific Criteria Development
Criteria may be refined in a number of ways. The best way to refine criteria is to follow the
critical elements of criteria development as well as to refer to the Lakes and Reservoirs technical
guidance manual (U. S. EPA, 2000a).
The Lakes and Reservoirs Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual presents sections
on each of the following factors to consider in setting criteria
- refinements to ecoregions (Chapter 3)
- classification of waterbodies (Chapter 3)
- setting seasonal criteria to reflect major seasonal climate differences (Chapter 7)
accounting for significant or cyclical rainfall events - high flow/low flow conditions (Chapter 7)
setting criteria for reservoirs only (The technical guidance manual recommends that data be
separated for lakes and reservoirs and treated independently if possible because of differing
physical conditions that occur in lakes and reservoirs. In this document all data from both
reservoirs and lakes were considered together since STORET does not allow for the
differentiation of data except by waterbody name.)
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environment and Conservation). 2000.
Memorandum from Scott Kishbaugh to Jay Bloomfield, September 26, 2000, regarding
reference lakes for nutrient criteria.
TNDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation). 2000. Letter to
Geoff Grubbs, October 5, 2000, containing comments on draft nutrient criteria
recommendations.
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-BOO-001.
U.S. EPA. 2000b. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-BOO-002.
26
-------
9.0 APPENDICES
A. Descriptive Statistics Data Tables for Aggregate Ecoregion
B. Descriptive Statistics Data Tables for Level III Subecoregions within Aggregate Ecoregion
C. Quality Control/Quality Assurance Rules
27
-------
APPENDIX A
Descriptive Statistics Data Tables for Aggregate Ecoregion
-------
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
N
17D
13b
EE4
Efl
MEAN
15-3
ED.5
lfi.fi
15
13
MEAN
3E-3
E3-5
3E-1
IS-7
MIN
IS-3
ED-S
lfi.fi
MIN
• 31D
• ESD
• 73D
• ESD
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter Chla_Fluo_ug_L_Median
MAX
1S-ES
ED-SD
lfl.75
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
PS
IS-3
ED.5
lfi.fi
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter Chla_Phyto_Spec_A_ug_L_Median
MAX
1SE-SD
14E-4D
ISS-Sb
bfl.DD
STDDEV
El.3
Eb-3
Efi.fi
IS-3
STDERR
E-E4
E-Eb
1.13
E.fifi
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter Chla_Tric_U_ug_L_Median
PES
IS-3
ED.5
lfi.fi
CV
11
HE
flfl
17
P5
3-bE
1 • 7b
3.74
D-fll
PES
11-3
5- flS
13-1
4-D1
MEDIAN
IS-3
ED.5
lfi.fi
MEDIAN
E3-S
13-1
E3-3
13-1
P7S
IS-3
ED.5
lfi.fi
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter DO_mg_L_Median
MEAN
1-3D
1D-D
MIN
4-45
4-flD
MAX
14.4D
13-ID
STDDEV
E-D1
1-73
STDERR
D-El
D-lfl
CV
EE
17
PS
5-bD
7-3D
PES
7-IS
I.ED
MEDIAN
1-3S
LID
P7S
4E.
33.
44.
E3-D
P7S
ID-4
11.D
PIS
IS-3
ED.5
lfi.fi
PIS
flD-l
14-3
43-fl
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
N
13E
IDE
Ib4
11
MEAN
33-5
E3-b
34- S
ID- 7
MIN
• DSD
• 44D
• fifiD
LEI
MAX
133- DD
137- DD
13b-14
EL 11
STDDEV
3D.fl
Et.fi
3D-E
fl.ED
STDERR
E. bfl
E-bS
E-3b
l.fifi
CV
IE
113
flfl
77
PS
3- IS
E-lfl
3-flD
LEI
PES
1D-1
t, . 3b
11. E
E-fll
MEDIAN
E3-1
14-7
E4-b
7-fll
P7S
4b-7
33- S
4fl-l
17-1
PIS
1D3
7E-1
1fl.fi
E1-E
PIS
13-E
13-4
-------
SUMMER
WINTER
13fl
fl3
7-flb
fl.Efl
• 750
• 45D
13.4D
14.3D
E.DD
3-fl7
D-17
D-43
E5 4-flD
47 D.flS
b-SS
5-4D
7-flfl
I.DD
11.1
11-3
13-D
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
N
EflS
Eb7
3bfl
17
MEAN
D.ES
l-4b
D-b7
D-54
MIN
• DDD
• DDD
• DDD
• DDD
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter NOE_N03_mg_L_Median
MAX
1.13
1.1D
1D-D4
fl.ED
STDDEV
D-77
E-lfl
l-3b
1-31
STDERR
D-DS
D-13
D-D7
D-13
CV
3Db
141
EDE
E4E
PS
D-DD
D.DD
D.DD
D.DD
PES
D.DI
D-D3
D.DI
D-D7
MEDIAN
D-D3
D-3E
D-D3
D-lfl
P7S
D-IE
E.ID
D. to
D-34
PIS
1-55
4fl
flD
4-45
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter SECCHI m Median
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
N
3E3
3D4
3fl7
MEAN
D
1
D • Ifl
LEI
11
Ifl
MIN
• IDE
• ED3
MAX
5.El
4-flfl
4-75
5-Ifl
STDDEV
D. bfl
D.IE
D-73
STDERR
D-D4
D-D5
D-D4
CV
75
7fl
74
P5
D-E5
D-3D
D-Efl
D-3D
PES
D-4b
D-S3
D-Sl
D. bl
MEDIAN
D-71
D-TD
D-7T
P7S
1-11
1-SE
i.n
1. bS
PIS
3-Dfl
3-bb
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
N
E3b
E1S
313
113
MEAN
LED
1-D7
1-3D
1-bE
MIN
• 11D
• DES
• D7D
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter TKN_mg_L_Median
MAX
3-7b
3-b7
4-TS
5-15
STDDEV
D-71
D-57
D-7D
1-14
STDERR
D-D5
D-D4
D-D4
D-11
CV
54
54
7D
P5
D-E7
D-3D
D-45
D-E4
PES
D-7D
D. tfl
D-fl4
D.11
MEDIAN
1-Db
1-13
LED
P75
1. tD
1-3D
1-7D
E.ID
PIS
3-71
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter TN_mg_L_Median
SEASON
MEAN
MIN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
PES
MEDIAN
P75
PIS
-------
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
N
31fl
EH
313
E-Db
1-74
1.71
3-D1
MEAN
US
fl7-E
1E1
Ifl4
1-74
1-Db
E-44
MIN
5.DD
• DDD
E.SD
E.SD
E.SD
1-74
E-31
3-bE
D. bE
D-bD
D-44
D-31
D-3S
3D
3fl
11
1-74
LDt
E-44
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter TP_ug_L_Median
MAX
17D-DD
77S-DD
1D3D-DD
IflSD-DD
STDDEV
13S
17-4
144
Eflfl
STDERR
7-SI
S-71
7-E7
ES-7
CV
llfl
HE
111
1S7
PS
1D-D
LSD
1D-D
1D-D
1-74
LDt
E-44
PES
3S-D
ES-D
4D-D
4D-D
E-Dt
1-74
LIE
3-EE
MEDIAN
7S-D
SS-D
flD-D
fl7-S
E.SD
1-74
E-31
3-bE
P7S
14S
11D
Itfl
EES
E.SD
1-74
E-31
3-bE
PIS
3E3
E7D
315
7ES
-------
APPENDIX B
Descriptive Statistics Data Tables for Level III Subecoregions within Aggregate Ecoregion
-------
Eco_
Level,
III
Eco_
Level,
III
SEASON
4b
4b
4b
4b
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
D
D
D
D
1
1
1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
SEASON
MEAN
15-3
ED-5
lfi.fi
MEAN
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter Chla_Fluo_ug_L_Median
MIN
15-3
ED-5
lfi.fi
MAX
15-E5
ED-5D
lfl.75
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
15-3
ED-5
lfi.fi
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter Chla_Phyto_Spec_A_ug_L_Median
MIN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
PE5
15-3
ED-5
lfi.fi
PE5
MEDIAN
15-3
ED-5
lfi.fi
MEDIAN
P75
15-3
ED-5
lfi.fi
P75
P15
15-3
ED-5
lfi.fi
P15
4b
4b
4b
4b
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
4fl
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
13
1
E4
E
35
31
57
1
E
E
3
33-1
5-31
E3-1
1-Efl
31.1
3E-4
34-1
Efl.5
13- D
3-b3
11. D
4-13
1-lfl
3-71
• 115
1-E5
l-7b
E-5D
4-DD
ID- 5
• E5D
4-DD
141.
11.
7D.
1.
15E.
1E1.
1E1.
bfl.
15.
7.
EE.
5D
DD
E5
57
5D
5D
5D
DD
5D
DD
as
3fl-l
3-5D
lb-1
D-41
Efl-7
33-1
EL 4
11-3
3-54
4-77
ID- 4
ID
1.
3-
D.
4-
5-
3-
b.
E.
3-
5-
. t
17
45
El
as
3D
fll
45
5D
3fl
Ifl
115
tt
73
3E
73
IDE
fl4
bfl
E7
13E
15
4-13
1-lfl
5-5D
1-DD
11. b
LIE
3-5D
4-DD
ID- 5
D-E5
4-DD
1D-D
3-DD
IE- 5
1-DD
El-E
fl.SE
14- fl
14-4
ID- 5
D-E5
4-DD
11-4
3-54
El- 3
1-Efl
33- D
11. E
E4-1
E7-b
13- D
3-b3
b-DD
3fl-7
fi.fiD
Eb-D
1-57
45-3
43- D
44- E
3E-D
15-5
7-DD
EE-1
14E
11. D
bl-D
1-57
1b-3
1ED
113
tfl.D
15-5
7-DD
EE-1
-------
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
D
114
flD
133
It
t
t
7
1
D
D
D
31
EE
35
11
15
ID
11
D.
• 3
.7
• 4
• E
. t
.7
• 1
E5
• 31D
• 41D
• 73D
• fllD
l.b?
4-75
3-flE
• E5D
lEb.
14E.
155.
E4.
31.
Eb.
17.
D.
fl3
4D
5b
D3
13
Dfl
E5
E5
Efl-1
E3-4
3D- 4
7-43
ID- 5
fl.El
5-41
E.
E.
E.
1.
4.
3.
E.
71
bE
b4
at
3D
35
D7
IE
1D3
fit
tt
b7
7b
4b
3.
1.
3.
D.
1.
4.
3.
D.
5b
bl
74
fll
b7
75
flE
E5
Lb3
b-Dfl
IE- 7
4- bfl
ID. fl
5-b5
4. fll
D-E5
El- 5
15-1
E5-4
ID- 4
13- E
7-D3
13-4
D-E5
44.4
33.7
41.D
17-3
E3-D
13-1
Ib-E
D-E5
1D1
7D-1
15-5
E4-D
31.1
Eb-1
17-E
D-E5
Eco_
Level,
III
SEASON
MEAN
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter Chla_Tric_U_ug_L_Median
MIN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
PE5
MEDIAN
P75
P15
4b
4b
4b
4b
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
1
1
1
D
11
13
It
E
D
D
D
D
114
flD
133
It
t
fl
14
1
D
D
D
ED
5-
n
tE
37
41
11
31
EE
35
11
11
ID
IE
1.
.4
33
• D
.5
.fl
. t
• 1
. t
• 1
• 1
• 1
.4
• E
.4
El
ED- 4
5-33
11. D
1E-D
3-DD
5-DD
E-fll
• DSD
• 44D
• flflD
1. b4
E-3D
LSD
1-DD
LEI
ED.
5.
11.
133.
137.
1E3.
ED.
115.
13t.
13b.
EL
3fl.
3D.
E7.
1.
4D
33
DD
DD
DD
DD
ID
Efl
55
14
11
as
E7
5D
El
ED- 4
5-33
11. D
4t.fi
4E-1
3fl-7
lE-fl
Efl. 3
E4-E
EL 5
7-17
13-1
1-4E
7-53
14
11
1.
1.
E.
E.
E.
1.
5-
3-
E.
• 1
• 7
b7
D5
ts
7D
55
11
35
33
Dl
75
HE
7fl
IDfl
ID
IDt
fl4
7E
b7
IE
tl
1E-D
3.
5.
E.
3.
1.
3.
1.
E.
1.
1.
1.
DD
DD
fll
15
17
4t
t4
3D
5D
DD
El
ED- 4
5-33
11. D
ED-D
1-DD
11. D
E-fll
a. at
t.m
1E-1
3- ID
13-1
4-B7
b-DE
LEI
ED- 4
5-33
11. D
43- b
EE-D
3b-5
11-1
E3-1
14-7
E5-1
1D-E
15-1
b-14
11-5
LEI
ED
5-
11
.4
33
• D
HE
43
flE
ED
45
33
4fl
It
3D
13
Ifl
1.
• 3
• D
• 1
.5
• 1
• 1
• 1
.4
• 1
.fl
El
ED- 4
5-33
11. D
133
137
1E3
ED-1
1b-1
71-4
flfl.fl
E1-E
3fl.fl
3D- 3
E7-5
LEI
-------
Eco_
Level,
III
Eco_
Level,
III
SEASON
SEASON
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter DO_mg_L_Median
MEAN
MIN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
PE5
MEDIAN
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: vi
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter NOE_N03_mg_L_Median
MEAN
MIN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
PE5
MEDIAN
P75
P75
PIS
4b
4b
4b
4b
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
3b
El
51
44
5E
51
73
3E
7
5
b
7
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1.
1.
7-
7-
1.
ID
fl.
1.
1.
1.
b •
1.
b7
7E
47
EE
DE
• E
3D
4D
4fl
41
4D
fib
4- flD
fl.SD
• 75D
• 7DD
4- 45
4- flD
1-Sfl
• 45D
7- 3D
fl.SD
4- flD
E-bD
13.
11.
ID.
14.
14.
13.
13.
13.
ID.
ID.
1.
13.
bD
flD
bD
3D
4D
ID
4D
DD
75
ID
DS
b5
1.
D.
1.
4.
E.
E.
E.
3.
1.
D.
1.
3.
bS
fll
74
IE
4D
D5
IE
ID
4b
11
SD
.17
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
1.
E7
Ib
E3
bE
33
E7
E5
55
55
44
bl
5D
17
1
E3
57
E7
ED
Eb
33
15
ID
E3
4D
b.
fl.
4.
D.
5.
5.
5.
D.
7.
fl.
4.
E.
75
5D
7D
as
3D
15
D5
flD
3D
5D
flD
bD
fl.
1.
b.
3.
7.
1.
7.
1.
7.
fl.
5.
7.
flD
ED
4D
ED
5D
E5
DD
D5
bD
7D
ED
4D
1.
1.
7-
fl.
fl.
ID
fl.
ID
1.
1.
b.
ID
b4
5D
flD
15
15
• 3
Ifl
• 3
flD
3D
Efl
• b
ID- 4
1D-D
fl.55
1D-1
1D-D
11. b
1-bD
11. E
ID- 7
ID-l
b.flD
13- E
IE- 5
11. b
1D-D
1E-E
13-4
13- fl
1E-E
13- D
ID-fl
1D-1
1-D5
13-7
PIS
4t
4t
4t
4t
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
E4
n
5fl
E5
tE
b7
7T
3T
fl
3
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D7
ID
IE
15
Ifl
DE
tfl
35
DE
DE
• DDE
• DDfl
• DDE
• DD3
• DDD
• DDD
• DDD
• DDD
• DD3
• DDb
D.
D.
D.
D.
4.
7.
t.
4.
D.
D.
31
73
75
55
DD
ED
Tfl
55
D5
D4
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
1.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D7
17
EE
13
tD
fl4
44
7b
DE
DE
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
• Dl
• D4
• D3
• D3
• Dfl
• EE
• It
• IE
• Dl
• Dl
1DD
Ib5
IflD
fl4
3ET
17T
Ell
Elfl
11
lib
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
• DD
• Dl
• DD
• Dl
• DD
• DD
• DD
• DD
• DD
• Dl
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
• DE
• DE
• Dl
• Dl
• DD
• Dl
• DD
• D4
• DD
• Dl
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
• D5
• D3
• DE
.11
• Dl
• E5
• Dt
• IE
• DE
• Dl
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
• ID
• ID
• ID
• E3
• Dfl
• flfl
.44
• E5
• D3
• D4
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
5.
4.
1.
D.
D.
14
73
7D
41
tE
1b
T5
47
D5
D4
-------
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
a
4
151
13D
It7
E7
3t
3fl
47
E
4
ID
1
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
1.
D.
E.
1.
3.
4.
E.
E.
DE
.11
15
57
tE
DE
51
Efl
E7
4t
Ifl
ID
51
• DD5
• D7D
• DD3
• DD3
• DD3
• DD3
• DID
• DE5
• DE5
• 4DD
l.flt
• DE5
• DE5
D.
D.
3.
1.
7.
fl.
E.
t.
5.
t.
1.
7.
ID.
Dt
3fl
7D
ID
5D
ED
4t
11
flfl
5E
13
Ifl
D4
D.
D.
D.
E.
1.
1.
D.
E.
1.
4.
3.
E.
3.
DE
14
43
31
Efl
IE
t7
El
4E
33
37
75
11
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
3.
1.
D.
1.
Dl
D7
D4
ED
ID
37
11
3t
El
Dt
tfl
fl7
D4
1ED
74
Efll
147
ED7
Ifll
131
17
HE
1E5
fll
15
1E4
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
D.
Dl
D7
DD
DD
DD
D3
D3
D3
D3
4D
at
D3
D3
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
E.
D.
D.
• Dl
• D1
• DD
• D3
• DD
• ID
• D3
.41
.11
• 4D
.Dt
.54
• D3
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
3.
E.
E.
E.
Dl
15
D3
3fl
D3
E7
E4
El
7D
4t
at
37
33
D.
D.
D.
E.
D.
D.
D.
3.
1.
t.
t.
4.
E.
Dl
Efl
ID
ID
5D
ID
75
at
IE
5E
3D
4D
14
D.
D.
1.
7-
3-
5-
E.
t.
4-
t.
1.
7-
ID
Dt
3fl
DD
4D
flD
Ifl
14
E4
53
5E
13
Ifl
• D
Eco_
Level,
III
SEASON
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter SECCHI m Median
MEAN
MIN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
PE5
MEDIAN
P75
P15
4t
4t
4t
4t
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
43
3t
55
El
IE
IE
IDfl
54
t
4
t
1
171
Itl
117
31
11
11
ED
1
D
D
1
D.
1.
D.
1.
D.
1.
D.
1.
1.
E.
1.
D.
1.
1.
1.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
E.
fl3
It
It
47
bl
Ifl
flD
E7
3fl
ED
75
71
D4
11
Dl
Et
t3
flD
t3
74
to
• 111
• Elb
• E5D
• ED3
• 15D
• EDD
• 1E7
• ED3
. tlD
• 5D5
. tlD
• 711
• D7b
• D7b
• 15E
• EflD
• 3D5
• 15E
• IDE
• 737
E. to
E.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
3.
5.
E.
3.
E.
D.
5.
4.
4.
3.
1.
1.
1.
D.
E.
St
D5
DD
tt
35
flfl
51
Ifl
5E
fll
Ifl
71
El
IE
75
1b
D5
b5
D7
74
to
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
1.
D.
1.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
53
75
53
D5
Mt
DE
St
DE
73
37
7fl
71
ID
fl3
14
El
41
E7
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
• Dfl
.13
• D7
• E3
• D5
.11
• D5
.14
• 3D
. ta
• 3E
• Dt
• D7
• Dt
.15
• D1
• IE
• Dt
tM
ts
St
71
tt
fl7
71
flD
53
tE
44
7t
7t
7t
74
4t
51
43
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
E.
• E7
• 3D
.33
• E3
• ED
• 3D
• E5
• 3D
. tl
.51
. tl
.71
.31
• 3D
.31
.31
.31
.15
• IE
.74
. tD
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
1.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
E.
45
t3
St
7t
3t
5D
4D
t3
fl4
E4
37
71
51
57
55
51
41
4t
43
74
tD
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
1.
1.
E.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
E.
75
IE
at
Dfl
tE
71
tt
D4
Ifl
E4
77
71
fl4
11
fll
11
5D
flD
t7
74
tD
1.
1.
1.
E.
D.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
D.
1.
1.
1.
1.
D.
1.
D.
D.
E.
IE
ta
E4
5D
ID
5D
D7
4D
17
It
Ifl
71
E3
5D
37
74
11
D4
fl3
74
tD
1.
E.
1.
3.
1.
3.
1.
3.
E.
3.
E.
D.
E.
3.
E.
3.
1.
1.
1.
D.
E.
fl3
ID
71
5t
5D
E3
flD
It
5E
fll
Ifl
71
t4
31
tE
7D
D5
ts
DD
74
tD
-------
Eco_
Level,
III
SEASON
MEAN
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter TKN_mg_L_Hedian
niN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
PES
MEDIAN
P75
PIS
4b
4b
4b
4b
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
37
E5
bb
4E
bb
b7
fll
43
fl
3
fl
fl
&5
7E
IDE
11
3b
3fl
47
1
4
ID
1
1.
1.
1.
E.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
Ifl
as
flE
5E
41
E3
41
E5
Dl
13
5D
bl
15
ID
D4
flfl
7b
bfl
fl7
IE
53
bb
fl7
• 3flD
1-14
• SflS
• flDD
• in
• EDD
• Ib3
• 13fl
• 35D
• fl3D
• fl75
• D7D
• 17D
• 11D
• DE5
• EDD
• 175
• EDD
• 1DD
• TED
• 3DD
• 4DD
• 4DD
3.
3.
4.
5.
3.
3.
4.
5.
1.
1.
E.
1.
E.
1.
3.
1.
E.
1.
E.
D.
D.
1.
1.
7b
b7
D3
15
15
5D
15
DD
77
5D
54
7b
7D
ID
15
7D
15
b5
DD
IE
ID
D5
ID
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
75
b5
bl
11
b3
54
bl
fl4
b3
34
5E
bb
51
3fl
55
44
45
34
4b
Eb
EE
4b
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
• IE
.13
• Dl
.17
• Dfl
• D7
• Dfl
.13
• EE
• ED
.11
• E3
• D5
• D4
• D5
• ID
• D7
• D5
• D7
.13
• D7
.15
3fl
35
3fl
44
45
44
4b
b7
b3
3D
35
Tb
53
4E
53
5D
51
41
5E
5D
33
53
D.
1.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
ID
Ib
IE
Db
74
7E
flD
55
35
fl3
flfl
D7
E4
E7
4D
ED
E5
E4
3D
IE
3D
4D
4D
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
47
35
35
53
DD
IE
Dl
75
4D
fl3
13
IE
bD
b5
7D
5D
4fl
41
5fl
IE
35
5D
54
1.
1.
1.
E.
1.
1.
1.
1.
D.
1.
1.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
D.
as
fll
7D
E5
E5
13
3D
D3
17
D7
44
5D
ID
as
11
IE
b5
b5
flD
IE
45
b3
75
E.
E.
E.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
D.
D.
1.
D.
D.
D.
1.
5fl
IE
Efl
45
77
3fl
fll
54
bD
5D
74
EE
15
Ifl
11
ED
flfl
as
ID
IE
7D
as
DD
3.
E.
3.
4.
E.
E.
E.
E.
1.
1.
E.
1.
1.
1.
E.
1.
1.
1.
1.
D.
D.
1.
1.
5D
ID
D4
31
fl4
Dfl
4fl
bD
77
5D
54
7b
7D
55
D5
7D
75
55
75
IE
ID
D5
ID
Eco_
Level
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: vi
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter TN_mg_L_Median
II
4b
4b
4b
4b
47
47
47
47
4fl
SEASON
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
N
E
1
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
MEAN
E.
1.
E.
3.
Db
74
Ib
D3
MIN
1.
1.
1.
E.
b3
74
IE
44
MAX STDDEV
E.
1.
E.
3.
5D D-bE
74
31 D-33
bE D.flM
STDERR CV
D-44 3D
D-E3 15
D-51 Efl
P5
PES
MEDIAN
1.
1.
1.
E.
b3
74
IE
44
1.
1.
1.
E.
b3
74
IE
44
E.
1.
E.
3.
Db
74
Ib
D3
P75
E-5D
1-74
E-31
3-bE
P15
E-5D
1-74
E-31
3-bE
-------
4fl
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
D
1
1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Eco_
Level,
III
l.Db
3-EE
l.Db
3-EE
l.Db
3-EE
l.Db
3-EE
l.Db
3-EE
l.Db
3-EE
l.Db
3-EE
SEASON
Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion: VI
Lakes and Reservoirs
Descriptive Statistics by Decade and Season
Parameter TP_ug_L_Median
MEAN
MIN
MAX
STDDEV
STDERR
CV
P5
PE5
MEDIAN
P75
l.Db
3-EE
P15
4b
4b
4b
4b
47
47
47
47
4fl
4fl
4fl
4fl
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
57
57
57
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
WINTER
FALL
SPRING
SUMMER
43
3E
bl
45
75
75
IE
43
ID
5
11
1
151
131
Ib5
E7
35
3fl
47
E
4
ID
1
HE
Ifl4
EE1
331
141
1D1
13b
1D4
Ib-D
13-5
17fl
i4b
flS. 3
Sfl-D
14-7
fit. 5
77- fl
flfl.b
1fl.4
53-1
E1D
SD-fl
43-3
ED-D
1D-D
ED-D
E-5D
E5-D
• DDD
E5-D
5-DD
5-DD
4D-D
5D-D
5-DD
5-DD
b-5D
5-DD
1D-D
5-DD
E-5D
E-5D
4D-D
1D-D
fl.DD
4-75
11D.
5DD.
1D3D.
IflSD.
135.
775.
TED.
3fl5.
EflD.
IbD.
37D.
IflD.
74D.
57E.
flDS.
47D.
545.
4ED.
411.
bb.
17D.
14D.
11D.
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
5D
DD
DD
DD
DD
75
E5
DD
DD
DD
17D
1E5
lib
4Dfl
13E
11. S
111
IDE
fll-7
4fl-7
114
315
IDS
75-7
1E7
1D1
11. E
13. b
11-4
Ifl.b
4bD
4E-3
35-4
E5-1
EE-E
E3-b
bD.fi
15-3
11-5
IE- 4
15-5
Efl-4
El-fl
34- E
IDS
fl.51
b-bE
l.flfl
11-4
Ib.fl
1S-E
14-5
13-1
E3D
13-4
11. fl
fll
bfl
fib
1E3
14
11
fl7
17
13
SE
b4
E15
1E3
131
134
117
lEfl
IDb
1D1
35
15fl
fl3
flE
E5-D
ED-b
3D-D
3D-D
3E-5
E5-D
3D-D
EE-5
5-DD
4D-D
5D-D
5-DD
1D-D
LSD
1D-D
1D-D
5-75
E-5D
5-DD
4D-D
1D-D
fl.DD
4-75
ID
ID
flD
ID
b5
5D
bD
4D
5D
5E
flS
5-
E5
ED
ED
IE
ED
3D
4D
4D
ID
ID
ID
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
• 5
• D
DD
• D
• D
• D
• 5
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
• D
17D
15D
IflD
11D
1DD
flD-D
IDb
7D-D
57-5
1DD
135
45- D
bD-D
3D-D
45- D
7D-D
bD-D
57-5
7D-D
53-1
1D-D
4D-D
4D-D
E35
E7D
E1D
3fl5
175
11D
155
1ED
15D
115
E15
75- D
11D
7D-D
11D
11D
1D-D
11D
13D
bb-3
57D
7D-D
bS-D
4bD
41D
b7D
1DDD
335
Eb3
34D
33D
EflD
IbD
37D
IflD
EflS
EDD
375
3DD
EbD
EflD
E15
bb-3
17D
14D
11D
-------
APPENDIX C
Quality Control/Quality Assurance Rules
-------
Support for the Compilation and Analysis of National Nutrient Data
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters
Prepared for:
Robert Cantilli
Environmental Protection Agency
OW/OST/HECD
Prepared by:
INDUS Corporation
1953 Gallows Road
Vienna, Virginia 22182
Contract Number: 68-C-99-226
Task Number: 04
Subtask Number: 4
August 8, 2000
-------
CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 References 1
2.0 QA/QC PROCEDURES 2
2.1 National Data Sets 3
2.2 State Data 3
2.3 Laboratory Methods 4
2.4 Waterbody Name 4
2.5 Ecoregion Data 5
3.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS REPORTS 5
3.1 Data Source Reports 6
3.2 Remark Code Reports 7
3.3 Median of Each Waterbody 7
3.4 Descriptive Statistic Reports 7
3.5 Regression Models 8
4.0 TIME PERIOD 8
5.0 DATA SOURCES AND PARAMETERS FOR THE AGGREGATE NUTRIENT
ECOREGIONS 9
5.1 Lakes and Reservoirs 9
5.1.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2 9
5.1.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6 10
5.1.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7 10
5.1.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 8 11
5.1.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9 12
5.1.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11 12
5.1.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12 13
5.1.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 13 13
5.2 Rivers and Streams 14
5.2.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2 14
5.2.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 3 15
5.2.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6 16
5.2.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7 16
5.2.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9 17
5.2.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11 18
5.2.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12 19
5.2.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 14 20
-------
APPENDIX A Process Used to QA/QA the Legacy STORE! Nutrient Data Set
APPENDIX B Process for Adding Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregions and Level III
Ecoregions
APPENDIX C Glossary
in
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Nutrient Criteria Program has initiated development of a national Nutrient Criteria Database
application that will be used to store and analyze nutrient data. The ultimate use of these data will
be to derive ecoregion- and waterbody-specific nutrient criteria ranges. EPA converted STOrage
and RETrieval (STORET) legacy data, National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN) data, National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) data, and other relevant
nutrient data from universities and States/Tribes into the database. The data imported into the
Nutrient Criteria Database will be used to develop national nutrient criteria ranges.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this deliverable is to provide EPA with information regarding the data used to
create the statistical reports which will be used to derive ecoregion- and waterbody-specific
nutrient criteria ranges for Level III ecoregions. There are fourteen aggregate nutrient
ecoregions. Each aggregate nutrient ecoregion is divided into smaller ecoregions referred to as
Level III ecoregions. EPA will determine criteria ranges for the waterbody types and Level III
ecoregions within the following aggregate nutrient ecoregions:
Lakes and Reservoirs
Aggregate Nutrient ecoregions: 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13
• Rivers and Streams
Aggregate Nutrient ecoregions: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14
1.2 References
This section lists documents that contain baselines, standards, guidelines, policies, and references
that apply to the data analysis. Listed editions were valid at the time of publication. All
documents are subject to revision, but these specific editions govern the concepts described in this
document.
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs (Draft). EPA, Office of
Water, EPA 822-D-99-001, April 1999.
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams (Draft). EPA, Office of
Water, EPA 822-D-99-003, September 1999.
Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, EPA QA/G-9, January 1998.
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
2.0 QA/QC PROCEDURES
In order to develop nutrient criteria, EPA needed to obtain nutrient data from the states. EPA
requested nutrient data from the states and forwarded the data sets to INDUS via e-mail and/or
US mail. In addition, EPA tasked INDUS to convert data from three national data sets. EPA
provided INDUS with a Legacy STORET extraction to convert into the database. The United
States Geologic Survey (USGS) sent INDUS a CD-ROM with NASQAN data to convert.
INDUS downloaded NAWQA files from the USGS Web site to convert the data. In total,
INDUS converted and imported the following national and state data sets into the Nutrient
Criteria Database:
Legacy STORET
NAWQA
NASQAN
• Region 1
• Region 2 - Lake Champlain Monitoring Project
• Region 2 - NYSDEC Finger Lakes Monitoring Program
• Region 2 - NY Citizens Lake Assessment Program
• Region 2 - Lake Classification and Inventory Survey
Region 2 - NYCDEP (1990-1998)
Region 2 - NYCDEP (Storm Event data)
Region 2 - New Jersey Nutrient Data ( Tidal Waters)
• Region 5
• Region 3
• Region 3 - Nitrite Data
• Region 3 - Choptank River files
• Region 4 - Tennessee Valley Authority
• Region 7 - Central Plains Center for BioAssessment (CPCB)
Region 7 - REMAP
• Region 2 - Delaware River Basin Commission (1990-1998)
• Region 3 - PA Lake Data
• Region 3 - University of Delaware
• Region 10
• University of Auburn
As part of the conversion process, INDUS performed a number of Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) steps to ensure that the data was properly converted into the Nutrient Criteria
Database. Section 2 explains the steps performed by INDUS to convert the data.
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
2.1 National Data Sets
INDUS converted three national data sets into the Nutrient Criteria Database: Legacy STORET
data, NASQAN data, and NAWQA data. A previous EPA contractor performed the extraction of
Legacy STORET data and documented the QA/QC procedures used on the data. This
documentation is included in Appendix A. INDUS performed minimal QA/QC on the Legacy
STORET data set because the previous contractor completed the steps outlined in Appendix A.
INDUS and EPA also agreed to convert the NAWQA and NASQAN data sets with minimal
QA/QC on the assumption that the source agency, the USGS, QA/QC'd the data.
For each of the three national data sets, INDUS ran queries to determine if 1) samples existed
without results and 2) if stations existed without samples. Per Task Order Project Officer
(TOPO) direction, these records were deleted from the system. For analysis purposes, EPA
determined that there was no need to keep station records with no samples and sample records
with no results. INDUS also confirmed that each data set contained no duplicate records.
In addition, INDUS deleted all composite results from the Legacy STORET data. Per TOPO
direction, it was decided that composite sample results would not be used in the statistical
analysis.
2.2 State Data
Each state data set was delivered in a unique format. Many of the data sets were delivered to
INDUS without corresponding documentation. INDUS analyzed each state data set in order to
determine which parameters should be converted for analysis. INDUS obtained a master
parameter table from EPA and converted the parameters in the state data sets according to those
that were present in the EPA parameter table. INDUS converted all of the data elements in the
state data sets that mapped directly to the Nutrient Criteria Database; data elements that did not
map to the Nutrient Criteria Database were not converted. In some cases, state data elements
that did not directly map into the Oracle database were inserted into a comment field within the
database. Also, INDUS maintained an internal record of which state data elements were inserted
into the comment field.
As part of the data clean-up efforts, INDUS determined whether or not there were any duplicate
records in the state data sets and deleted the duplicate records. INDUS checked the waterbody,
station, and sample entities for duplicate records. In addition, INDUS deleted station records
with no samples and sample records with no results. INDUS also deleted waterbody records that
were not associated with a station. In each case, INDUS maintained an internal record of how
many records were deleted.
If INDUS encountered referential integrity errors, such as samples that referred to stations that
did not exist, or if INDUS was unsure of whether a record was a duplicate, INDUS contacted the
agency directly via e-mail or phone to resolve any issues that arose. INDUS saved an electronic
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
copy of each e-mail correspondence with the states to ensure that a record of the decision was
maintained. INDUS also contacted each agency to determine which laboratory methods were
used for each parameter.
Finally, INDUS examined the remark codes of each result record in the state data sets. INDUS
mapped the remark codes to the STORET remark codes listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. If any
of the state result records were associated with remark codes marked as "Delete" in Table 2 of
Appendix A, the result records were not converted into the database.
2.3 Laboratory Methods
Many of the state data sets did not contain laboratory method information. In addition, laboratory
method information was not available for the three national data sets. In order to determine
missing laboratory method information, EPA tasked another contractor to contact the data
owners to obtain the laboratory method. In some cases, the data owners responded and the
laboratory methods were added to the database.
2.4 Waterbody Name and Class Information
A large percentage of the data did not have waterbody-specific information. The only waterbody
information contained in the three national data sets was the waterbody name, which was
embedded in the station 'location description' field. Most of the state data sets contained
waterbody name information; however, much of the data was duplicated throughout the data sets.
Therefore, the waterbody information was cleaned manually. For the three national data sets, the
'location description' field was extracted from the station table and moved to a temporary table.
The 'location description' field was sorted alphabetically. Unique waterbodies were grouped
together based on name similarity and whether or not the waterbodies fell within the same county,
state, and waterbody type. Finally, the 'location description' field was edited to include only
waterbody name information, not descriptive information. For example, 110 MILE CREEK AT
POMONA DAM OUTFLOW, KS PO-2 was edited to 110 MILE CREEK. Also, if 100 MILE
CREEK was listed ten times in New York, but in four different counties, four 100 MILE CREEK
waterbody records were created.
Similar steps were taken to eliminate duplicate waterbody records in the state data sets. If a
number of records had similar waterbody names and fell within the same state, county, and
waterbody type, the records were grouped to create a unique waterbody record.
Most of the waterbody data did not contain depth, surface area, and volume measurements. EPA
needed this information to classify waterbody types. EPA attempted to obtain waterbody class
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
information from the states. EPA sent waterbody files to the regional coordinators and requested
that certain class information be completed by each state. The state response was poor; therefore,
EPA was not able to perform statistical analysis for the waterbody types by class.
2.5 Ecoregion Data
Aggregate nutrient ecoregions and Level III ecoregions were added to the database using the
station latitude and longitude coordinates. If a station was lacking latitude and longitude
coordinates or county information, the data were not included in the statistical analysis. Appendix
B lists the steps taken to add the two ecoregion types (aggregate and Level III) to the Nutrient
Criteria Database. The ecoregion names were pulled from aggregate nutrient ecoregion and Level
III ecoregion Geographical Information System (GIS) coverages. In summary, the station latitude
and longitude coordinates were used to determine the ecoregion under the following
circumstances:
The latitude and longitude coordinates fell within the county/state listed in the station
table.
The county data was missing.
The county centroid was used to determine the ecoregions under the following circumstances:
The latitude and longitude coordinates were missing, but the state/county information was
available.
The latitude and longitude coordinates fell outside the county/state listed in the station
table. The county information was assumed to be correct; therefore, the county centroid
was used.
If the latitude and longitude coordinates fell outside the continental US county coverage file
(i.e., the point fell in the ocean or Mexico/Canada), the nearest ecoregion was assigned to the
station.
3.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS REPORTS
Aggregate nutrient ecoregion tables were created by extracting all observations for a specific
aggregate nutrient ecoregion from the nutrient criteria database. Then, the data were reduced to
create tables containing only the yearly median values. To create these tables, the median value
for each waterbody was calculated using all observations for each waterbody by Level III
ecoregion, year, and season. Tables of decade median values were created from the yearly
median tables by calculating the median for each waterbody by Level III ecoregion by decade and
season.
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
The Data Source and the Remark Code reports were created using all observations (all reported
values). All the other reports were created from either the yearly median tables or the decade
median tables. In other words, the descriptive statistics and regressions were run using the
median values for each waterbody and not the individual reported values.
Statistical analyses were performed under the assumption that this data set is a random sample. If
this assumption cannot be verified, the observations may or may not be valid. Values below the
1st and 99th percentile were removed from the Legacy STORET database prior to the creation of
the national database. Also, data were treated according the Legacy STORET remark codes in
Appendix A.
The following contains a list of each report and the purpose for creating each report:
Data Source Created to provide a count of the amount of data and to identify the
source(s).
Remark Codes Created to provide a description of the data.
• Median of Each Waterbody by Year This was an intermediate step performed to obtain a
median value for each lake to be used in the yearly descriptive statistics reports and the
regression models.
Median of Each Waterbody by Decade This was an intermediate step performed to obtain
a median value for each lake to be used in the decade descriptive statistics.
Descriptive Statistics Created to provide EPA with the desired statistics for setting criteria
levels.
Regression Models Created to examine the relationships between biological and nutrient
variables.
Note: Separate reports were created for each season.
3.1 Data Source Reports
Data source reports were presented in the following formats:
• The number and percentage of data from each data source were summarized in tables for
each aggregate nutrient ecoregion by season and waterbody type.
The number and percentage of data from each data source were summarized in tables for
each Level III ecoregion by season and waterbody type.
The 'Frequency' represents the number of data values from a specific data source for each
parameter by data source. The 'Row Pet' represents the percentage of data from a specific data
source for each parameter.
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
3.2 Remark Code Reports
Remark code reports were presented in the following formats:
• The number and percentage of data associated with a particular remark code for each
parameter were summarized in tables by Level III ecoregion by decade and season.
The number and percentage of data associated with a particular remark code for each
parameter were summarized in tables by Level III ecoregion by year and season.
The 'Frequency' represents the number of data values corresponding to the remark code in the
column. The 'Row Pet' represents the percentage of data that was associated with the remark
code in that row.
In the database, remark codes that were entered by the states were mapped to Legacy STORET
remark codes. Prior to the analysis, the data were treated according to these remark codes. For
example, if the remark code was 'K,' then the reported value was divided by two. Appendix A
contains a complete list of Legacy STORET remark codes.
Note: For the reports, a remark code of'Z' indicates that no remark codes were recorded. It does
not correspond to Legacy STORET code 'Z.'
3.3 Median of Each Waterbody
To reduce the data and to ensure heavily sampled waterbodies or years were not over represented
in the analysis, median value tables (described above) were created. The yearly median tables and
decade median tables were delivered to the EPA in electronic format as csv (comma separated
value or comma delimited) files.
3.4 Descriptive Statistic Reports
The number of waterbodies, median, mean, minimum, maximum, 5th, 25th , 75th , 95th
percentiles, standard deviation, standard error, and coefficient of variation were calculated. The
tables (described above) containing the decade median values for each waterbody for each
parameter were used to create descriptive statistics reports for:
• Level III ecoregions by decade and season
Aggregate nutrient ecoregions by decade and season
In addition, the tables containing the yearly median values for each waterbody for each parameter
were used to create descriptive statistics reports for:
• Level III ecoregions by year and season
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
3.5 Regression Models
Simple linear regressions using the least squares method were performed to examine the
relationships between biological and nutrient variables in lakes and reservoirs, and rivers and
streams. Regressions were performed using the yearly median tables. Chlorophyll(s) in
micrograms per liter (ug/L), secchi in meters (m), dissolved oxygen in milligrams per liter (mg/L),
turbidity, and pH were the biological variables in these models. When there was little or no data
for chlorophyll, then pH or dissolved oxygen was substituted for chlorophyll. Secchi data were
used in the lake and reservoir models, and turbidity data were used in the river and stream models.
The nutrient variables in these models include: total phosphorus in ug/L, total nitrogen in mg/L,
total kjeldahl nitrogen in mg/L, and nitrate and nitrite in mg/L. Regressions were also run for
total nitrogen and total phosphorus for ecoregions where both these variables were measured.
Note: At the time of creation of this document only regressions for aggregate nutrient ecoregion 7
for lakes and reservoirs were delivered to the EPA. Regressions for the remaining aggregate
nutrient ecoregions will be delivered in August 2000.
4.0 TIME PERIOD
Data collected from January 1990 to December 1999 were used in the statistical analysis reports.
To capture seasonal differences, the data were classified as follows:
Aggregate nutrient ecoregions: 6, 7, and 8
Spring: April to May
Summer: June to August
Fall: September to October
Winter: November to March
• Aggregate nutrient ecoregions: 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13
Spring: March to May
Summer: June to August
Fall: September to November
Winter: December to February
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
5.0 DATA SOURCES AND PARAMETERS FOR THE AGGREGATE NUTRIENT
ECOREGIONS
This section provides information for the nutrient aggregate ecoregions that were analyzed by
waterbody type. Each section lists the data sources for the aggregate nutrient ecoregion
including: 1) the data sources, 2) the parameters included in the analysis, and 3) the Level III
ecoregions within the aggregate nutrient ecoregions.
Note: For analysis purposes, the following parameters were combined to form Phosphorous,
Dissolved Inorganic (DIP):
Phosphorus, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP)
Phosphorus, Dissolved (DP)
Phosphorus, Dissolved Reactive (DRP)
Orthophosphate, dissolved, mg/L as P
Orthophosphate (OPO4_PO4)
5.1 Lakes and Reservoirs
5.1.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2
Data Sources:
Legacy STORE!
EPA Region 10
Parameter:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total Reactive (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
pH
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Level III ecoregions:
1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 41, 77, 78
5.1.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6
Data Sources:
Legacy STORE!
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 57
5.1.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7
Data Sources:
LCMPD
Legacy STORET
NYCDEP
EPA Region 1
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
10
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
51, 52, 53, 56,60,61, 83
5.1.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 8
Data Sources:
LCMPD
Legacy STORET
NYCDEP
NYCDEC
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 3
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B (ug/L)
Chlorophyll C (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
49, 50, 58, 62, 82
11
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
5.1.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9
Data Sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORE!
EPA Region 4
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Pheophytin (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
29, 33, 35, 37, 40, 45, 64, 65, 71, 72, 74
5.1.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11
Data Sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORET
NYSDEC
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 4
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Pheophytin (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
12
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
36, 38, 39, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
5.1.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12
Data Sources:
Legacy STORET
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
75
5.1.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 13
Data Sources:
Legacy STORET
13
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
76
5.2 Rivers and Streams
5.2.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2
Data Sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 10
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) Reactive (ug/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
14
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 41, 77, 78
5.2.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 3
Data Sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 10
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, 79, 80, 81
15
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
5.2.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6
Data Sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 7
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3)
Nitrogen, Total (TN)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN)
Organic, Phosphorus
Phosphorus, Total (TP)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P
Turbidity
Turbidity
Turbidity
Level III ecoregions:
46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 57
5.2.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7
Data Sources:
LCMPD
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
NYCDEP
August 8, 2000
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
(FTU)
(JCU)
(NTU)
16
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Organic, Phosphorus (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
51, 52, 53, 56,60,61, 83
5.2.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9
Data Sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 7
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
August 8, 2000
17
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Organic, Phosphorus (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
29, 33, 35, 37, 40, 45, 64, 65, 71, 72, 74
5.2.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11
Data Sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 7
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Organic, Phosphorus (ug/L)
August 8, 2000
18
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
36, 38, 39, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
5.2.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12
Data Sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
August 8, 2000
75
19
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
5.2.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 14
Data Sources:
Legacy STORE!
NASQAN
NAWQA
NYCDEP
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 3
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
59, 63, 84
20
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
APPENDIX A
Process Used to QA/QA the Legacy STORE! Nutrient Data Set
A-l
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
August 8, 2000
1. STORET water quality parameters and Station and Sample data items were retrieved from
USEPA's mainframe computer. Table 1 lists all retrieved parameters and data items.
TABLE 1: PARAMETERS AND DATA ITEMS RETRIEVED FROM STORET
Parameters Retrieved
(STORET Parameter Code)
TN - mg/1 (600)
TKN - mg/1 (625)
Total Ammonia (NH3+NH4) - mg/1 (610)
Total NO2+NO3 - mg/1 (630)
Total Nitrite -mg/1 (6 15)
Total Nitrate - mg/1 (620)
Organic N - mg/L (605)
TP - mg/1 (665)
Chlor a - ug/L (spectrophotometric method,
32211)
Chlor a - ug/L (fluorometric method
corrected, 32209)
Chlor a - ug/L (trichromatic method
corrected, 32210)
Secchi Transp. - inches (77)
Secchi Transp. - meters (78)
+Turbidity JCUs (70)
+Turbidity FTUs (76)
+Turbidity NTUs field (82078)
+Turbidity NTUs lab (82079)
+DO - mg/L (300)
+Water Temperature (degrees C, 10/degrees
F, 11)
Station Data Items
Included
(STORET Item Name)
Station Type (TYPE)
Agency Code (AGENCY)
Station No. (STATION)
Latitude - std. decimal degrees
(LATSTD)
Longitude - std. decimal degrees
(LONGSTD)
Station Location (LOCNAME)
County Name (CONAME)
State Name (STNAME)
Ecoregion Name - Level III
(ECONAME)
Ecoregion Code -Level III
(ECOREG)
Station Elevation (ELEV)
Hydrologic Unit Code
(CATUNIT)
RF1 Segment and Mile
(RCHMIL)
RF ION/OFF tag (ONOFF)
Sample Data Items Included
(STORET Item Name)
Sample Date (DATE)
Sample Time (TIME)
Sample Depth (DEPTH)
Composite Sample Code
(SAMPMETH)
+ If data record available at a station included data only for this or other such marked parameters, data record was deleted
from data set.
The following set of retrieval rules were applied to the retrieval process:
Data were retrieved for waterbodies specified only as 'lake', 'stream', 'reservoir', or 'estuary'
under "Station Type" parameter. Any stations specified as 'well,' 'spring,' or 'outfall' were
eliminated from the retrieved data set.
Data were retrieved for station types described as 'ambient' (e.g., no pipe or facility
discharge data) under the "Station Type" parameter.
Data were retrieved that were designated as 'water' samples only. This includes 'bottom'
and 'vertically integrated' water samples.
A-2
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
August 8, 2000
Data were retrieved that were designated as either 'grab' samples and 'composite' samples
(mean result only).
No limits were specified for sample depths.
Data were retrieved for all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
The time period specified for data retrieval was January 1990 to September 1998.
No data marked as "Retired Data" (i.e., data from a generally unknown source) were
retrieved.
Data marked as "National Urban Runoff data" (i.e., data associated with sampling
conducted after storm events to assess nonpoint source pollutants) were included in the
retrieval. Such data are part of STORET's 'Archived' data.
Intensive survey data (i.e., data collected as part of specific studies) were retrieved.
Any values falling below the 1st percentile and any values falling above the 99th percentile
were transformed into 'missing' values (i.e., values were effectively removed from the data
set, but were not permanently eliminated).
Based on the STORET 'Remark Code' associated with each retrieved data point, the
following rules were applied (Table 2):
TABLE 2: STORET REMARK CODE RULES
STORET Remark Code
blank - Data not remarked.
A - Value reported is the mean of two or more
determinations.
B - Results based upon colony counts outside the acceptable
ranges.
C - Calculated. Value stored was not measured directly, but
was calculated from other data available.
D - Field measurement.
Keep or Delete Data Point
Keep
Keep
Delete
Keep
Keep
A-3
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
August 8, 2000
E - Extra sample taken in compositing process.
F - In the case of species, F indicates female sex.
G - Value reported is the maximum of two or more
determinations.
H - Value based on field kit determination; results may not
be accurate.
I - The value reported is less than the practical
quantification limit and greater than or equal to the method
detection limit.
J - Estimated. Value shown is not a result of analytical
measurement.
K - Off-scale low. Actual value not known, but known to be
less than value shown.
L - Off-scale high. Actual value not known, but known to
be greater than value shown.
M - Presence of material verified, but not quantified.
Indicates a positive detection, at a level too low to permit
accurate quantification.
N - Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
O - Sample for, but analysis lost. Accompanying value is
not meaningful for analysis.
P - Too numerous to count.
Q - Sample held beyond normal holding time.
R - Significant rain in the past 48 hours.
S - Laboratory test.
T - Value reported is less than the criteria of detection.
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Keep, but used one-half the reported value as the new value.
Delete
Keep, but used one-half the reported value as the new value.
Keep
Keep, but used one half the reported value as the new value.
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Keep
Keep, but replaced reported value with 0.
A-4
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
August 8, 2000
U - Material was analyzed for, but not detected. Value
stored is the limit of detection for the process in use.
V - Indicates the analyte was detected in both the sample
and associated method blank.
W - Value observed is less than the lowest value reportable
under remark "T."
X - Value is quasi vertically-integrated sample.
Y - Laboratory analysis from unpreserved sample. Data
may not be accurate.
Z - Too many colonies were present to count.
Keep, but replaced reported value with 0.
Delete
Keep, but replaced reported value with 0.
No data point with this remark code in data set.
Delete
Delete
If a parameter (excluding water temperature) value was less than or equal to zero and no remark code was present, the value
was transformed into a missing value.
Rationale - Parameter concentrations should never be zero without a proper explanation. A method detection limit should
at least be listed.
4. Station records were eliminated from the data set if any of the following descriptors were
present within the "Station Type" parameter:
MONITR - Source monitoring site, which monitors a known problem or
to detect a specific problem.
HAZARD - Site of hazardous or toxic wastes or substances.
ANPOOL - Anchialine pool, underground pools with subsurface
connections to watertable and ocean.
DOWN - Downstream (i.e., within a potentially polluted area) from a
facility which has a potential to pollute.
IMPDMT - Impoundment. Includes waste pits, treatment lagoons, and
settling and evaporation ponds.
STMSWR - Storm water sewer.
LNDFL - Landfill.
CMBMI - Combined municipal and industrial facilities.
CMBSRC - Combined source (intake and outfall).
Rationale - these descriptors potentially indicate a station location that at which an
ambient water sample would not be obtained (i.e., such sampling locations are potentially
A-5
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
biased) or the sample location is not located within one of the designated water body types (i.e,
ANPOOL).
5. Station records were eliminated from data set if the station location did not fall within any
established cataloging unit boundaries based on their latitude and longitude.
6. Using nutrient ecoregion GIS coverage provided by USEPA, all station locations with
latitude and longitude coordinates were tagged with a nutrient ecoregion identifier
(nutrient region identifiers are values 1 - 14) and the associated nutrient ecoregion name.
Because no nutrient ecoregions exist for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, stations located
in these states were tagged with "dummy" nutrient ecoregion numbers (20 = Alaska, 21 =
Hawaii, 22 = Puerto Rico).
7. Using information provided by TV A, 59 station locations that were marked as 'stream'
locations under the "Station Type" parameter were changed to 'reservoir' locations.
8. The nutrient data retrieved from STORET were assessed for the presence of duplicate
data records. The duplicate data identification process consisted of three steps: 1)
identification of records that matched exactly in terms of each variable retrieved; 2)
identification of records that matched exactly in terms of each variable retrieved except for
their station identification numbers; and 3) identification of records that matched exactly in
terms of each variable retrieved except for their collecting agency codes. The data
duplication assessment procedures were conducted using SAS programs.
Prior to initiating the data duplication assessment process, the STORET nutrient data set
contained:
41,210 station records
924,420 sample records
Identification of exactly matching records
All data records were sorted to identify those records that matched exactly. For
two records to match exactly, all variables retrieved had to be the same. For
example, they had to have the same water quality parameters, parameter results
and associated remark codes, and have the same station data item and sample data
item information. Exactly matching records were considered to be exact
duplicates, and one duplicate record of each identified matching set were
eliminated from the nutrient data set. A total of 924 sample records identified as
duplicates by this process were eliminated from the data set.
Identification of matching records with the exception of station identification
number
All data records were sorted to identify those records that matched exactly except
for their station identification number (i.e., they had the same water quality
A-6
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
parameters, parameter results and associated remark codes, and the same station
and sample data item information with the exception of station identification
number). Although the station identification numbers were different, the latitude
and longitude for the stations were the same indicating a duplication of station data
due to the existence of two station identification numbers for the same station. For
each set of matching records, one of the station identification numbers was
randomly selected and its associated data were eliminated from the data set. A
total of 686 sample records were eliminated from the data set through this process.
• Identification of matching records with the exception of collecting agency codes
All data records were sorted to identify those records that matched exactly except
for their collecting agency codes (i.e., they had the same water quality parameters,
parameter results and associated remark codes, and the same station and sample
data item information with the exception of agency code). The presence of two
matching data records each with a different agency code attached to it suggested
that one agency had utilized data collected by the other agency and had entered the
data into STORET without realizing that it already had been placed in STORET
by the other agency. No matching records with greater than two different agency
codes were identified. For determining which record to delete from the data set,
the following rules were developed:
> If one of the matching records had a USGS agency code, the USGS
record was retained and the other record was deleted.
> Higher level agency monitoring program data were retained. For
example, federal program data (indicated by a " 1" at the beginning
of the STORET agency code) were retained against state (indicated
by a "2") and local (indicated by values higher than 2) program
data.
> If two matching records had the same level agency code, the record
from the agency with the greater number of overall observations
(potentially indicating the data set as the source data set) was
retained.
A total of 2,915 sample records were eliminated through this process.
As a result of the duplicate data identification process, a total of 4,525 sample records and
36 individual station records were removed from the STORET nutrient data set. The
resulting nutrient data set contains the following:
41,174 station records
919,895 sample records
A-7
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
APPENDIX B
Process for Adding Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregions and Level III Ecoregions
B-l
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Steps for assigning Level III ecoregions and aggregate nutrient ecoregion codes and names to the
Nutrient Criteria Database (performed using ESRI's ARCView v 3.2 and its GeoProcessing
Wizard). This process is performed twice; once for the Level III ecoregions and once for the
aggregate nutrient ecoregions:
Add the station .dbf data table, with latitude and longitude data, to project by 'Add
Event Theme'
Convert to the shapefile format
Create 'stcojoin' field, populate the 'stcojoin' field with the following formula:
'County.LCase+State.LCase'
Add field 'stco_flag' to the station shapefile
Spatially join the station data with the county shapefile (cntysjned.shp)
Select 'stcojoin' (station shapefile) field = 'stcojoin2' (county shapefile) field
Calculate stco_flag = 0 for selected features
Step through all blank stco_flag records, assign the appropriate stco_flags, see list
on the following page
Select all stco_flags = 4 or 7, switch selection
Calculate ctyfips (station) to cntyfips (county)
Stop editing and save edits, remove all joins
Add in 2 new fields 'x-coordl' and 'y-coordl' into station table
Select all stco_flags =1,2, and 6
Link county coverage with station coverage
Populate 'x-coordl' and 'y-coordl' with 'x-coord' and 'y-coord' from county
coverage
Select all stco_flags = 1, 2, and 6, export to new .dbf file
Add new .dbf file as event theme
Convert to shapefile format
Add the following fields to both tables (original station and station!26 shapefiles):
'eco_omer', 'name_omer', 'dis_aggr', 'code_aggr', 'name_aggr'
Spatially join station 126 and eco-omer coverage
Populate the 'eco_omer' field with the 'eco' value
Repeat the previous step using the nearest method (line coverage) to determine
ecoregion assignment for the line coverage, if some records are blank
Spatially join the ecoregion line coverage to station coverage, link the LPoly#
(from the spatially joined table) to Poly# (of the ecoregion polygon coverage)
Populate the Eco fields with the appropriate information.
Follow the same steps to the Rpoly#
Remove all table j oins
Link the useco-om table with station!26 table and populate 'name-omer' field
Spatially join station aggr coverage and populate the rest of the fields. Follow the
same procedures as outlined above
Remove all joins
Make sure the new Eco field added into the station 126 shapefile are different than
B-2
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
the ones in the original station shapefile
Join station 126 and station coverage by station-id
Populate all the Eco fields in the original station coverage
Remove all joins
Save table
Make sure that all ctyfips records are populated; the county shapefile may have to
be joined to populate the records, if the stco_flag = 4
Create 2 new fields, 'NewCounty' and 'NewState'
Populate these new fields with a spatial join to the county coverage
Select by feature (ecoregion shapefile) all of the records in the station shapefile
Switch selection (to get records outside of the ecoregion shapefile)
If any of the selected records have stco_flag = 0 (they are outside the ecoregion
shapefile boundary), calculate them to stco_flag = 3
stco_flags (state/county flags in order of importance)
0 The state and county values from the data set matched the state and county values
from the spatial join.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the latitude/longitude coordinates.)
1 The state and county values from the data set did not match the state and county
values from the spatial join, but the point was inside the county coverage
boundary.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the county centroid.)
2 The state and county values from the data set did not match the state and county
values from the spatial join because the point was outside the county coverage
boundary; therefore, there was nothing to compare to the point (i.e., the point
falls in the ocean/Canada/Mexico). This occurred for some coastal samples.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the county centroid.)
3 The state and county values from the data set matched the state and county from
the spatial join, but the point was outside the ecoregion boundary.
(Ecoregions were assigned to the closest ecoregion to the point.)
(No ecoregions were assigned to AK, HI, PR, BC, and GU.)
4 Latitude/longitude coordinates were provided, but there was no county
information.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the latitude/longitude coordinates.)
5 The state and county values from the data set did not match the state and county
values from the spatial join due to spelling or naming convention errors.
The matches were performed manually.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the latitude/longitude coordinates.)
6 No latitude/longitude coordinates were provided, only state and county
information was available.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the county centroid.)
7 No latitude/longitude coordinates were provided, only state information was
available; therefore, no matches were possible.
(Ecoregions were not assigned. Data is not included in the analysis.)
B-3
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
APPENDIX C
Glossary
Coefficient of Variation- Equal to the standard deviation divided by the mean multiplied by 100.
Maximum- The highest value.
Mean- The arithmetic average.
Median- The 50th percentile or middle value. Half of the values are above the median, and half of
the values are below the median.
Minimum- The lowest value.
Standard Deviation- Equal to the square root of the variance with the variance defined as the sum
of the squared deviations divided by the sample size minus one.
Standard Error- Standard error of the mean is equal to the standard deviation divided by the
square root of the sample size.
C-l
-------
INDUS
CORPORATION
Knowledge-Based Sol Lilians
Support for the Compilation and Analysis of
National Nutrient Data
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary
Chapters ..
Prepared for:
Robert Cantilli
Environmental Protection Agency
OW/OST/HECD
Prepared by: .
INDUS Corporation
1953 Gallows Road
Vienna, Virginia 22182
Contract Number: 68-C-99-226
Task Number: . 04
Subtask Number: . 4
August 8, 2000
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/ Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000 ,
CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 References .1
2.0 QA/QC PROCEDURES 2
2.1 National Data Sets 3
2.2 State Data 3
2.3 Laboratory Methods 4
2.4 Waterbody Name '. 4
2.5 Ecoregion Data 5
3.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS REPORTS 5
3.1 Data Source Reports 6
3.2 Remark Code Reports 7
3.3 Median of Each Waterbody 7
3.4 Descriptive Statistic Reports 7
3.5 Regression Models 8
4.0 TIME PERIOD 8
5.0 DATA SOURCES AND PARAMETERS FOR THE AGGREGATE NUTRIENT
ECOREGIONS 9
5.1 Lakes and Reservoirs 9
5.1.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2 9
5.1.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6 10
5.1.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7 10
5.1.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 8 11
5.1.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9 12
5.1.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11 12
5.1.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12 .- 13
5.1.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 13 13
5.2 Rivers and Streams 14
5.2.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2 14
5.2.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 3 15
5.2.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6 16
5.2.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7 16
5.2.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9 17
5.2.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11 18
5.2.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12 19
ii
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8, 2000
5.2.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 14 20
APPENDIX A Process Used to QA/QA the Legacy STORE! Nutrient Data Set
APPENDIX B Process for Adding Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregions and Level m
Ecoregions
APPENDIX C Glossary
in
-------
15 Nutnem EcoreziotvWaierbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8.2000
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Nutrient Criteria Program has initiated development of a national Nutrient Criteria Database
application that will be used to store and analyze nutrient data. The ultimate use of these data
will be to derive ecoregion- and waterbody-specific nutrient criteria ranges. EPA converted
STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) legacy data, National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN) data, National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) data, and other relevant
nutrient data from universities and States/Tribes into the database. The data imported into the
Nutrient Criteria Database will be used to develop national nutrient criteria ranges.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this deliverable is to provide EPA with information regarding the data used to
create the statistical reports which will be used to derive ecoregion- and waterbody-specific
nutrient criteria ranges for Level HI ecoregions. There are fourteen aggregate nutrient
ecoregions. Each aggregate nutrient ecoregion is divided into smaller ecoregions referred to as
Level HI ecoregions. EPA will determine criteria ranges for the waterbody types and Level HI
ecoregions within the following aggregate nutrient ecoregions:
• Lakes and Reservoirs
Aggregate Nutrient ecoregions: 2,6,7, 8,9,11,12,13
• Rivers and Streams
- Aggregate Nutrient ecoregions: 2,3,6, 7,9, 11, 12, 14
1.2 References
This section lists documents that contain baselines, standards, guidelines, policies, and references
that apply to the data analysis. Listed editions were valid at the time of publication. All
documents are subject to revision, but these specific editions govern the concepts described in
this document.
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs (Draft).- EPA, Office of
Water, EPA 822-D-99-001, April 1999.
Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams (Draft). EPA. Office of
Water. EPA 822-D-99-003, September 1999.
Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, EPA-QA/G-9, January 1998.
-------
15 Nutrient Ecorcgion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8, 2000
2.0 QA/QC PROCEDURES
In order to develop nutrient criteria, EPA needed to obtain nutrient data from the states. EPA
requested nutrient data from the states and forwarded the data sets to INDUS via e-mail and/or
US mail. In addition, EPA tasked INDUS to convert data from three national data sets. EPA
provided INDUS with a Legacy STORET extraction to convert into the database. The United '
States Geologic Survey (USGS) sent INDUS a CD-ROM with NASQAN data to convert.
INDUS downloaded NAWQA files from the USGS Web site to convert the data. In total,
INDUS converted and imported the following national and state data sets into the Nutrient
Criteria Database:
Legacy STORET
NAWQA
NASQAN
• Region I
• Region 2 - Lake Champlain Monitoring Project
Region 2 - NYSDEC Finger Lakes Monitoring Program
• Region 2 - NY Citizens Lake Assessment Program
• Region 2 - Lake Classification and Inventory Survey
Region 2 - NYCDEP (1990-1998)
Region 2 - NYCDEP (Storm Event data)
• Region 2 - New Jersey Nutrient Data (Tidal Waters)
• RegionS
• RegionS.
• Region 3 - Nitrite Data
• Region 3 - Choptank River files
• Region 4 - Tennessee Valley Authority '
Region 7 - Central Plains Center for BioAssessment (CPCB)
Region 7 - REMAP
Region 2 - Delaware River Basin Commission (1990-1998)
Region 3 - PA Lake Data
• RegionS-University of Delaware
• Region 10 .
• University of Auburn
As part of the conversion process, INDUS performed a number of Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) steps to ensure that the data was properly convened into the Nutrient Criteria
Database. Section 2 explains the steps performed by INDUS to convert the data.
-------
! 5 Nutrient Ecoregiorv Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TOtt 04 August 8. 2000
2.1 National Data Sets
INDUS converted three national data sets into the Nutrient Criteria Database: Legacy STORET
data, NASQAN data, and NAWQA data. A previous EPA contractor performed the extraction of
Legacy STORET data and documented the QA/QC procedures used on the data. This
documentation is included in Appendix A. INDUS performed minimal QA/QC on the Legacy
STORET data set because the previous contractor completed the steps outlined in Appendix A.
INDUS and EPA also agreed to convert the NAWQA and NASQAN data sets with minimal
QA/QC on the assumption that the source agency, the USGS, QA/QC'd the data.
For each of the three national data sets, INDUS ran queries to determine if 1) samples existed
without results and 2) if stations existed without samples. Per Task Order Project Officer
(TOPO) direction, these records were deleted from the system. For analysis purposes, EPA
determined that there was no need to keep station records with no samples and sample records
with no results. INDUS also confirmed that each data set contained no duplicate records.
In addition, INDUS deleted all composite results from the Legacy STORET data. Per TOPO
direction, it was decided that composite sample results would not be used in the statistical
analysis.
2.2 State Data
Each state data set was delivered in a unique format. Many of the data sets were delivered to
INDUS without corresponding documentation. INDUS analyzed each state data set in order to
determine which parameters should be converted for analysis. INDUS obtained a master
parameter table from EPA and converted the parameters in the state data sets according to those
that were present in the EPA parameter table. INDUS converted all of the data elements in the
state data sets that mapped directly to the Nutrient Criteria Database; data elements that did not ,
"map to the Nutrient Criteria Database were not converted. In some cases, state data elements that
did not directly map into the Oracle database were inserted into a comment field within the
database. Also, INDUS maintained an internal record of which state data elements were inserted
into the comment field.
As part of the data clean-up efforts, INDUS determined whether or not there were any duplicate
records in the state data sets and deleted the duplicate records. INDUS checked the waterbody,
station, and sample entities for duplicate records. In addition, INDUS deleted station records
with no samples and sample records with no results. INDUS also deleted waterbody records that
were not associated with a station. In each case, INDUS maintained an internal record of how
many records were deleted.-
If INDUS encountered referential integrity errors, such as samples that referred to stations that
did not exist, or if INDUS was unsure of whether a record was a duplicate, INDUS contacted the
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8, 2000 •
agency directly via e-mail or phone to resolve any issues that arose. INDUS saved an electronic
copy of each e-mail correspondence with the states to ensure that a record of the decision was
maintained. INDUS also contacted each agency to determine which laboratory methods were
used for each parameter.
Finally, INDUS examined the remark codes of each result record in the state data sets. INDUS
mapped the remark codes to the STORET remark codes listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. If any
of the state result records were associated with remark codes marked as "Delete" in Table 2 of
Appendix A, the result records were not converted into the database.
2.3 Laboratory Methods
Many of the state data sets did not contain laboratory method information. In addition,
laboratory method information was not available for the three national data sets. In order to
determine missing laboratory method information, EPA tasked another contractor to contact the
data owners to obtain the laboratory method. In some cases, the data owners responded and the
laboratory methods were added to the database.
2.4 Waterbody Name and Class Information
A large percentage of the data did not have waterbody-specific information. The only waterbody
information contained in the three national data sets was the waterbody name, which was
embedded in the station 'location description' field. Most of the state data sets contained
waterbody name information; however, much of the data was duplicated throughout the data sets.
Therefore, the waterbody information was cleaned manually. For the three national data sets, the
'location description' field was extracted from the station table and moved to a temporary table.
The 'location description' field was sorted alphabetically. Unique waterbodies were grouped
together based on name similarity and whether or not the waterbodies fell within the same .
county, state, and waterbody type. Finally, the 'location description' field was edited to include
only waterbody name information, not descriptive information. For example, 110 MILE CREEK
AT POMONA DAM OUTFLOW, KS PO-2 was edited to 110 MILE CREEK. Also, if 100
MILE CREEK was listed ten times in New York, but in four different counties, four 100 MILE
CREEK waterbody records were created.
Similar steps were taken to eliminate duplicate waterbody records in the state data sets. If a
number of records had similar waterbody names and fell within the same state, county, and
waterbody type, the records were grouped to create a unique waterbody record.
Most of the waterbody data-did not contain depth, surface area, and volume measurements. EPA
needed this information to classify waterbody types. EPA attempted to obtain waterbody class
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8,2000
information from the states. EPA sent waterbody files to the regional coordinators and requested
that certain class information be completed by each state. The state response was poor; therefore,
EPA was not able to perform statistical analysis for the waterbody types by class.
2.5 Ecoregion Data
Aggregate nutrient ecoregions and Level HI ecoregions were added to the database using the
station latitude and longitude coordinates. If a station was lacking latitude and longitude
coordinates or county information, the data were not included in the statistical analysis.
Appendix B lists the steps taken to add the two ecoregion types (aggregate and Level HI) to the
Nutrient Criteria Database. The ecoregion names were pulled from aggregate nutrient ecoregion
and Level HI ecoregion Geographical Information System (GIS) coverages. In summary, the
station latitude and longitude coordinates were used to determine the ecoregion under the
following circumstances:
The latitude and longitude coordinates fell within the county/state listed in the station
table.
The county data was missing.
•
The county centroid was used to determine the ecoregions under the following circumstances:
• The latitude and longitude coordinates were missing, but the state/county information was
available.
• The latitude and longitude coordinates fell outside the county/state listed in the station
table. The county information was assumed to be correct; therefore, the county centroid
was used. .
If the latitude and longitude coordinates fell outside the continental US county coverage file
(i.e., the point fell in the ocean or Mexico/Canada), the nearest ecoregion was assigned to the
station.
3.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS REPORTS
Aggregate nutrient ecoregion tables were created by extracting all observations for a specific
aggregate nutrient ecoregion from the nutrient criteria database. Then, the data were reduced to
create tables containing only the yearly median values. To create these tables, the median value
for each waterbody was calculated using all observations for each waterbody by Level III
ecoregion, year, and season. Tables of decade median values were created from the yearly
median tables by calculating the median for each waterfaody by Lsvel IE ecoregion by decade and
seasonv
-------
15 Numem Ecoregion/Waierfaody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8,2000'
The Data Source and the Remark Code reports were created using all observations (all reported
values). All the other reports were created from either the yearly median tables or the decade
median tables. In other words, the descriptive statistics and regressions were run using the
median values for each waterbody and not the individual reported values.
Statistical analyses were performed under the assumption that this data set is a random sample.
If this-assumption cannot be verified, the observations may or may not be valid. Values below
the 1st and 99th percentile were removed from the Legacy STORET database prior to the creation
of the national database. Also, data were treated according the Legacy STORET remark codes in
Appendix A.
The following contains a list of each report and the purpose for creating each report:
• Data Source—Created to provide a count of the amount of data and to identify the
source(s).
• Remark Codes—Created to provide a description of the data.
Median of Each Waterbody by Year—This was an intermediate step performed to obtain
a median value for each lake to be used in the yearly descriptive statistics reports and the
regression models.
• Median of Each Waterbody by Decade—This was an intermediate step performed to
obtain a median value for each lake to be used in the decade descriptive statistics.
• Descriptive Statistics—Created to provide EPA with the desired statistics for setting
criteria levels.
• Regression Models—Created to examine the relationships between biological and
nutrient variables.
Note: Separate reports were created for each season.
t
3.1 Data Source Reports
Data source reports were presented in the following formats:
• The number and percentage of data from each data source were summarized in tables for
each aggregate nutrient ecoregion by season and waterbody type.
• The number and percentage of data from each data source were summarized in tables for
each Level III ecoregion by season and waterbody type.
The 'Frequency' represents" the number of data values from a specific data source for each
parameter by data source. The 'Row Pet' represents the percentage of data from a specific data
source for each parameter.
-------
15 Nutnent Ecoregion/ Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8.2000
3.2 Remark Code Reports
Remark code reports were presented in the following formats:
• The number and percentage of data associated with a particular remark code for each
parameter were summarized in tables by Level HI ecoregion by decade and season.
• The number and percentage of data associated with a particular remark code for each
parameter were summarized in tables by Level in ecoregion by year and season.
The 'Frequency' represents the number of data values corresponding to the remark code in the
column. The 'Row Pet' represents the percentage of data that was associated with the remark
code in that row.
In the database, remark codes that were entered by the states were mapped to Legacy STORET
remark codes. Prior to the analysis, the data were treated according to these remark codes. For
example, if the remark code was 'K,' then the reported value was divided by two. Appendix A
contains a complete list of Legacy STORET remark codes.
Note: For the reports, a remark code of 'Z' indicates that no remark codes were recorded. It does
not correspond to Legacy STORET code 'Z.'
3.3 Median of Each Waterbody
To reduce the data and to ensure heavily sampled waterbodies or years were not over represented
in the analysis, median value tables (described above) were created. The yearly median tables
and decade median tables were delivered to the EPA in electronic format as csv (comma
separated value or comma delimited) files.
3.4 Descriptive Statistic Reports
The number of waterbodies, median, mean, minimum, maximum, 5th, 25th, 75th, 95th percentiles,
standard deviation, standard error, and coefficient of variation were calculated. The tables
(described above) containing the decade median values for each waterbody for each parameter
were used to create descriptive statistics reports for:
• Level IE ecoregions by decade and season
• Aggregate nutrient ecoregions by decade and season
-------
15 Nument Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract tt 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
In addition, the tables containing the yearly median values for each waterbody for each parameter
were used to create descriptive statistics reports for:
• Level El ecoregions by year and season
3.5 Regression Models
Simple linear regressions using the least squares method were performed to examine the
relationships between biological and nutrient variables in lakes and reservoirs, and rivers and
streams. Regressions were performed using the yearly median tables. Chlorophyll(s) in
micrograms per liter (ug/L), secchi in meters (m), dissolved oxygen in milligrams per liter
(mg/L), turbidity, and pH were the biological variables in these models. When there was little or
no data for chlorophyll, then pH or dissolved oxygen was substituted for chlorophyll. .Secchi-
data were used in the lake and reservoir models, and turbidity data were used in the river and
stream models. The nutrient variables in these models include: total phosphorus in ug/L, total
nitrogen in mg/L, total kjeldahl nitrogen in mg/L, and nitrate and nitrite in mg/L, Regressions
were also run for total nitrogen and total'phosphorus for ecoregions where both these variables
were measured.
Note: At the time of creation of this document only regressions for aggregate nutrient ecoregion 7
for lakes and reservoirs were delivered to the EPA. Regressions for the remaining aggregate
nutrient ecoregions will be delivered in August 2000.
4.0 TIME PERIOD
Data collected from January 1990 to December 1999 were used in the statistical analysis reports.
To capture seasonal differences, the data were classified as follows: • ,
• Aggregate nutrient ecoregions: 6, 7, and 8
- Spring: April to May
- Summer: June to August
- Fall: September to October
- Winter: November to March
• Aggregate nutrient ecoregions: 1,2. 9. 10, 11,12, and 13
- Spring: - March to May
- Summer: June to August
Fall: September to November
Winter: December to February
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/ Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract» 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8,2000
5.0 DATA SOURCES AND PARAMETERS FOR THE AGGREGATE NUTRIENT
ECOREGIONS
This section provides information for the nutrient aggregate ecoregions that were analyzed by
waterbody type. Each section lists the data sources for the aggregate nutrient ecoregion
including: 1) the data sources, 2) the parameters included in the analysis, and 3) the Level HI
ecoregions within the aggregate nutrient ecoregions.
Note: For analysis purposes, the following parameters were combined to form Phosphorous,
Dissolved Inorganic (DIP):
Phosphorus, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP)
Phosphorus, Dissolved (DP)
Phosphorus, Dissolved Reactive (DRP)
Orthophosphate, dissolved, mg/L as P
Orthophosphate (OPO4JPO4)
5.1 Lakes and Reservoirs
5.1.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2
Data Sources:
Legacy STORE!
EPA Region 10
Parameter:
i
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous. Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus. Total (TP) (ug/L)
Phosphorus. Total Reactive (ug/L)
SECCHI " (m)
PH
-------
15 Nument Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8.2000'
Level in ecoregions:
1, 2,4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 41, 77, 78
5.1.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6
Data Sources:
Legacy STORE!
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level Hf ecoregions:
46,47,48,54,55,57
5.1.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7
»
Data Sources:
LCMPD
Legacy STORET
NYCDEP
EPA Region I
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton. Spectrophotometric. Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
10
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8. 2000-
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level HI ecoregions:
51,52,53,56,60,61,83
5.1.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 8
Data sources:
LCMPD
Legacy STORET
NYCDEP
NYCDEC
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 3
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotorhetric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A. Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncbrrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Unconnected (ug/L)
Chlorophylls . (ug/L)
Chlorophyll C (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L) •
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level III ecoregions:
49, 50, 58, 62. 82
11
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8.2000
5.1.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9
Data sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORET
EPA Region 4
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Pheophytin (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate. (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kj'eldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level in ecoregions:
29,33,35,37,40,45,64,65,71,72,74
5.1.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11
Data sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORET
NYSDEC
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 4
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A. Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A. Pheophytin (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
12
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000 •
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level HI ecoregions:
36,38,39,66,67,68,69,70
5.1.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12
Data sources:
Legacy STORET
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
.Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L) ' .
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level in ecoregions:
75
5.1.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 13
Data sources:
Legacy STORET
13
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8. 2000
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
SECCHI (m)
Level in ecoregions:
76
5.2 Rivers and Streams
5.2.1 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 2
Data sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 10
Parameters: • . '
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Phosphorus. Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) Reactive (ug/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) " (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
14
-------
i 5 Nutrient Ecoregion/ Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level IB ecoresions:
1, 2,4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19,21, 23,41, 77, 78
5.2.2 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 3
Data sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN "
NAWQA
EPA Region 10
Parameters:
»
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) . (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU) .
Level IE ecoregions:
6, 10, 12,13. 14. 18.20,22, 24, 79, 80, 81
15-
-------
15 Numcnt Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO* 04 August 8, 2000
5.2.3 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 6
Data sources:
Legacy STORE!
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 7
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
• Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Organic, Phosphorus (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Turbidity . (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity " (MTU)
Level III ecoregions:
46, 47, 48. 54, 55, 57
5.2.4 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 7
Data sources:
LCMPD
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
NYCDEP
16
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8. 2000 •
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Organic, Phosphorus (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level IH ecoregions:
51,52,53,56,60,61,83
5.2.5 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 9
Data sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 7 .
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
17
-------
15 Nutnent Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8. 2000
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Organic, Phosphorus (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (JCTJ)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level III ecoregions:
29, 33,35,37, 40, 45, 64, 65, 71, 72, 74
5.2.6 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 11
Data sources:
Auburn University
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA •
EPA Region 3 • ,
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 7
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected . (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected . (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, chromotographic- fluorometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DEP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Organic, Phosphorus (ug/L)
18
-------
15 Nutrient Ecorcgion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity . (FTU)
Turbidity (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level HI ecoregions:
36, 38, 39, 66, 67,68,69, 70
5.2.7 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 12
Data sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll B, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric (ug/L)
Phosphorous. Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L) '
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2-f-NO3) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Level HI ecoregions:
75
19
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8, 2000 •
5.2.8 Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion 14
Data sources:
Legacy STORET
NASQAN
NAWQA
NYCDEP
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 3
Parameters:
Chlorophyll A, Fluorometric, Corrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric Acid (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Phytoplankton, Spectrophotometric, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Chlorophyll A, Trichromatic, Uncorrected (ug/L)
Phosphorous, Dissolved Inorganic (DIP) (ug/L)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L)
Nitrite and Nitrate, (NO2+NO3) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total as P (ug/L)
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN) (mg/L)
Nitrogen, Total (TN) (mg/L)
Phosphorus, Total (TP) (ug/L)
Turbidity (FTU)
Turbidity . (JCU)
Turbidity (NTU)
•
Level HI ecoregions:
59,63,84
20
-------
15 Nutnent Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8, 2000
APPENDIX A
Process Used to QA/QA the Legacy STORET Nutrient Data Set
-------
15 Nutnent Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8,2000
I. STORET water quality parameters and Station and Sample data items were retrieved
from USEPA's mainframe computer. Table 1 lists all retrieved parameters and data
items.
TABLE 1: PARAMETERS AND DATA ITEMS RETRIEVED FROM STORET
Parameters Retrieved
(STORET Parameter Code)
TN - mg/1 (600)
TKN - mg/1 (625)
Total Ammonia (NH3+NH4) - mg/1 (6 1 0)
Total NO2+NO3 - mg/1 (630)
Total Nitrite -mg/I (6 1 5)
Total Nitrate - mg/1 (620)
Organic N - mg/L (605)
TP - mg/1 (665)
Chlor a - ug/'L (spectrophotometric method.
32211)
Chlor a - ug/L (fluorometric method corrected.
32209)
Chlor a - ug/L (trichromatic method corrected,
32210)
Sccchi Transp. - inches (77)
Secchi Transp. - meters (78)
+Turbidity JCUs (70)
^•Turbidity FTUs (76)
i-Turbidiry NTUs field (82078)
-Turbidity NTUs lab (82079)
-DO - mg/L (300)
+ Water Temperature (decrees C, 10/degrees F,
11)
Station Data Items Included
(STORET Item Name)
Station Type (TYPE)
'Agency Code (AGENCY)
Station No. (STATION)
Latitude - std. decimal degrees
(LATSTD)
Longitude - std. decimal degrees
(LONGSTD)
Station Location (LOCNAME)
County Name (CONAME)
State Name fSTNAME)
Ecoregion Name - Level III
(ECONAME)
Ecoregion Code -Level III
(ECOREG)
Station Elevation (ELEV)
Hydrologic Unit Code
(CATUNIT)
RF1 Segment and Mile
(RCHMIL)
RF1 ON/OFF tag (ONOFF)
Sample Data items
Included
(STORET Item Name)
Sample Date (DATE)
Sample Time (TIME)
Sample Depth (DEPTH)
Composite Sample Code
(SAMPMETH)
- If data record available at a station included data only for this or other such marked parameters, data record was
deleted from data set.
The following set of retrieval rules were applied to the retrieval process:
• Data were retrieved for waterbodies specified only as 'lake', 'stream', 'reservoir',
or 'estuary' under "Station Type" parameter. Any stations specified as 'well,'
'spring,' or 'outfall' were eliminated from the retrieved data set.
• Data were retrieved for station types described as 'ambient' (e.g., no pipe or facility
discharge data) under the "Station Type" parameter.
• Data were retrieved that were designated as 'water' samples only. This includes
"bottom' and 'vertically integrated' water samples.
A-l
-------
15 Nutrient Ecorcgion/Waierbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract * 68-C-99-226, TO# 04
August 8, 2000"
• Data were retrieved that were designated as either 'grab' samples and 'composite'
samples (mean result only).
• No limits were specified for sample depths.
• Data were retrieved for all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
• The time period specified for data retrieval was January 1990 to September 1998.
• No data marked as "Retired Data" (i.e., data from a generally unknown source) were
retrieved.
• Data marked as "National Urban Runoff data" (i.e., data associated with sampling
conducted after storm events to assess nonpoint source pollutants) were included in
the retrieval. Such data are part of STORET's 'Archived' data.
• Intensive survey data (i.e., data collected as part of specific studies) were retrieved.
Any values falling below the 1st percentile and any values falling above the 99th
percentile were transformed into 'missing' values (i.e., values were effectively removed
from the data set, but were not permanently eliminated).
Based on the STORET 'Remark Code' associated with each retrieved data point, the
following rules were applied (Table 2):
TABLE 2: STORET REMARK CODE RULES
»
STORET Remark Code
blank - Data not remarked.
A-
B-
C-
D-
E-
F-
G-
Value reported is the mean of two or more determinations.
Results based upon colony counts outside the acceptable ranges.
Calculated. Value stored was not measured directly, but was
calculated from other data available.
Field measurement.
Extra sample taken in compositing_process.
In the case of species. F indicates female sex.
Value reported is the maximum of two or more determinations.
Keep or Delete Data Point
Keep
Keep
Delete
Keep
Keep
Delete
Delete
Delete
A-2
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226. TO# 04
August 8. 2000
TABLE 2: STORET REMARK CODE RULES
H-
I-
J-
K-
L-
M-
N-
O-
P-
Q-
R-
S-
T-
U-
V-
W-
X-
Y-
Z-
Value based on field kit determination; results may not be accurate.
The value reported is less than the practical quantification limit and
greater than or equal to the method detection limit.
Estimated. Value shown is not a result of analytical measurement.
Off-scale low. Actual value not known, but known to be less than
value shown.
Off-scale high. Actual value not known, but known to be greater
than value shown.
Presence of material verified, but not quantified. Indicates a
positive detection, at a level too low to permit accurate
quantification.
Presumptive evidence of presence of material.
Sample for, but analysis lost. Accompanying value is not
meaningful for analysis.
Too numerous to count.
Sample held beyond normal holding time.
Significant rain in the past 48 hours.
Laboratory test.
Value reported is less than the criteria of detection.
Material was analyzed for, but not detected. Value stored is the
limit of detection for the process in use.
Indicates the analyte was detected in both the sample and associated
method blank.
Value observed is less than the lowest value reportable under
remark "T."
Value is quasi vertically-integrated sample.
Laboratory analysis from unpreserved sample. Data may not be
accurate.
Too many colonies were present to count.
Delete
Keep, but used one-half the
reported value as the new value.
Delete
Keep, but used one-half the reported
value as the new value.
Keep
Keep, but used one half the reported
value as the new value.
Delete
Delete
4
Delete
Delete
Delete
Keep
Keep, but replaced reported value with
0.
Keep, but replaced reported value with ,
0.
Delete
Keep, but replaced reported value with
.0.
No data point with this remark code in
data set.
Delete
Delete
A-3
-------
15 Numem Ecoregion/'Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract tt 68-C-99-226. TOtt 04 August 8. 2000
TABLE 2: STORET REMARK CODE RULES
If a parameter (excluding water temperature) value was less than or equal to zero and no remark code was present,
the value was transformed into a missing value.
Rationale - Parameter concentrations should never be zero without a proper explanation. A method detection limit
should at least be listed.
4. Station records were eliminated from the data set if any of the following descriptors were
present within the "Station Type" parameter:
* MONITR - Source monitoring site, which monitors a known problem or to detect
a specific problem.
* HAZARD - Site of hazardous or toxic wastes or substances.
>• ANPOOL - Anchialine pool, underground pools with subsurface connections to
watertable and ocean.
> DOWN - Downstream (i.e., within a potentially polluted area) from a facility
which has a potential to pollute.
»• IMPDMT - Impoundment. Includes waste pits, treatment lagoons, and settling
and evaporation ponds.
»• STMSWR-Storm water sewer.
> LNDFL - Landfill.
»• CMBMI - Combined municipal and industrial facilities.
»• CMBSRC - Combined source (intake and outfall).
Rationale - these descriptors potentially indicate a station location that at which an
ambient water sample would not be obtained (i.e., such sampling locations are potentially
biased) or the sample location is not located within one of the designated water body types
(i.e, ANPOOL).
5. Station records were eliminated from data set if the station location did not fall within any
established cataloging unit boundaries based on their latitude and longitude.
6. Using nutrient ecoregion GIS coverage provided by USEPA. all station locations with
latitude and longitude coordinates were tagged with a nutrient ecoregion identifier
(nutrient region identifiers are values 1-14) and the associated nutrient ecoregion name.
Because no nutrient ecoregions exist for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, stations located
in these states were tagged with "dummy" nutrient ecoregion numbers (20 = Alaska, 21 =
Hawaii, 22 = Puerto Rico).
A-4
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract tt 68-C-99-226. TO# 04 August 8. 2000
7. Using information provided by TV A, 59 station locations that were marked as 'stream'
locations under the "Station Type" parameter were changed to 'reservoir' locations.
8. The nutrient data retrieved from STORET were assessed for the presence of duplicate data
records. The duplicate data identification process consisted of three steps: 1) identification
of records that matched exactly in terms of each variable retrieved; 2) identification of
records that matched exactly in terms of each variable retrieved except for their station
identification numbers; and 3) identification of records that matched exactly in terms of
each variable retrieved except for their collecting agency codes. The data duplication
assessment procedures were conducted using SAS programs.
Prior to initiating the data duplication assessment process, the STORET nutrient data set
contained:
41,210 station records
924,420 sample records
• Identification of exactly matching records
All data records were sorted to identify those records that matched exactly. For two
records to match exactly, all variables retrieved had to be the same,' For example,
they had to have the same water quality parameters, parameter results and associated
remark codes, and have the same station data item and sample data item information.
Exactly matching records were considered to be exact duplicates, and one duplicate
record of each identified matching set were eliminated from the nutrient data set. A
total of 924 sample records identified as duplicates by this process were eliminated
from the data set.
• Identification of matching records with the exception of station identification number
All data records were sorted to identify those records that matched exactly except for
their station identification number (i.e., they had the same water quality parameters,
parameter results and associated remark codes, and the same station and sample data
item information with the exception of station identification number). Although the
station identification numbers were different, the latitude and longitude for the
stations were the same indicating a duplication of station data due to the existence of
two station identification numbers for the same station. For each set of matching
records, one of the station identification numbers was randomly selected and its
associated data were eliminated from the data set. A total of 686 sample records
were eliminated from the data set through this process.
• Identification of matching records with the exception of colleoting aeencv codes
All data records were sorted to identify those records that matched exactly except for
their collecting agency codes (i.e., they had the same water quality parameters,
parameter results and associated remark codes, and the same station and sample data
item information with the exception of agency code). The presence of two matching
A-5
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8,2000
data records each with a different agency code attached to it suggested that one
agency had utilized data collected by the other agency and had entered the data
into STORET without realizing that it already had been placed in STORET by the
other agency. No matching records with greater than two different agency codes
were identified. For determining which record to delete from the data set, the
following rules were developed:
*• If one of the matching records had a USGS agency code, the USGS record
was retained and the other record was deleted.
>• Higher level agency monitoring program data were retained. For example,
federal program data (indicated by a "1" at the beginning of the STORET
agency code) were retained against state (indicated by a "2") and local
(indicated by values higher than 2) program data.
»• If two matching records had the same level agency code, the record from the
agency with the greater number of overall observations (potentially indicating
the data set as the source data set) was retained.
A total of 2,915 sample records were eliminated through this process.
As a result of the duplicate data identification process, a total of 4,525 sample records and
36 individual station records were removed from the STORET nutrient data set. The
resulting nutrient data set contains the following:
41,174 station records
919,895 sample records
A-6
-------
15 Nutrient EcoregionAVaterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8. 2000
APPENDIX B
Process for Adding Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregions and Level in Ecoregions
-------
15 Nutrient Ecoregion/Waterbody Type Summary Chapters, Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO* 04 August 8. 2000
Steps for assigning Level EH ecoregions and aggregate nutrient ecoregion codes and names to the
Nutrient Criteria Database (performed using ESRI's ARCView v 3.2 and its GeoProcessing
Wizard). This process is performed twice; once for the Level HI ecoregions and once for the
aggregate nutrient ecoregions:
Add the station .dbf data table, with latitude and longitude data, to project by 'Add Event
Theme1
Convert to the shapefile format
Create 'stcojoin1 field, populate the 'stcojoin1 field with the following formula:
'County.LCase+State.LCase'
Add field 'stco_flag' to the station shapefile
Spatially join the station data with the county shapefile (cntysjned.shp)
Select 'stcojoin' (station shapefile) field = 'stco Join2' (county shapefile) field
Calculate "stco_flag = 0 for selected features
Step through all blank stco_flag records, assign the appropriate stco_flags, see list on the
following page
Select all stco_flags = 4 or 7, switch selection
Calculate ctyfips (station) to cntyfips (county)
Stop editing and save edits, remove all joins
Add in 2 new fields 'x-coordl1 and 'y-coordl' into station table
Select all stco_flags =1,2, and 6
Link county coverage with station coverage
Populate 'x-coordl' and 'y-coord I' with 'x-coord* and 'y-coord' from county coverage
Select all stco_flags =1,2, and 6, export to new .dbf file
Add new .dbf file as event theme
Convert to shapefile format
Add the following fields to both tables (original station and station 126 shapefiles):
'ecojamer1, Iname_omer', Idis_aggr1, 'code_aggrl, lname_aggrl
Spatially join station!26 and eco-omer coverage
Populate the 'eco^mer1 field with the 'eco' value
Repeat the previous step using the nearest method (line coverage) to determine ecoregion
assignment for the line coverage, if some records are blank
Spatially join the ecoregion line coverage to station coverage, link the
LPoly# (from the spatially joined table) to Poly# (of the ecoregion polygon
coverage)
Populate the Eco fields with the appropriate information.
Follow the same steps to the Rpolytf
Remove all table joins
Link the useco-om table with stationl26 table and populate 'name-omer1 field
Spatially join station aggr coverage and populate the rest of the fields. Follow the same
procedures as outlined above
Remove all joins
B-l
-------
15 Nutrient EcoregioivWaierbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract» 68-C-99-226, TOO 04 August 8,2000
Make sure the new Eco field added into the station 126 shapefile are different than the
ones in the original station shapefile
Join station!26 and station coverage by station-id
Populate all the Eco fields in the original station coverage
Remove all joins
Save table
Make sure that all ctyfips records are populated; the county shapefile may have to be
joined to populate the records, if the stco_flag = 4
Create 2 new fields, "NewCounty1 and 'NewState1
Populate these new fields with a spatial join to the county coverage
Select by feature (ecoregion shapefile) all of the records in the station shapefile
Switch selection (to get records outside of the ecoregion shapefile)
If any of the selected records have stco_flag = 0 (they are outside the ecoregion
shapefile boundary), calculate them to stco_flag = 3
stco_flags (state/county flags in order of importance)
0 The state and county values from the data set matched the state and county values
from the spatial join.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the latitude/longitude coordinates.)
1 The state and county values from the data set did not match the state and county
values from the spatial join, but the point was inside the county coverage
boundary.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the county centroid.)
2 The state and county values from the data set did not match the state and county
values from the spatial join because the point was outside the county coverage
boundary; therefore, there was nothing to compare to the point (i.e., the point
falls in the ocean/Canada/Mexico). This occurred for some coastal samples.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the county centroid.) '
3 The state and county values from the data set matched the state and county from
the spatial join, but the point was outside the ecoregion boundary.
(Ecoregions were assigned to the closest ecoregion to the point.)
(No ecoregions were assigned to AK, HI, PR, BC, and GU.)
4 Latitude/longitude coordinates were provided, but there was no "county
information.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the latitude/longitude coordinates.)
5 The state and county values from the data set did not match the state and county
values from the spatial join due to spelling or naming convention errors.
The matches were performed manually.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the latitude/longitude coordinates.)
B-2
-------
15 Nutneiu'Ecoregion/Waierbody Type Summary Chapters. Contract # 68-C-99-226, TO# 04 August 8.2000
6 No latitude/longitude coordinates were provided, only state and county
information was available.
(Ecoregions were assigned based on the county centroid.)
7 No latitude/longitude coordinates were provided, only state information was
available; therefore, no matches were possible.
(Ecoregions were not assigned. Data is not included in the analysis.)
B-3
------- |