vvEPA
                United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
                 Office of Water
                 (4305)
EPA-S23-B-94-005a
August 1994
Water Quality  Standards
Handbook:
                Second Edition
       Contains Update #1
       August 1994
                           "... to restore and maintain the chemical,
                           physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
                           waters."

                                   Section 101 (a) of the Clean Water Act
                                                Recycled/Recyclable
                                                Printed on oaperthatcontains
                                                at least 50% recycled fiber

-------
                                                      i!il»^^^^^
  	     •'  !  	11   * f	 II	' < < •           1:  I;?	       :, IW^^^
                     :	EliiX „	ill iJ^lllllIii-liilii1:	111.,!'*!'!.!!1:!!],!	J-IMiilnhiirl/ilH^        	Ill	in
     K	  ,!,:       '»   :- 1
,;!!i«. • i;» <,ii , i  i  '  I1:; m :•!":' >  i '»\'   ' 'i" i< • "*\: •'   QIIW I'HS !l:«Ti 'iiHiii	;*' w A , a: \ •' "usu mi1 < ;i -s11  , fiiiiiiiiinin '• \\ MA,, iin :<:

-------
vvEPA
               United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
                Office of Water
                (4305)
EPA-823-B-94-005a
August 1994
Water Quality Standards
Handbook:
               Second Edition
                          "... to restore and maintain the chemical,
                          physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
                          waters."
       Contains Update #1
       August 1994
                                Section 101 (a) of the Clean Water Act

-------

-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

            HANDBOOK

        SECOND EDITION
        Water Quality Standards Branch
        Office of Science and Technology
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Washington, DC 20460
              September 1993
                                          Contains update #1
                                               August 1994

-------

-------
                                      READER RESPONSE  CARD

        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is trying hard to be responsive to the needs of our customers.  We would
appreciate knowing if this document has been helpful to you. Please take a minute to complete and return this postage-paid evaluation
form to us so that we can better serve you.

1. How helpful was the information contained in this publication? Circle one number:       1	2	3	4	5
                                                                               Somewhat       Quite          Very

2. Does the publication discuss the subject to your satisfaction?  ( ) Yes    ( ) No

3. Is the level of detail appropriate for your use?  ( ) Yes    (  ) No

4. How clearly is the publication written or the material presented?  Circle one number:     1	2	3	4	5
                                                                               Unclear       About right       Very

5. How effective are the graphics and illustrations? Circle one number:        1	2	3	4	5
                                                                   Ineffective        Quite         Very

6. What is your affiliation?  Check one:

     (  ) Local government representative    ( ) Attorney or legal representative   () Academia: Circle one: Student * Instructor
     (  ) State government representative    ( ) Environmental group                  Level:  	Elementary School
     () Federal government representative  () Private citizen                               	Junior High or Middle School
     (  ) Consultant                       ( ) Trade or industrial association                 	High School
     (  ) Other:                                                                           	University
7. Do you have any suggestions for improving this publication?
8. UPDATES.  If you would like to be added to the mailing list to receive updates of this publication, please check here  |	| and
tell us who you are by completing box #10 below.

9.  CATALOG OF DOCUMENTS.  The Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, is  responsible for developing
standards, criteria, and advisories  that relate  to water quality and public drinking water supplies, and  for developing effluent
guidelines, limitations and standards for industries discharging directly to surface water or indirectly to  publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants.  If you would like to receive a copy of the Catalog of OST Publications which lists all documents related to these
topics and includes information on how you may obtain copies of them, please check here  |	|  and complete box #10 below.
 10.          Your Name:

                Address:
 ygggj^jj^^y^^^jgffgfggfglgfgfggffff^fj^^^tf^ftUi^ftftftft^mi^mi^^fff^mmffmfBfmfmfmfBafffffmjf^f^^fff i   	                   	
 Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and mail it to us.  Thanks for your assistance.



     TfflS RESPONSE CARD  FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER: EPA-823-B-94-G05

-------
itii llEtir i • iflVI :";:*• "
                  .1  Qii '8	i"H5 ,  <:.».	1•;, i: iSXf,. 111111 ' ":H:	< I l|'l"!i::li. :ii,iiiiiii i !><«!<( .n,' SMft	iiiiU;]: ii • 4H ii.	itKii-iw1 wiiiiiB^^^^     	mi
                                                :1:1;'',^!!]!^
                                            i:i:i|n i;!j'< !iii.n iri-iiiiiiiii;!:!1 'iiiiijFiiiuiiiiiiiii i"	a M i;	Hiiuui 'nniiip
                                                                              llll.UIRUllIl

                                                                   ii''!!:!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                            |: ID . :>" 1 1.:!1!! ..... i-ii'l'Ii; Hill il Jit !lll /I ..... '
                            nllfc1	IT , , , li'11'	II, II1
                                                             	inni , 'n,:«iiii, i fin i1,
                                                                              i!l!l!!l,W^      ,lll,l
                                                            U.S.	Environmental	Protegion	Agency
                                                            Water	Resource	Center	{W^
                                                            401 M Street,  S.W.
                                                            Washington, DC 20460
                                                                       II  111 11 III III III I II III III IIII IIII IIII 11 111 111
                                                                                                                 in i in iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin
           In 111  iiiilll
                     lIlKlllliillliil	ill	lllllllllillililllliliill
                                                            llilllh^
                                                                           lllliliiillH

-------
                                                                                       Table of Contents
                                           FOREWORD
        Dear Colleague:

        The following document entitled Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition provides guidance
issued in support of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131, as amended). This Handbook includes
the operative provisions of the first volume of the Handbook issued in 1983 and incorporates subsequent guidance
issued since 1983. The 1993 Handbook contains only final guidance previously issued by EPA—it contains no
new guidance.

        Since the 1983 Handbook has not been updated in ten years, we hope that this edition will prove valuable
by pulling together current program guidance and providing a coherent document as a foundation for State and
Tribal water quality standards programs.  The Handbook also presents  some of the evolving program concepts
designed to reduce human and ecological risks, such as endangered species protection; criteria to protect wildlife,
wetlands, and sediment quality; biological  criteria to better define desired  biological communities  in aquatic
ecosystems; and nutrient criteria.

        This Handbook is intended to serve as a "living document," subject to future revisions as the water quality
standards program moves forward, and to reflect the needs and experiences of EPA and the States.  To this end,
the Handbook is published  in a loose leaf format designed to be placed  in three ring binders.  This copy of the
Handbook includes updated material for 1994 (see Appendix X),  and EPA anticipates publishing  additional
changes periodically and providing them to Handbook recipients.  To ensure that you will receive these updates,
please copy the reader response card in Appendix W and mail it to the address on the reverse.

        The Handbook also contains a listing, by title and date, of the guidance issued since the Handbook was
first published in 1983 that  is incorporated in the Second Edition. Copies of these documents are available upon
request.

        The Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition provides guidance on the national water quality
standards program. EPA regional offices and States may have additional guidance that provides more detail on
selected topics of regional interest.  For information on regional or State  guidance, contact the appropriate
regional water quality standards coordinator listed in Appendix U.

        EPA invites participation from interested parties in the water quality standards program, and appreciates
questions on this guidance as well as suggestions and comments for improvement. Questions or comments may
be directed to the EPA regional water quality standards coordinators or to:

        David Sabock, Chief
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Water Quality Standards Branch (4305)
        401  M Street, S.W.
        Washington, D.C. 20460
        Telephone (202)475-7315
                                                   Betsy Southerland, Acting Director
                                                   Standards and Applied Science Division
(8/15/94)                                                                     .                      iii

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
                                    Note to the Reader

       The Water Quality Standards Handbook, first issued in 1983, is a compilation of EPA's
 guidance on the water quality standards program and provides direction for States in reviewing,
 revising and implementing water quality standards.  The Water Quality Standards Handbook -
 Second Edition retains all the guidance in the 1983 Handbook unless such guidance was specifically
 revised in subsequent years. An annotated list of the major guidance and policy documents on the
 water quality standards program issued since 1983 is included in the Introduction and material added
 to the Second Edition by periodic updates since 1993 is summarized in Appendix X. Material in the
 Handbook contains only guidance previously issued by EPA;  it contains no new guidance.

       The guidance contained in each of the documents listed in the Introduction is either:
 1) incorporated in its entirety, or summarized, in the text of the appropriate section of this
 Handbook, or 2) attached as an appendix (see Table of Contents).  If there is uncertainty or
 perceived inconsistency on any of the guidance incorporated into this Handbook, the reader is
 directed to review the original guidance documents or call the Water Quality Standards Branch at
 (202) 260-1315.  Copies  of all original guidance documents not attached as appendices  may be
 obtained from the source listed for each document in the Reference section of this Handbook.

       Limited  free copies of this Handbook may be obtained from:

 Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100
 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
 401 M Street, S.W.
 Washington, DC 20460
 Telephone: (202)  260-7786 (voice mail publication request line)

       Copies may also be obtained from:

 Education Resource Information Center/Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental
 Education (ERIC)
 1929 Kenny Road
 Columbus, OH  43210-1080  (Telephone: 614-292-6717)
 (VISA, Mastercard and purchase order numbers from schools  and businesses accepted)


 U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161  (Telephone: 1-800-553-6847)
 (American Express,  VISA and Mastercard accepted)
                                              Robert S. Shippen
                                              Editor
                                                                                     (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                         Table of Contents
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword	iii

Note to the Reader	iv

Table of Contents	v

Glossary	GLOSS-1

Introduction	INT-1

      History of the Water Quality Standards Program .	INT-1
      Handbook Changes Since 1983	INT-5
      Overview of the Water Quality Standards Program	INT-8
      The Role of WQS in the Water Quality Management Program	INT-13
      Future Program Directions	INT-14

Chapter 1 - General Provisions  (40 CFR 131 - Subpart A)

      1.1   Scope - 40 CFR 131.1		1-1
      1.2   Purpose - 40 CFR 131.2	1-1
      1.3   Definitions - 40 CFR 131.3		1-1
      1.4   State Authority - 40 CFR 131.4	1-2
      1.5   EPA Authority - 40 CFR 131.5	1-3
      1.6   Requirements for Water Quality Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6	1-4
      1.7   Dispute Resolution Mechanism - 40 CFR 131.7	1-4
      1.8   Requirements for Indian Tribes To Qualify for the WQS Program - 40 CFR
            131.8	 . .	1-9
      1.9   Adoption of Standards for Indian Reservation Waters  . . . .  . .	  1-18
      Endnotes	1-21

Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses (40 CFR 131.10)

      2.1   Use Classification - 40 CFR 131.10(a)		2-1
      2.2   Consider Downstream Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(b)	2-4
      2.3   Use Subcategories - 40 CFR 131.10(c)		2-5
      2.4   Attainability ^f Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(d)	2-5
      2.5   Public Hearing  for Changing Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(e)	2-6
      2.6   Seasonal Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(f)	,		2-6
      2.7   Removal of Designated Uses -  40 CFR 131.10(g) and (h) .  .	2-6
      2.8   Revising Uses to Reflect Actual Attainment - 40 CFR 131.10(1)	2-8
      2.9   Use Attainability Analyses - 40 CFR 131.10Q) and (k)	2-9
(8/15/94)

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria (40CFR131.il)

       3.1   EPA Section 304(a) Guidance	3-1
       3.2   Relationship of Section 304(a) Criteria to State Designated Uses	  3-10
       3.3   State Criteria Requirements	3-12
       3.4   Criteria for Toxicants	 3-13
       3.5   Forms of Criteria  	3-23
       3.6   Policy on Aquatic Life Metals Criteria  	3-34
       3.7   Site-Specific Aquatic Life Criteria	3-38
       Endnotes	3-45

Chapter 4 - Antidegradation  (40 CFR 131.12)

       4.1   History of  Antidegradation	4-1
       4.2   Summary of the Antidegradation Policy	4-1
       4.3   State Antidegradation Requirements	4-2
       4.4   Protection of Existing Uses - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(l)	4-3
       4.5   Protection of Water Quality in High-Quality Waters - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) ....  4-6
       4.6   Applicability of Water Quality Standards to Nonpoint Sources Versus Enforceability
             of Controls	                       4-9
       4.7   Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW) - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3)	  4-10
       4.8   Antidegradation Application and Implementation  	4-10

Chapter 5 - General Policies  (40 CFR 131.13)

       5.1   Mixing Zones  	5-1
       5,2   Critical Low-Flows	5-9
       5.3   Variances From Water Quality Standards	5-11

Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
             (40 CFR 131 - Subpart C)

       6.1   State Review and Revision	6-1
       6.2   EPA Review and Approval  	6-8
       6.3   EPA Promulgation	6-13

Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-based Approach to Pollution Control

       7.1   Determine  Protection Level	7-2
       7.2   Conduct Water Quality Assessment  	7-3
       7.3   Establish Priorities	7-5
       7.4   Evaluate Water Quality Standards for Targeted Waters  	7-6
       7.5   Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities	7-7
       7.6   Establish Source Controls  	7-8
       7.7   Monitor and Enforce Compliance   	7-12
       7.8   Measure Progress	7-13

References	REF-1


VI                                                                                   (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                               Table of Contents
Appendices:

       A-   Water Quality Standards Regulation - 40 CFR 131.

       B -   Chronological Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards Promulgation Actions.

       C -   Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, April 1990.

       D -   National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands, July 1990.

       E -   An Approach for Evaluating Numeric  Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands Protection,
             July 1991.

       F -   Coordination Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service
             and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Development of Water Quality
             Criteria and Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act, July  1992.

       G -   Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation, August 1985.

       H -   Derivation of the 1985 Aquatic Life Criteria.

       I -    List of EPA Water Quality Criteria Documents.

       J -    Attachments to Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
             Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, October  1993.

       K -   Procedures for the Initiation of Narrative Biological Criteria, October 1992.

       L -   Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals,
             February 1994.

       M -   Reserved.

       N -   IRIS [Integrated Risk Information System] Background Paper.

       O-    Reserved.

       P -   List of 126 Section 307(a) Priority Toxic Pollutants.

       Q -   Wetlands and 401 Certification:  Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
             Indian Tribes - April 1989.

       R -   Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality
             Program, May 1991.

       S  -    Reserved.

       T -   Use Attainability Analysis  Case Studies.

(8/15/94)                                                                                  Vli

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
       U -   List of EPA Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators.



       V -   Water Quality Standards Program Document Request Forms.




       W -   Update Request Form for Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition.



       X -   Summary of Updates
                                                                                   (8/15/94)

-------
         GLOSSARY
                                 O
                                 GO
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK



         SECOND EDITION

-------
B!ti:i:i*;«'t
Ilil

jjp


sJ|lr
§  I'll1!';
iff*'
''!  jl|,IL;:|S,
shft11
rite.
H!"'1!,*
is  ii: 4
!"!'  Ilil'l!'. "

;i.  Ir,	
ti  BiP	


,i. !'  IH"I 'I	
•>'$:%%
 sHf !•*''
;;!iii;ir"iii.'
 I; t '' 111'!

fm
.:i.?'.;'i	

1':^

 ^1
 'i'l-.:*:
                   '}t:;

           :i!"!'
           i,'! fil

          ?:li>l""ir;:i'
          I 'I	,'» Hill-1 ,• • •: ',, >!ll!il .;'!< II1,' H "'i'Mlllil.ii-'' < ,	IVII! <:•!,' Illllli ^l;\illlili!il^!^il|•ill•l(|||^	llVM^    c" ;:ll!11i,IW




,)'  !l:;:ll.  ;   I "PS	, i1 !!«  ::"» ,  lUM ::" ll1:!!!':;"' 1,1:111 ::•;  I'lJ	I'I"!:,!.!' > •Illllli! :> rtilS'l'-ln:!!'" I!!!1!:!:!*!!;!'!:1:!	lillllllUIE'-Illl F'lyBIEM^^^^^^^
                                                         i
ti'i  iii"] -I. i  n 1,11,1:', 'i,i tin.111 •/','';: '  I'^ii n1'Mt. i mi iiii1;1!	i1 ij1:1!i,' 'iiLRi

O  ill'i"! .    i1'!''!!1:";"!"*!1 "i ?;   !:	ii"!'	lit"! 1	i! 3"!1  ".iJI
                                                  ; i! :;i> ii nil; » jFsiihW

                                                  Lil'lit'T'lilllillill'iil'S^^^^^^^       IWM^^^^^
          iJWiff; ':;i;::il;	aki'i.ifU'i:.'1'	W-i
                                                        •««',>"	  i< I     III  '     	'	   1	i	!^^9Hf!«^^^
                                                                   I	  II ii  i "lull ill     III III' i  I II I, Hill I In 1	1111 LI 11 Mil Wl	II	Ill	I	HI	I	Illllllll1!!!1!1!	I	I	llfl	Ill	I	I	Ill	I	I

-------
                                                                                     Glossary
                                       GLOSSARY
The "Act" refers to the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500, as amended (33 USC 1251, et seq.1 (40
       CFR 131.3.)

"Acute" refers to a stimulus severe enough to rapidly induce an effect; in aquatic toxicity tests, an
       effect observed in 96- hours or less is typically considered acute.  When referring to aquatic
       toxicology or human health, an acute affect  is not always measured in  terms of lethality
       (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Acute-chronic ratio" (ACR) is the ratio of the acute toxicity of an effluent or a toxicant to its chronic
       toxicity. It is used as a factor for estimating chronic toxicity on the basis of acute toxicity data,
       or for estimating acute toxicity on the basis of chronic toxicity data (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Acutely toxic conditions" are those acutely toxic to aquatic organisms following their short-term
       exposure within an affected area (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Additivity" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that  exhibits a total toxic effect
       equal to the arithmetic sum of the effects of the individual toxicants (USEPA, 199 la.)

"Ambient toxicity" is measured by a toxicity test on a sample collected from a water body (USEPA,
       1991a.)

11 Antagonism" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a less-than-additive
       total  toxic effect (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Aquatic community" is an association of interacting populations of aquatic organisms in a given water
       body or habitat (USEPA, 1990; USEPA, 1991a.)

"Averaging period" is the period of time over which the receiving water concentration is averaged for
       comparison with criteria concentrations. This specification limits the duration of concentrations
       above the criteria (USEPA,  1991a.)

"Bioaccumulation" is the process by which a compound is taken up by an aquatic organism, both from
       water and through food (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Bioaccumulation factor"  (BAF)  is the ratio of a  substance's concentration in tissue versus its
       concentration in ambient water, in situations where the organism and the food chain are exposed
       (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Bioassay" is a test used to evaluate the relative potency of a chemical or a mixture of chemicals by
       comparing its effect on a living organism with the effect of a standard preparation on the same
       type of organism. Bioassays are frequently used in the pharmaceutical industry to evaluate the
       potency of vitamins and drugs (USEPA, 1991a.)
(9/15/93)                                                                            GLOSS-1

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
''Unavailability" is a measure of the physicochemical access that a toxicant has to the biological
       processes of an organism. The less the bioavaUability of a toxicant, the less its toxic effect on
       an organism (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Bioconcentration" is the process by which a compound is absorbed from water through gills or
       epithelial tissues and is concentrated in the body (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Bioconcentration factor" (BCF) is the ratio of a substance's  concentration in tissue versus its
       concentration in water, in situations where the food chain is not exposed or contaminated. For
       non-metabolized substances, it represents equilibrium partitioning between water and organisms
       (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Biological criteria" are narrative expressions or numeric values  of the biological characteristics of
       aquatic communities based on appropriate reference conditions. As such, biological criteria serve
       as an index of aquatic community health.  It is also known as biocriteria (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Biological integrity11 is the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting unimpaired water bodies of
       a specified habitat as measured by community structure and function (USEPA,  1991a.)

"Biological monitoring" describes the use of living organisms in water quality surveillance to indicate
       compliance with water quality standards or effluent limits and to document water quality trends.
       Methods of biological monitoring may include, but are not limited to, toxicity testing (such as
       ambient toxicity testing or whole-effluent toxicity testing) and  biological surveys. It is also
       known as biomonitoring (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Biological survey or biosurvey" is collecting, processing, and analyzing a representative portion of
       the resident aquatic community to determine its structural and/or functional characteristics
       (USEPA. 1991a.)

"Biomagnification" is the process by which the concentration of a compound increases in species
       occupying successive  trophic levels (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Cancer potency slope factor" (qx*) is an indication of a chemical's human cancer-causing potential
       derived using animal studies or epidemiological data on human exposure; based on extrapolation
       of high-dose levels over short periods of time to low-dose levels and a lifetime exposure period
       through the use of a linear model (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Chronic" defines a stimulus that lingers or continues for a relatively long period of time, often one-
       tenth of the life span or more. Chronic should be considered a relative term depending on the
       life span of an organism. The measurement of a chronic effect can be reduced growth, reduced
       reproduction, etc., in  addition to lethality (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Community component" is a general term that may pertain to the biotic guild (fish, invertebrates,
       algae), the taxonomic  category (order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy (herbivore,
       omnivore, predator),  or the organizational  level (individual, population,  assemblage)  of a
       biological entity within the aquatic community (USEPA, 1991a.)
GLOSS-2                                                                            (9/15/93)

-------
"Completely mixed condition" is defined  as  no measurable difference in the concentration of a
       pollutant exists across a transect of  the water body (e.g., does not vary by 5%) (USEPA,
       1991a.)

"Criteria" are elements of State water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels,
       or narrative statements, representing  a quality of water that supports a particular use.   When
       criteria are met, water quality will generally protect the designated use (40 CFR 131.3.)

"Criteria continuous concentration" (CCC) is the EPA national water quality criteria recommendation
       for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organisms can be
       exposed indefinitely without causing unacceptable effect (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Criteria maximum concentration" (CMC) is the EPA national water quality criteria recommendation
       for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to which organisms can be
       exposed for a brief period of tune without causing an acute effect (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Critical life stage" is the period of tune in an organism's lifespan in which it is the most susceptible
       to adverse effects caused by exposure  to toxicants, usually during early development (egg,
       embryo, larvae).  Chronic toxicity tests are often  run on critical life stages  to replace long
       duration, life cycle tests since the most toxic effect usually occurs during the critical life stage
       (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Critical species" is a species that is commercially or recreationally important at  the site, a species that
       exists at the site and is listed as threatened or endangered under section 4 of the Endangered
       Species Act, or a species for which there is evidence that the loss of the species from the site
       is likely to cause an unacceptable impact on a commercially or recreationally important species,
       a threatened or endangered species, the abundances of a variety of other species, or the structure
       or function of the community (USEPA, 1994a.)

"Design flow" is the flow used for steady-state waste load allocation modeling (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Designated uses" are those uses  specified in water quality standards for each water body or segment
       whether or not they are being attained (40 CFR 131.3.)

"Discharge length scale" is the square root of the cross-sectional area of any discharge outlet (USEPA,
        1991a.)

 "Diversity" is the number and abundance of biological taxa in a specified location (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Effective concentration" (EC) is a point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause an
        observable adverse effect (such as death, immobilization, or serious incapacitation) hi a given
        percentage of the test organisms (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Existing uses" are those uses actually attained hi the water body on or after November  28, 1975,
        whether or not they are included hi the water quality standards  (40 CFR 131.3.)
 (8/15/94)                                                                              GLOSS-3

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 "Federal Indian Reservation," "Indian Reservation," or "Reservation" is defined as all land within
        the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government,
        notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the
        reservation (40 CFR 131.3.)

 "Final acute value" (FAV) is an  estimate of the concentration of the toxicant corresponding to a
        cumulative probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for all genera for which acceptable
        acute tests have been conducted on die toxicant (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Frequency" is how often criteria can be exceeded without unacceptably affecting the  community
        (USEPA, 1991a.)  '

 "Harmonic  mean  flow" is the number  of daily flow measurements divided by the sum of the
        reciprocals of the flows. That is, it is the reciprocal of the mean of reciprocals (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Indian Tribe" or "Tribe" describes any Indian Tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the
        Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian reservation
        (40 CFR 131.3.)

 "Inhibition concentration" (1C) is a point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause a
        given percent reduction (e.g., IC25)  hi  a non-lethal biological measurement of the test
        organisms, such as reproduction or growth (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Lethal concentration" is the point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would be lethal to a
       given percentage of the test organisms during a specified period (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Lipophilic" is a high affinity for lipids (fats) (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Load allocations" (LA) the portion of a receiving water TMDL that is attributed either to one  of its
       existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources (USEPA
       1991a.)

 "Lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level" (LOAEL) is the lowest concentration of an effluent or toxicant
       that results in statistically significant adverse health effects as observed hi chronic or subchronic
       human epidemiology studies  or animal exposure (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Magnitude" is how much of a pollutant (or pollutant parameter such as toxicity),  expressed as a
       concentration or toxic unit is allowable (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Minimum level" (ML) refers to the level at which the entire analytical system gives recognizable  mass
       spectra and acceptable calibration points when analyzing for pollutants of concern. This  level
       corresponds to the lowest point at which the calibration curve is determined (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Mixing zone" is an area where an effluent discharge undergoes initial dilution and is extended to cover
       the secondary mixing in the  ambient water body. A mixing zone is an allocated impact  zone
       where water quality criteria can be exceeded as long as acutely toxic conditions are prevented
       (USEPA, 1991a.)
GLOSS-4                                                                            (8/15/94)

-------
                                                          	Glossary

"Navigable waters" refer to the waters of the United States,  including the territorial seas (33 USC
       1362.)
                                                                             j
"No-observed-adverse-effect-lever1 (NOAEL) is a tested dose of an effluent or a toxicant below which
       no adverse biological effects are observed, as identified from chronic or subchronic human
       epidemiology studies or animal exposure studies (USEPA,  1991a.)

"No-observed-effect-concentration" (NOEC) is the highest tested concentration of an effluent or a
       toxicant at which no adverse effects are observed on the aquatic test organisms at a specific tune
       of observation. Determined using hypothesis testing (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Nonthreshold effects" are associated with exposure to chemicals that have no safe exposure levels.
       (i.e., cancer) (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Persistent pollutant" is not subject to decay, degradation, transformation, volatilization, hydrolysis,
       or photolysis (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Pollution" is defined as the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological
       and radiological integrity of water (33 USC 1362.)

"Priority pollutants" are those pollutants listed by the Administrator under section 307(a) of the Act
       (USEPA,  1991a.)

"Reference ambient concentration" (RAC) is the concentration of a chemical in water which will not
       cause adverse impacts to human health; RAC is expressed in units of mg/1 (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Reference conditions" describe the characteristics of water body segments least impaired by human
       activities.  As such, reference conditions can be used to describe attainable biological or habitat
       conditions for water body segments with common watershed/catchment characteristics within
       defined geographical regions.

"Reference tissue concentration" (RTC) is the concentration of a chemical in edible fish or shellfish
       tissue which will not cause adverse impacts to human health when ingested. RTC is expressed
       in units of mg/kg (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Reference dose" (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to human population that is likely to be
       without appreciable risk of deleterious effect during a lifetime; derived from NOAEL or LOAEL
       (USEPA,  1991a.)

"Section 304(a) criteria" are developed by EPA under authority of section 304(a) of the Act based on
       the latest scientific information on the relationship that the effect of a constituent concentration
       has on particular aquatic species and/or human health.  This information is issued periodically
       to the States as guidance for use hi developing criteria (40 CFR 131.3.)

 "Site-specific aquatic life criterion" is a water quality criterion for aquatic life that has been derived
       to be specifically appropriate to the water quality characteristics and/or species composition at
       a particular location (USEPA,  1994a.)
 (8/15/94)                                                                             GLOSS-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 "States" include: the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
       Virgin  Islands,  American  Samoa,  the Trust Territory  of  the  Pacific Islands,  and  the
       Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines qualify
       for treatment as States for the purposes of water quality standards (40 CFR 131.3.)

 "Steady-state model" is a fate and transport model that uses constant values of input variables to
       predict constant values of receiving water quality concentrations (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "STORET"  is EPA's computerized water quality database that includes physical, chemical, and
       biological data measured in water bodies throughout the United States (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Sublethal" refers to a stimulus below the level that causes death  (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Synergism" is the characteristic property of a mixture of toxicants that exhibits a greater-than-additive
       total toxic effect (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Threshold effects"  result from chemicals that have a safe level (i.e., acute, subacute, or chronic
       human health effects) (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Total maximum daily load"  (TMDL) is the  sum of the individual waste load allocations (WLAs) and
       load allocations (LAs); a margin of safety is included with  the two types of allocations so that
       any additional loading, regardless of source, would not produce a violation  of water quality
       standards (USEPA,  1991a.)

 "Toxicity test" is a procedure to determine the toxicity of a chemical or an effluent using living
       organisms. A toxicity test measures the degree of effect on exposed test organisms of a specific
       chemical or effluent (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Toxic pollutant" refers to those pollutants,  or combination of pollutants, including disease-causing
       agents,, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any
       organism,  either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains,
       will, or on  the basis  of information available to the administrator, cause death, disease,
       behavioral abnormalities, cancer,  genetic  mutations, physiological malfunctions (including
       malfunctions hi reproduction) or physical deformations, hi such organisms or then- offspring (33
       USC section 1362.)

 "Toxic units" (TUs) are a measure of toxicity in an effluent as determined by the acute toxicity units
       (TUa) or chronic toxicity units (TUc) measured (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Toxic unit acute"  (TUa) is the reciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes 50 percent of the
       organisms  to die by the end of the acute exposure period (i.e., 100/LC50)  (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Toxic unit chronic" (TUc) is the reciprocal of the effluent concentration that causes no observable
       effect on the test organisms  by the end of the  chronic exposure period (i.e., 100/NOEC)
       (USEPA, 1991a.)
GLOSS-6                                     .                                        (8/15/94)

-------
                                                      	Glossary

"Use attainability analysis" (UAA) is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the
       attainment of the use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors
       as described in section 131.10(g) (40 CFR 131.3.)

"Waste load allocation" (WLA) is the portion of a receiving water's TMDL that is allocated to one
       of its existing or future point sources of pollution (USEPA, 1991a.)

"Waters of the United States" refer to:

       (1)     all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use
              in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and
              flow of the tide;

       (2)     all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

       (3)     all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
              mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
              natural ponds the use or degradation of which would affect or could affect interstate or
              foreign  commerce,  including any such waters:

              (i)     which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or
                     other purposes;

              (ii)    from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold hi interstate or foreign
                     commerce; or

              (iii)    which are or could be  used for  industrial purposes by  industries hi interstate
                     commerce.

       (4)     all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this
              definition;

       (5)     tributaries of waters hi paragraphs (1) through (4) of this definition;

       (6)     the territorial sea; and

       (7)     wetlands  adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified
              hi paragraphs (1) through (6) of this definition. "Wetlands"  are  defined as those  areas
              that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency arid duration
              sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
              vegetation typically adapted for life  in saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands generally
              include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

       Waste  treatment systems, including  treatment ponds or  lagoons  designed to  meet the
       requirements of the  Act (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also
       meet the criteria for this definition) are not waters  of the United States. (40 CFR 232.2.)
 (8/15/94)                                                                               GLOSS-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 11 Water-effect ratio" (WER) is an appropriate measure of the toxicity of a material obtained in
       a site water divided by the same measure of the toxicity of the same material obtained
       simultaneously in a laboratory dilution water (USEPA, 1994a.)

 "Water qualify assessment" is an evaluation of the condition of a water body using biological surveys,
       chemical-specific analyses of pollutants in water bodies, and toxicity tests (USEPA, 1991a.)

 "Water quality limited segment" refers to any segment where it is known that water quality does not
       meet applicable water quality standards and/or is not expected to meet applicable water quality
       standards  even after application of technology-based effluent limitations required by sections
       301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and 306 of the Act (40 CFR 131.3.)

 "Water quality standards" (WQS) are provisions of State or Federal law which consist of a designated
       use or uses for the waters of the United States, water quality criteria for such waters based upon
       such uses.  Water quality standards are to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality
       of the water and serve the purposes of the Act (40 CFR 131.3.)

 "Whole-effluent toxicity"  is the total toxic effect of an effluent measured directly with a toxicity test
       (USEPA,  1991a.)
GLOSS-8                                                                             (8/15/94)

-------
      INTRODUCTION
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




         SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                                                                                                         Ill
 lii ..IIIlillKBIi: i I"* HIilllllliniil'HiPHIBI1!:1'1!1 • > lillll'il1 ill!;*!! ,:ii"i
l|ll 111


III III1

  i i in

111 IN
                             ill I Ill

i	nil  i  tin	
'Hi   iiu1  iiii i nil i1 iii	iiiiiiii'iirH	iiitiiiiB
nil	in ii ii iii iiiiiiiiiii i iii in iiiiiiH	iiiB

iiiiiiiiiii	iiiiiii
                                              IIIIIIIIIII IIII III III
                                              iiiiiiiiin

-------
                                                                                   Introduction
       HISTORY OF THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
Statutory History

The first comprehensive legislation  for  water
pollution control was the Water Pollution Control
Act of 1948 (Public Law 845, 80th Congress).
This law, passed after a half century of debate on
the responsibility of the Federal Government for
resolving water  pollution  problems,  adopted
principles of State-Federal cooperative program
development,   limited  Federal   enforcement
authority,   and  provided   limited   financial
assistance.  These concepts were continued in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of
1956 (Public Law 660, 84th Congress) and in the
Water Quality Act of 1965. Under the 1965 Act,
States  were  directed to develop  water  quality
standards for  interstate waters.  As a result of
enforcement  complexities and other  problems,
however, this approach  was not  sufficiently
effective. In the FWPCA Amendments of 1972
(Public Law  92-500), Congress  established  a
discharge permit  system and provided a broader
Federal  role  through  more extensive  Federal
grants to finance  local sewage treatment systems
-and   through    Federal   (EPA)   setting   of
technology-based effluent limitations.  The 1972
Amendments extended the water quality standards
program to intrastate  waters  and provided for
implementation of water quality standards through
discharge permits.

Section 303(c) of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments
(33 USC 1313(c)) established the statutory basis
for the current water quality standards program.
It completed the transition from  the  previously
established program of water quality standards for
interstate waters to one requiring standards for all
surface waters of the United States.
Although  the major  innovation  of  the  1972
FWPCA was technology-based controls, Congress
maintained the concept of water quality standards
both as a mechanism to establish goals for the
Nation's waters and as a regulatory requirement
when standardized technology  controls for point
source discharges and/or nonpoint source controls
were inadequate.  In recent years, Congress and
EPA have given these water quality-based controls
new emphasis in the continuing quest to enhance
and maintain water quality  to protect the public
health and welfare.

Briefly stated, the key elements of section 303(c)
are as follows:

 (1)  A water quality  standard is defined as the
     designated  beneficial   uses   of a   water
     segment  and  the water quality  criteria
     necessary to  support those uses;

 (2)  The  minimum  beneficial  uses  to  be
     considered by States in establishing  water
     quality  standards are  specified  as  public
     water supplies,  propagation  of fish and
     wildlife,   recreation,   agricultural   uses,
     industrial uses, and navigation;

 (3)  A requirement specifies that State standards
     must protect  public  health   or welfare,
     enhance the quality of water, and serve the
     purposes of the Clean Water Act;

 (4)  A  requirement  specifies  that  States must
     review their  standards  at least once each 3-
     year  period  using  a process  that includes
     public participation;
 (9/15/93)
                                       INT-1

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  (5) The process is described for EPA review of
     State standards that might ultimately result in
     the promulgation of a superseding Federal
     rule in cases where a State's standards are
     not   consistent  with   the  applicable
     requirements of the CWA,  or in situations"
     where the Agency determines that Federal
     standards  are  necessary  to  meet  the
     requirements of the Act.

 The  Federal  Water  Pollution   Control  Act,
 including  the major  1977,  1981,  and  1987
 Amendments  are  commonly  referred  to  as the
 "Clean Water Act" (the Act or CWA).

 On February 4,1987, Congress enacted the Water
 Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law  100-4), making
 substantial additions to  the Clean Water Act and
 directly   affecting   the   standards   program.
 Congress concluded that toxic pollutants in water
 constitute one of the most pressing water pollution
 problems.  The Water Quality Act provided a new
 approach   to  controlling  toxic   pollutants  by
 requiring  "... States to identify waters that do
 not  meet  water quality  standards due  to  the
 discharge of toxic substances,  to adopt numerical
 criteria for the pollutants in such waters,  and to
 establish  effluent  limitations  for  individual
 discharges to  such water bodies"  (from Senator
 Mitchell,  133 Congressional  Record S733).  As
 now amended, the Clean Water Act requires that
 States adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants
 listed under section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act
 for  which  section  304(a) criteria have been
published,  if the presence of these pollutants is
likely to adversely  affect the water body's use.
Guidance on these changes is discussed in detail
in section 3.4 of this Handbook.  Additionally,
for the first time, the Act explicitly recognizes
antidegradation (see section 303(d)(4) of the Act).
Regulatory History

EPA  first  published a water quality  standards
regulation in 1975 (40 CFR 130.17, promulgated
in 40 F.R. 55334, November 28, 1975) as part of
EPA's water  quality  management regulations,
mandated under section 303(e) of the Act.   The
first Water Quality  Standards Regulation did not
specifically address  toxic pollutants or  any other
criteria.  It simply  required "appropriate" water
quality criteria necessary  to  support designated
uses.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the public and
Congress raised concerns about toxic pollutant
control. EPA realized that promulgating effluent
guidelines or effluent standards under section 307
of the Act would not  comprehensively address
toxic pollutants.  So,  EPA decided to use the
statutory  connection  between  water  quality
standards and NPDES permits provided by section
301(b)(l)(C) to effectively control a range of toxic
pollutants from point sources.  To best accomplish
this process,  the  Agency  decided to amend the
Water Quality Standards Regulation to  explicitly
address  toxic  criteria  requirements  in  State
INT-2
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                                    Introduction
standards.  Other legal and programmatic issues
also necessitated a revision  of the Standards
Regulation.   The culmination of this effort was
the promulgation of the present Water  Quality
Standards Regulation on November 8, 1983 (54
F.R. 51400).

The present Water  Quality Standards Regulation
(40 CFR Part 131) is a much more comprehensive
regulation than its predecessor.  In subpart B, the
Regulation addresses  both the designated use
component and the  criteria component of a water
quality   standard.     Section  131.11   of the
Regulation requires States to  review available
information and ".  . .to identify specific water
bodies where toxic pollutants may be adversely
affecting water  quality  .  .  .  and  must adopt
criteria for such toxic pollutants applicable to the
water body sufficient  to protect the designated
use."  The Regulation provides that either or both
numeric   and  narrative   criteria   may   be
appropriately used in water quality standards.

Since the middle of the  1980's, EPA's annual
program guidance  to  the States reflected the
increasing emphasis on controlling toxics.  States
were strongly encouraged to adopt criteria in their
standards for the pollutants listed pursuant to
section 307(a) of the Act, especially  where EPA
has published  criteria  guidance under  section
304(a) of the Act.

State  reaction to EPA's  initiative  was  mixed.
Several States proceeded to adopt large numbers
of  numeric  toxic  pollutant criteria, although
primarily for the protection of aquatic life. Other
States relied on  a narrative "free from" toxicity
criterion, using so-called "action levels" for toxic
pollutants or for calculating site-specific criteria.
Few States specifically addressed human health
protection outside the National Primary Drinking
Water  Standards promulgated under  the Safe
Drinking Water Act.

In  support  of  its   1983   regulation,   EPA
simultaneously issued program  guidance  entitled
Water Quality Standards  Handbook (December
1983). The foreword to the guidance noted that
EPA's approach  to  controlling toxics included
both  chemical-specific  numeric  criteria  and
biological testing in whole-effluents or ambient
waters.  More detailed programmatic guidance on
the application of biological testing was provided
in the Technical Support Document for  Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA 44/4-85-032,
September 1985).   This document  provides the
information needed to  convert  chemical-specific
and biologically based  criteria into permit limits
for point source dischargers.

State  water quality standards reviews submitted
began to show the effects of EPA's efforts.  More
and more numeric criteria for toxics were being
included in  State standards as  well  as more
aggressive use of the "free from toxics" narratives
in  setting  protective   NPDES permit  limits.
However,  because of perceived problems in
adopting numeric toxic pollutant criteria in State
rulemaking   proceedings,  many  States  were
reluctant to adopt numeric toxics criteria.  Thus,
in  1987,  Congress  responded to  the  lack of
numeric criteria for toxic pollutants within State
standards  by mandating State adoption of such
criteria.

In response to  this new congressional  mandate,
EPA redoubled its efforts to promote and assist
State  adoption  of water  quality standards  for
priority toxic pollutants.  EPA's efforts included
the development and issuance of guidance to the
States on  December 12, 1988, which contained
acceptable implementation procedures for several
new  sections of  the  Act,  including  sections
303(c)(2)(B).
(9/15/93)
                                       INT-3

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 EPA,   in   devising   guidance   for   section
 303(c)(2)(B), attempted to provide States with the
 maximum  flexibility  that  complied  with the
 express  statutory language but  also  with the
 overriding   congressional  objective:   prompt
 adoption and implementation  of  numeric toxics
 criteria.    EPA  believed that  flexibility  was
 important so that each State could comply with
 section 303(c)(2)(B) and to the extent possible,
 accommodate its  existing water quality standards
 regulatory approach. The options EPA identified
 are described in section 3.4.1  of  this Handbook.

 EPA's December 1988 guidance also addressed
 the timing issue for State compliance with section
 303(c)(2)(B).  The  statutory directive was clear:
 all State standards triennial reviews initiated after
 passage of the Act must include a consideration of
 numeric toxic criteria.

 States   significantly  responded  to  the  1987
 requirement  for  numeric  criteria  for  toxic
 poEutants.   For  example, in  1986 on average,
 each State had 10 numeric criteria for freshwater
 aquatic life.   By February  1990, the average
 number of freshwater aquatic life criteria  was
 increased to  30.   Also, States averaged 36
 numeric criteria  for human health in  February
 1990. However, by September 1990, many States
 had  failed to fully satisfy the requirements of
 section 303(c)(2)(B).

 The addition  of section 303(c)(2)(B) to the Clean
 Water Act was an unequivocal signal to the States
 that Congress wanted toxics criteria in the State's
 water quality standards.   EPA, consistent with
 this mandate, initiated Federal promulgation of
 toxic  criteria for  those States  that  had  not
 complied with the Act.  EPA proposed Federal
 criteria  for  toxic pollutants for  22 States  and
 Territories, based on a preliminary assessment of
 compliance, on November 19, 1991 (56 F.R.
 58420), and promulgated toxic criteria for 14 of
 those States  on December 22, 1992 (57 F.R.
 60848).
INT-4                                                                               (9/15/93)

-------
                        HANDBOOK CHANGES SINCE 1983
In December, 1983, EPA published its first Water
Quality  Standards  Handbook.     The   1983
Handbook was designed to help States implement
the Water Quality Standards Regulation as revised
in November 1983 (48 F.R. 51400).  Since then,
Congress enacted the Water Quality Act of 1987
(Public Law 100-4), making substantial additions
to the Clean Water Act (CWA) directly affecting
the standards program.  In response to the Water
Quality Act of 1987, and  as a result of Federal
promulgation actions, EPA amended the  Water
Quality Standards Regulation several times (see
Appendices A  and B).   Since 1983 EPA also
issued  additional  guidance  to  assist in the
implementation of the WQS Regulation.   Water
Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
incorporates all the WQS  guidance issued since
the 1983 Handbook was published.  A summary
of these guidance documents are as follows.

EPA Guidance on the Water Quality Act of
1987

On February 4, 1987, Congress enacted the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4), making
substantial  additions to the  Clean  Water Act
directly affecting the standards program. Section
303(c)(2)(B) of the  Clean Water Act requires
States  to  adopt  numeric  criteria  for   toxic
pollutants listed under section 307(a) of the Clean
Water  Act  for which section 304(a) criteria have
been published, if the presence of these pollutants
is likely to affect a water  body's  use.   EPA
published Guidance for State Implementation of
WQS for CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) on December
12, 1988 (USEPA,  1988b).   This  guidance is
incorporated into this Handbook at section 3.4.1.

The 1987  Act also added a new section 518,
which  requires EPA to promulgate a regulation
specifying   how  the  Agency  will  authorize
qualified  Indian  Tribes  to  administer  CWA
programs including section  303 (water quality
standards)   and   section   401   (certification)
programs.   Section 518  also requires EPA, in
promulgating  this regulation,  to  establish  a
mechanism to resolve unreasonable consequences
that may result from an Indian Tribe and a State
adopting differing water quality standards  on
common bodies of water.   EPA promulgated a
final regulation on December  12, 1991 (56 F.R.
64875).  Guidance on water quality standards for
Indian Tribes is contained in chapter 1.

Other EPA Guidance

Since  1983,  EPA  also developed additional
policies and guidance on virtually all areas of the
WQS Regulation.  Following is a complete list of
these guidance documents.

State Water Quality  Standards Approvals: Use
     Attainability  Analysis Submittals  (USEPA,
     1984d), clarifies EPA  policy on  several
     issues regarding approval of water body use
     designations   less   than   the
     fishable/swimmable goal  of the CWA.  See
     section 6.2 for a discussion of this topic.

Interpretation  of the  Term  "Existing   Use"
     (USEPA,  1985e),  expands  on  EPA's
     interpretation of when a use becomes an
     "existing use"   as  defined  by the  WQS
     Regulation. Discussion of "existing uses" is
     contained in  section 4.4.

Selection of Water Quality Criteria in State Water
     Quality  Standards     (USEPA,   1985f),
     established   EPA  policy   regarding   the
     selection of appropriate water quality criteria
     for toxic pollutants in State water quality
     standards. This guidance preceded both the
     Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
     Water  Quality  Criteria for the  for  the
     Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their
     Uses  (USEPA,  1985b),  and  the  1988
     guidance on section  303(c)(2)(B)  of  the
     CWA, discussed above.  Both of these later
     documents expand upon  the February 1985
     guidance, but the policy  established therein
(9/15/93)
                                       INT-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      has  not   been   substantively   changed.
      Adoption of criteria for toxic pollutants is
      discussed in section 3.4.

 Variances in Water Quality Standards (USEPA,
      1985g), reinterprets the factors that could be
      considered  when  granting  water  quality
      standards variances. Variances are discussed
      in section 5.3.

 Antidegradation,   Waste loads,  and  Permits
      (USEPA,   1985h),   clarifies   that   the
      antidegradation   policy   is   an   integral
      component  of water quality  standards and
      must be considered when developing waste
      load  allocations  and   NPDES  permits.
      Antidegradation is discussed in chapter 4.

 Questions and  Answers   on  Antidegradation
      (Appendix G), provides guidance on various
      aspects  of the antidegradation policy where
      questions  had   arisen  since  the  1983
      Regulation and Handbook were published.

 Antidegradation    Policy   (USEPA,    1985i),
      reiterates the need for all States to have: (1)
      an antidegradation policy that fully complies
      with  the Federal  requirements,  and (2) a
     procedure for consistently implementing that
     policy.

Answers to Questions on Nonpoint Sources  and
      WQS (USEPA,  1986e),  responded to  two
     questions on nonpoint source pollution and
     water quality  standards.   The relationship
     between nonpoint source pollution and water
     quality standards is discussed in section 7.

Determination of "Existing Uses" for Purposes of
     Water Quality  Standards  Implementation
     (USEPA,  1986f),  responds   to  concerns
     expressed to EPA on the interpretation of
     when a  recreational  use  becomes   an
     "existing use"  as defined by the Regulation.
     Discussion of "existing uses" is contained in
     section 4.4.
 Nonpoint Source  Controls and  Water  Quality
      Standards (USEPA, 1987d), provides further
      guidance on nonpoint sources pollution and
      water   quality  standards   reflecting   the
      requirements of section 319  of the CWA as
      added by the 1987 CWA amendments.

 EPA  Designation  of  Outstanding  National
      Resource Waters  (USEPA, 1989f),  restates
      the  basis  for  EPA's  practice   of   not
      designating  State waters as  Outstanding
      National Resource Waters (ONRW) where a
      State does not do so.  ONRWs are discussed
      in section 4.6.

 Guidance for the  Use  of Conditional Approvals
     for State WQS (USEPA, 1989g), provides
      guidelines for  regional offices  to  use in
      granting State  water  quality   standards
      approvals conditioned on the performance of
      specified actions by the State.  Conditional
      approvals are discussed in section 6.2.3.

Application  of Antidegradation  Policy  to  the
     Niagara River  (USEPA, 1989c), provides
     guidance on acceptable interpretations of the
     antidegradation policy to help  attain  the
     CWA objective to "restore and maintain" the
     integrity of the Nation's waters.

Designation of Recreation Uses (USEPA, 1989h),
     summarizes previously issued guidance, and
     outlines a number of acceptable State options
     for designating recreational uses.  The  use
     designation process is discussed in chapter 2.
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
    for Surface Waters (Appendix C), provides
     guidance on the effective development and
     application of biological criteria in the water
     quality  standards  program.     Biological
     criteria are discussed in section 3.5.3.

National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for
     Wetlands (Appendix D), provides guidance
     for meeting the  EPA priority to develop
     water quality standards for wetlands.
INT-6
                                                                                     (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                                   Introduction
     Section 401 certification and FERC licenses
     (USEPA,  1991h), clarifies  the range  of
     water quality standards elements that States
     need to apply when  making CWA  section
     401 certification decisions.  Section 401 of
     the CWA is discussed in section 7.6.3.

Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
     based  Toxics  Control,  (USEPA,  199la),
     provides technical guidance for assessing and
     regulating the discharge of toxic substances
     to the waters of the United States.

Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and
     Criteria  in the  Water  Quality  Program
     (USEPA,  199li), provides  the basis for
     EPA's policy that biological surveys shall be
     fully integrated with  toxicity and chemical-
     specific assessment methods in State water
     quality programs. Further discussion of this
     policy is contained in section 3.3.

Numeric  Water Quality  Criteria for  Wetlands
     (Appendix E),  evaluates EPA's  numeric
     aquatic life criteria to determine how they
     can be applied to wetlands. Wetland aquatic
     life criteria are discussed  in section 3.5.6.

Endangered   Species  Act  Joint  Guidance
     (Appendix F),  establishes a procedure  by
     which  EPA, the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife
     Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
     Service will consult  on the development of
     water quality criteria and standards.

Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on
     Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic
     Life Metals  Criteria  (USEPA,   1993f),
     transmits Office of Water (OW) policy and
     guidance   on    the   interpretation   and
     implementation of aquatic life criteria for the
     management  of  metals.     Section  3.6
     discusses EPA's policy on aquatic life metals
     criteria.

Interpretation   of   Federal   Antidegradation
     Regulatory Requirement  (USEPA,  1994a),
     provides guidance on the interpretation of
     the  antidegradation  policy  in  40  CFR
     131.12(a)(2)  as  it  relates  to  nonpoint
     sources.    Antidegradation  and  nonpoint
     sources are discussed in Section 4.6.

Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of
     Water-Effect Ratios for Metals (Appendix
     L), provides interim guidance concerning the
     experimental determination of water-effect
     ratios  (WERs) for metals and supersedes all
     guidance concerning water-effect ratios and
     the Indicator Species Procedure in USEPA,
     1983a  and in  USEPA,   1984f.    It  also
     supersedes  the  guidance "in these earlier
     documents for the Recalculation Procedure
     for  performing  site-specific  aquatic  life
     criteria modifications.  Site-specific aquatic
     life criteria are discussed in Section 3.7.

The guidance contained in each  of the above
documents  is either incorporated into the text of
the  appropriate section of this  Handbook or
attached as appendices  (see Table of Contents).
The reader is directed  to the original guidance
documents  for the explicit guidance on the topics
discussed.    Copies  of all original  guidance
documents  not attached as appendices  may be
obtained from the source listed for each document
in the Reference section of this  Handbook.

The Water  Quality Standards Handbook - Second
Edition is reorganized from the 1983 Handbook.
An  overview to Water Quality Standards and
Water Quality  Management programs has been
added, and chapters 1 through 6 are organized to
parallel the  provisions  of the  Water  Quality
Standards  Regulation.     Chapter   7  briefly
introduces  the role of water quality standards in
the  water  quality-based approach to pollution
control.

The Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second
Edition retains  all  the guidance in the  1983
Handbook  unless such guidance was specifically
revised in subsequent years.
    (8/15/94)
                                    INT-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      OVERVIEW OF THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
 A water quality standard defines the water quality
 goals  of a water body,  or portion thereof,  by
 designating the use or uses to be made of the
 water, by setting criteria necessary to protect the
 uses,  and by  preventing degradation  of water
 quality through antidegradation provisions.  States
 adopt water quality standards to protect public
 health or welfare, enhance the quality of water,
 and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act.

 "Serve the purposes of the Act" (as defined in
 sections 101(a), 101(a)(2), and 303(c) of the Act)
 means that water quality standards:

 •   include   provisions   for   restoring  and
     maintaining   chemical,   physical,   and
     biological integrity of State waters;

 •   wherever  attainable, achieve a level of water
     quality that provides for the protection and
     propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,
     and  recreation   in  and  on  the   water
     ("fishable/swimmable"); and

 *   consider the use  and value  of State  waters
     for public water supplies, propagation of fish
     and wildlife,  recreation,  agriculture and
     industrial  purposes, and navigation.

 Section 303(c)  of the Clean Water Act provides
 the statutory basis for the water quality standards
 program. The regulatory requirements governing
 the  program,   the  Water  Quality  Standards
 Regulation, are published at 40 CFR 131.  The
 Regulation is  divided into  four  subparts  (A
 through D), which are summarized below.

 General Provisions (40 CFR 131 - Subpart A)

 Subpart A includes the scope (section 131.1) and
 purpose   (section  131.2)  of  the  Regulation,
 definitions of  terms  used  in  the  Regulation
 (section  131.3), State  (section 131.4) and EPA
 (section   131.5)  authority  for  water  quality
 standards, and  the minimum requirements for a
 State water quality standards submission (section
 131.6).

 On December 12, 1991, the EPA promulgated
 amendments to Subpart A of the Water Quality
 Standards  Regulation in response to the CWA
 section 518 requirements (see 56 F.R.  64875).
 The Amendments:

 •    establish   a   mechanism   to    resolve
     unreasonable consequences that may result
     from  an Indian Tribe and a State  adopting
     differing water quality standards on common
     bodies of water (section 131.7); and

 •    add procedures by which an Indian Tribe can
     qualify  for  the section 303  water quality
     standards and section  401  certification
     programs of the Clean Water Act  (section
     131.8).

 The sections of Subpart A are discussed in chapter
 1.

 Establishment of Water Quality Standards -
 (Subpart B)

 Subpart B  contains regulatory requirements  that
 must be included in State water quality standards:
 designated  uses  (section  131.10),  criteria  that
 protect the designated uses (section 131.11), and
 an antidegradation  policy that protects  existing
 uses and  high water quality (section  131.12).
 Subpart B  also provides for State discretionary
policies, such as mixing zones and water quality
 standards variances (section 131.13).

Each of these sections is summarized below and
discussed  in  detail in chapters 2  through  5
respectively.

    Designation of Uses

The Water  Quality Standards Regulation  requires
that States  specify appropriate water uses to be
INT-8
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                                     Introduction
achieved   and   protected  by   taking   into
consideration the use and value of the water body
for public water supply, for propagation of fish,
shellfish,  and  wildlife,  and  for  recreational,
agricultural, industrial, and navigational purposes.
In  designating uses  for  a water  body, States
examine the suitability of a  water  body for the
uses  based  on  die  physical,  chemical,  and
biological characteristics  of the water body,  its
geographical setting and scenic qualities, and the
social-economic and cultural characteristics of the
surrounding area.  Each water body  does not
necessarily require a unique set of uses.  Instead,
the characteristics necessary to support a use can
be identified so that  water bodies  having those
characteristics  might be grouped  together  as
supporting particular  uses.

Any water body with standards not consistent with
the section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act must  be
reexamined every 3  years to determine if new
information  has become available that would
warrant a revision of the standard.  In addition,
the Regulation requires that where existing water
quality standards specify designated uses less than
those which are presently being attained, the State
shall revise its  standards to  reflect  the  uses
actually being attained.

When reviewing uses,  States must perform and
submit to EPA a use  attainability analysis if:

•    either the State designates or has designated
     uses that do not  include the uses specified in
     section 101(a)(2) of the Act;

•    the State wishes to remove a designated use
     that is specified in section  101(a)(2); or

•    the State wishes to adopt subcategories of
     uses  specified  in  section 101(a)(2) that
     require  less  stringent  criteria  than are
     currently adopted.

States may adopt seasonal uses as an alternative to
reclassifying a water body or segment thereof to
uses requiring less stringent criteria. In no case
may a State  remove an existing use.   No use
attainability analysis is required when designating
uses  that  include  those  specified  in  section
101(a)(2) of the Act.

     Criteria Development and Review

States adopt water quality criteria with sufficient
coverage of parameters and of adequate stringency
to protect designated uses.  In adopting criteria to
protect the designated uses,  States may:

•    adopt the criteria that EPA publishes  under
     section 304(a) of the Act;

•    modify the section 304(a) guidance to reflect
     site-specific conditions; or

•    use other scientifically defensible methods.

Section 131.11 encourages  States to adopt both
numeric and narrative criteria. Numeric criteria
are  important  where  the cause of toxicity  is
known or  for protection  against pollutants with
potential human health impacts or potential for
bioaccumulation.  Narrative toxic criteria, based
on whole-effluent toxicity (WET) testing, can be
the basis for limiting toxicity in waste discharges
where a specific pollutant  can be identified as
causing or contributing to the toxicity but there
are no numeric criteria in the  State standards or
where toxicity cannot be traced to a particular
pollutant.  Whole-effluent toxicity testing is also
appropriate for discharges containing multiple
pollutants because WET testing provides a method
for evaluating synergistic  and antagonistic effects
on aquatic life.

Section  303(c)(2)(B) requires  States  to  adopt
criteria for all  section 307(a) toxic  pollutants for
which the Agency has published criteria under
section 304(a) of the Act, if the discharge or
presence  of the pollutant  could reasonably  be
expected to interfere with the designated uses of
the water body.  The section 307(a) list contains
65 compounds and families of compounds, which
the   Agency  has  interpreted to  include  126
 "priority" toxic pollutants for regulatory purposes.
If data indicate that it is reasonable to expect that
 (9/15/93)
                                                                                         INT-9

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook- Second Edition
 one or more of the section 307(a) toxic pollutants
 will interfere with the attainment of the designated
 use, or is actually interfering with the designated
 use, then the State must adopt a numeric limit for
 the specific pollutant.  Section 303(c)(2)(B) also
 provides that where EPA-recommended numeric
 criteria are not available,  States  shall adopt
 criteria  based  on  biological  monitoring  or
 assessment methods.
      Antidegradation  Policy
      mentation Methods
and   Imple-
 Water quality standards include an antidegradation
 policy  and  methods  through which the  State
 implements the antidegradation policy.  Section
 131.12 sets  out a three-tiered approach for the
 protection of water quality.

 "Tier 1" (40CFR131.12(a)(l)) of antidegradation
 maintains   and protects existing  uses  and the
 water quality necessary to protect these uses. An
 existing use can be established by demonstrating
 that  fishing, swimming,  or  other uses  have
 actually occurred  since November 28, 1975, or
 that the water quality is suitable to allow such
 uses  to occur,  whether or not such  uses are
 designated uses for the water body in question.

 "Tier 2" (section 131.12(a) (2)) protects the water
 quality in waters whose quality is better than that
 necessary to protect "fishable/ swimmable" uses
 of the water body. 40CFR131.12(a)(2) requires
 that certain procedures  be followed and certain
 showings be made (an "antidegradation review")
 before  lowering water  quality  in  high-quality
 waters. In no case may water quality on a Tier II
 water body  be lowered to  the  level at which
 existing uses are impaired.

 "Tier  3"   (section   131.12  (a)(3))  protects
 outstanding national resource waters (ONRWs),
 which are provided the highest level of protection
 under the  antidegradation  policy.    ONRWs
 generally include the highest quality waters of the
 United   States.      However,   the  ONRW
 antidegradation  classification also offers special
protection for waters of "exceptional ecological
 significance," i.e.,  those water bodies which are
 important, unique,  or sensitive ecologically, but
 whose  water  quality,  as  measured  by  the
 traditional parameters such as  dissolved oxygen
 or pH,  may not be particularly high.  Waters of
 exceptional ecological significance also include
 waters whose characteristics cannot adequately be
 described  by traditional   parameters  (such  as
 wetlands and estuaries).

 Antidegradation   implementation    procedures
 address how States will  ensure that the permits
 and control programs meet water quality standards
 and antidegradation policy requirements.

     General Policies

 The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
 States to include in their standards State policies
 and provisions regarding water quality standards
 implementation, such as mixing zones, variances,
 and low-flow exemptions subject to EPA review
 and approval.   These  policies and provisions
 should be  specified in the State's water quality
 standards  document.  The State's rationale and
 supporting documentation should be submitted to
 EPA for review during the water quality standards
 review and approval process.

         Mixing Zones

 States may,  at  their discretion,  allow  mixing
zones for dischargers.  The States' water quality
standards  should  describe the  methodology for
determining the  location,  size,  shape, outfall
design,  and in-zone quality of mixing zones.
Careful  consideration  must be  given  to  the
INT-10
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
appropriateness  of  a  mixing  zone  where  a
substance   discharged   is   bioaccumulative,
persistent,   carcinogenic,    mutagenic,   or
teratogenic.

         Low-Flow Provisions

State water quality standards should protect water
quality  for the designated and existing  uses in
critical low-flow situations. States may, however,
designate  a  critical  low-flow  below  which
numerical  water  quality  criteria do  not apply.
When reviewing standards, States should review
their low-flow provisions for conformance with
EPA guidance.

          Water Quality Standards Variances

As an alternative to removing a designated use, a
State may wish to include a variance as part of a
water quality standard,  rather  than change  the
standard across  the board, because  the State
believes that the  standard  ultimately  can  be
attained. By maintaining the standard rather than
changing it, the State will  assure  that further
progress is made in improving water quality and
attaining the standard. EPA has approved State-
adopted variances in the past and will continue to
do so if:

•    the variance is included as part of the water
     quality standard;

•    the variance is subjected to the same public
     review  as  other changes  in water quality
     standards;

•    the  variance  is  granted  based  on  a
     demonstration that meeting the standard is
     not feasible due to the presence of any of the
     same  conditions  as  if  the  State  were
     removing a designated use (these conditions
     are  listed  in  section  131.10(g)  of  the
     Regulation); and

•    existing uses will be fully protected.
Water Quality Standards Review and Revision
Process - (Subpart C)

The Clean Water Act requires States to hold a
public hearing(s) to review  their water quality
standards at least once every 3 years and revise
them if appropriate.   After  State water quality
standards are  officially adopted,  a Governor or
designee submits the standards to the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator for review.  EPA
reviews the State standards to determine whether
the  analyses  performed  are  adequate.    The
Agency also evaluates whether the designated uses
and criteria are compatible throughout the water
body and whether the downstream water quality
standards are protected.   After reviewing  the
standards,  EPA makes a determination whether
the standards  meet the requirements of the law
and EPA's water quality standards regulations. If
EPA disapproves a standard, the Agency indicates
what changes must be made for the standard to be
approved.  If a State fails  to make the required
changes, EPA promulgates a Federal standard,
setting  forth  a new  or revised water quality
standard applicable to the State.

     State Review and Revision

States identify additions or  revisions necessary to
existing  standards based on their 305(b) reports,
other available water quality  monitoring data,
previous  water quality standards reviews, or
requests from industry, environmental groups, or
the public.  Water quality standards reviews and
revisions  may take  many  forms,  including
additions to and modifications in uses, in criteria,
in   the   antidegradation  policy,   in   the
antidegradation implementation procedures, or in
other general policies.

Some States  review parts of their water  quality
standards every year.  Other  States perform  a
comprehensive  review every  3  years.   Such
reviews  are necessary because new scientific and
technical   data   may   become   available.
Environmental  changes over  time  may  also
necessitate the need for the review.
 (9/15/93)
                                       INT-11

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      EPA Review

 When States adopt new or revised WQS, the State
 is required under CWA section 303(c) to submit
 such   standards  to   EPA  for  review   and
 approval/disapproval.     EPA  reviews   and
 approves/disapproves  the  standards  based  on
 whether the standards  meet the requirements of
 the CWA.   As  a result  of the EPA review
 process, three actions are possible:

 •    EPA approval (in whole or in part) of the
      submitted State water quality standards; or

 •    EPA disapproval (in whole or in part) of the
      submitted State water quality standards; or

 •    EPA conditional approval (in whole or in
      part) of the submitted State water quality
      standards.

 Revisions to  State water quality standards  that
 meet the requirements  of the Act and the WQS
 Regulation are approved by the  appropriate EPA
 Regional Administrator. If only a partial approval
 is  made, the Region,  in  notifying  the  State,
 identifies the portions  which should be revised
 (e.g., segment-specific requirements).

 If the Regional Administrator determines that the
 revisions submitted are not consistent with or do
 not meet the requirements of the Act or the WQS
 Regulation,   the   Regional   Administrator
 disapproves the standards within 90 days with  a
 written notification to  the  State.    The  letter
 notifies  the  State  that  the  Administrator will
 initiate promulgation proceedings if the State fails
 to adopt and submit the necessary revisions within
 90 days after notification. The State water quality
 standard  remains   in    effect,  even  though
 disapproved by EPA, until the State revises it or
 EPA promulgates a rule that supersedes the State
 water quality standard.
Federally   Promulgated    Water   Quality
Standards -  (Subpart D)

As discussed above, EPA may promulgate Federal
Water Quality Standards.   Section 303 of  the
Clean Water  Act permits the Administrator to
promulgate Federal standards:

•    if a revised or new water quality standards
     submitted by the State is determined by  the
     Administrator not to be consistent with  the
     applicable requirements of the Act; or

•    in  any   case  where   the  Administrator
     determines that a new or revised standard is
     necessary to  meet  the requirements of  the
     Act.

Federal promulgations are codified under Subpart
D  of the Regulation.
INT-12
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                                   Introduction
      THE ROLE OF WQS IN THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
                                       PROGRAM
    State water quality standards play a central
role in  a State's  water  quality management
program, which identifies the overall mechanism
States use to integrate the  various Clean Water
Act quality control requirements into a coherent
management   framework.     This  framework
includes, for example:

•    setting  and  revising  standards for  water
     bodies;

•    Water  Quality  Assessments  to  determine
     attainment of designated uses;

•    CWA   section   305(b)   water   quality
     monitoring  to  provide information  upon
     which water quality-based decisions will be
     made,  progress  evaluated,  and  success
     measured;

•    calculating   total  maximum daily  loads
     (TMDLs), waste  load allocations (WLAs)
     for point sources  of pollution, and  load
     allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources of
     pollution;

•    developing a water quality management plan,
     certified by the Governor and approved by
     EPA,  which   lists   the  standards  and
     prescribes the regulatory  and construction
     activities necessary to  meet the standards;

•    preparing section 305(b)  reports and lists
     that document the condition of the State's
     water quality;

•    developing, revising,  and implementing an
     effective CWA section 319  program and
     CZARA  section 6217 program to control
     NFS pollution;
 •    making decisions involving CWA  section
     401  certification of Federal  permits  or
     licenses; and

 •    issuing NPDES permits for all point source
     discharges.   Permits are written  to  meet
     applicable water quality standards.

 The Act provides the basis for two different kinds
 of pollution control programs.   Water quality
 standards are the basis of the water quality-based
 control program.   The  Act  also provides for
 technology-based limits known as best available
 treatment technology economically achievable for
 industry and secondary  treatment  for  publicly
 owned  treatment  works.    In  some cases,
 application of these technologically based controls
 will result in attaining  water  quality standards.
 Where  such is not the case, the Act requires the
 development of more stringent limitations to meet
 the water quality standards.

 Regulations, policy,  and  guidance have  been
•issued  on all the  activities  mentioned  in  this
 section. Chapter 7 contains a  brief discussion of
 how water  quality standards relate to many of
 these   activities  in  the  water  quality-based
 approach to pollution  control, but additional
 details  on these  other programs is  beyond the
 scope of this Handbook. For further information,
 see  the EPA guidance documents  referenced in
 chapter 7.                3
(9/15/93)
                                      INT-13

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
                          FUTURE PROGRAM DIRECTIONS
 Since the 1960's, the water science program has
 moved from solving a limited set of problems in
 a limited set of waters to one that  is solving a
 broad range of complex problems in categories of
 U.S. waters and addressing cross-media aspects of
 water quality decisions. Initial efforts focused on
 the more  visible sources of pollution such  as
 organic loadings, solids, oil, and grease, and then
 shifted to toxics and more complex mixtures of
 pollutants.

 Developments in two  areas  have  significantly
 affected the scientific underpinnings of the water
 program.  First is the science of risk assessment
 used to estimate risk to  human health and the
 environment  from  exposure to  contaminants.
 Second is our ability to measure pollutants in the
 environment at an increasing level of precision.
 The evolution of methods and capabilities within
 these  two  scientific disciplines has significantly
 advanced the sophistication of scientific analyses
 used to manage the water program.

 As the water science program moves toward the
 21st   Century,   we  must  provide  technical
 information  and tools that allow  States,   the
 regulated   community,   and  the  public   to
 understand  and apply the methods, criteria,  and
 standards  to  environmental  systems.    This
 includes   updating  science   and   adapting
 technologies as appropriate to keep the foundation
 of our program solid as  well as  employing or
 modifying these approaches when appropriate for
 new problems.

 The CWA  provides broad authority through its
 goals and policy, such as:

     ...  to restore  and  maintain the
     chemical,   physical,   and  biological
     integrity of the Nation's waters (section
     101(a)); and

     .  .  . wherever attainable .  . . water
     quality   which  provides   for  the
     protection  and  propagation  of  fish,
     shellfish, and wildlife  ... to protect
     the water of the United States (section
 The breadth of this authority is also reflected in
 specific EPA  mandates such as those in section
 304(a):

     [EPA] shall develop and publish . .  .
     criteria for water accurately reflecting
     the latest scientific knowledge (A) on
     the kind  and extent of all identifiable
     effects on health and welfare . . .  (B)
     on the concentration and dispersion of
     pollutants .  .  .   through  biological,
     physical, and chemical processes; and
     (C)  the  effects  of  pollutants  on
     biological   community   diversity,
     productivity,  stability . . .  including
     eutrophication  and rates of ...
     sedimentation  .  .  .   (CWA  section
     304(a)(l)); and

     [EPA]  shall develop and publish .  .  .
     information   (A)   on   the   factors
     necessary to restore and maintain  the
     chemical,  physical,  and  biological
     integrity  ... (B)  on the  factors
     necessary  for  the  protection   and
     propagation  of shellfish,  fish,  and
     wildlife . .  . and to allow recreational
     activities  in and on the  water . .  .".)
     (304(a)(2))(CWA section 304(a)(2))

EPA  has  traditionally  focused on criteria  for
chemical  pollutants, but  has also developed
criteria for a  limited number of physical  (e.g.,
color, turbidity,  dissolves solids) and biological
(bacteria,  "free  from"  nuisance  aquatic life)
parameters (NAS/NAE,  1973; USEPA,  1976).
However,  as  EPA's water  quality protection
program has evolved, it has become apparent that
chemical criteria alone, without the criteria for the
biological  and physical/habitat components of
INT-14
                                                                                     (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                                     Introduction
water bodies, are insufficient to fully achieve the
goals of the CWA.

Future  directions  in  the criteria  and standards
program will  focus on providing scientific and
technical tools to  aid regional, State, and local
environmental managers in (1) implementating the
standards program,  and  (2)  developing  new
science and technology  that will  reduce human
and  ecological risks  resulting  from exposure to
unaddressed contaminants and prevent pollution
from point and nonpoint sources.

Setting future national program priorities will be
based on the consideration of risk assessment;
statutory  and  court-mandated  obligations;  the
expressed  needs of  regional,  State,  and local
environmental   managers   and   the  regulated
community; and the  potential  effectiveness of a
program   to    influence   real   environmental
improvement.

EPA  will  be  developing  methodologies and
criteria in areas beyond  the traditional chemical-
specific type criteria of  the  past.   Areas  of
scientific examination and potential  regulatory
controls include  criteria   to  protect  wildlife,
wetlands, and sediment quality; biological criteria
to better define desired biological communities in
aquatic ecosystems; and nutrient  criteria. EPA
has  also moved in the direction of the  physical
and habitat components of water quality protection
in other water quality programs.  For example,
the CWA section  404(b)(l) Guidelines (40 CFR
230) evaluate  physical  characteristics  (such  as
suspended  particulates, flow, and hydroperiod),
and   habitat components  (such  as food  web
organisms,  breeding/nesting areas,  and  cover).
Implementation of these various types of criteria
will be influenced by the environmental concerns
in specific watersheds.

To protect human health, program emphasis will
shift to focus on the human  health impacts of
pathogenic microorganisms in ambient waters that
cause illness in humans, and will address concerns
about the risk that contaminated fish may pose to
sensitive populations  whose daily  diet includes
large quantities of fish.

In an expanded effort to protect ecology, there
will be increasing  emphasis oh the  watershed
approach   by assessing  all potential and actual
threats  to  a   watershed's  integrity.     Risk
assessment of the watershed and setting priorities
based on  those risks will  become increasingly
important in future program efforts in criteria and
standards as supporting elements to the watershed
approach.

Over the  next few years,  there  will be more
emphasis on developing effective  risk reduction
strategies  that include both traditional and  non-
traditional controls and approaches.

Future program directions in criteria development
and then adoption and  implementation of water
quality standards will be based on the principle of
ecological  and human  health  risk  reduction
through sound and implementable science.

Endangered Species Act

An important consideration  in future criteria and
standards development will be the conduct of the
consultation provisions of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA)  and  the  implementation  of  any
revisions   to  standards  resulting  from  those
consultations.   Section  7  of  the Endangered
Species Act requires  all  Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Fish  and  Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service  (the
Services)  to assure that any action authorized,
funded, or implemented by a Federal agency does
not jeopardize the existence of endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of their critical habitat.  The
definition of a Federal  action is very  broad and
encompasses  virtually  every  water  program
administered by EPA.

The responsibility for ensuring  that consultation
occurs with the Services lies with EPA, although
in  fulfilling  the  requirements  a  non-Federal
representative  may be designated for informal
 (9/15/93)
                                       INT-15

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 consultation. (Note:  Consultation may be formal
 or informal; the latter form is the most prevalent.)
 Protection of threatened and endangered species
 and their habitat is a critical national priority, and
 the criteria and  standards  programs  can  be
 effective tools to meet this national priority.  All
 aspects   of  standards,  including  aquatic  life
 criteria, uses, antidegradation, and implementation
 actions  related to the standards  are subject to
 consultation.    All  future revised  aquatic  life
 criteria, sediment, wildlife, and biological criteria
 will be subject to the consultation requirements as
 will their adoption into enforceable standards.

 To  form an  effective partnership  between the
 Services and EPA in creating a framework for
 meeting the responsibilities under section 7 of the
 Endangered  Species Act  and  applicable EPA
 regulations, the Services and EPA entered into a
 joint guidance agreement in  July 1992 (see
 Appendix F).   This  agreement  sets forth the
 procedures to  be  followed by the Services  and
 EPA to  assure compliance with section 7 of the
 ESA in the development of water quality criteria
 published pursuant to section 304(a)  of the CWA
 and the adoption of water quality standards under
 section 303(c).  This agreement also indicated that
 the regional and field  offices of EPA  and the
 Services could establish sub-agreements specifying
 how  they would  implement the  joint  national
 guidance.

 During the preparation of this second edition
 Handbook, the  Services and EPA initiated a work
group   to  develop   a  more  extensive  joint
agreement.   This  group was  charged with the
responsibility  of  reviewing   the   July   1992
agreement, making appropriate revisions  to the
water quality criteria and standards sections, and
adding a new section discussing the consultation
procedures to be followed for the NPDES permit
program.    When the  revised  agreement is
approved by the Agencies, it  will  replace the
agreement included in this Handbook as Appendix
F.

Both the current  agreement and the proposed
revision seek to ensure  a  nationally consistent
consultation process that allows flexibility to deal
with site-specific issues  and to streamline the
process to minimize the regulatory burden. The
overriding goal is  to  provide for the protection
and support of the recovery of threatened and
endangered species and the  ecosystems on  which
they depend.
INT-16
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                              Chapter 1 - General Provisions
                                 CHAPTER 1

                          GENERAL PROVISIONS

                        |  (40 CFR 131 - Subpart A)

                              Table of Contents

1.1 Scope - 40 CFR 131.1	1-1

1.2 Purpose - 40 CFR 131.2	 1-1

1.3 Definitions - 40 CFR 131.3	1-1
    1.3.1     States	1-1
    1.3.2     Waters of the United States  	1-2

1.4 State Authority - 40 CFR 131.4	1-2

1.5 EPA Authority - 40 CFR 131.5	1-3

1.6 Requirements for Water Quality Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6	1-4

1.7 Dispute Resolution Miechanism - 40 CFR 131.7  	1-4
    1.7.1     Responsibility Is With Lead FJPA Regional Administrator	1-5
    1.7.2     When Dispute Resolution May Be Initiated	1-5
    1.7.3     Who May Request Dispute Resolution and How	1-6
    1.7.4     EPA Procedures in Response to Request   	1-6
    1.7.5     When Tribe and State Agree to a Resolution   	1-6
    1.7.6     EPA Options for Resolving the Dispute	1-7
    1.7.7     Time Frame for Dispute Resolution  	1-8

1.8 Requirements for Indian Tribes To Qualify for the WQS Program - 40 CFR 131.8 . . 1-9
    1.8.1     Criteria Tribes Must Meet	1-9
    1.8.2     Application, for Authority To Administer the Water Quality Standards
              Program	1-13
    1.8.3     Procedure  Regional Administrator Will Apply	  1-14
    1.8.4     Time Frame for Review of Tribal Application   	  1-16
    1.8.5     Effect of Regional Administrator's Decision 	  1-16
    1.8.6     Establishing Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands	  1-16
    1.8.7    EPA Promulgation of Standards for Reservations  	  1-18

1.9 Adoption of Standards for Indian Reservation Waters	  1-18
    1.9.1     EPA's Expectations for Tribal Water Quality Standards 	  1-18
    1.9.2    Optional Policies	1-19
    1.9.3     Tribal Submission and EPA Review  	1-19
    1.9.4    Regional Reviews   	1-19

Endnotes	1-21

-------
                                                                                                                                                        	SS'IS	
 "' , I;:,:V i  '• 11Is',ifi' 1. ':  t	      T   !f ,t!• f i  i i: • ;     !  («     >'siWf,m P  B«   	' i 11       '
 ;i  ii   ',	,i  :i'   i: .  v i   in   i •      .   i v:	';  '  t;j    i	'      ->«  «^^^
                         	tiW	m	ft*

i.i    'f  vi	ffi.:I':«*:•«!'*«•,«»
    ii  T:	  „. ,,"ii B i MI,, r 11' i' ,f 	  „««   HI   i;  ' „   :i, i     I' in  ' i, i    i''     ii'W1^ h^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   . ;  , : •  ,,   '	' •:. it  ::  'i	     ):   i*  i :; s >i>   :"      ; r	  11        i.   iH^^^^^^^         I	    in
                                                                 !"1	1	«	Ill	*li!;;!HJM^^^^        	lli'l'I'lKHllN	!!ill>H^^^^
ll|l"r IklihL  '  iin; "  ''I'"1!"  I'll, 'Illil  i  'Ililnllllri lid jlfil Ml	I	I:!''!!,!	illllllli.i-ilt;!	in  Illllllllllllllllllll, i ii:i!|i!'i|i;!ii;,;i!|i;	MilllM^^^             liiilMlffi^^
I1"1! tM I   SIS *:•* i1!!'  '''! i;]''", til ii- IE  :' !::'"ii: i	iiji i K':fft i»~' llllllr' ,•• IKlIKi JiilKIJXl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Etllill!/	-I'iiH^^^
s!.ii' ,ii::ii)	I-: i  > i""K  i1 >'i iitu'  u1 ;i, >  iii BUI  '	wi'iiiir" viKi*' :>mm-' "mm wmsimmmrmm"''
                                                                   BfiiniiiiiiiH^^^^^^^^^^^              	ii;iiiii::;n^^^^^^^^^^
                         i!,:11 iiil'l'ii:':»• '••
-------
                                                                     Chapter 1 - General Provisions
                                        CHAPTER!
                                GENERAL PROVISIONS
         Scope - 40 CFR 131.1
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131) describes State requirements and procedures
for developing, reviewing, revising, and adopting
water  quality  standards  (WQS),  and  EPA
requirements  and procedures for   reviewing,
approving, disapproving, and promulgating water
quality standards as authorized by section 303(c)
of the Clean Water Act.  This Handbook serves
as guidance for implementing the Water  Quality
Standards Regulation and its provisions.
        Purpose - 40 CFR 131.2
A water quality standard defines the water quality
goals for  a water body, or portion thereof,  by
designating the use or uses to be made of the
water, by  setting criteria necessary to protect the
uses, and by protecting water  quality through
antidegradation provisions.  States adopt water
quality  standards  to  protect  public  health  or
welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve
the purposes of the Clean Water Act (the Act).
"Serve the purposes of the A.ct" means that water
quality standards should:

•  wherever attainable, achieve a level of water
   quality that provides for1 the protection and
   propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
   for recreation in and on the water, and take
   into consideration the use and value of public
   water supplies, and agricultural, industrial, and
   other purposes, including navigation (sections
   101(a)(2) and 303(c) of the Act); and

•  restore and maintain the chemical,  physical,
   and biological integrity  of the Nation's waters
   (section 101(a)).
       CLEAN WATER ACT GOALS

     Achieve a level of water quality that
     provides for the protection and propaga-
     tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
     for  recreation in  and  on the water,
     where attainable.

     Restore  MCniaintain  the ctiemical,
     physical* and biological integrity of the
     Nations waters.
These standards  serve  dual  purposes:  They
establish the water quality goals for a specific
water body, and they serve as the regulatory basis
for establishing  water quality-based  treatment
controls   and   strategies   beyond   the
technology-based levels of treatment required by
sections 301 (b) and 306 of the Act.
         Definitions - 40 CFR 131.3
Terms used in the  Water  Quality Standards
Regulation are defined in  section 131.3 of the
regulation.  These definitions, as well as others
appropriate  to  the  water  quality  standards
program,  are  contained in the glossary of this
Handbook.  No additional guidance is necessary
to  explain  the  definitions;   however,  some
background  information on  the definitions of
"States" and "waters of the United States" may be
helpful.

1.3.1 States

Indian Tribes  may now qualify for the  water
quality standards and 401 certification programs.
The February  4, 1987, Amendments to the Act
(9/15/93)
                                          1-1

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 added  a new  section 518 requiring EPA  to
 promulgate regulations specifying how the Agency
 will treat qualified Indian Tribes as States for the
 purposes of,  the section  303  (water  quality
 standards)    programs,    the   section   401
 (certification) programs, and other programs. On
 December  12,  1991, the EPA  promulgated
 amendments to Subpart A of the Water Quality
 Standards Regulation  in  response  to  the  CWA
 section 518 requirements (see 56 F.R.  64893).
 These  amendments modified the  definition  of
 States by adding the  phrase  "...  and Indian
 Tribes that EPA determines qualify for treatment
 as States for purposes of water quality standards."

 1.3.2  Waters of the United States

 Section 303(c)  of the  CWA  requires States  to
 adopt  water  quality  standards for  "navigable
 waters," which are defined at section 502(7)  of
 the Act as "waters of the United States."  The
 Water Quality Standards Regulation contains no
 definition of  "waters  of  the  United States,"
 although  this  term is  used in the  definition  of
 "water quality standards." The phrase "waters of
 the United States" has  been defined elsewhere in
 Federal regulations (e.g., in regulations governing
 the  National  Pollutant Discharge  Elimination
 System (NPDES) and  section 404 programs (40
 CFR  sections   122.2,  230.3,   and   232.3,
 respectively).    This  definition appears  in the
 glossary  of  this Handbook and  is  used  in
 interpreting the phrase "water quality standards."

 The definition of "waters of the United States"
 emphasizes protection of a broad range of waters,
 including interstate and intrastate lakes, streams,
 wetlands, other surface waters, impoundments,
 tributaries of waters, and the territorial seas.

BPA believes that some  States  may  not be
providing the same protection to  wetlands that
they provide to other surface waters. Therefore,
EPA wishes to emphasize that wetlands deserve
the same protection under water quality standards.
For more information on the application of water
quality standards to wetlands, see Appendix D of
this Handbook.
    WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
         Streams
         Wetlands
         Other surface waters
         Impoundments
         Tributaries of waters
         Territorial seas
 Concerns have been raised regarding applicability
 of water quality standards to riparian areas other
 than riparian wetlands. "Riparian areas" are areas
 in a stream's floodplain with life characteristic of
 a floodplain.   Wetlands are  often found  in
 portions of riparian areas.  The Clean Water Act
 requires States to adopt water quality standards
 only for "waters of the  United States," such as
 wetland portions of riparian areas that meet the
 regulatory definition.  Of course, States may, at
 their discretion,  choose to adopt water quality
 standards or other mechanisms  to protect other
 riparian areas.
         State Authority - 40 CFR 131.4
States (including Indian Tribes qualified for the
purposes   of  water  quality  standards)   are
responsible  for  reviewing,  establishing,  and
revising water quality standards.   Under section
510 of the Act, States may develop water quality
standards  more  stringent than required by  the
Water Quality Standards Regulation.

Under section 401  of the Act, States also have
authority to issue water quality certifications for
federally permitted or licensed activities.   This
authority   is  granted  because   States   have
jurisdiction over their waters  and can influence
the design and  operation  of projects  affecting
those waters.  Section 401 is intended to ensure
that Federal  permits  and licenses  comply with
applicable water quality requirements, including
State water quality standards, and applies to all
1-2
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                       Chapter 1 - General Provisions
 Federal agencies that grant a license or permit.
 (For example,  EPA-issued permits for  point
 source   discharges   under  section  402  and
 discharges of dredged  and fill material under
 section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for
 activities  in  navigable  waters  that  may affect
 navigation under sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers
 and Harbors Act (RHA); and licenses required for
 hydroelectric  projects issued under  the  Federal
 Power  Act).    Section  401  certifications  are
 normally   issued  by  the State  in  which  the
 discharge originates.

 States   may   deny    certification,   approve
 certification,   or  approve  certification  with
 conditions. If the State denies certification,  the
 Federal  permitting   or  licensing  agency   is
 prohibited from issuing  the permit or  license.
 Certifications  are  subject  to  objection  by
 downstream States where the downstream State
 determines that the  proposed  activity  would
 violate its water quality standards.  [For more
 information on the 401 certification process, refer
 to Wetlands and 401  Certification: Opportunities
for States  and Eligible  Indian  Tribes (USEPA,
 1989a).]
         EPA Authority - 40 CFR 131.5
Under section 303(c) of the Act, EPA is to review
and to approve or disapprove State-adopted water
quality  standards.     This  review  involves  a
determination of whether:

•  the State has adopted water uses consistent
   with the requirements of the Clean Water Act;

•  the State has  adopted criteria that protect the
   designated water uses;

•  the State has followed its legal procedures for
   revising or adopting standards;

•  the State standards that do not include the uses
   specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act are
   based upon appropriate technical and scientific
   data and analyses; and
•  the State  submission meets the requirements
   included in section 131.6 of the Water Quality
   Standards Regulation.

EPA reviews State water  quality standards to
ensure that the standards meet the requirements of
the Clean Water Act.  If EPA  determines  that
State water quality standards are consistent with
the five factors  listed above, EPA approves the
standards.    EPA disapproves the  State  water
quality standards  and may promulgate Federal
standards  under section 303(c)(4) of the Act if
State-adopted standards are not consistent with the
factors listed above.   Section 510 of the  Act
provides that the States are  not  precluded from
adopting  requirements  regarding  control  or
abatement   of  pollution   as  long   as   such
requirements  are  not  less  stringent  than  the
requirements of the Clean Water Act.    The
Agency is not authorized to disapprove a State
water  quality standard on  the  basis  that EPA
considers the standard to be too stringent.  EPA
may also promulgate a new  or revised standard
where necessary to meet the requirements of the
Act.  In certain cases, EPA may conditionally
approve  a  State's  standards.   A conditional
approval is appropriate only:

•  to correct minor deficiencies  in  a State's
   standards; and

•  when a State agrees to a specific time schedule
   to make the corrections in as  short a time as
   possible.  Section 6.2 provides guidance on
   conditional approvals.
(9/15/93)
                                           1-3

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
EPA also has the authority to issue section 401
certification where a State or interstate agency has
no authority to do so.
        Requirements  for  Water  Quality
        Standards Submission - 40 CFR 131.6
The following elements must be included in each
State's water quality standards submittal to EPA
for review:

•  use designations consistent with the provisions
   of sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act;

*  methods  used  and analyses  conducted to
   support water quality standards revisions;

*  water quality criteria sufficient to protect the
   designated uses, including criteria for priority
   toxic pollutants and biological criteria;

•  an antidegradation policy and implementation
   methods consistent with section 131.12 of the
   Water Quality Standards Regulation;

*  certification by the State Attorney General or
   other  appropriate  legal authority within the
   State that the water quality standards were duly
   adopted pursuant to State law; and

*  general information to  aid  the Agency in
   detennining the adequacy  of the  scientific
   bases  of the standards that do not include the
   uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act
   as well as  information on general  policies
   applicable to State standards that may affect
   their application and implementation.

EPA may also request additional information from
the State to aid in determining the adequacy of the
standards.
        Dispute Resolution  Mechanism - 40
        CER 131.7
Section 518 of the Act requires EPA to establish
a  "mechanism   for  the   resolution  of  any
unreasonable consequences that may arise as a
result of differing water  quality standards  that
may be set by States and Indian Tribes located on
common bodies  of water."   EPA's  primary
responsibility in response to this requirement is to
establish a practical procedure to address and,
where possible,  resolve such disputes as they
arise.   However,  the Agency's  authority is
limited.

For example, EPA does not believe that section
518 grants EPA authority to override section 510
of the Act.  EPA believes that the provisions of
section 510 would apply  to  Indian Tribes  that
qualify for treatment as States.   Section 518(e)
and its accompanying legislative history suggest
that Congress intended for section 510 to apply to
Tribes as well as States. Were Tribes prohibited
from  establishing standards more stringent than
minimally approvable by  EPA,  there would be
little need for the dispute resolution mechanism
required by section 518(e)(2).  Therefore, EPA
does not believe that section 518 authorizes  the
Agency to disapprove  a  State  or  Tribe  water
quality standard and promulgate a less stringent
standard as  a means of resolving a State/Tribe
dispute.

EPA also believes there are strong policy reasons
to allow Tribes to set any water quality standards
consistent  with  the Water  Quality Standards
Regulation.   First, it puts Tribes and States on
equal footing with respect to standards setting.
There is no indication that Congress intended to
treat Tribes as "second class" States under  the
Act.   Second,  treating  Tribes as  essentially
equivalent to States is consistent with EPA's 1984
Indian Policy.  Third,  EPA believes it would be
unfeasible to require Tribes to adopt "minimum"
standards allowed under Federal law.  EPA has
no procedures in place for defining a "minimum"
level  of standards  for Indian  Tribes.    EPA
evaluates only whether the standards are stringent
enough, not how  much more  stringent than any
Federal minimum.
1-4
                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 1 - General Provisions
1.7.1 Responsibility  Is  With   Lead  EPA
      Regional Administrator

EPA's role in dispute resolution is to work with
all parties to the dispute hi an effort to reach an
agreement that resolves the dispute.  The Agency
does not automatically support the Indian position
in all disputes  over water quality  standards.
Rather, EPA employees  serving as  mediators or
arbitrators will serve outside the normal Agency
chain of command and  are expected to act hi  a
neutral fashion.

The  lead EPA Regional Administrator will be
determined using OMB Circular A-95.  The lead
Region is  expected to  enlist the  aid  of other
affected  Regions in routine dispute  resolution.
EPA Headquarters will also oversee the process to
ensure that  the interests of all affected Regions
are represented. Designation as the lead Region
for resolving a dispute or programmatic issues
within EPA does not mean that the lead Region
has  a  license  to  act  unilaterally.    Rather,
designation    as   lead    Region   assigns   the
responsibility to ensure that the process leading to
a decision is fair to all parties.

The Regional Administrator may include other
parties besides Tribes and States in the dispute
resolution process.   In some cases,  the inclusion
of permittees or landowners subject to nonpoint
source restrictions may be needed to arrive at  a
meaningful  resolution of the dispute.   However,
only the  Tribe and State are hi a position to
implement a change in water quality  standards and
are,  thus,  the only "necessary" parties in the
dispute resolution.

1.7.2  When  Dispute  Resolution   May  Be
       Initiated

The regulation establishes conditions under which
the Regional Administrator would be responsible
for  initiating a dispute  resolution action.  Such
actions would be initiated where,  in the judgment
of the Regional Administrator:

•  there are unreasonable consequences;
•  the  dispute is between a State  and a Tribe
   (i.e., not between a Tribe and another Tribe or
   a State and another State);

•  a reasonable effort has been made to resolve
   the   dispute   before   requesting   EPA
   involvement;

•  the  requested relief is within the authority of
   the  Act (i.e., not a request to replace State or
   Tribe standards that comply  with the Act with
   less stringent Federal standards);

•  the  differing  standards  have been adopted
   pursuant to State or Tribe law and approved by
   EPA;

•  a valid written request for EPA involvement
   has   been   submitted   to   the  Regional
   Administrator by the State or Tribe.

Although the Regional Administrator may decline
to initiate a dispute resolution action based on any
of the above factors, EPA  is willing to discuss
specific  situations.   EPA  is  also  willing to
informally  mediate  disputes  between Tribes
consistent  with  the procedures for  mediating
disputes between States (see 48 F.R. 51412).

The regulation  does not  define  "unreasonable
consequences" because:

•  it would be  a presumptuous  and unjustified
   Federal intrusion into local and State concerns
   for  EPA to  define what  an  unreasonable
   consequence might be as a basis  for a national
   rule;

•  EPA does not want to unnecessarily narrow
   the scope of problems to be addressed by the
   dispute resolution mechanism; and

•  the possibilities of what might  constitute an
   unreasonable consequence are so numerous as
   to defy a logical regulatory  requirement.

Also,  the occurrence  of  such  "unreasonable"
consequences  is  dependent  on   the  unique
 (9/15/93)
                                           1-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 circumstances associated with the dispute.   For
 example,   what   might  be  viewed   as  an
 unreasonable consequence on a stream segment in
 a large, relatively unpopulated, water-poor area
 with a single discharge would likely be viewed
 quite differently in or near an area characterized
 by  numerous  discharges  and/or  large  water
 resources.    The  Regional  Administrator has
 discretion  to  determine  when  consequences
 warrant initiating a dispute resolution action.

 1.7.3  Who May Request  Dispute Resolution
       and How

 Ether the State or the Tribe may request EPA
 involvement in the dispute.  The requesting party
 must include the  following  items in its written
 request:

 * a   statement describing  the  unreasonable
   consequences;

 • description of the actions taken to resolve the
   dispute before requesting  EPA involvement;

 * a  statement describing  the water  quality
   standards provision (such  as  the particular
   criterion) that has resulted in the unreasonable
   consequences;

 * factual  data substantiating  the  claim  of
   unreasonable consequences; and

 • a statement of relief sought (that is, the desired
   outcome of the dispute resolution action).
 1.7.4 EPA Procedures in Response to Request

 When the  Regional Administrator decides that
 EPA involvement is  appropriate (based on the
 factors discussed in section  1.7.2,  above), the
 Regional Administrator will notify the parties in
 writing that EPA dispute resolution action is being
 initiated and  will solicit their written response.
 The  Regional  Administrator  will  also  make
 reasonable  efforts to ensure that other interested
 individuals or groups have notice of this action.
 These "reasonable efforts" will include, and are
 not limited to, the following:

 •  written notice to responsible Indian and State
    Agencies and other affected Federal Agencies;

 •  notice to the specific individual or entity that
    is claiming that an unreasonable consequence
    is resulting from differing standards having
    been adopted for a common water body;

 •  public notice in local newspapers,  radio, and
    television,  as appropriate;

 •  publication in trade journal newsletters; and

 •  other appropriate means.

 1.7.5 When  Tribe and  State Agree  to  a
      Resolution

 EPA encourages Tribes and States to resolve the
 differences  without EPA involvement  and  to
 consider jointly establishing a mechanism  to
 resolve disputes before such disputes  arise.  The
 Regional  Administrator  has  responsibility  to
 review  and either approve or  disapprove the
 Tribe-State  agreement.  Section 518(d) provides
 that Tribe-State  agreements in general for water
 quality management are to be  approved by EPA.
As a  general  rule,  EPA will  defer  to the
procedure   for   resolving   disputed  jointly
established by the  Tribe and State so long as the
procedure and the end result are consistent with
the provisions of  the CWA and Water  Quality
Standards Regulation.
1-6
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                       Chapter 1 - General Provisions
1.7.6 EPA Options for Resolving the Dispute

The dispute resolution mechanism included in the
final  "Indian  Rule"  provides EPA  Regional
Administrators with several alternative courses of
action.      The   alternatives   are   mediation,
non-binding arbitration, and a default procedure.

The first technique,  mediation, would allow the
Regional  Administrator to appoint a mediator
whose primary function  would be  to facilitate
discussions between the parties with the objective
of arriving  at a State/Tribe agreement or other
resolution acceptable to the parties. The mediated
negotiations could be informal or formal, public
or private.  The mediator could also establish an
advisory group, consisting of representatives from
the affected parties,  to study the problem  and
recommend an appropriate resolution.

The second  technique, non-binding  arbitration,
would require  the  Regional  Administrator to
appoint an arbitrator (or arbitration panel) whose
responsibilities  would  include  gathering   all
information pertinent to the dispute, considering
the factors listed in  the Act, and recommending
an appropriate solution. The parties would not be
obligated, however, to abide by the arbitrator's or
arbitration panel's decision,,   The arbitrator or
arbitration panel would be responsible for issuing
a written  recommendation to all parties and the
Regional Administrator. Arbitrators or arbitration
panel members who are EPA employees would be
allowed to operate independently from the normal
chain  of  commend  within the Agency  while
conducting the arbitration process.  Arbitrators or
arbitration panel members would not be allowed
to have ex pane communication pertaining to the
dispute, except that  they v/ould be allowed to
contact EPA's  Office of the General Counsel for
legal advise.

EPA  has  also  provided for a  dispute resolution
default procedure  to be used where one or more
parties  refuse to participate  in  mediation  or
arbitration.   The default procedure will be used
only as a last  resort, after all other avenues of
resolving the dispute have been exhausted.  This
dispute resolution technique would be similar to
arbitration, but has been included as a separate
Regional Administrator option because arbitration
generally refers to a process whereby all parties
participate voluntarily.         \

The default procedure simply provides for the
Agency to review available information  and to
issue a recommendation for resolving the dispute.
EPA's recommendation in this situation would
have no enforceable impact.  The Agency hopes
that public presentation of its position will result
in either public pressure  or reconsideration by
either  affected  party  to  continue  resolution
negotiations.    Any    written  recommendation
resulting from this procedure would be provided
to all parties involved in the dispute.

EPA envisions a number of possible outcomes
that, individually or in combination, would likely
resolve most of  the  disputes that would arise.
These  actions might include, but are not  limited
to, the following:

•  a State or Tribe agrees to revise the limits of
   a permit  to ensure  that downstream water
   quality standards are met;

•  a State or Tribe agrees to permanently remove
   a use (consistent with 40 CFR 131.10(g));

•  a State or Tribe issues a variance from water
   quality standards for a particular discharge;

•  a permittee  or landowner agrees to provide
   additional water pollution control;

•  EPA assumes permit-issuing authority for  a
   State or Tribe and re-issues a permit to ensure
   that downstream  water quality  standards are
   met; or

•  EPA  promulgates  Federal  water   quality
   standards where a State or Tribe standard does
   not meet the requirements of the Act.

In  some cases  (last  example,  above),  EPA
recognizes that the Agency  will have to act to
(9/15/93)
                                           1-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 resolve the dispute.  An example would be where
 a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 (NPDES) permit for an upstream discharger does
 not provide for the attainment of the water quality
 standards for a downstream jurisdiction.  The
 existing NPDES  permitting  and  certification
 processes under the Act  may  be used by the
 downstream   jurisdiction   to   prevent   such
 situations.    Today's rule  does  not  alter  or
 minimize  the  role  of  these  processes  in
 establishing appropriate  permit limits to ensure
 attainment of water quality standards. States and
 Tribes  are encouraged  to participate  hi these
 permitting and certification processes rather than
 wait for unreasonable consequences to occur.

 In these cases, EPA believes that the Agency has
 authority to object to the upstream NPDES permit
 and, if necessary, to assume permitting authority.
 This authority was upheld in a case in which EPA
 assumed authority to issue a permit for a North
 Carolina discharge that, among other factors, did
 not meet Tennessee's downstream water quality
 standards.1

 Mediators and arbitrators may be EPA employees,
 employees of other Federal agencies,  or other
 individuals   with  appropriate   qualifications.
 Because of resource constraints, EPA anticipates
 that mediators and arbitrators will generally be
 EPA   employees   rather   than   consultants.
 Employees from other Federal agencies would be
 selected  where appropriate,  subject  to   their
 availability.    EPA  intends for mediators and
 arbitrators  to  conduct  the dispute resolution
 mechanism in a fair  and impartial manner, and
 will select individuals who have not been involved
 with  the  particular  dispute.    Members  of
 arbitration panels will be  selected by the Regional
 Administrator in consultation with the parties. In
 some cases,  such panels may consist  of one
 representative from each  party to the dispute plus
 one neutral  panel member.    Implicit hi the
 regulation  is  the sense  that  mediators  and
 arbitrators  will   act  fairly  and  impartially.
 Although   not  specifically  covered  in  the
 regulation, EPA believes it is  well  within the
Regional Administrator's power to remove any
 mediator or arbitrator for any reason (including
 showing bias or unfairness or taking illegal or
 unethical actions).

 Arbitrators and arbitration panel members shall be
 selected to include  only individuals  who  are
 agreeable   to   all   affected   parties,   are
 knowledgeable  concerning  the   water  quality
 standards program requirements, have a basic
 understanding  of the  political  and  economic
 interests of Tribes, and will fulfill the duties fairly
 and impartially.  These  requirements  are  not
 applicable to mediators.  EPA did not provide for
 State or Tribe approval of mediators because EPA
 believes that  such an approval  process would
 provide too  great an opportunity to  delay  the
 initiation of the mediation process and because the
 role of the mediator is limited  to  acting as  a
 neutral facilitator.  There is no prohibition against
 the Regional Administrator consulting with  the
 parties  regarding  a  mediator; there is just no
 requirement to do so.

 Where  one of the parties to the dispute believes
 that an arbitrator has recommended an action to
 resolve the dispute which is not authorized by the
 Act, the regulation allows the party to appeal the
 arbitrator's    decision    to   the   Regional
 Administrator.  Such requests must be in writing
 and must include a statement of the statutory basis
 for altering the arbitrator's recommendation.

 1.7.7  Time Frame for Dispute Resolution

 The regulation  does  not  include a fixed time
 frame for resolving disputes.  While EPA intends
 to proceed as quickly as possible and to encourage
parties to the dispute to resolve it quickly and to
 establish informal time  frames,  the variety of
potential disputes to be resolved would appear to
preclude EPA from specifying a single regulatory
time limit.  EPA believes it is better to obtain a
reasonable   agreement   or  decision   than  to
arbitrarily establish a tune frame within which an
agreement or decision must be made.
1-8
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                       Chapter 1 - General Provisions
         Requirements  for Indian  Tribes To
         Qualify for the WQS Program  - 40
         CFR 131.8
Consistent with  the  statutory  requirement  of
section 518  of  the  Act,  the  Water  Quality
Standards Regulation  establishes procedures  by
which an Indian Tribe may qualify for the water
quality standards  and section 401  certification
programs. . Section  131.8 of the Water Quality
Standards Regulation is  intended to ensure that
Tribes  treated  as  States   for  standards  are
qualified,   consistent  with   Clean  Water Act
requirements, to conduct a  standards  program
protective of public  health and the environment.
The procedures are not intended to act as a
barrier to tribal program assumption.   For the
section 401   certification  program,   131.4(c)
establishes that where EPA  determines that a
Tribe is qualified for the water quality standards
program, that Tribe would, without further effort
or submission of information, also qualify for the
section 401 certification program.

Section 518 authorizes EPA to qualify a Tribe for
programs involving water resources that are:

   . .  . held  by an Indian Tribe, held by the
   U.S. in trust for Indians, held by a member
   of an Indian Tribe if such, property interest
   is subject to a trust restriction on alienation,
   or otherwise within the borders of an Indian
   reservation ....
  7////////////J//////,
Tribes   are   limited   to  obtaining  program
authorization only for water resources within the
borders of the reservation over which they possess
authority to regulate water quality.  The meaning
of the term  "reservation" must,  of course,  be
determined in  light of  statutory  law and with
reference to relevant case law.  EPA considers
trust  lands  formally set apart for the use  of
Indians to be "within a reservation" for purposes
of section 518 (e)(2), even if they have not been
formally designated  as   "reservations."2   This
means it is the status and use of the land that
determines if it  is to be considered "within a
reservation" rather than  the label attached to it.
EPA believes that it was the intent of Congress to
limit  Tribes  authority   to   lands  within  the
reservation.  EPA bases this conclusion, in part,
on the definition of "Indian Tribe" found in CWA
section 518(h)(2). EPA also does not believe that
section 518(e)(2) prevents EPA from recognizing
tribal authority over non-Indian water resources
located  within  the reservation if  the  Tribe can
demonstrate (1) the requisite authority over such
water resources, and (2) the authority to  regulate
as necessary to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare of its tribal members.

1.8.1 Criteria Tribes Must Meet

New section 131.8 of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation  includes  the criteria  Tribes  are
required to meet to be authorized to administer
the water quality standards and 401 certification
programs.  These criteria are provided in section
518 of the Act.  The Tribe must:
                             BMBjitBtoMUBa^taa^iiimB^^
(9/15/93)
                                           1-9

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
•  be federally recognized;

*  carry out substantial governmental duties and
   powers over a Federal Indian reservation;

•  have  appropriate authority  to regulate the
   quality of reservation waters; and

*  be  reasonably  expected to be  capable  of
   administering the standards program.

The first criterion requires the  Tribe to  be
recognized by the  Department of the Interior.
The Tribe may address this requirement by stating
that it is  included on the  list of  federally
recognized Tribes published periodically by the
Department of the Interior, or by submitting other
appropriate  documentation (e.g.,  the  Tribe  is
federally recognized but not yet included on the
Department of the Interior list).

The second criterion requires the Tribe to have a
governing body  that is carrying out substantial
governmental duties and powers.   EPA defines
"substantial governmental duties and  powers"  to
mean  that the  Tribe  is  currently  performing
governmental functions to promote  the  health,
safety, and welfare of the affected population
within a defined  geographical area. Examples of
such functions include,  but are not limited to, the
power to tax, the power of eminent domain, and
police power.    Federal  recognition  by  the
Department of the Interior does not, in  and  of
itself, satisfy this criterion.  Tribes must submit a
narrative statement describing the form of tribal
government,  describing the types of  essential
governmental functions currently performed, and
identifying the sources  of authorities  to perform
these functions (e.g., tribal constitutions, codes).

The third criterion, concerning tribal authority,
means that EPA may authorize an Indian Tribe to
administer the water quality standards  program
only where the Tribe already possesses and can
adequately demonstrate authority to manage and
protect water  resources  within the  reservation
borders.  The Clean Water Act authorizes use of
existing tribal regulatory authority for managing
EPA  programs,  but  the Act  does  not  grant
additional authority to Tribes.  EPA recognizes
that, in general, Tribes  possess the authority to
regulate activities affecting water quality on the
reservation.    The  Agency  does not believe,
however, that it is appropriate to recognize tribal
authority and approve tribal administration of the
water quality standards program in the absence of
verifying documentation.  EPA will not delegate
water quality standards  program  authority  to a
Tribe unless the Tribe adequately shows that it
possesses the requisite authority.

EPA does not read the Supreme Court's decision
in Brendale3 as preventing EPA from recognizing
Tribes' authority to regulate water quality oh fee
lands within the reservation, even if section 518
is not an  express delegation  of authority.  The
primary significance of Brendale is  its  result,
fully consistent with Montana v. United States,4
which previously had held:

   To be  sure, Indian tribes retain inherent
   sovereign power to exercise some forms of
   civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their
   reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands.
   A tribe may regulate ...  the activities of
   non-members   who    enter   consensual
   relationships with the tribe or its members,
   through  commercial  dealing,  contracts,
   leases,  or other arrangements. ... A tribe
   may also retain inherent power to exercise
   civil authority over  the conduct of non-
   Indians on fee lands  within its reservation
   when that conduct threatens or has some
   direct effect on the political integrity, the
   economic security, or the health or welfare
   of the tribe.

The ultimate decision regarding tribal authority
must be made on a Tribe-by-Tribe basis, and EPA
has finalized the  proposed process for making
those determinations. EPA sees no reason in light
of Brendale to assume that Tribes would be per se
unable to demonstrate authority over water quality
management on  fee  lands  within reservation
borders.  EPA believes  that as  a general matter
there are substantial legal and factual reasons to
1-10
                                     (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                       Chapter 1 - General Provisions
assume that Tribes  ordinarily have the  legal
authority to regulate surface water quality within
a reservation.

In evaluating  whether a Tribe has authority to
regulate a particular activity on land owned in fee
by nonmembers but located within a reservation,
EPA will examine the Tribe's authority hi light of
the evolving case law as reflected hi Montana and
Brendale.    The  extent of such tribal  authority
depends on the effect of that activity on the Tribe.
As discussed above, hi the absence of a contrary
statutory  policy,  a  Tribe  may  regulate the
activities of non-Indians on fee lands within its
reservation when those activities threaten or have
a  direct  effect  on the poMcal  integrity, the
economic security,  or the heiilth or welfare of the
Tribe.

The Supreme Court, in recent cases, has explored
several options to  ensure that the  impacts upon
Tribes of the activities of non-Indians on fee land,
under the  Montana  test,  are  more  than  de
minims,  although  to date the Court  has not
agreed,  in  a  case  on  point,   on  any  one
reformulation of the test.  In response to this
uncertainty, the Agency will apply, as an interim
operating rule, a formulation of the standard that
will require a showing that the potential impacts
of regulated activities on the Tribe are serious and
substantial.

The  choice  of  an   Agency operating   rule
containing this standard is taken solely as a matter
of prudence in light of judicial uncertainty and
does  not  reflect  an Agency endorsement of this
standard per se.  Moreover, as discussed below,
the Agency believes that the activities  regulated
under the various environmental statutes generally
have  serious and substantial impacts on human
health and welfare.   As  a  result, the Agency
believes that Tribes usually will be able to meet
the Agency's operating rule, and that use of such
a rule by the  Agency  should not create an
improper burden of proof on Tribes or create the
administratively  undesirable result of checker-
boarding reservations.
Whether a Tribe has jurisdiction over activities by
nonmembers will be determined  case by case,
based on factual findings.  The determination as
to whether the required effect is present in a
particular case depends on the circumstances.

Nonetheless,  the  Agency may  also take into
account the provisions of environmental statutes,
and any legislative findings that the effects of the
activity  are serious,  hi making  a  generalized
finding that Tribes are likely to possess sufficient
inherent   authority   to  control   reservation
environmental quality.*   As a result, in making
the required factual findings as to the impact of a
water-related activity on a particular Tribe, it may
not be necessary to develop  an extensive and
detailed  record in each case.  The Agency may
also rely on  its  special expertise and  practical
experience  regarding the importance of water
management,   recognizing  that  clean  water,
including critical habitat (e.g., wetlands, bottom
sediments, spawning beds), is absolutely crucial to
the survival of many Indian reservations.

The Agency believes that congressional enactment
of the Clean Water Act  establishes a  strong
Federal interest in effective management of water
quality.   Indeed, the primary objective  of the
CWA "is to restore  and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters"  (section  101 (a)), and to  achieve that
objective,   the Act  establishes  the  goal  of
eliminating all discharges of pollutants into the
navigable waters of the United States and attaining
a level  of water quality that is  fishable and
swimmable (sections  101(a)(l) and (2)).  Thus the
statute itself constitutes, in  effect,  a legislative
determination  that  activities  affecting  surface
water and critical habitat quality may have serious
and substantial impacts.

EPA also notes that, because of the mobile nature
of pollutants in surface waters and the relatively
small length or size of stream segments or other
water bodies  on reservations, it would be very
difficult to separate  the effects of water quality
impairment on  non-Indian  fee  land within a
reservation as compared with those on tribal
 (9/15/93)
                                          1-11

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 portions.  In other words, any impairment that
 occurs on, or as a result of, activities on non-
 Indian fee lands is very likely to impair the water
 and critical habitat quality  of the tribal lands.
 This also suggests that the serious and substantial
 effects of water  quality impairment within  the
 non-Indian portions  of a reservation are very
 likely to affect the tribal interest in water quality.
 EPA believes  that a  "checkerboard" system  of
 regulation, whereby the Tribe and State split up
 regulation  of surface  water  quality   on  the
 reservation,  would  ignore   the  difficulties  of
 assuring compliance with water quality standards
 when   two  different  sovereign   entities  are
 establishing standards for the same small stream
 segments.

 EPA also believes that Congress has expressed a
 preference for tribal regulation of surface water
 quality to ensure compliance with  CWA goals.
 This is confirmed  by the  text and legislative
 history  of  section  518  itself.     The  CWA
 establishes  a   policy  of   "recogniz[ing],
 preservpng],   and  protect[ing]   the  primary
 responsibilities and rights of States to  prevent,
 reduce, and eliminate pollution, [and] to plan the
 development  and use  (including  restoration,
 preservation, and enhancement) of land and water
 resources"  (section 101(b)). By extension, the
 treatment of Indian Tribes as States means that
 Tribes  are to  be primarily  responsible  for the
 protection of reservation water resources.   As
 Senator Burdick, floor manager of the 1987 CWA
 Amendments, explained, the purpose of section
 518 was to "provide clean water for the people of
 this Nation" (133 Congressional Record S1018,
 daily ed., Jan. 21, 1987).  This goal was to be
 accomplished, he asserted, by giving "tribes . . .
 the  primary  authority  to  set  water  quality
 standards to assure fishable and swimmable water
 and to satisfy all beneficial uses."6

In light of the Agency's statutory responsibility
for implementing  the  environmental statutes,  its
interpretations  of the intent of  Congress  in
allowing for tribal management of water quality
within the reservation are  entitled to substantial
deference.7
The Agency also believes that the effects on tribal
health and welfare necessary to support tribal
regulation  of  non-Indian  activities  on  the
reservation may be easier  to  establish in the
context of water quality management man with
regard to zoning, which was at issue in Brendale.
There is a significant distinction between land use
planning  and water quality  management.  The
Supreme Court has explicitly recognized such a
distinction: "Land use planning in essence chooses
particular  uses for  the land;    environmental
regulation .  .  . does not mandate particular uses
of the land but requires only that,  however the
land is used, damage to the environment is kept
within prescribed limits."8  The Court has relied
on this distinction to support a finding that States
retain authority to  carry  out  environmental
regulation even in cases where their ability to
carry out general land use regulation is preempted
by Federal law.9

Further,  water quality management serves  the
purpose  of protecting public health and safety,
which is a core governmental function whose
exercise  is critical to  self-government.   The
special status of governmental actions to  protect
public health and safety is well established.  By
contrast, the power to zone can be exercised to
achieve purposes that have little  or no  direct
nexus to public health and safety.10  Moreover,
water pollution is by nature highly mobile, freely
migrating from one local jurisdiction to another,
sometimes over large distances.   By contrast,
zoning regulates the uses of particular properties
with impacts that are much more  likely to be
contained within a given local jurisdiction.

1-12
                                                                                        (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 1 - General Provisions
Operationally,    EPA's  generalized  findings
regarding the relationship of water quality to
tribal health and welfare will affect the legal
analysis  of a tribal submission  by, in  effect,
supplementing the factual showing a Tribe makes
in applying for authority to administer the water
quality  standards program.    Thus,  a tribal
submission meeting the requirements of section
131.8 of this regulation  will need to make a
relatively simple  showing  of  facts that there are
waters within the reservation used by the Tribe or
tribal members (and thus that the Tribe or tribal
members   could  be  subject to exposure  to
pollutants present in, or introduced into, those
waters),  and that the waters  and critical  habitat
are subject to protection under the Clean Water
Act.  The Tribe  must also explicitly assert that
impairment of such waters by the  activities of
non-Indians would have a  serious and substantial
effect on the health and  welfare of the Tribe.
Once the Tribe meets this initial burden, EPA
will, in light of the facts presented by the Tribe
and the generalized statutory and factual findings
regarding the importance of reservation water
quality discussed above, presume that there has
been an adequate  showing of tribal jurisdiction on
fee lands, unless an appropriate governmental
entity   (e.g.,  an  adjacent:   Tribe  or  State)
demonstrates a lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the Tribe.

The Agency recognizes that jurisdictional disputes
between Tribes and States can be complex and
difficult and that it will, in some circumstances,
be forced  to address such (disputes.  However,
EPA's ultimate responsibility is protection of the
environment.    In view  of the  mobility of
environmental problems, and the interdependence
of various jurisdictions, it is imperative that all
affected  sovereigns  work  cooperatively  for
environmental protection  rather than engage in
confrontations over jurisdiction.

To verify authority,  the Tribe  is  required to
include a  statement signed  by  the tribal legal
counsel, or an equivalent official, explaining the
legal basis for the  Tribe's regulatory authority.
Tribe  also is  required to provide appropriate
additional  documentation  (e.g.,  maps,  tribal
codes, and ordinances).

The fourth criterion requires that the Tribe, in the
Regional  Administrator's judgment,  should be
reasonably capable  of administering an effective
standards program.  The Agency recognizes that
certain Tribes have not had substantial experience
in administering surface water quality programs.
For this reason, the Agency requires that Tribes
either show  that  they   have the  necessary
management and technical skills or submit a plan
detailing  steps  for  acquiring the  necessary
management and technical skills.  The plan must
also address how the Tribe will obtain the funds
to  acquire  the administrative  and  technical
expertise. When considering tribal capability, the
Agency will also consider whether the Tribe can
demonstrate  the existence of  institutions  that
exercise   executive,  legislative,  and   judicial
functions, and whether the Tribe has a history of
successful  managerial  performance  of public
health or environmental programs.

1.8.2 Application for Authority To Administer
      the Water Quality Standards Program

The  specific information  required  for tribal
applications to EPA is described in 40 CFR.  The
application is required, in general, to include a
statement on tribal recognition by the Department
of  the  Interior, documentation that the  tribal
governing body has substantial duties and powers,
documentation of tribal authority to regulate water
quality on the federally recognized reservation, a
narrative   statement  of  tribal  capability  to
administer water quality standards programs, and
any other information requested by the Regional
Administrator.

When evaluating tribal experience in public health
and environmental programs (under paragraph
131.8(b)(4)(ii), EPA will look for indications that
the Tribe has  participated  in  such  programs,
whether the programs are administered by EPA,
other Federal agencies, or Tribes.  For example,
several Tribes  are  known to have participated in
developing areawide water management plans or
(9/15/93)
                                          1-13

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 tribal water quality standards.  EPA will also look
 for evidence  of historical budget  allocations
 dealing  with  public  health  or  environmental
 programs along with any experience in monitoring
 related programs.

 The regulation allows a Tribe to describe either
 how it presently  has the capability to manage an
 effective water quality standards program or how
 it proposes to acquire the additional administrative
 and technical expertise to manage such a program.
 EPA will carefully review for reasonableness any
 plans that propose to acquire expertise. EPA will
 not approve tribal capability demonstrations where
 such  plans do not include reasonable provisions
 for acquisition of needed personnel  as well as
 reliable funding  sources.    This requirement is
 consistent with other Clean Water Act programs.
 Tribes may wish to apply for section 106 funds to
 support their water quality standards programs
 and may include  this source in any discussion of
 obtaining necessary funds.

 If  the Tribe has qualified  to administer  other
 Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act
 programs,  then the Tribe need only provide the
 information  that  has   not   been   submitted
 previously.

 Qualifying for administration of the water quality
 standards program is optional for Indian Tribes
 and there is no time frame limiting when such
 application may be made.  As a general policy,
 EPA  will not deny a tribal  application.  Rather
 than formally deny the Tribe's request, EPA will
 continue to work  cooperatively with the Tribe in
 a continuing effort to resolve deficiencies  in the
 application or the tribal program so that tribal
 authorization may occur. EPA also concurs with
 the view that the intent of  Congress and the EPA
 Indian Policy is to support tribal governments in
 assuming  authority  to manage  various  water
 programs.  Authority exists for EPA to re-assert
 control over certain water programs due to the
 failure of  the  State  or Tribe  to execute the
programs  properly.  Specifically, in the  water
 quality standards program, the Administrator has
authority to promulgate Federal standards.
 1.8.3  Procedure Regional Administrator Will
       Apply

 The review procedure established in section 131.8
 is the  same procedure applicable to all water
 programs.  Although experience  with the initial
 application in other programs  indicated some
 delay in the process, EPA believes that as EPA
 and  the  Tribes  gain  experience  with  the
 procedures, delays will be minimal.

 The EPA review procedure in paragraph 131.8(c)
 specifies   that   following  receipt   of  tribal
 applications,  the Regional Administrator will
 process  such applications in  a timely  manner.
 The procedure calls for prompt notification to the
 Tribe  that  the application has been received,
 notification  within   30  days  to  appropriate
 governmental entities  (e.g.,  States  and other
 governmental entities located  contiguous  to the
 reservation and that possess authority  to regulate
 water quality under section 303 of the  Act) of the
 application and the substance and basis  for the
 Tribe's assertion of  authority over reservation
 waters, and allowance of 30 days for review of
 the Tribe's assertion of authority.

 EPA recognizes that city and county governments
 which may be subject  to  or  affected by tribal
 standards may also want to  comment  on  the
 Tribe's assertion  of authority.  Although EPA
 believes that the responsibility  to coordinate with
 local governments faUs primarily on the State, the
 Agency will make an effort to provide notice to
 local governments by placing an announcement in
 appropriate newspapers.  Because the  rule limits
 EPA to considering comments from governmental
 entities with Clean  Water  Act section 303
 authority, such newspaper  announcements will
 advise interested  parties to  direct  comments on
 tribal authority to  appropriate State governments.

Where  a  Tribe's  assertion  of  authority  is
challenged,   the  Regional  Administrator,   in
consultation  with the Tribe,  the  governmental
entity  challenging  the  Tribe's   assertion   of
authority, and the Secretary of the Interior, will
determine  whether the  Tribe has  adequately
1-14
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 1 - General Provisions
demonstrated authority to regulate water quality
on  the  reservation.    Where  the  Regional
Administrator concludes  that the Tribe has not
adequately demonstrated its authority with respect
to an area hi dispute, then tribal assumption of the
standards   program  would   be   restricted
accordingly.   If the authority in dispute  were
focused  on  a  limited  area,  this  would not
necessarily  delay  the  Agency's  decision  to
authorize the Tribe to administer the program for
the nondisputed areas.

The procedure allowing participation by  other
governmental entities in  EPA's  review  of  tribal
authority does not  imply that States or Federal
agencies (other than EPA) have veto power over
tribal  applications   for  treatment  as  a State.
Rather,  the procedure  is  simply intended to
identify  any competing jurisdictional claim and
thereby ensure that  the Tribe has the necessary
authority to administer the standards program.
EPA will not rely  solely on the assertions of a
commenter who challenges the Tribe's authority;
EPA will make an independent evaluation of the
tribal showing and all available information.

When evaluating tribal  assertions of authority,
EPA will apply the test from Montana v. United
States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and will consider the
following:

•  all information   submitted with  the Tribe's
    assertion of authority;

•  all information submitted during the required
    30-day comment period by the governmental
    entities identified in 40 CFR  131.8(c)(2); and

 •  all information  obtained  by the Agency via
    consultation   with  the  Department of  the
    Interior  (such consultation is required where
    the  Tribe's  assertion   of  authority  is
    challenged).

 EPA  and the Department of the Interior have
 agreed to procedures for conducting consultations
 between the agencies. The procedure established
 as the Secretary of the Interior's designees the
Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs,
and  the  Deputy Assistant  Secretary  - Indian
Affairs (Trust and Economic Development).  EPA
will  forward a copy of the  application and any
documents asserting a competing or conflicting
claim of authority to such designees as soon as
possible.  For most applications,  an EPA-DOI
conference will be scheduled from 1 to 3 weeks
after the date the Associate Solicitor receives the
application.     Comments  from  the  Interior
Department  will  discuss  primarily  the  law
applicable to the issue to assist EPA in its own
deliberations.  Responsibility for legal advice to
the  EPA Administrator or  other EPA decision
makers  will  remain  with   the  EPA General
Counsel.    EPA  does  not  believe  that the
consultation process with the Department of the
Interior should involve notice and opportunity for
States and  Tribes  because  such  parties are
elsewhere provided  appropriate  opportunities to
participate in EPA's review  of tribal authority.

EPA will take  all reasonable  means  to  advise
interested  parties   of  the  decision  reached
regarding  challenges  of  tribal  assertions of
authority.    At least,  written  notice will be
provided to  State(s)  and  other  governmental
entities sent notice of the tribal application. In
addition, the Water Quality  Standards Regulation
requires  EPA  to  publish   an  annual list of
standards  approval  actions' taken  within the
preceding year. EPA will expand that listing to
include Indian Tribes qualifying for  treatment as
States in the preceding year.

Comments  on  tribal compliance with criteria
necessary for assuming the program  is limited to
the  criterion  for  tribal authority.  The  Clean
Water Act does not require EPA to provide public
comment on the entire tribal application, nor does
EPA believe that public comment will assist with
EPA's  decision-  making  regarding  the  other
criteria.  (The other criteria  are the recognition of
the  Tribe by the  Department of the Interior,  a
description of the tribal governing body, and the
capability of the Tribe to administer an effective
 standards program.) EPA believes that providing
public  comment on these  three  criteria  would
 (9/15/93)
                                                                                          1-15

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 unnecessarily complicate and potentially delay the   1.8.6 Establishing Water Quality Standards on
 process.     .                                          Indian Lands
 1.8.4 Time  Frame
       Application
for  Review  of Tribal
 EPA has not specified a time frame for review of
 tribal application.   The Agency believes it is
 impossible  to  approve   or  disapprove  all
 applications within a designated  time  frame.
 Because  EPA  has  no  reasonable  way   to
 predetermine  how complete  initial applications
 might be, what challenges  might arise,  or how
 numerous or  complex the issues might  be,  the
 Agency deems it  inappropriate to  attempt  to
 establish  time  frames  that  might  not  allow
 sufficient time for resolution.  Similarly, EPA's
 experience with States applying for various EPA
 programs indicates that, at  times, meetings and
 discussions between EPA  and  the  States  are
 necessary before all requirements are met. The
 Agency believes that  the same  communication
 with  Tribes   will  be  important   to   ensure
 expeditious processing of tribal applications.

 1.8.5  Effect   of  Regional  Administrator's
       Decision

 A decision by the Regional  Administrator that a
 Tribe  does  not  meet  the  requirements   for
 administering the water quality standards program
 does not preclude the Tribe from resubmitting the
 application at a future date. Rather than formally
 deny the Tribe's request, EPA will continue to
 work cooperatively with the Tribe in a continuing
 effort to resolve deficiencies in the application or
 the tribal program so that tribal authorization may
 occur.  EPA believes that the intent of Congress
 and of EPA's Indian Policy is to support tribal
 governments in assuming authority to  manage
 various water programs.

Where the Regional Administrator determines that
the  tribal  application  satisfies  all  of  the
requirements of  section  131.8,  the  Regional
Administrator will promptly notify the Tribe that
the Tribe has  qualified to administer the water
quality standards program.
 Where Tribes qualify to be treated as States for
 the purposes of water quality standards, EPA has
 the responsibility to assist the Tribe in establishing
 standards that are appropriate for the reservation
 and consistent with the Clean Water  Act.  EPA
 recognizes that Tribes have limited resources for
 development of water quality standards.

 EPA  considers  the  following three  options
 acceptable to complete the task of establishing
 water quality  standards on Indian lands:

 •  the Tribe  may   negotiate  a  cooperative
    agreement  with an adjoining State to apply the
    State's standards to the Indian lands;

 •  the Tribe may incorporate the standards from
    an adjacent State as the Tribe's own; or

 •  the Tribe may independently develop and adopt
    standards that account for unique site-specific
    conditions  and water body uses.

 The first two  options would be the quickest and
 least  costly ways for establishing  tribal water
 quality standards. Under option 1, the negotiated
 agreement could also cover requirements such as
 monitoring,   permitting,   certifications,   and
 enforcement of water quality standards on the
 reservation.   Option 2 would make full use of
 information and data developed by the State which
 may  apply to  the   reservation.   Tribes,  as
 sovereign governments, have the legal authority to
 negotiate cooperative agreements with a State to
 apply  that State's standards  to waters  on the
 reservation or to use State standards as the basis
 for tribal standards.  These options do not suggest
 that the Tribe relinquishes its sovereign powers or
 enforcement  authority or  that  the  State  can
 unilaterally apply  its  standards to reservation
 waters.

 Option 3 would require more time and resources
to implement because  it would require the Tribe
to  create  an  entire  set  of  standards  "from
1-16
                                                                                     (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 1 - General Provisions
scratch." EPA does not intend to discourage this
approach, but notes that Indian Tribes may want
to make full use, where appropriate, of programs
of  adjacent States.    Tribes should  use  this
Handbook  as   guidance   when   developing
standards.

EPA emphasizes  that the development of tribal
water quality standards is an iterative process, and
that the  standards development option initially
selected by  the Tribe can change in subsequent
years.   For example, a Trite may want to use
option 1 or 2 to get the standards program started.
This does not preclude the Tribe from developing
its  own  water quality  standards hi subsequent
years.

Tribes establishing standards for the first  time
should carefully consider which water body uses
are appropriate.     Once designated uses are
adopted,  removing  the  use or  adopting  a
subcategory of  use  would  be subject  to the
requirements of  section  131.10 of  the Water
Quality Standards Regulation.

EPA  expects  that, where Tribes  qualify to be
treated as States for the purposes of water quality
standards,  standards   will   be   adopted   and
submitted to EPA for review within 3 years  (a
triennium) from the date that the Tribe is notified
that it is qualified to administer the standards
program.  This time frame  corresponds to that
provided to States under the provisions of the
 1965 Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  when
the water quality standards program was created.
EPA  believes   that  this   is   an  equitable
arrangement,  and  that  the  Tribes  should  be
allowed sufficient tune to develop their programs
and adopt appropriate  standards for reservation
waters.

Once EPA determines  that a Tribe qualifies to
administer   the   standards   program,   tribal
development,  review,  and  adoption of  water
quality  standards  are subject  to  the  same
requirements that States are subject to under the
Clean  Water   Act  and  EPA's  implementing
regulations.

Until Tribes qualify for the standards program and
adopt standards under the Clean Water Act, EPA
will, when possible, assume that existing water
quality  standards  remain  applicable.    EPA's
position  on this issue  was  expressed  in  a
September  9,  1988,  letter  from  EPA's then
General  Counsel,  Lawrence  Jensen,  to  Dave
Frohnmayer, Attorney General for the State of
Oregon.    This  letter states:  "if States  have
established  standards  that purport to  apply to
Indian reservations, EPA will  assume without
deciding that those  standards remain applicable
until a Tribe is authorized to establish its own
standards or until EPA otherwise determines in
consultation with a State and Tribe that the State
lacks jurisdiction . . . ."  This policy is not an
assertion   that  State   standards  apply   on
reservations as a matter of law, but the  policy
merely recognizes that fully implementing a role
for Tribes under  the Act will require a transition
period.   EPA may apply  State standards in this
case because (1)  there are no Federal standards
that apply generally, and (2) to ignore previously
developed State standards would be a regulatory
void that EPA believes would not be beneficial to
the reservation water quality.  However, EPA will
give serious consideration to Federal promulgation
of water quality standards on Indian lands where
EPA finds a particular need.

Where a State asserts authority to establish future
water quality standards for a reservation, EPA
policy is to ensure that the affected Tribe is made
aware of the assertion so that any issues the Tribe
may wish to raise can be  reviewed as part of the
normal  standards  setting process.   EPA  also
encourages   State-Tribe   communication   on
 (9/15/93)
                                                                                         1-17

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 standards issues, with one possible outcome being
 the  establishment  of   short-term  cooperative
 working agreements pertaining to standards and
 NPDES permits on reservations.

 1.8.7 EPA Promulgation of  Standards  for
       Reservations

 If EPA determines  that  a  Tribe possesses
 authority  to  regulate   water  quality   on  a
 reservation  but  the  Tribe  declines  to  seek
 authority to administer the water quality standards
 program, EPA has the authority under section 303
 of the Act to  promulgate Federal water quality
 standards.  EPA's responsibility stems from the
 Act's directive to establish water quality standards
 for all "navigable waters."   Depending on the
 circumstances, EPA may use the standards of an
 adjacent  State as  a starting point for such  a
 promulgation.      EPA   will  prioritize   the
 promulgations  based on various factors, not the
 least  of which is availability of Agency resources
 to undertake the Federal  rulemaking process.
 Because the Federal promulgation process is slow
 and complex, EPA may promulgate water quality
 standards in conjunction with re-issuing permits
 on the reservations.

 The intent of the Clean  Water Act is for States
 and Tribes qualifying for treatment as States to
 have  the first opportunity to set standards. Thus,
 EPA  prefers to work cooperatively with States
 and Tribes on water quality standards issues and
 to  initiate Federal  promulgation actions only
 where absolutely necessary.

 BPA's entire policy with respect to  Federal
 promulgation is  straightforward.    EPA much
 prefers to work with the States and have them
 adopt standards   that   comply   with   CWA
 requirements.  Where Federal promulgation is
 necessary to achieve CWA compliance, however,
 EPA will act. This same philosophy will apply to
Indian Tribes   authorized  to  administer  the
program.
          Adoption of  Standards  for  Indian
          Reservation Waters
 This guidance recognizes that Tribes have varying
 abilities to develop water quality standards. Some
 Tribes  have  more  technical  capability  and
 experience in drafting implementable regulations
 than other Tribes and may be capable of adopting
 more complex standards. However, most Tribes
 may not have access to sufficient resources, either
 in personnel or in contractor funds, to pursue this
 course.   Moreover,  EPA  does not  have the
 resources   to  provide   substantial   technical
 assistance to individual Tribes to develop other
 than basic water quality standards.

 1.9.1 EPA's  Expectations for Tribal  Water
       Quality Standards

 Tribal water quality standards, initially at least,
 should focus on basic contents and reflect existing
 uses and existing  water quality.   The  standards
 must be established for an inventory of "waters of
 the  United States,"  including wetlands.   The
 Tribes should  focus on the basic structure of a
 water quality standards system:   designated uses
 for   identified  water   segments,  appropriate
 narrative and numeric criteria, an antidegradation
 policy, and other general implementation policies.
 How complex or sophisticated these elements need
 to be depends upon the abilities of the Tribe and
 the  environmental concerns affected  by  tribal
 standards.

 EPA has consistently recommended to Tribes that
 they use directly, or with slight modification, the
 standards of the adjacent States as a beginning for
 tribal standards.  Tribal water quality standards
 should be developed considering  the quality and
 designated uses of waters entering and leaving
 reservations.   It  is  important that the Tribes
 recognize what the surrounding State (or another
Indian reservation) water quality standards are
even though there is no requirement  to  match
those  standards,   although   the  water  quality
 standards regulation does require consideration of
downstream water  quality standards (see section
2.2,  this Handbook).
1-18
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 1 - General "Provisions
At  a minimum,  tribal  water quality  standards
should be established upstream and downstream
from point sources where NPDES permits are
applicable. It is also desirable that water quality
standards  be applied to  waters where significant
nonpoint sources enter so thait the effectiveness of
best management practices on  the reservation's
waters can be evaluated.

Water quality criteria should be carefully selected
recognizing that making criteria more stringent in
subsequent water quality  standards reviews  is
more  feasible than  attempting relaxation of
stringent criteria.  While there is no mandatory
list of criteria, the following should be considered
the minimum:

•  narrative "free froms";

•  dissolved oxygen;

•  pH;

•  temperature;

•  bacteriological criteria  (for recreational and
   ceremonial uses); and

•  toxics   (including   nonconventionals,  e.g.,
   ammonia  and chlorine).  [Use  of option 1,
    section 2.1.3, is recommended.]

1.9.2 Optional Policies

The  Tribes  must  also  specify  which optional
policies they  wish to use pursuant to 40  CFR
 131.13 (see chapter 6, this Handbook).  These
include the following:

 •   mixing zones  for point sources;

 •   variances for point sources;

 •   design  low-flow   specification   for   the
    application of numeric criteria; and

 •   schedules   of  compliance  for   criteria  in
    NPDES, and permits.
Guidance for applying these policies are generally
available  in  either  this  Handbook  or in the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a).

1.9.3 Tribal Submission and EPA Review

The initial submission of the tribal water quality
standards must contain the items listed in 40 CFR
131.6 plus use attainability analyses for all waters
not classified "fishable/swimmable" (see section
2.9, this Handbook).   In addition,  it should
contain identification of endangered or threatened
aquatic species or wildlife subject to protection by
water quality standards.   There should also be
included a record containing information on the
regulatory and public participation aspects of the
water quality standards, public comments made,
and the Tribe's responses to those comments and
other  relevant  material required by  40  CFR
131.20.

1.9.4  Regional Reviews

The Regions  should  carefully coordinate the
reviews within the Water Management Divisions
to ensure:

•  that the required items in   section 131.6 are
   included;

•  that all waters with NPDES permits have water
   quality standards; and

•  that  the  tribal  rulemaking   meets   the
   requirements of 40 CFR 131.20.

In commenting on tribal water quality standards,
the Regions should identify situations where the
dispute resolution mechanism in 40  CFR  131.7
may ultimately  be  called into  play  and should
attempt  to  de-fuse such situations  as early  as
possible in the standards adoption process.  One
possibility is to encourage Tribes and States to
establish review  procedures before any specific
problem develops as suggested in section 131.7(e)
of the regulation.
 (9/15/93)
                                          1-19

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 Where NPDES permits exist, the downstream
 jurisdiction and the Region should determine if
 total  maximum daily  loads  or  waste  load
 allocations will be  needed.  Where this burden
 falls on the Tribe,  EPA may  need to assist the
 Tribe  in  these assessments  or  perform  the
 necessary modeling for the Tribe.  The Region
 also should assess the scope of any section 401
 procedures  needed  in future NPDES  permit
 renewals.  The interstate nature of tribal water
 quality standards may become important to EPA
 because of the recent Arkansas v. Oklahoma U.S.
 Supreme Court case (112 section 1046, February
 26,  1992), especially when EPA is the permit
 writing authority.
        NOTE:      Additional   discussion
        supporting  the Agency's lulemaking
        with respect to Indian Tribes and
        EPA's views on related questions may
        be found in the preamble discussion to
        the  final  rule  (56  F,R.  64893,
        December 12, 1991).
1-20
                                                                                    (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 1 - General Provisions
                                       Endnotes
   1. Champion International Corp. v. EPA, 850 F.2d 182 (4th Cir. 1988)
   2. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 111 S.Ct.
     905, 910 (1991).
   3. Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the YaUma Nation, 492 U.S. 408, (1989)
   4. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. at 565-66 (citations omitted).
   5. See, e.g., Keystone Bituminous CoalAssoc. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 476-77 and notes
     6,7  (1987).
   6. Id.
   7. Washington Dept. of Ecology v. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465,  1469 (9th Cir. 1985); see generally
     Chevron,  USA v.  NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843-45 (1984).
   8. California Coastal Commission v.  Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 587 (1987).
   9. Id. at 587-89.
   10. See e.g. Brendale, 492 U.S. at 420 n.5 (White, J.) (listing broad range of consequences of
     state zoning decision).
(9/15/93)                                                                                1-21

-------

-------
                               CHAPTER 2

                        JDESIGNATION OF USES

                             (40 CFR 131.10)

                             Table of Contents

2.1 Use Classification - 40 CFR 131.10(a) . . ..	2-1
    2.1.1     Public Water Supplies	2-1
    2.1.2     Protection and. Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife	2-1
    2.1.3     Recreation	2-2
    2.1.4     Agriculture and Industry	2-3
    2.1.5     Navigation	2-4
    2.1.6     Other Uses  	2-4

2.2 Consider Downstream Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(b)	2-4

2.3 Use Subcategories -  40 CFR 131.10(c)	2-5

2.4 Attainability of Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(d)	2-5

2.5 Public Hearing for Changing Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(e)	2-6

2.6 Seasonal Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(f)  	2-6

2.7 Removal of Designated Uses -  40 CFR 131.10(g) and (h)	2-6
    2.7.1     Step 1 - Is the Use Existing?	2-6
    2.7.2     Step 2 - Is the Use Specified in Section 101(a)(2)?    	2-8
    2.7.3     Step 3 - Is the Use Attainable?	  . 2-8
    2.7.4     Step 4 - Is a Factor from 131.10(g) Met?		2-8
    2.7.5     Step 5 - Provide Public Notice  .	2-8

2.8 Revising Uses to Reflect Actual Attainment - 40 CFR 131.10(i)	2-8

2.9 Use Attainability Analyses - 40 CFR 131.100) and (k)	2-9
    2.9.1     Water Body Survey and Assessment - Purpose and Application	2-9
    2.9.2     Physical Factors	  2-10
    2.9.3     Chemical  Evaluations	 .  2-12
    2.9.4     Biological Evaluations	2-12
    2.9.5     Approaches to Conducting the Physical, Chemical, and Biological
             Evaluations	  2-15
    2.9.6     Estuarine  Systems	  2-18
    2.9.7    Lake Systems	  2-23

-------
i!H^^^^
            < linn:: J!,  ji, < i Jililil, iJihlli iliii l»  i  iirti  ,»i       ,1 .n  i             11 f       i   »  '    .1          n             i
                                                                                                                                        i    n mil i      i ii   i n    J   11 
-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
                                        CHAPTERS
                                DESIGNATION OF
         Use Classification - 40 CFR 131.10(a)
A water quality standard defines the water quality
goals of a water body or portion thereof, in part,
by designating the use or uses to be made of the
water.  States adopt water quality standards to
protect public health or welfare,  enhance  the
quality of water, and serve the purposes of the
Clean Water  Act.   "Serve the purposes of the
Act" (as defined in sections 101(a)(2), and 303(c)
of the Act) means that water  quality standards
should:

•  provide, wherever attainable, water quality for
   the  protection  and  propagation  of  fish,
   shellfish, and  wildlife, and  recreation in and
   on the water ("fishable/swimmable"),  and

•  consider the use and value of State waters for
   public water supplies, propagation  of fish and
   wildlife, recreation,  agriculture and industrial
   purposes, and navigation.

These sections of the Act describe various uses of
waters that are considered desirable and should be
protected.  The States must take these uses into
consideration  when classifying  State waters and
are free to add use  classifications.   Consistent
with  the  requirements  of the Act and Water
Quality Standards Regulation, States are free to
develop and adopt any  use classification system
they  see  as  appropriate,  except  that waste
transport and assimilation is not an acceptable use
in any case (see 40 CFR 131.10(a)).  Among  the
uses listed in  the Clean Water Act, there  is no
hierarchy.    EPA's  Water  Quality Standards
Regulation emphasizes  the  uses  specified   in
section  101(a)(2) of the Act (first bullet,  above).
To be consistent with the 101(a)(2) interim goal
of the Act, States must provide water quality for
the protection  and propagation  offish, shellfish,
and wildlife, and provide for recreation in and on
the water ("fishable/swimmable") where attainable
(see 40 CFR 131.10(j)).
           B1SIGNA
              40 CFR
       Uses specked is Water Quality
       Standards for each water body or
       segment whether or not they are;
       being attained,
2.1.1 Public Water Supplies

This use includes waters that are the source for
drinking water supplies and often includes waters
for food processing.  Waters for drinking water
may require treatment prior to  distribution in
public water systems.

2.1.2 Protection and  Propagation  of Fish,
      Shellfish, and Wildlife

This classification is  often divided into several
more specific subcategories, including coldwater
fish, warmwater fish, and shellfish. For example,
some coastal States have a use specifically  for
oyster propagation.  The use may also include
protection  of  aquatic   flora.     Many  States
differentiate  between   self-supporting   fish
populations  and stocked  fisheries.    Wildlife
protection should include waterfowl, shore birds,
and other water-oriented wildlife.

To more fully protect aquatic habitats and provide
more comprehensive assessments of aquatic life
use attainment/non-attainment, it is EPA's policy
that States should designate aquatic life uses that
(9/15/93)
                                          2-1

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
appropriately  address biological integrity and
adopt biological criteria necessary to protect those
uses (see Appendix R).
             TYPES OF USES
        CWA SECTION 303(c)(2)(A)

          Public water supplies
          Protection and propagation of
          fish, shellfish, and wildlife
          Recreation
          Agriculture
          Industry
          Navigation
          Coral reef preservation
          Marinas
          Groundwater recharge
          Aquifer protection
          Hydroelectric power
2.1.3 Recreation

Recreational uses have traditionally been divided
into  primary  contact  and  secondary  contact
recreation.    The  primary  contact  recreation
classification protects people from illness due to
activities involving the potential for ingestion of,
or  immersion  in,  water.    Primary  contact
recreation   usually   includes   swimming,
water-skiing,  skin-diving,  surfing,  and  other
activities  likely to result in immersion.   The
secondary  contact recreation   classification  is
protective when immersion is unlikely.  Examples
are boating, wading, and rowing.  These two
broad uses can be logically  subdivided into an
almost infinite number of subcategories  (e.g.,
wading, fishing, sailing, powerboating, rafting.).
Often fishing is considered in the recreational use
categories.

Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand,
may not be attainable in certain  waters, such as
wetlands,  that  do  not have  sufficient water,  at
least seasonally.  However, States are encouraged
to recognize and protect recreational uses that do
not directly involve contact with water, including
hiking, camping, and bird watching.

A number of acceptable  State  options may be
considered for designation of recreational uses.

   Option 1

Designate primary contact recreational uses for all
waters of the State, and set bacteriological criteria
sufficient to support primary contact  recreation.
This option fully conforms with the requirement
in section 131.6 of the "Water Quality Standards
Regulation to designate uses consistent with the
provisions of sections 101(a)(2)  and 303(c)(2) of
the CWA. States are not required to conduct use
attainability  analyses   (for  recreation)   when
primary contact recreational uses are designated
for all waters of the State.

   Option 2

Designate either primary contact recreational uses
or  secondary  contact recreational  uses for all
waters of the State and,  where secondary contact
recreation  is  designated,  set  bacteriological
criteria  sufficient  to support  primary  contact
recreation. EPA believes that a secondary contact
recreational use (with criteria sufficient to support
primary contact recreation) is consistent with the
CWA section 101(a)(2)  goal.  The rationale for
this option is  discussed in the  preamble to the
Water Quality Standards Regulation, which states:
"... even though it may not make  sense to
encourage use of a stream  for swimming because
of the flow, depth or the velocity of the water, the
States and EPA must recognize that swimming
and/or wading may occur anyway.  In order to
protect public health, States must set criteria to
reflect  recreational  uses  if  it  appears  that
recreation  will in  fact occur   in  the  stream."
Under  this  option,  future revisions  to the
bacteriological  criterion  for   specific  stream
segments  would be subject to  the  downgrading
provisions of the Federal Water Quality Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 131.10).
2-2
                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
   Option 3

Designate  either  primary  contact  recreation,
secondary contact recreation (with bacteriological
criteria sufficient to  support primary  contact
recreation), or conduct use attainability analyses
demonstrating  that recreational  uses  consistent
with the  CWA section 101(a)(2)  goal  are not
attainable for all waters of the State.  Such use
attainability  analyses  are required by  section
131.10  of   the   Water  Quality   Standards
Regulation, which also specifies  six factors that
may be used  by States in  demonstrating that
attaining a use is not feasible.  Physical factors,
which are important in determining attainability of
aquatic life uses, may not be used as the basis for
not designating a recreational use consistent with
the CWA section 101(a)(2) goal.  This precludes
States  from  using  40  CFR  131.10(g) factor  2
(pertaining to low-flows) and factor 5 (pertaining
to physical factors in general).  The basis for this
policy  is  that  the  States  and  EPA  have  an
obligation to  do as much as possible to protect the
health  of the public.  In certain instances, people
will use whatever water bodies are available for
recreation, regardless of the physical conditions.
In conducting  use attainability analyses  (UAAs)
where available data are scajrce  or nonexistent,
sanitary surveys are useful  in  determining the
sources  of  bacterial  water  quality  indicators.
Information  on land  use  is   also  useful  in
predicting bacteria levels and sources.

   Other Options

•  States  may  apply  bacteriological  criteria
   sufficient  to support primary contact recreation
   with  a   rebuttable  presumption  that  the
   indicators show the presence  of human fecal
   pollution.    Rebuttal of  this  presumption,
   however,  must be based on a sanitary survey
   that demonstrates a lack of contamination from
   human sources.  The basis for this option  is
   the   absence  of  data  demonstrating   a
   relationship   between   high   densities  of
   bacteriological water quality indicators and
   increased  risk of swimming-associated  illness
   in animal-contaminated waters.  Maine is an
   example  of  a State  that  has  successfully
   implemented this option.

•  Where States adopt a standards package that
   does not support the swimmable goal and does
   not contain a UAA to justify the omission,
   EPA may conditionally approve  the package
   provided that  (1) the State commits, in writing,
   to  a schedule  for  rapid  completion  of  the
   UAAs,   generally   within   90   days  (see
   conditional approval guidance in section 6.2 of
   this Handbook); and (2) the omission may be
   considered a  minor deficiency  (i.e., after
   consultation with the State, EPA determines
   that there is no basis for  concluding that the
   UAAs would support upgrading the use of the
   water body).  Otherwise, failure to support the
   swimmable goal  is  a major  deficiency  and
   must be disapproved to allow prompt Federal
   promulgation action.

•  States may conduct basinwide use attainability
   analyses  if the circumstances relating to the
   segments in question are sufficiently similar to
   make the results of the  basinwide analyses
   reasonably applicable to each segment.

States may add other recreation classifications as
they  see fit.  For example, one State protects
"consumptive   recreation"   (i.e.,    "human
consumption of aquatic life, semi-aquatic life, or
terrestrial wildlife that depend  on surface waters
for survival  and well-being").   States also may
adopt seasonal recreational uses (see section 2.6,
this Handbook).

2.1.4 Agriculture and Industry

The agricultural use classification defines waters
that  are  suitable  for  irrigation  of  crops,
consumption by  livestock, support of vegetation
for range grazing, and other uses in  support of
farming and  ranching and protects livestock and
crops  from  injury due to irrigation  and other
exposures.

The industrial use classification  includes industrial
cooling  and  process   water  supplies.    This
 (9/15/93)
                                           2-3

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 classification protects industrial equipment from
 damage from cooling  and/or process waters.
 Specific criteria would depend on  the industry
 involved.

 The Report  of the Committee on Water Quality
 Criteria, the "Green Book" (FWPCA, 1968) and
 Water  Quality Criteria 1972, the "Blue Book"
 (NAS/NAE, 1973) provide information for certain
 parameters  on   protecting   agricultural   and
 industrial uses, although section 304(a)(l) criteria
 for protecting  these  uses  have   not   been
 specifically  developed  for  numerous  other
 parameters, including toxics.

 Where  criteria   have  not  been   specifically
 developed for agricultural and industrial uses, the
 criteria developed for human health and aquatic
 life are usually sufficiently  stringent to protect
 these uses.   States also may establish criteria
 specifically designed to protect these uses.

 2.1.5 Navigation

 This use classification is designed to protect ships
 and their crews and to maintain water quality so
 as not to restrict or prevent navigation.

 2.1.6 Other Uses

 States  may adopt other uses  they consider  to be
 necessary.    Some  examples  include coral reef
 preservation,  marinas,  groundwater  recharge,
 aquifer protection,  and hydroelectric  power.
 States  also  may  establish  criteria  specifically
 designed to protect these uses.
         Consider Downstream Uses - 40 CFR
When  designating uses, States  should  consider
extraterritorial  effects  of their  standards.   For
example, once  States revise or adopt standards,
upstream jurisdictions will be  required, when
revising their standards and issuing permits, to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the
downstream standards.
 Despite  the  regulatory requirement  that States
 ensure  downstream  standards  are  met  when
 designating  and  setting   criteria  for  waters,
 occasionally  downstream  standards are not met
 owing to  an upstream pollutant  source.   The
 Clean Water Act offers three solutions  to such
 problems.

 First, the opportunity for public participation for
 new or revised water quality standards provides
 potentially  affected  parties  an  approach   to
 avoiding  conflicts  of water quality standards.
 States and Tribes are encouraged  to  keep other
 States informed of their water quality standards
 efforts and to invite comment  on standards  for
 common water bodies.

 Second, permit limits under the National Pollutant
 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program
 (see section 402  of the Act) are required to be
 developed  such  that applicable water  quality
 standards are achieved.   The  permit issuance
 process  also  includes  opportunity  for   public
 participation  and,  thus,   provides  a  second
 opportunity to consider and  resolve potential
 problems  regarding  extraterritorial  effects  of
 water quality standards.  In a decision in Arkansas
 v. Oklahoma (112 section  1046,  February 26,
 1992), the U.S.  Supreme Court  held that the
 Clean  Water Act  clearly  authorized EPA  to
 require that point sources in upstream States not
 violate water quality standards  in downstream
 States, and that  EPA's interpretation of those
 standards should govern.

Third, NPDES permits issued by EPA are subject
to certification under the requirements of section
401 of the Act.  Section 401 requires  that States
grant,  deny,  or  condition "certification"  for
2-4
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
federally permitted or licensed activities that may
result  in  a discharge to waters  of the United
States.    The  decision  to  grant  or to  deny
certification, or to grant a conditional certification
is based  on a State's detemu'nation regarding
whether the proposed activity will  comply with
applicable  water  quality standards  and  other
provisions.  Thus, States may deny certification
and prohibit EPA  from issuing an NPDES permit
that   would violate  water  quality  standards.
Section 401 also allows a Slate to participate in
extraterritorial  actions that will affect that State's
waters if a federally issued permit is involved.

In addition to  the above sources for solutions,
when the problem arises  between a State and an
Indian Tribe qualified for treatment  as a State for
water  quality  standards, the dispute resolution
mechanism could  be invoked (see section 1.7, of
this Handbook).
         Use Subcategories - 40 CFR 131.10(c)
States are required to designate uses considering,
at a minimum, those uses listed in section 303(c)
of the Clean Water  Act  (i.e., public water
supplies,  propagation    of  fish  and  wildlife,
recreation^  agriculture  and industrial  purposes,
and navigation).  However, flexibility inherent in
the State process for designating  uses allows the
development of subcategories of  uses within the
Act's  general categories  to refine  and  clarify
specific use classes. Clarification of the use class
is particularly helpful when a variety of surface
waters  with distinct characteristics fit within the
same  use class,  or do not  fit  well  into  any
category.   Determination  of non-attainment in
waters  with broad use categories may be difficult
and open to  alternative  interpretations.    If  a
determination  of non-attainment is in dispute,
regulatory actions will be difficult to accomplish
(USEPA, 1990a).

The State selects the level of specificity it desires
for identifying designated uses and subcategories
of uses (such as whether to treat recreation as a
single  use  or  to define   a  subcategory  for
secondary recreation).  However, the State must
be at least as specific as the uses listed in sections
101(a) and 303(c) of the  Clean Water Act.

Subcategories of aquatic life uses may be on the
basis of attainable habitat (e.g., coldwater versus
warmwater   habitat);  innate   differences  in
community  structure  and function  (e.g.,  high
versus low  species richness  or productivity); or
fundamental differences in important community
components  (e.g., warmwater fish  communities
dominated by bass versus catfish).  Special uses
may also be designated  to  protect particularly
unique,  sensitive, or valuable aquatic  species,
communities, or habitats.

Data  collected  from  biosurveys as  part  of a
developing biocriteria program may assist States
in refining  aquatic life use classes  by revealing
consistent differences among aquatic communities
inhabiting different waters of the same designated
use.  Measurable biological attributes could then
be  used to divide  one class into two or  more
subcategories (USEPA, 1990a).

If States adopt subcategories that do not require
criteria sufficient to  fully protect the goal uses in
section 101(a)(2) of the  Act (see section 2.1,
above), a use attainability analysis pursuant to 40
CFR  131.10(j) must be conducted for waters to
which these subcategories are assigned.  Before
adopting  subcategories  of   uses,  States  must
provide  notice  and  opportunity  for  a  public
hearing because these actions are changes to the
standards.
         Attainability  of  Uses   -   40  CFR
 When  designating  uses,  States may  wish  to
 designate  only  the uses  that are  attainable.
 However, if the State does not designate the uses
 specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, the State
 must perform  a  use attainability analysis  under
 section  131.10(j) of the regulation.  States are
 encouraged  to  designate  uses that  the  State
 believes can be attained in the future.
    (8/15/94)
                                                                                          2-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 "Attainable uses"  are, at a minimum,  the uses
 (based  on  the State's  system  of  water  use
 classification)  that can  be  achieved 1) when
 effluent limits under sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B)
 and section 306 of the Act are imposed on point
 source dischargers and 2) when cost-effective and
 reasonable best management practices are imposed
 on nonpoint source dischargers.
         Public Hearing for Changing Uses - 40
         CFR 131.10(e)
The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires
States to provide opportunity for public hearing
before adding or removing a use or establishing
subcategories of a use.  As mentioned in section
2.2   above,   the   State   should  consider
extraterritorial effects of such changes.
         Seasonal Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(£)
In some areas of the country, uses are practical
only  for  limited seasons.   EPA recognizes
seasonal uses in the Water Quality Standards
Regulation.  States may specify the seasonal uses
and criteria protective of that use as well as the
time frame for the "... season, so long as the
criteria do not prevent the attainment of any more
restrictive uses attainable in other seasons."

For  example,  in  many northern  areas,  body
contact recreation is  possible only a few months
out of the year.   Several States have  adopted
 primary  contact  recreational  uses,  and  the
 associated microbiological criteria, for only those
 months when primary contact recreation actually
 occurs,  and  have  relied  on  less  ,stringent
 secondary contact recreation criteria to protect for
 incidental  exposure  in  the   "non-swimming"
 season.

 Seasonal  uses that may require  more stringent
 criteria are uses that protect sensitive organisms
 or life stages during a specific season such as the
 early life stages of fish  and/or  fish  migration
 (e.g., EPA's Ambient Water Quality  Criteria for
 Dissolved Oxygen  (see Appendix  I) recommends
 more stringent dissolved oxygen  criteria  for the
 early life stages of both coldwater and warmwater
 fish).
         Removal of Designated Uses - 40 CFR
         131.10(g) and (h)
Figure 2-1 shows how and when designated uses
may be removed.

2.7.1 Step 1 - Is the Use Existing?

Once a use has been designated  for a particular
water body or segment, the water body or water
body segment  cannot  be  reclassified  for  a
different use except under specific conditions.  If
a designated use is an existing use (as defined in
40 CFR 131.3) for a particular water body, the
existing use cannot  be removed unless a use
requiring more stringent criteria is added (see
   2-6
                                                                                  (8/15/94)

-------
                                                   Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
     Stept
      Step 2 Xls Use
              Specified in
      Step 3
      Step 4
      StepS
                                                  May Not
                                                 Remove Use
                Is Use
               Attainable
                           May Not
                         Remove Use
                                       May Not
                                     Remove Use
131.10(g) factor
     m€>t?
                                     May Remove
 Public Notice
 Figure 2-1.   Process for Removing a Designated Use
(9/15/93)
                                                                    2-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  section 4.4, this Handbook, for further discussion
  of existing uses).  However,  uses requiring more
  stringent criteria may always be added because
  doing so reflects the goal of further improvement
  of water quality.   Thus, a recreational use for
  wading may be deleted if a  recreational use for
  swimming  is added, or the State  may add the
  swimming use and keep the wading use as well.

  2.7.2 Step 2 - Is the Use Specified in Section
 If the State wishes to remove a designated  use
 specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act, the State
 must perform a use attainability analysis (see
 section 131.100)). Section 2.9 of this Handbook
 discusses use attainability analyses for aquatic life
 uses.

 2.7.3 Step 3 - Is the Use Attainable?

 A State may change activities within a specific use
 category but may not change to a use that requires
 less  stringent  criteria,  unless  the  State  can
 demonstrate that the designated use cannot be
 attained.    (See  section  2.4,   above,  for  the
 definition of "attainable uses.")  For example, if
 a  State has  a  broad  aquatic  life use,  EPA
 generally assumes that  the use  will support all
 aquatic life. The State may demonstrate that,  for
 a  specific  water body,  such  parameters  as
 dissolved oxygen or temperature will not support
 trout  but  will   support   perch   when
 technology-based effluent limitations are applied
 to  point   source   dischargers   and    when
 cost-effective and  reasonable best management
 practices are applied to nonpoint sources.
 (1)   naturally occurring pollutant concentrations
       prevent the attainment of the use;

 (2)   natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low-
       flow conditions or water levels prevent the
       attainment  of  the   use,   unless   these
       conditions may be compensated for by the
       discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
       discharges  without  violating State water
       conservation requirements to enable uses to
       be met;

 (3)   human-caused  conditions or  sources  of
       pollution prevent the attainment of the use
       and  cannot be remedied or would cause
       more environmental damage to correct than
       to leave in place;

 (4)   dams,  diversions,   or   other  types  of
       hydrologic  modifications  preclude  the
       attainment of the use, and it is not feasible
       to restore  the  water body  to its original
       condition or to operate such modification in
       a way that would result in the attainment of
       the use;

 (5)   physical conditions related  to the  natural
       features of the water body, such as the lack
      of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth,
      pools, riffles,  and  the like, unrelated to
       [chemical]   water   quality,    preclude
      attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or

 (6)   controls more stringent than those required
      by sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and 306 of
      the Act would result in substantial and
      widespread economic and  social impact.
2.7.4 Step 4 - Is a Factor from 131.10(g) Met?   2.7.5 Step 5 - Provide Public Notice
Even  after   the  previous   steps  have   been
considered, the designated use may be removed,
or subcategories of a use established, only under
the conditions given in section 131.10(g).  The
State must be able to demonstrate that attaining
the designated use is not feasible because:
As provided for in section 131.10(e), States must
provide notice and opportunity for public hearing
in accordance with section 131.20(b) (discussed in
section 6.1 of this Handbook).  Of course, EPA
intends for States to make appropriate use of all
public comments received through such notice.
2-8
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
         Revising  Uses  to  Reflect   Actual
         Attainment <• 40 Cl^R 131.10(i)
When performing its trienniid review, the State
must evaluate what uses are being attained.  If a
water body is designated for a use  that requires
less  stringent criteria than  a use that  is being
attained, the State must revise the use on that
water body to  reflect the  use  that  is being
attained.
         Use Attainability Analyses - 40 CFR
         131.10(j) and (k)
Under  section  131.10(j) of  the  Water  Quality
Standards  Regulation,  States  are required  to
conduct a  use  attainability  analysis  (UAA)
whenever:

(1)   the State designates or  has designated uses
      that do  not include  the  uses specified in
      section 101(a)(2) of this Act; or

(2)   the State wishes to remove a designated use
      that is specified in section 101(a)(2) of the
      Act or adopt subcategories of uses specified
      in   section  101(a)(2)  that  require  less
      stringent criteria.

States are not required to  conduct UAAs when
designating uses  that include those specified in
section 101(a)(2) of the Act, although they may
conduct   these  or   similar   analyses   when
determining  the  appropriate  subcategories  of
section 101(a)(2) goal uses.
States may also conduct generic use attainability
analyses for groups of water body  segments
provided that the circumstances relating to the
segments in  question are sufficiently similar to
make  the  results  of  the   generic   analyses
reasonably applicable to each segment.

As defined  in  the Water  Quality  Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 131.3), a use  attainability
analysis is:

   ... a  structured scientific assessment  of
   the factors affecting  the attainment of a use
   which  may include  physical, chemical,
   biological,  and  economic   factors   as
   described in section  131.10(g).

The  evaluations  conducted   in  a  UAA  will
determine  the  attainable uses  for  a  water body
(see sections 2.4 and 2.8, above).

The physical,  chemical, and  biological factors
affecting the attainment of a  use are  evaluated
through a -water body survey and assessment. The
guidance on water  body survey and assessment
techniques that appears in  this Handbook  is for
the evaluation  of fish,  aquatic life,  and wildlife
uses only  (EPA  has not developed guidance for
assessing recreational uses). Water body surveys
and assessments conducted by the States should be
sufficiently  detailed to answer   the  following
questions:

• What are the aquatic use(s) currently  being
   achieved  in the water body?

• What are the  causes of any impairment  of the
   aquatic uses?

• What are the aquatic use(s)  that can be attained
   based on the physical, chemical, and biological
   characteristics of the water body?

The  analysis  of economic  factors  determines
 whether substantial  and widespread economic and
 social  impact would   be  caused  by pollution
 control requirements more stringent than (1) those
 required under sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and
 (9/15/93)
                                                                                              2-9

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 section  306  of  the  Act  for  point  source
 dischargers, and (2) cost-effective and reasonable
 best management  practices for nonpoint source
 dischargers.

 2.9.1 Water Body  Survey  and Assessment -
       Purpose and Application

 The purpose of this section is  to  identify the
 physical,  chemical,  and  biological  factors that
 may be examined to determine whether an aquatic
 life protection use is attainable  for a given water
 body.   The  specific analyses  included in this
 guidance are optional.  However, they represent
 the type of analyses EPA believes are sufficient
 for States to justify changes in uses designated in
 a water quality standard and to  determine  uses
 that  are attainable.   States may  use alternative
 analyses  as long as  they  are  scientifically and
 technically   supportable.      This   guidance
 specifically addresses  streams and river systems.
 More detailed guidance is given in the Technical
 Support   Manual:   Waterbody  Surveys   and
 Assessments for  Conducting Use  Attainability
 Analyses,  Volume I (USEPA, 1983c).  EPA has
 also developed guidance for estuarine and marine
 systems and  lakes,   which  is  summarized in
 following  sections.  More  detailed guidance for
 these aquatic systems is available in the Technical
 Support Manual, Volume 11,  Estuarine Systems,
 and Volume III, Lake Systems (USEPA, 1984a,b).

 Several approaches for analyzing the aquatic life
 protection  uses to determine if  such  uses  are
 appropriate for a given water body are discussed.
 States are encouraged to  use  existing data to
 perform the physical, chemical,  and biological
 evaluations presented in this guidance document.
 Not  all of these  evaluations  are  necessarily
 applicable.  For example, if an assessment reveals
 that the physical habitat is the limiting  factor
 precluding a use, a chemical evaluation would not
 be  required.   In addition,  wherever possible,
 States also should consider  grouping together
 water bodies having similar physical, chemical,
 and   biological  characteristics  either  to treat
 several  water bodies  or stream segments as  a
 single unit or to establish representative conditions
 applicable to other similar water bodies or stream
 segments within a river basin.   Using existing
 data and  establishing  representative conditions
 applicable  to  a  number  of water  bodies or
 segments should conserve the limited resources
 available to the States.

 Table  2-1  summarizes the  types  of physical,
 chemical,  and  biological  factors that  may be
 evaluated  when conducting  a  UAA.   Several
 approaches  can be  used for  conducting the
 physical, chemical, and biological evaluations,
 depending  on  the complexity  of the situation.
 Details on the various evaluations can be found in
 the  Technical  Support  Manual:    Waterbody
 Surveys and Assessments for  Conducting  Use
 Attainability Analyses, Volume I (USEPA, 1983c).
 A survey need not consider all of the parameters
 listed; rather, the survey should be designed on
 the basis of the water body  characteristics and
 other considerations relevant  to  a  particular
 survey.

 These approaches may be adapted to the water
 body  being examined.    Therefore,   a  close
 working relationship between EPA and the States
 is  essential  so  that EPA  can  assist States in
 determining the appropriate analyses to be used in
 support of any water quality standards revisions.
 These analyses should  be  made available to all
 interested parties before any public forums on the
 water quality standards to allow for full discussion
 of the data and analyses.

 2.9.2    Physical Factors

 Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act recognizes
 the importance of preserving the physical integrity
 of  the Nation's water  bodies.  Physical habitat
 plays an important role in the overall aquatic
 ecosystem and impacts the types and number of
 species  present in a particular  body  of water.
Physical parameters of a water body are examined
to identify factors that impair the propagation and
protection of aquatic life and  to determine what
uses could be obtained in the  water body given
such limitations.  In general, physical parameters
such as flow, temperature, water depth, velocity,
2-10
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                        Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
       PHYSICAL
         characteristics
       » size
         width/depth}
       - Sow/velocity  .
       - antwal hydrology
       - total volume
        - temperature
        <• sedimeatatJon
        -channel
          modifications
        * channel stability

        * substrate
         composition and
         characteristics

        4 channel debris

        4 sludge deposits

        4 riparian
         characteristics

        * downstream
         characteristics
CHEMICAL gACTOttS

4 dissolved oxygen

4 toxicants

4 suspended solids

4 nutrients
 - nitrogen
 - phosphorus
        ','
4 sediment oxygen
  demand

4 salinity

4 hardness

• alkalinity

4 pH

 4 dissolved solids
BTOLflftlCAL FACTORS

4 biological
  inventory
  (existing use
  analysis)
 -fish
 - mactolaverteferates
 - microiavertebrates
 - phytoplankton
 - peripfeytoa
 - maerap&ytes

 4 biological
  potential
  analysis
 * diversity indices
 - H$I models
 - tissue Analyses
 * recovery index
 - intolerant species analysis
 - omnivore-earnivore
, analysis

 4 biological
   potential
   analysis
 - reference  react
    comparison
  Table 2-1.  Summary of Typical Factors Used in Conducting a Water  Body Survey  and
              Assessment
substrate, reaeration rates, and other factors are
used to identify any physical limitations that may
preclude  attainment  of  the  designated  use.
Depending on the water body in question, any of
the physical parameters listed in Table 2-1 may be
appropriately examined. A State may use any of
these parameters to  identify physical limitations
and characteristics of a water body. Once a State
has identified any physical limitations based on
evaluating   the   parameters  listed,    careful
consideration of "reversibility" or the ability to
restore the physical integrity of the water body
should be made.
            Such considerations may include whether it would
            cause more environmental damage to correct the
            problem than to leave the water  body as is, or
            whether physical impediments such as dams can
            be  operated or modified in a  way that would
            allow attainment of the use.

            Several   assessment   techniques  have   been
            developed   that   correlate  physical   habitat
            characteristics  to  fishery  resources.     The
            identification of physical factors limiting a fishery
            is a critical assessment that provides important
            data for  management of  the water body.   The
            U.S.  Fish  and Wildlife Service  has developed
            habitat evaluation  procedures (HEP) and habitat
 (9/15/93)
                                                                                               2-11

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  suitability indices (HSI).   Several  States have
  begun  developing  their  own  models  and
  procedures for habitat assessments.  Parameters
  generally   included   in   habitat  assessment
  procedures are temperature, turbidity, velocity,
  depth, cover,  pool and riffle  sizes,  riparian
  vegetation, bank  stability, and siltation.   These
  parameters are  correlated  to fish  species  by
  evaluating the habitat variables important to the
  life cycle of the species.  The value of habitat for
  other groups  of aquatic   organisms  such  as
  macroinvertebrates and periphyton also may be
  considered. Continued research and refinement of
  habitat  evaluation   procedures  reflect  the
  importance of physical  habitat.

  If physical limitations of a stream restrict the use,
  a variety of habitat modification techniques might
  restore a habitat so that a species could  thrive
  where  it  could  not   before.    Some of the
  techniques  that   have  been  used  are   bank
  stabilization,  flow control,  current  deflectors,
  check dams, artificial meanders, isolated oxbows,
  snag   clearing   when   determined not  to be
  detrimental to the life cycle or reproduction of a
  species, and  installation of  spawning beds and
 artificial spawning channels.  If the habitat is a
 limiting factor to the propagation and/or survival
 of aquatic  life, the  feasibility of  modifications
 might be examined before additional controls are
 imposed on dischargers.

 2.9.3  Chemical Evaluations

 The chemical characteristics of a water body are
 examined to determine why a designated  use is
 not being met and to determine the potential of a
 particular species to survive in the water body if
 the concentration of particular chemicals  were
 modified.   The  State   has  the  discretion to
 determine the parameters required to perform an
 adequate water  chemistry evaluation.  A partial
 list of the parameters that may be evaluated is
 provided in Table 2-1.

 As part of the evaluation of the water chemistry
 composition, a natural background evaluation is
 useful  in determining the relative contribution of
  natural background contaminants  to  the water
  body;  this  may  be  a  legitimate factor  that
  effectively prevents a designated use from being
  met.    To  determine  whether   the   natural
  background  concentration  of  a  pollutant  is
  adversely impacting the survival of species, the
  concentration may be compared to one of the
  following:

  • 304(a) criteria guidance documents; or

  • site-specific criteria;  or

  • State-derived criteria.

  Another way  to  obtain  an  indication  of  the
  potential for the species to survive is to determine
  if the species are found in other waterways with
  similar chemical concentrations.

 In determining whether human-caused pollution is
 irreversible, consideration needs to be given to the
 permanence of the damage,  the  feasibility of
 abating   the   pollution,   or   the   additional
 environmental  damage  that  may  result  from
 removing the pollutants.  Once a State  identifies
 the chemical or water quality characteristics that
 are limiting attainment of the use, differing levels
 of remedial control measures may be explored.
 In addition,  if instream  toxicants  cannot  be
 removed  by  natural processes  and cannot  be
 removed   by  human   effort   without  severe
 long-term  environmental impacts, the  pollution
 may be considered irreversible.

 In some areas, the water's chemical characteristics
 may have to be  calculated using predictive water
 quality models.  This will be true if the receiving
 water is to  be impacted  by new dischargers,
 changes  in land  use,  or  improved treatment
 facilities.  Guidance is available on the selection
 and use of receiving water models for biochemical
 oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia
 for instream  systems  (USEPA,  1983d,e)  and
dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus for
lake   systems,  reservoirs,   and  impoundments
(USEPA, 1983f).
2-12
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
2.9.4 Biological Evaluations

In evaluating what aquatic life protection uses are
attainable,  the biology of the water body should
be evaluated.  The interrelationships between the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
are  complex,  and  alterations  in  the physical
and/or chemical  parameters result in biological
changes.  The biological evaluation described in
this section encourages States to:

•  provide a more  precise  statement of which
   species  exist in the water body and should be
   protected;

•  determine the  biological health of the water
   body; and

•  determine the species  that  could potentially
   exist in the water body if  the physical and
   chemical  factors  impairing  a  use   were
   corrected.

This section of  the guidance  will  present the
conceptual  framework    for   making    these
evaluations.   States have the  discretion to use
other  scientifically  and technically  supportable
assessment methodologies d
-------
  Wafer Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  Before any field work is conducted, existing data
  should be collected.  EPA can provide data from
  intensive monitoring surveys and special studies.
  Data,  especially for fish, may be available from
  State  fish  and  game departments,  recreation
  agencies,  and  local  governments,  or  through
  environmental impact statements, permit reviews,
  surveys, and university or other studies.

    Biological   Condition/Biological  Health
    Assessment

 The biological  inventory  can be  used  to gain
 insight into the biological health of the water body
 by evaluating:
    species richness or the number of species;
    presence of intolerant species;
    proportion of omnivores and carnivores;
    biomass or production; and
    number of individuals per species.
 The role  of the biologist  becomes critical  in
 evaluating  the  health of the  biota  because the
 knowledge of  expected  richness  or  expected
 species  comes  only from  understanding  the
 general biological traits  and regimes of the area.
 Best professional judgments by local biologists are
 important.  These judgments are based  on many
 years  of experience  and on observations of the
 physical and chemical changes  that have occurred
 over time.

 Many methods for evaluating biotic communities
 have been and  continue to be developed.   The
 Technical Support Manual for Conducting  Use
Attainability Analyses (USEPA, 1983c) and Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers (USEPA, 1989e) describe methods  that
States  may want  to consider  using   in  their
biological evaluations.

A number of other methods have been and are
being  developed  to  evaluate  the  health  of
biological components of the aquatic ecosystem
including  short-term  in situ  or  laboratory
bioassays and partial or fuU life-cycle toxicity
tests.  These methods are discussed in several
  EPA  publications,  including  the  Biological
  Methods Manual (USEPA, 1972).  Again, it is
  not the intent of this document to specify tests to
  be conducted by the States. This will depend on
  the information available, the predictive accuracy
  required, site-specific  conditions of the water
  body being examined,  and the cooperation and
  assistance the State receives  from  the  affected
  municipalities and industries.

     Biological Potential Analysis

  A significant step in the use attainability analysis
  is  the  evaluation of  what communities  could
  potentially exist in  a particular water  body  if
  pollution were abated or if the physical habitat
  were  modified.  The approach presented is to
  compare the water body in question  to reference
  reaches within a region.  This approach includes
  the development of baseline conditions to facilitate
  the comparison of  several water  bodies at less
 cost.   As with the  other analyses mentioned
 previously, available data  should  be  used  to
 minimize resource impacts.

 The biological potential analysis involves:

 •  defining boundaries of fish faunal  regions;

 •  selecting  control sampling  sites in  the
    reference reaches of each area;

 •  sampling fish and recording observations at
    each reference sampling site;

 •  establishing the community characteristics
    for the reference reaches of each area; and

 •  comparing the water body in question to the
    reference reaches.

In  establishing  faunal regions  and  sites,  it is
important to select reference areas for sampling
sites that have conditions typical of the region.

The establishment of reference areas may be
based on physical and hydrological characteristics.
The number of reference reaches needed will be
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
determined  by  the  State  depending  on  the
variability of the waterways within the State and
the number of classes that the State may wish to
establish.  For example,  the State may  want to
use  size, flow, and substrate  as the defining
characteristics and may consequently desire to
establish  classes  such  as  small,  fast  running
streams with sandy substrate or large, slow rivers
with cobble bottom.   It is at  the  option of the
State to:

•  choose the parameters to be used in classifying
   and establishing reference reaches; and

•  determine the number of classes (and thus the
   refinement) within the fauna! region.

This approach can also be applied to other aquatic
organisms such as  macroinvertebrates (particularly
freshwater mussels) and algae.

Selection of the reference reaches is of critical
importance  because the  characteristics of  the
aquatic  community  will  be  used to  establish
baseline conditions against which similar reaches
 (based   on   physical   and   hydrological
 characteristics) are companjd. Once the reference
 reaches  are  established,  the water  body  in
 question can be compared to the reference reach.
 The results of this analysis will reveal whether the
 water body in question has the typical  biota for
 that class or a less desirable community and will
 provide  an  indication  of what species  may
 potentially exist if pollution were abated or the
 physical habitat limitations were remedied.

 2.9.5 Approaches to Conducting the Physical,
       Chemical,  and Biological Evaluations

 In some cases, States that assess the status of their
 aquatic resources, will have relatively simple
 situations not requiring extensive data collection
 and evaluation.  In other situations, however, the
 complexity resulting from variable environmental
 conditions and the stress from multiple uses of the
 resource will require both intensive and extensive
 studies to produce a  sound  evaluation of the
 system.    Thus,   procedures  that a State may
develop for conducting a water body assessment
should be flexible enough to be adaptable to  a
variety of site-specific conditions.

A  common   experimental   approach  used  in
biological assessments has  been  a hierarchical
approach to the analyses.  This can be a rigidly
tiered approach.  An alternative is presented in
Figure 2-2.

The flow  chart  is  a general illustration  of  a
thought process used to conduct a use attainability
analysis.     The  process  illustrates   several
alternative  approaches  that can  be  pursued
separately or, to varying degrees, simultaneously
depending on:

•  the amount of data available on the site;

•  the  degree  of  accuracy  and  precision
    required;

•  the importance of the resource;

 •  the  site-specific conditions  of the  study
    area; and

 •  the controversy associated with the site.

 The degree of sophistication is variable for each
 approach. Emphasis is placed  on  evaluating
 available data first.  If information is found to  be
 lacking or incomplete, then field testing or field
 surveys should be conducted.

 The  major elements of  the process  are briefly
 described below.

    Steps 1 and 2

 Steps 1 and 2 are the basic organizing steps in the
 evaluation process.   By carefully defining the
 objectives and scope of the  evaluation, there will
 be some indication of the level of sophistication
 required in subsequent surveys and testing. States
 and the regulated community can then adequately
 plan and allocate resources  to the analyses. The
 designated use  of the  water body in  question
  (9/15/93)
                                                                                            2-1-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
                   Stepf
                   Step 2
                   Step 3
                  Step 4

                  Steps
          - Cftemfoalaurvey,ri

        t
         B-
        D-
                 Step 6
                 Step?
                                              dMtenato
                                              physical, chemical, and bioioflfeai
                                      minimum raqufetmenti for UM
                                      Etiabbhdatanawfe
                                      Qaftwr wiring date
       AnaJyzswdafngdata
                                               Data Inadequate
Bated on Mowing criteria choose on*
approach (Step 5) for conducting
evaluation:
                                         1
       AvtiWrftdtt*
       Accurtcy and precision nawM
       hnportano* of IMOUTM
                                             HIM end moiwy avalabto
                                  Dttaadequate-proem* to Stop 6 I
    »«toct rvfaranc* water bodto*
                                                               and important spadea
                                                      and biochemical aaeeya, pnducthMVreeplration eatlmate*
                                    Integrate Information
                                    SummarbvconckMkjn*
                                    Da1wmin*lf«ddKk>naJin(orinationlsnMd«i
                               Mak» recornmendaHoiw concerning water body potonfel,
                                  dMkMl ItvtJ of attainability,
Mgure 2-2. Steps in a Use Attainability Analysis
                                                                                                 (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
should be identified as well  as the minimum
chemical, physical,  and biological requirements
for maintaining the use.  Minimum requirements
may  include,  for  example,  dissolved  oxygen
levels, flow rates, temperature, and other factors.
All relevant information on the water body should
be  collected  to  determine   if  the available
information  is adequate  for  conducting  an
appropriate level of analysis.   It is assumed that
all.water body evaluations, based on existing data,
will either formally or informally be conducted
through Steps 1 and 2.

   Steps 3 and 4

If the available information proves  inadequate,
then   decisions   regarding   the   degree  of
sophistication required in the evaluation process
will need to be made.  These decisions will, most
likely, be based on the five criteria listed in Step
3  of Figure 2-2.   Based on these decisions,
reference areas should be chosen  (Step 4), and
one or more of the  testing approaches should be
followed.

   Steps 5A, B, C, D

These approaches  are  presented  to  illustrate
several possible ways of  analyzing the water
body. For example, in some cases chemical data
may  be  readily available for  a water body but
little or no biological information is known.  In
this case, extensive chemical sampling may not be
required, but enough samples should be taken to
confirm  the accuracy of the available data set.
Thus, to accurately define the biological condition
of the resource, 5C may be chosen, but 5A may
be pursued in a less intensive way to supplement
the chemical data already available.

Step 5A is a general survey to establish relatively
coarse ranges for physical and chemical variables,
and the  numbers and relative  abundances of the
biological  components  (fishes,  invertebrates,
primary producers) in the v/ater body. Reference
areas may or may not need! to be evaluated here,
depending on the types of questions being asked
and the degree of accuracy required.
Step 5B focuses more narrowly on site-specific
problem areas with the intent of separating, where
possible,  biological  impacts  due  to physical
habitat  alteration versus those  due to chemical
impacts.   These  categories  are  not mutually
exclusive but some attempt should be made to
define the causal factors in a stressed area so that
appropriate control  measures can be implemented
if necessary.

Step 5C would be conducted to evaluate possibly
important trends  in the  spatial and/or temporal
changes associated  with the physical, chemical,
and biological variables of interest.  In general,
more rigorous quantification of these variables
would be needed to allow for more sophisticated
statistical analyses  between reference and study
areas which would,  in turn, increase the degree of
accuracy and confidence in the predictions based
on this  evaluation.   Additional laboratory testing
may  be  included,  such  as  tissue  analyses,
behavioral tests,  algal assays, or tests for flesh
tainting.  Also, high-level chemical analyses  may
be needed, particularly if the presence of toxic
compounds is suspected.

Step  5D is,  in some respects, the most  detailed
level of study. Emphasis  is  placed  on  refining
cause-effect   relationships   between   physical-
chemical alterations and the biological responses
previously established from available data  or steps
5A through 5C.  In many  cases, state-of-the-art
techniques will be used.  This pathway would be
conducted by the States  only where it  may be
necessary  to establish,  with a high degree of
confidence, the cause-effect relationships  that are
producing   the   biological   community
characteristics   of  those   areas.      Habitat
requirements or tolerance limits for representative
or important species may have to  be  determined
for  those factors limiting the potential of the
ecosystem.  For these evaluations, partial or full
life-cycle toxicity tests, algal assays, and sediment
bioassays may be needed along with  the shorter
term bioassays designed  to  elucidate sublethal
effects  not readily apparent  in  toxicity tests
(e.g.,   preference-avoidance   responses,
 (9/15/93)
                                          2-17

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  production-respiration
  bioconcentration estimates).

     Steps 6 and 7
estimates,   and      Physical Processes
  After field sampling is completed, all data must
  be integrated and summarized. If this information
  is still not adequate, then further testing may be
  required and a more  detailed pathway chosen.
  With adequate data, States should be able to make
  reasonably specific recommendations concerning
  the natural potential of the water body, levels of
  attainability consistent  with this  potential, and
  appropriate use designations.

  The evaluation procedure outlined  here allows
  States  a  significant  degree  of  latitude  for
  designing assessments to meet their specific goals
  in water quality and water use.

 2.9.6 Estuarine Systems

 This section provides an overview of the factors
 that  should  be considered  in  developing use
 attainability  analyses   for   estuaries.   Anyone
 planning to conduct a use attainability analysis for
 an estuary should consult the Technical Support
 Manual:  Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for
 Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, Volume II:
 Estuarine Systems  (USEPA,  1984a) for more
 detailed guidance. Also, much of the information
 for streams and rivers that is presented above and
 in Volume I  of the Technical Support  Manual,
 particularly with respect to chemical evaluations,
 will apply to estuaries and is not repeated here.

 The term "estuaries" is generally used to denote
 the lower reaches of a river where tide and river
 flows  interact.   Estuaries  are very  complex
 receiving waters  that  are  highly  variable  in
 description and are not absolutes in definition,
 size,  shape,  aquatic life,  or other  attributes.
 Physical,  chemical, and biological attributes may
 require consideration unique to estuaries and are
 discussed below.
                     Estuarine  flows  are the result  of a complex
                     interaction of the following physical factors:
                       tides;
                       wind shear;
                       freshwater inflow (momentum and buoyancy);
                       topographic factional resistance;
                       Coriolis effect;
                       vertical mixing; and
                       horizontal mixing.
                    In performing a use attainability study, one may
                    simplify  the  complex  prototype  system  by
                    determining which of these effects or combination
                    of effects is most important at the time scale of
                    the evaluation (days, months, seasons, etc.).

                    Other ways to simplify the approach to analyzing
                    an estuary is to place it in a broad classification
                    system to permit comparison  of similar types of
                    estuaries.  The most common groupings are based
                    on  geomorphology,  stratification,  circulation
                    patterns,  and  time  scales.    Each of  these
                    groupings is discussed below.

                    Geomorphological classifications can include types
                    such as  drowned  river valleys  (coastal plain
                    estuaries), fjords, bar-built estuaries,  and other
                    estuaries  that   do   not  fit  the  first  three
                    classifications  (those  produced   by  tectonic
                    activity,   faulting,   landslides,   or   volcanic
                    eruptions).

                    Stratification is most often used for classifying
                    estuaries  influenced  by  tides  and  freshwater
                    inflows.   Generally, highly stratified estuaries
                    have large river discharges flowing  into them,
                    partially  mixed  estuaries  have  medium  river
                    discharges;  and  vertically  homogeneous  have
                    small river discharges.

                    Circulation  in an  estuary  (i.e.,   the  velocity
                   patterns  as they change  over  time) is primarily
                   affected  by  the  freshwater  outflow,  the tidal
                   inflow,  and  the  effect of  wind.   In  turn,  the
                   difference in  density  between outflow and inflow
2-18
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
sets up  secondary currents that ultimately affect
the salinity distribution across the estuary.  The
salinity distribution is important because it affects
the distribution of fauna and flora  within  the
estuary.   It  is  also  important because  it  is
indicative of the mixing properties of the estuary
as they may affect the dispersion of pollutants
(flushing properties).  Additional  factors  such as
friction forces  and the size  and geometry of the
estuary  also contribute to the circulation patterns.
The  complex  geometry   of   estuaries,   in
combination with the presence of wind, the effect
of the Earth's rotation  (Coriolis effect), and other
effects, often results in residual currents  (i.e., of
longer period than the tidal cycle) that  strongly
influence the mixing processes in estuaries.

Consideration  of time  scales  of the  physical
processes being evaluated is very important for
any water quality study.

Short-term conditions  are much more influenced
by a variety  of short-termi events that  perhaps
have to be  analyzed  to evsiluate a "worst case"
scenario. Longer term (seasonal) conditions are
influenced  predominantly  by  events  that  are
averaged over the duration of that time scale.

    Estuary  Substrate Composition

Characterization of sediment/substrate properties
is important in a use attainability analysis because
such properties:

•  determine the extent to which toxic compounds
    in sediments are available to the biota; and
         t*
        s*M
 •%^^AK
 *
-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  from external phenomena.  This function may be
  particularly important during wet weather periods
  when relatively high stream flows discharge high
  loads of sediment and pollutants to the estuary.
  The wetlands slow the peak  velocity,  to  some
  extent  alleviate the  sudden  shock of  salinity
  changes, and filter some of the sediments and
  nutrients that would  otherwise be discharged
  directly into the estuary.

     Hydrology and Hydraulics

  The two most important sources of freshwater to
  the estuary are  stream flow  and precipitation.
  Stream  flow  generally represents  the  greatest
  contribution to the estuary.  The location of the
  salinity gradient in a river-controlled estuary is to
  a large extent a function of stream flow.  Location
  of  the  iso-concentration  lines may  change
  considerably,  depending  upon whether  stream
  flow is high or low.  This in turn may affect the
  biology of  the estuary, resulting in population
  shifts as biological species  adjust to changes in
  salinity.  Most estuarine  species are adapted to
  survive temporary changes  in  salinity either by
  migration  or  some  other  mechanism  (e.g.,
  mussels can close their shells).   However, many
 cannot  withstand  these  changes  indefinitely.
 Response of an estuary to rainfall events depends
 upon the intensity of rainfall, the drainage area
 affected  by the  rainfall,  and  the size of  the
 estuary.  Movement of the salt front is dependent
 upon tidal influences and freshwater flow to the
 estuary.  Variations in  salinity  generally follow
 seasonal  patterns such  that the  salt front will
 occur farther down-estuary during a rainy season
 than during  a dry season.   The salinity profile
 also may vary from day to day, reflecting the
 effect of individual rainfall events, and  may
 undergo  major  changes  due  to  extreme
 meteorological events.

 Anthropogenic activity also may have a significant
 effect on salinity  in  an estuary.  When feeder
 streams are used as sources of public water supply
and the withdrawals are not returned, freshwater
flow to the estuary is reduced, and the salt wedge
is found  farther up the estuary.   If the water is
  returned,  usually  in the  form  of wastewater
  effluent, the salinity gradient of the estuary may
  not  be  affected,   although  other   problems
  attributable to nutrients and other pollutants in the
  wastewater may occur.

  Salinity also may  be affected by the way that
  dams along the river are operated.  Flood control
  dams result in controlled discharges to the estuary
  rather than relatively short but massive discharge
  during high-flow periods.    Dams operated to
  impound water for water supplies during low-flow
  periods  may drastically  alter the  pattern  of
  freshwater flow to  the estuary, and although the
  annual discharge may remain the same, seasonal
  changes may have  significant impact on the
  estuary and its biota.

    Influence of Physical Characteristics on Use
    Attainability

  "Segmentation" of an estuary can provide a useful
 framework  for  evaluating   the  influence of
 estuarine  physical   characteristics   such   as
 circulation, mixing, salinity, and geomorphology
 on  use  attainability.     Segmentation  is   the
 compartmentalization of an estuary into subunits
 with homogeneous physical characteristics. In the
 absence   of   water   pollution,   physical
 characteristics of different regions of the estuary
 tend to. govern the  suitability for  major  water
 uses.  Once the segment  network is established,
 each  segment  can  be   subjected  to a  use
 attainability   analysis.      In  addition,   the
 segmentation process offers a useful management
 structure for monitoring conformance with  water
 quality goals in future years.

 The segmentation process is an  evaluation tool
 that recognizes that an estuary is an interrelated
 ecosystem composed of chemically, physically,
 and biologically diverse areas.  It assumes that an
 ecosystem as diverse as  an estuary cannot  be
 effectively managed  as only one  unit because
 different uses and associated water  quality  goals
 will  be  appropriate   and  feasible  for  different
regions of the estuary. However, after developing
a network based  upon physical  characteristics,
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
sediment boundaries can be refined with available
chemical and biological data to  maximize the
homogeneity of each segment.

A  potential  source  of  concern  about  the
construction  and  utility  of  the segmentation
scheme for use attainability evaluations is that the
estuary is a fluid system with only a few obvious
boundaries,  such  as the  sea  surface and the
sediment-water interface.  Fixed boundaries may
seem unnatural to scientists, managers, and users,
who are more likely to view  the estuary as a
continuum   than   as  a  system  composed  of
separable parts.   The best approach  to  dealing
with such concerns is a segmentation scheme that
stresses the dynamic nature of the estuary.  The
scheme  should   emphasize  that the  segment
boundaries are operationally defined constructs to
assist   in   understanding   a  changeable,
intercommunicating   system    of    channels,
embayments, and tributaries.

To account for the dynamic nature of the estuary,
it is  recommended  that  estuarine  circulation
patterns be a prominent factor in delineating the
segment network.  Circulation patterns control the
transport of and residence times for heat, salinity,
phytoplankton, nutrients,  sediment,  and other
pollutants throughout the estuary. Salinity should
be another important  factor in  delineating the
segment  network.   The variations  in  salinity
concentrations from head  of tide to  the mouth
typically produce  a  separation  of   biological
communities  based on  salinity  tolerances  or
preferences.

   Chemical Parameters

The most critical chemical water quality indicators
for aquatic  use  attainment  in  an estuary are
dissolved oxygen, nutrients and chlorophyll-a, and
toxicants. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is an important
water quality indicator for all fisheries uses.  In
evaluating  use attainability, assessments of DO
impacts should consider the relative contributions
of three different sources of oxygen demand:
•  photosynthesis/respiration   demand  from
   phytoplankton;

•  water column demand; and

•  benthic oxygen demand.

If use impairment is occurring, assessments of the
significance of each oxygen sink can be used to
evaluate the feasibility  of  achieving  sufficient
pollution control to  attain the designated use.

Chlorophyll-a is the most popular indicator of
algal concentrations and nutrient overenrichment,
which  in turn can be  related to diurnal  DO
depressions due to algal respiration. Typically, the
control  of  phosphorus  levels can  limit  algal
growth  near the head of the estuary,  while the
control  of nitrogen  levels can  limit algal growth
near the mouth  of  the  estuary; however, these
relationships are dependent upon factors such as
nitrogen phosphorus  ("N/P")  ratios  and  light
penetration potential, which can vary  from one
estuary  to  the next.   Excessive  phytoplankton
concentrations,  as  indicated  by  chlorophyll-a
levels,  can cause adverse DO impacts such as:

•  wide diurnal variations in surface DO due to
   daytime photosynthetic oxygen production and
   nighttime oxygen depletion by respiration; and

•  depletion   of   bottom   DO   through  the
   decomposition of dead algae.

Excessive  chlorophyll-a levels also  result in
shading, which  reduces light penetration for
submerged   aquatic   vegetation   (SAV).
Consequently, the  prevention »of  nutrient over-
enrichment is probably the most important water
quality   requirement   for   a  healthy   SAV
community.

The nutrients of greatest concern  in the estuary
are nitrogen  and  phosphorus.   Their sources
typically are discharges  from sewage  treatment
plants and industries and runoff from urban and
agricultural areas.   Increased nutrient levels lead
to  phytoplankton   blooms  and   a  subsequent
(9/15/93)
                                         2-21

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 reduction in DO levels and light penetration, as
 discussed above.

 Sewage treatment plants are typically the major
 source of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, to
 estuaries  in urban areas. Agricultural land uses
 and urban land uses represent significant nonpoint
 sources of nutrients, particularly nitrogen.  It is
 important  to base  control  strategies   on  an
 understanding of the  sources of each  type of
 nutrient, both in  the  estuary and in its feeder
 streams.

 Point sources of nutrients are typically much more
 amenable to  control  than  nonpoint  sources.
 Because   phosphorus  removal  for  municipal
 wastewater discharges  is typically less expensive
 than nitrogen removal operations, the control of
 phosphorus  discharges is  often  the method of
 choice for  the  prevention or reversal   of  use
 impairment in the upper estuary (i.e., tidal fresh
 zone).   However, nutrient control in the upper
 reaches of the estuary may cause algal blooms in
 the lower reaches, e.g., control of phosphorus in
 the upper reaches may reduce the algal blooms
 there, but in doing so also increase the amount of
 nitrogen transported  to the lower reaches where
 nitrogen is the limiting nutrient causing a bloom
 there. Tradeoffs between nutrient controls  for the
 upper and lower estuary should be considered in
 evaluating measures  for prevention of reversing
 use impairment.

 Potential interferences from toxic substances, such
 as  pesticides, herbicides,   heavy  metals,  and
 chlorinated effluents, also need to be considered
 in  a  use attainability study.  The presence of
 certain  toxicants, in   excessive  concentrations
 within bottom sediments of the water column may
 prevent the attainment of water uses (particularly
 fisheries  propagation/harvesting  and sea grass
 habitat uses) in estuary segments that satisfy water
 quality  criteria for DO,  chlorophyll-a/nutrient
 enrichment, and fecal coliform.
    Biological Community Characteristics

 The  Technical  Support  Manual,  Volume  II
 (USEPA,  1984a) provides a discussion  of the
 organisms typically found  in estuarie$ in more
 detail than  is appropriate for  this Handbook.
 Therefore,  this discussion will focus on more
 general characteristics of estuarine biota and their
 adaptations  to   accommodate  a   fluctuating
 environment.

 Salinity,   light   penetration,   and   substrate
 composition are  the most critical factors to the
 distribution  and  survival  of  plant and  animal
 communities  in  an   estuary.    The  estuarine
 environment is characterized by variations  in
 circulation, salinity, temperature, and dissolved
 oxygen supply.  Colonizing plants and animals
 must  be  able  to  withstand  the   fluctuating
 conditions in estuaries.

 The depth to which attached plants may become
 established is limited by turbidity because plants
 require light for  photosynthesis. Estuaries are
 typically turbid because  of large quantities of
 detritus  and  silt contributed  by  surrounding
 marshes and rivers. Algal growth also may hinder
 light  penetration. If too much light is withheld
 from the  lower depths,  animals  cannot  rely
 heavily on visual  cues  for  habitat  selection,
 feeding, or finding a mate.

 Estuarine  organisms are recruited from the  sea,
 freshwater environments,  and  the  land.    The
 major environmental factors to which  organisms
 must   adjust   are  periodic   submersion   and
 desiccation  as  well  as  fluctuating  salinity,
 temperature, and dissolved oxygen.

Several generalizations concerning the responses
of estuarine organisms to salinity have been noted
(Vernberg, 1983) and reflect a correlation of an
organism's habitat to its tolerance:

• organisms living in estuaries subjected to wide
  salinity  fluctuations  can withstand  a  wider
  range of salinities than  species that occur in
  high-salinity estuaries;
2-22
                                                                                        (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                      Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
•  intertidal zone animals tend to tolerate wider
   ranges  of  salinities  than  do  subtidal  and
   open-ocean organisms;

•  low intertidal species are less tolerant of low
   salinities than are high intertidal species; and

•  more sessile  animals  are  likely to be more
   tolerant of fluctuating salinities man organisms
   that  are  highly  mobile  and  capable  of
   migrating during times of salinity stress.

Estuaries are  generally  characterized  by  low
diversity of species but high productivity because
they serve as the nursery or breeding grounds for
some species.  Methods to measure the biological
health and diversity of estuaries are discussed in
USEPA (1984a).

   Techniques for Use Attainability Evaluations

In assessing use levels for aiquatic life protection,
determination of the present use and whether this
corresponds to the designated use is evaluated in
terms  of biological measurements and indices.
However, if the present use? does not correspond
to the designated, use, physical and chemical
factors are used to explain the lack of attainment
and the highest level the system can achieve.

The  physical  and  chemical  evaluations  may
proceed on  several levels depending on the level
of detail required, amount of knowledge available
about  the system (and  similar systems),  and
budget for the use attainability study.  As a first
step, the estuary is classified in terms of physical
processes  so  that  it  can be compared  with
reference estuaries  in terms  of differences in
water quality and biological communities, which
can  be  related  to  man-made alteration  (i.e.,
pollution discharges).

The second step is to perform  desktop or simple
computer model  calculations to  improve  the
understanding  of spatial  and temporal  water
quality conditions in the present system.  These
calculations include  continuous point source  and
simple  box  model-type calculations.   A more
detailed discussion of the desktop  and computer
calculations is given in USEPA (1984a).

The third  step  is to  perform detailed  analyses
through the use of more sophisticated computer
models.  These tools can be used to evaluate the
system's response to  removing individual point
and nonpoint source discharges, so as  to assist
with  assessments of  the cause(s) of  any  use
impairment.

2.9.7 Lake Systems

This section will focus on the factors that  should
be  considered in  performing  use attainability
analyses for lake systems.  Lake systems  are in
most cases linked physically to rivers and streams
and exhibit a transition from riverine habitat and
conditions  to lacustrine habitat  and  conditions.
Therefore, the information presented  in section
2.9.1 through 2.9.5 and the Technical Support
Manual, Volume I (USEPA, 1983c) will to some
extent apply to lake systems.  EPA has provided
guidance specific to lake systems in the Technical
Support Manual for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses,   Volume HI: Lake Systems (USEPA,
1984b).   This manual should be  consulted by
anyone performing a use attainability analysis for
lake systems.

Aquatic  life  uses of a  lake are  defined in
reference to the plant  and animal life in a lake.
However,  the types and abundance of the biota
are  largely  determined  by  the  physical  and
chemical  characteristics  of the  lake.    Other
contributing   factors   include  the   location,
climatological conditions,  and historical  events
affecting the lake.

   Physical Parameters

The physical parameters  that describe the size,
shape, and flow regime of a lake  represent the
basic characteristics that affect physical, chemical,
and  biological processes.   As  part  of  a use
attainability analysis, the physical parameters must
be  examined  to understand  non-water quality
factors that affect the lake's aquatic life.
(9/15/93)
                                          2-23

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
The origins of a lake determine its morphologic
characteristics and strongly influence the physical,
chemical,  and  biological conditions  that  will
prevail.  Therefore, grouping lakes formed by the
same process  often will allow  comparison of
similar  lake  systems.    Measurement  of  the
following morphological characteristics may be of
importance to a water body survey:
   surface area;
   volume;
   inflow and outflow;
   mean depth;
   maximum depth;
   length;
   length of shoreline;
   depth-area relationships;
   depth-volume relationships; and
   bathymetry (submerged contours).
These physical parameters can in some cases be
used  to predict biological  parameters.    For
example,  mean  depth has  been  used  as  an
indicator of productivity.   Shallow lakes tend to
be more productive, and deep, steep-sided lakes
tend to be less productive.  These parameters may
also be used to calculate other characteristics of
the lake such as mass flow rate of a chemical,
surface loading rate, and detention time.

Total lake volume and inflow and outflow rates
are physical  characteristics that  indirectly affect
the lake's aquatic community.  Large inflows and
outflows for lakes with small volumes produce
low detention times  or high flow-through rates.
Aquatic life  under  these conditions  may  be
different than when relatively  small inflows and
outflows occur for a  large-volume lake  where
long detention times occur.

The  shape factor (lake length divided by lake
width) also  may be  correlated to chemical and
biological characteristics.   This  factor has been
used to predict parameters such as chlorophyll-a
levels in lakes. For  more detailed lake analysis,
information   describing   the   depth-area  and
depth-volume  relationships   and   information
describing the bathymetry  may be required.
In  addition to  the  physical  parameters listed
above, it is also important to obtain and analyze
information concerning the lake's contributing
watershed. Two major parameters of concern are
the drainage area of the contributing watershed
and the land uses  of that watershed.   Drainage
area will aid in the analysis of inflow volumes to
the lake due to surface  runoff.   The land use
classification of the area  around the lake can be
used to predict flows and also nonpoint source
pollutant loadings to the lake.

The physical parameters discussed above may be
used  to understand and analyze  the various
physical processes that  occur in lakes.  They can
also be used directly in  simplistic relationships
that predict productivity to aid in aquatic use
attainability analyses.

   Physical Processes

Many complex and interrelated physical processes
occur  in  lakes.   These  processes  are  highly
dependent  on the lake's physical parameters,
location, and characteristics of the contributing
watershed.  Several of the major  processes are
discussed below.

   Lake Currents

Water movement in a lake affects productivity and
the biota because it influences the distribution of
nutrients,  microorganisms, and plankton.  Lake
currents are propagated by wind, inflow/outflow,
and the Coriolis force.  For small shallow lakes,
particularly long and narrow lakes, inflow/outflow
characteristics   are  most important,  and  the
predominant current is a steady-state flow through
the lake.   For  very  large  lakes, wind  is the
primary generator  of currents,  and except for
local effects, inflow/outflow  have a relatively
minor effect on lake circulation. Coriolis effect,
a deflecting force that is  the function  of the
Earth's rotation, also plays a role in circulation in
large lakes such as the Great Lakes.
2-24
                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
   Heat Budget

Temperature and its distribution within lakes and
reservoirs affects not only the water quality within
the lake but also the thermal regime and quality of
a river system  downstream  of the lake.   The
thermal regime of a lake is a function of the heat
balance around the body of water.  Heat transfer
modes into and out of the lake include  heat
transfer   through   the   air-water   interface,
conduction through the mud-water interface, and
inflow and outflow  heat advection.

Heat  transfer  through the  air-water interface is
primarily    responsible   for  typical  annual
temperature cycles.  Heat is transferred across the
air-water  interface by three  different processes:
radiation exchange, evaporation, and conduction.
The  heat flux of  the  air-water interface is a
function  of  location   (latitude/longitude  and
elevation),    season,    time  of  day,   and
meteorological   conditions   (cloud   cover,
dew-point, temperature, barometric pressure, and
wind).

   Light Penetration

Transmission  of light through the water column
influences  primary productivity  (phytoplankton
and macrophytes), distribution of organisms, and
behavior of fish. The reduction of light through
the water  column  of a lake  is  a function of
scattering and absorption.  Light transmission is
affected by the water surface film, floatable and
suspended   particulates,    turbidity,   dense
populations of algae and bacteria, and color.

An important parameter based on the transmission
of light is  the depth to  which photosynthetic
activity is possible.  The minimum light intensity
required for photosynthesis has been  established
to be about 1.0 percent of the incident surface
light (Cole,  1979). The portion of the lake from
the surface to  the depth at which  the 1.0 percent
intensity occurs is  referred to as the "euphotic
zone."
   Lake Stratification

Lakes in temperate and northern latitudes typically
exhibit vertical density stratification during certain
seasons of  the  year.  Stratification  in lakes  is
primarily due to temperature differences, although
salinity and suspended solids concentrations may
also affect density.   Typically,  three zones  of
thermal stratification are formed.

The upper layer of warmer, lower density  water
is  termed the  "epilimnion,"  and  the lower,
stagnant layer of colder, higher density water is
termed the "hypolimnion."  The transition zone
between  the epilimnion and the hypolimnion,
referred to as the "metalimnion," is characterized
by the maximum rate of temperature decline with
depth (the thermocline). During stratification, the
presence of the  thermocline suppresses many  of
the mass transport phenomena that are otherwise
responsible  for  the  vertical  transport of  water
quality constituents within a lake.  The aquatic
community present in a lake is highly dependent
on the thermal structure.

With respect  to internal flow  structure,  three
distinct classes of lakes are defined:

•  strongly stratified, deep lakes characterized by
   horizontal isotherms;

•  weakly   stratified  lakes   characterized  by
   isotherms that are tilted along the longitudinal
   axis of the reservoir; and

•  non-stratified,   completely   mixed    lakes
   characterized by isotherms that are essentially
   vertical.

Retardation  of   mass  transport  between the
hypolimnion and the  epilimnion results in sharply
differentiated water quality and biology between
the lake strata.   One of the  most  important
differences between the layers is often dissolved '
oxygen. As this is depleted from the hypolimnion
without being replenished, life functions of  many
organisms  are impaired,  and  the  biology and
(9/15/93)
                                         2-25

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 biologically  mediated reactions  fundamental to
 water quality are altered.

 Vertical stratification of a lake  with respect to
 nutrients can also occur. Dissolved nutrients are
 converted to paniculate organic material through
 photosynthetic processes  in  the epilimnion in
 ecologically  advanced lakes.   This assimilation
 lowers the ambient nutrient concentrations in the
 epilimnion.  When the algae die and sink to the
 bottom, nutrients are carried to the hypolimnion
 where they are released by decomposition.

 Temperature also has a direct effect on biology of
 a lake because most biological processes (e.g.,
 growth,  respiration,  reproduction,  migration,
 mortality, and decay) are strongly influenced by
 ambient temperature.

   Annual   Circulation   Pattern   and  Lake
   Classification

 Lakes can be classified on  the basis of their
 pattern  of  annual mixing.   These classifications
 are described below.

 (1)   Amictic - Lakes that never circulate and are
      permanently covered with ice, primarily in
      the Antarctic and very high mountains.

 (2)   Holomictic - Lakes  that mix from top to
      bottom   as  a result  of  wind-driven
      circulation.    Several  subcategories   are
      defined:

      •   Oligomictic  -  Lakes characterized by
         circulation that is unusual, irregular, and
         short  in  duration;  generally small  to
         medium tropical  lakes  or  very deep
         lakes.

      •   Monomictic -  Lakes that undergo one
         regular circulation per year.

      •   Dimictic - Lakes  that circulate  twice a
         year, in spring and fall, one of the most
         common types of  annual mixing in cool
         temperate  regions such  as  central and
         eastern North America.

      •  Polymictic   -   Lakes   that  circulate
         frequently or continuously,  cold  lakes
         that  are  continually near  or  slightly
         above 4°C,  or  warm equatorial  lakes
         where  air  temperature  changes  very
         little.

(3)   Meromictic - Lakes  that do not circulate
      throughout the entire water column.   The
      lower water stratum is perennially stagnant.

   Lake Sedimentation

Deposition  of  sediment  received   from  the
surrounding watershed is an  important physical
process in lakes.   Because  of  the low water
velocities through the lake or reservoir, sediments
transported by inflowing waters tend to settle out.

Sediment  accumulation  rates   are  strongly
dependent   both   on   the    physiographic
characteristics of a  specific  watershed and on
various characteristics of the lake. Prediction of
sedimentation rates can be estimated in two  basic
ways:

•  periodic sediment surveys on a lake; and
•  estimation of watershed erosion and bed  load.

Accumulation  of sediment in lakes  can,  over
many years, reduce the life of the water body by
reducing  the water storage capacity. Sediment
flow into the lake also reduces light penetration,
eliminates bottom  habitat for many plants and
2-26
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                     Chapter 2 - Designation of Uses
animals, and carries with it adsorbed chemicals
and organic matter that settle  to the bottom and
can be harmful to the ecology of the lake. Where
sediment accumulation is a major problem, proper
watershed  management  including  erosion  and
sediment control must be put into effect.

   Chemical Characteristics

Freshwater chemistry is discussed in section 2.9.3
and in the Technical Support Manual, Volume I
(USEPA, 1983c). Therefore, the discussion here
will focus on chemical phenomena that are of
particular importance to lakes. Nutrient cycling
and   eutrophication are the primary factors of
concern in this discussion, but the effects of pH,
dissolved oxygen,  and redox  potential on lake
processes are also involved.

Water chemistry in a lake is closely  related to the
stages in the annual lake turnover.    Once a
thermocline has  formed,  the  dissolved oxygen
levels in the hypolimnion tend to decline.  This
occurs because the hypolimmion is isolated from
surface waters by the  thermocline and there is no
mechanism for aeration.

The decay of organic matter and the respiration of
fish and other organisms in the hypolimnion serve
to deplete DO.   Extreme depletion of  DO may
occur in ice- and snow-covered lakes in which
light   is  insufficient   for  photosynthesis.    If
depletion of DO  is great enough, fish kills may
result.   With  the depletion  of  DO,  reducing
conditions prevail and many compounds that have
accumulated in the sediment by precipitation are
released to  the surrounding water.   Chemicals
solubilized   under   such   conditions   include
compounds   of  nitrogen,  phosphorus,  iron,
manganese,  and  calcium.    Phosphorus  and
nitrogen are of particular concern because of their
role in the eutrophication process  in lakes.

Nutrients released  from  the  bottom sediments
during stratified  conditions are not available to
phytoplankton in the epilimaion. However, during
overturn periods, mixing of the layers distributes
the nutrients throughout the water column.  The
high nutrient availability is short-lived because the
soluble  reduced forms are  rapidly oxidized to
insoluble forms that precipitate out and settle to
the bottom.  Phosphorus and nitrogen are also
deposited through sorption to particles that settle
to the bottom and as  dead plant material  that is
added to the sediments.

Of the many raw materials required  by aquatic
plants   (phytoplankton  and  macrophytes) for
growth, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus are the
most important.  Carbon is available from carbon
dioxide,  which is in almost unlimited supply.
Since growth is generally limited by the essential
nutrient that is in lowest supply, either  nitrogen or
phosphorus is usually the limiting nutrient for
growth of primary producers.  If these nutrients
are available in adequate supply,  massive algal
and macrophyte blooms  may occur with  severe
consequences  for the lake.  Most  commonly in
lakes,  phosphorus  is the limiting nutrient for
aquatic  plant  growth.    In  these  situations,
adequate control of phosphorus, particularly from
anthropogenic sources,  can  control  growth of
aquatic  vegetation.   Phosphorus  can in  some
cases,  be removed from the water  column by
precipitation,  as  described  in  the   Technical
Support Manual,  Volume III (USEPA, 1984b).

   Eutrophication and Nutrient Cycling

The term "eutrophication" is used in two general
ways:  (1) eutrophication  is defined as  the process
of nutrient enrichment in a water  body; and (2)
eutrophication is  used to  describe  the effects of
nutrient enrichment,  that is, the uncontrolled
growth of plants,  particularly phytoplankton, in a
lake or  reservoir.    The  second   use  also
encompasses changes in the composition of animal
communities  in the water body.   Both uses are
commonly found  in  the  literature, and the
distinction, if important,  must be discerned from
the context of use.

Eutrophication  is  often  greatly accelerated by
anthropogenic nutrient  enrichment,  which has
been termed "cultural eutrophication." Nutrients
are transported to lakes  from external sources.
(9/15/93)
                                         2-27

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 and once in the lake, may be recycled internally.
 A consideration of attainable uses in a lake must
 include an  understanding  of the  sources  of
 nitrogen  and  phosphorus,  the  significance  of
 internal cycling, especially of phosphorus, and the
 changes that might be anticipated if eutrophication
 could be controlled.

   Significance of Chemical Phenomena to Use
   Attainability

 The  most critical water  quality indicators for
 aquatic use attainment in a lake are DO, nutrients,
 chlorophyll-a,  and toxicants.  In evaluating use
 attainability, the  relative importance of  three
 forms of oxygen  demand should be considered:
 respiratory  demand   of   phytoplankton  and
 macrophytes during non-photosynthetic  periods,
 water column demand, and benthic demand. If use
 impairment is  occurring,  assessments   of the
 significance of each oxygen sink can be useful in
 evaluating the  feasibility of achieving sufficient
 pollution  control, or  in implementing  the best
 internal nutrient management practices to attain a
 designated use.

 Chlorophyll-a  is  a  good  indicator of  algal
 concentrations  and of nutrient overenrichment.
 Excessive   phytoplankton   concentrations,   as
 indicated by high  chlorophyll-a levels, can cause
 adverse DO impacts such as:

 •  wide diurnal variation in surface DO due to
   daytime  photosynthesis   and   nighttime
   respiration, and

 •  depletion  of  bottom   DO  through  the
   decomposition of dead algae.

 As discussed previously, nitrogen and phosphorus
 are the nutrients of concern in most lake systems,
 particularly where anthropogenic sources result in
 increased nutrient loading.  It is important to base
 control  strategies  on  an understanding  of the
 sources of each type of nutrient, both in  the lake
 and in its feeder streams.
 Also, the presence of toxics such as pesticides,
 herbicides, and heavy metals in sediments or the
 water column should by considered in evaluating
 uses. These pollutants may prevent the attainment
 of uses  (particularly  those  related  'to  fish
 propagation and maintenance in water bodies) that
 would otherwise be supported by the water quality
 criteria for DO and other parameters.

   Biological Characteristics

 A  major  concern  for  lake biology  is  the
 eutrophication due to  anthropogenic sources of
 nutrients.  The increased presence of  nutrients
 may result in phytoplankton blooms that can, in
 turn, have adverse impacts on other components
 of the biological community. A general trend that
 results  from  eutrophication is  an increase in
 numbers of organisms but a decrease in  diversity
 of species, particularly among nonmotile species.
 The  biological  characteristics   of lakes  are
 discussed in more detail in the Technical Support
 Manual, Volume HI.

   Techniques for Use Attainability Evaluations

 Techniques for use attainability  evaluations of
 lakes  are discussed  in detail in the Technical
 Support Manual,  Volume III.  Several empirical
 (desktop)   and   simulation   (computer-based
 mathematical)  models  that can  be  used  to
characterize   and  evaluate  lakes  for   use
attainability are presented in that document and
will not be included here owing to the complexity
of the subject.
2-28
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                           Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
                                 CHAPTERS

                       WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

                               (40 CFR 131.11)

                              Table of Contents

3.1 EPA Section 304(a) Guidance   	3-1
    3.1.1     State Use of EPA Criteria Documents	3-1
    3.1.2     Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection	3-2
    3.1.3     Criteria for Human Health Protection  	3-3

3.2 Relationship of Section 304(a)  Criteria to State Designated Uses  	 3-10
    3.2.1     Recreation	3-10
    3.2.2     Aquatic Life	3-11
    3.2.3     Agricultural and Industrial Uses	3-11
    3.2.4     Public Water Supply	3-11

3.3 State Criteria Requirements	3-12

3.4 Criteria for Toxicants	3-13
    3.4.1     Priority Toxic Pollutant Criteria	3-13
    3.4.2     Criteria for Nonconventional Pollutants	3-23

3.5 Forms of Criteria	3-23
    3.5.1     Numeric Criteria	3-24
    3.5.2     Narrative Criteria  	3-24
    3.5.3     Biological Criteria	3-26
    3.5.4     Sediment Criteria	3-28
    3.5.5     Wildlife Criteria	3-31
    3.5.6     Numeric Criteria for Wetlands	3-33

3.6 Policy on Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals	3-34
    3.6.1     Background	3-34
    3.6.2     Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria	,	3-34
    3.6.3     Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and National Pollutant Discharge
              Elimination System (NPDES) Permits	3-36
    3.6.4     Guidance on Monitoring  	3-37

3.7 Site-Specific Aquatic Life Criteria	3-38
    3.7.1     History of Site-Specific Criteria Guidance	3-38
    3.7.2     Preparing to Calculate Site-Specific Criteria  	3-40
    3.7.3     Definition of a Site	3-41
    3.7.4     The Recalculation Procedure	 . 3-41
    3.7.5     The Water-Effect Ratio (WER) Procedure	 3-43
    3.7.6     The Resident Species Procedure	3-44

Endnotes 	3-45

-------

-------
                                                                  Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
                                       CHAPTERS
                            WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
The term "water quality criteria" has two different
definitions under the  Clean Water Act (CWA).
Under  section 304(a),  EPA  publishes  water
quality   criteria   that   consist  of  scientific
information regarding concentrations of specific
chemicals or levels of parameters in water that
protect aquatic life and human health (see section
3.1 of this Handbook). The States may use these
contents as the basis for developing enforceable
water quality standards. Water quality criteria are
also elements of State  water quality standards
adopted under section 303(c) of the CWA (see
sections  3.2 through 3.6  of  this Handbook).
States are required to adopt water quality criteria
that will protect the designated  use(s) of a water
body.   These criteria must be based on  sound
scientific  rationale and  muist contain sufficient
parameters  or   constituents   to  protect  the
designated use.
         EPA Section 304(a) Guidance
EPA and a predecessor agency have produced a
series of scientific water quality criteria guidance
documents.    Early  Federal  efforts  were  the
"Green  Book" (FWPCA,  1968)  and the "Red
Book" (USEPA, 1976).  EPA also sponsored a
contract effort that resulted in the "Blue Book"
(NAS/NAE,  1973).   These early efforts were
premised on the use of literature reviews and the
collective  scientific  judgment  of Agency and
advisory panels. However, when faced with the
need to develop criteria for human health as well
as aquatic life, the Agency determined that new
procedures were necessary.  Continued reliance
solely on existing scientific literature was deemed
inadequate because essential information was not
available for  many pollutants.  EPA  scientists
developed formal methodologies for establishing
scientifically  defensible criteria.   These were
subjected  to  review by  the Agency's  Science
Advisory Board of outside experts and the public.
This effort culminated on November 28,  1980,
when the Agency published criteria development
guidelines for aquatic life and for human health,
along  with criteria  for 64   toxic  pollutants
(USEPA, 1980a,b).  Since that initial publication,
the  aquatic  life  methodology  was   amended
(Appendix  H),  and additional  criteria  were
proposed for public comment and  finalized  as
Agency criteria guidance. EPA summarized the
available criteria information in the "Gold Book"
(USEPA, 1986a), which is updated from time to
time. However, the individual criteria documents
(see Appendix  I), as updated,  are the official
guidance documents.

EPA's   criteria   documents   provide  a
comprehensive lexicological evaluation  of each
chemical.   For toxic pollutants, the documents
tabulate the relevant acute and chronic toxicity
information for aquatic life and derive the criteria
maximum  concentrations (acute criteria) and
criteria   continuous  concentrations    (chronic
criteria) that the Agency  recommends  to protect
aquatic  life resources.  The methodologies for
these processes are described in Appendices H
and J and outlined in sections 3.1.2 and  3.1.3 of
this Handbook.

3.1.1    State Use of EPA Criteria Documents

EPA's  water  quality criteria  documents  are
available to assist States in:

•    adopting water quality standards that include
     appropriate numeric  water quality criteria;

•    interpreting existing  water quality standards
     that include  narrative  "no  toxics in toxic
     amounts" criteria;
(8/15/94)
                                         3-1

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 *    making listing decisions under section 304(1)
      oftheCWA;

 •    writing water quality-based NPDES permits
      and individual control strategies; and

 *    providing certification under section 401 of
      the CWA for any Federal permit or license
      (e.g.,  EPA-issued NPDES permits,  CWA
      section 404 permits,  or Federal Energy
      Regulatory Commission licenses).

 In these situations, States have primary authority
 to determine the appropriate  level to protect
 human health  or welfare  (in accordance  with
 section 303(c)(2)  of the CWA) for each  water
 body.  However, under the Clean Water Act,
 EPA must also review and approve State  water
 quality standards;  section 304(1) listing decisions
 and draft and final State-issued individual control
 strategies;  and in  States  where EPA  writes
 NPDES permits, EPA  must develop appropriate
 water quality-based permit limitations. The States
 and EPA therefore  have a strong interest  in
 assuring that the decisions are legally defensible,
 are based on the best information available, and
 are subject to full and meaningful public comment
 and participation.  It is very important  that each
 decision be supported  by an  adequate record.
 Such a record is critical to meaningful comment,
 EPA's  review  of the State's decision,  and any
 subsequent administrative or judicial review.

 Any human health criterion for a toxicant is based
 on at least three interrelated considerations:

 *    cancer potency or systemic toxicity,

 •    exposure, and

 *    risk characterization.

 States may make their own judgments on each of
 these factors within reasonable scientific bounds,
 but documentation to support  their judgments,
 when different from EPA's recommendation, must
 be clear and in the public record. If a State relies
on EPA's section 304(a) criteria  document (or
 other EPA documents), the State may reference
 and rely on the data in these documents and need
 not create  duplicative  or  new  material   for
 inclusion in their records. However, where site-
 specific issues arise or the State decides to adopt
 an approach to any one of these three factors that
 differs  from  the approach  in EPA's  criteria
 document, the State must explain its reasons in a
 manner sufficient for a reviewer to determine that
 the approach chosen is based on sound scientific
 rationale (40 CFR 131.ll(b)).

 3.1.2     Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection

 The development of national  numerical water
 quality  criteria  for  the protection  of  aquatic
 organisms  is  a  complex  process  that uses
 information  from  many   areas  of   aquatic
 toxicology.   (See Appendix H for  a detailed
 discussion of this process.)  After a decision is
 made that a  national criterion  is needed for a
 particular  material,  all available  information
 concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by,
 aquatic organisms is collected and reviewed  for
 acceptability. If enough acceptable data for 48- to
 96-hour  toxicity tests  on  aquatic plants  and
 animals are available, they are used to derive  the
 acute criterion.  If sufficient data on the ratio of
 acute to  chronic toxicity  concentrations  are
 available, they are used to derive the chronic or
 long-term exposure criteria. If justified,  one or
 both of the criteria may be related to other water
 quality characteristics,  such as pH, temperature,
 or hardness.  Separate  criteria are developed for
 fresh and salt waters.

The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
States to develop  numerical criteria or modify
3-2
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
 EPA's  recommended  criteria  to  account  for
 site-specific  or other  scientifically  defensible
 factors. Guidance on modifying national criteria
 is  found  in  sections  3.6  and  3.7.   When  a
 criterion must be developed for a chemical for
 which   a  national  criterion  has   not  been
 established, the regulatory authority should refer
 to the EPA guidelines (Appendix H).

      Magnitude for Aquatic Life Criteria

 Water quality criteria for aquatic life contain two
 expressions of allowable magnitude: a criterion
 maximum concentration (CMC) to protect against
 acute  (short-term)  effects;  and   a  criterion
 continuous concentration (CCC) to protect against
 chronic (long-term)  effects.  EPA derives acute
 criteria from  48- to 96-hour tests of lethality or
 immobilization.  EPA derives  chronic criteria
 from longer term (often greater than 28-day) tests
 that measure  survival,  growth, or reproduction.
 Where appropriate, the calculated criteria may be
 lowered  to   be  protective  ofcomercially  or
 recreationally important species.

     Duration for Aquatic Life Criteria

 The quality of an ambient water typically varies in
 response to variations of effluent quality, stream
 flow,  and other  factors.   Organisms in  the
 receiving water are not  experiencing constant,
 steady  exposure but  rather  are experiencing
 fluctuating exposures,  including periods of high
 concentrations, which may have adverse effects.
 Thus, EPA's criteria indicate a time  period over
 which exposure is to be averaged, as well as an
 upper limit on the average concentration, thereby
 limiting  the  duration  of exposure  to  elevated
 concentrations.   For   acute   criteria,   EPA
 recommends an averaging period of 1 hour.  That
 is, to protect against acute effects,  the 1-hour
 average exposure should not exceed  the CMC.
For  chronic  criteria,  EPA  recommends  an
 averaging period of  4 days.  That is, the 4-day
average exposure should not exceed the CCC.
      Frequency for Aquatic Life Criteria

 To predict or ascertain the attainment of criteria,
 it is necessary to specify the allowable frequency
 for exceeding the criteria.  This is because it is
 statistically impossible to project that criteria will
 never be exceeded.  As ecological communities
 are naturally subjected to  a series of stresses, the
 allowable frequency of pollutant stress may be set
 at a value that does not significantly increase the
 frequency or severity of all stresses combined.

 EPA  recommends an average frequency  for
 excursions of both acute and chronic criteria not
 to exceed once in 3  years.   In all cases,  the
 recommended frequency applies to actual ambient
 concentrations,  and excludes  the  influence of
 measurement  imprecision.  EPA established its
 recommended frequency as part of its guidelines
 for deriving criteria (Appendix H). EPA selected
 the   3-year   average  frequency  of  criteria
 exceedence  with  the  intent  of providing  for
 ecological  recovery from a variety  of  severe
 stresses.    This  return   interval is  roughly
 equivalent to a  7Q10 design  flow  condition.
 Because of the nature of the  ecological recovery
 studies  available,  the   severity  of  criteria
 excursions could not be rigorously related to the
 resulting ecological impacts.  Nevertheless, EPA
 derives its criteria intending that a single marginal
 criteria excursion (i.e., a slight excursion over a
 1-hour period for acute or over a 4-day period for
 chronic) would  require  little  or no  time for
 recovery. If  the frequency of marginal criteria
 excursions is not high, it  can be shown that the
 frequency of severe stresses, requiring measurable
 recovery periods,  would be extremely  small.
 EPA  thus expects the 3-year return interval to
 provide a very high degree of protection.

 3.1.3  Criteria for Human Health Protection

This  section reviews EPA's procedures used to
develop assessments of human  health effects in
developing water quality  criteria and reference
ambient concentrations. A more complete human
health  effects discussion  is  included  in  the
Guidelines and Methodology Used in the
(8/15/94)
                                          3-3

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 Preparation of Health Effects Assessment Chapters
 of  the  Consent  Decree  Water  Documents
 (Appendix J).  The procedures contained in this
 document are  used  in  the development and
 updating of EPA water quality criteria and may be
 used in updating State criteria and in developing
 State criteria for those pollutants lacking EPA
 human health criteria.   The procedures  may also
 be  applied  as  site-specific  interpretations of
 narrative standards and as a basis for permit limits
 under 40 CFR 122.44 (d)(l)(vi).

     Magnitude and Duration

 Water  quality criteria  for human health contain
 only a  single expression of allowable magnitude;
 a criterion concentration generally to protect
 against long-term (chronic) human health effects.
 Currently, national policy and prevailing opinion
 in  the  expert  community  establish   that the
 duration for human health criteria for carcinogens
 should  be derived assuming lifetime exposure,
 taken to be a 70-year time period. The duration
 of  exposure assumed  in  deriving  criteria for
 noncarcinogens is more complicated owing to a
 wide variety of endpoints:  some developmental
 (and  thus  age-specific  and perhaps  gender-
 specific), some  lifetime,  and some,   such  as
 organoleptic effects, not duration-related at all.
 Thus,   appropriate  durations  depend  on the
 individual  noncarcinogenic pollutants   and the
 endpoints or adverse effects being considered.

     Human Exposure Considerations

 A complete human exposure evaluation for toxic
 pollutants of concern for bioaccumulation would
 encompass not only estimates of exposures due to
 fish   consumption  but   also  exposure   from
 background  concentrations and  other exposure
 routes,   The more important of these include
 recreational  and  occupational  contact,   dietary
 intake  from  other  than fish, intake from air
 inhalation, and drinking water consumption. For
 section 3Q4(a) criteria development, EPA typically
 considers only exposures to a pollutant that occur
 through the ingestion of water and contaminated
fish and shellfish.  This  is the exposure default
 assumption, although the human health guidelines
 provide for considering other sources  where data
 are available (see  45  F.R. 79354).   Thus the
 criteria are  based on  an assessment  of risks
 related to the surface water exposure route only
 (57 F.R. 60862-3).

 The consumption of contaminated fish tissue is of
 serious concern  because the  presence of even
 extremely   low   ambient   concentrations  of
 bioaccumulative pollutants (sublethal to aquatic
 life) in surface  waters can  result  in  residue
 concentrations in fish tissue that can pose a human
 health risk.  Other exposure  route information
 should be considered and incorporated in human
 exposure evaluations to the extent available.

 Levels  of  actual  human   exposures   from
 consuming contaminated fish vary depending upon
 a number of case-specific consumption factors.
 These  factors  include  type   of  fish  species
 consumed, type of fish tissue consumed, tissue
 lipid content, consumption rate and pattern, and
 food preparation practices. In addition, depending
 on the spatial variability in the fishery area, the
 behavior of the fish  species,  and  the point of
 application of the criterion, the average exposure
 of fish may be  only  a small fraction of the
 expected exposure at the point of application of
 the  criterion.   If an effluent attracts fish, the
 average exposure  might be  greater  than the
 expected exposure.

 With  shellfish,  such  as oysters,  snails, and
 mussels,   whole-body   tissue   consumption
 commonly  occurs,  whereas with fish, muscle
 tissue and roe are most commonly  eaten.   This
 difference in  the types of tissues  consumed has
 implications  for   the  amount  of   available
 bioaccumulative   contaminants  likely  to  be
 ingested.   Whole-body shellfish consumption
 presumably means ingestion of the entire burden
 of bioaccumulative contaminants. However, with
 most fish,  selective cleaning  and  removal of
internal organs, and sometimes body fat as well,
 from edible tissues, may result in removal of
 much   of   the   lipid  material  in   which
bioaccumulative contaminants tend to concentrate.
3-4
                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                 Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
     Fish Consumption Values

EPA's human health criteria  have assumed  a
human body weight of 70 kg and the consumption
of 6.5 g of fish and shellfish per day.  Based on
data collected in 1973-74, the national per capita
consumption of freshwater and estuarine fish was
estimated  to average 6.5  g/day.   Per  capita
consumption  of all  seafood (including marine
species) was estimated  to average 14.3 g/day.
The 95th percentile for consumption of all seafood
by  individuals over  a period  of 1  month  was
estimated to be 42 g/day. The mean lipid content
of fish and shellfish tissue consumed in this study
was estimated to be 3.0 percent  (USEPA, 1980c).
Currently,  four  levels of  fish  and  shellfish
consumption  are provided  in EPA guidance
(USEPA, 1991a):

•    6.5 g/day to represent an estimate of average
     consumption of fish and  shellfish  from
     estuarine and freshwaters by the entire U.S.
     population. This consumption level is based
     on the  average of  both consumers  and
     nonconsumers of.

•    20 g/day  to represent  an estimate of the
     average  consumption of fish and  shellfish
     from marine, estuarine, and freshwaters by
     the  U.S.   population.     This  average
     consumption  level   also  includes  both
     consumers and nonconsumers of.

•    165 g/day to represent consumption of fish
     and shellfish from marine, estuarine,  and
     freshwaters by the 99.9th percentile of the
     U.S. population consuming the most fish or
     seafood.

•    180 g/day to represent a  "reasonable worst
     case"  based on the assumption that some
     individuals would consume fishand shellfish
     at a rate equal to the combined consumption
     of red meat, poultry, fish, and  shellfish in
     the United States.
EPA is currently updating the national estuarine
and freshwater fish  and shellfish  consumption
default values  and  will  provide  a  range  of
recommended national consumption values.  This
range will include:

•   mean values appropriate to the population at
    large; and

•   values appropriate for those individuals who
    consume a relatively large proportion of fish
    and   shellfish  in their  diets  (maximally
    exposed individuals).

Many States use EPA's 6.5 g/day consumption
value.   However, some States use the above-
mentioned 20  g/day value and,  for  saltwaters,
37 g/day.  In general, EPA recommends that the
consumption values used in deriving criteria from
the formulas in  this chapter  reflect  the  most
current, relevant, and/or site-specific information
available.

    Bioaccumulation Considerations

The ratio of the contaminant concentrations in fish
tissue versus that in water is termed either  the
bioconcentration   factor  (BCF)    or   the
bioaccumulation factor (BAF).  Bioconcentration
is defined as involving contaminant uptake from
water only (not from food).  The bioaccumulation
factor (BAF)  is defined similarly to the  BCF
except that it includes contaminant uptake from
both  water  and  food.    Under  laboratory
conditions,   measurements   of  tissue/water
partitioning are generally considered  to involve
uptake from water only.  On the other hand, both
processes are likely to apply in the field since the
entire food chain is exposed.

The BAF/BCF ratio ranges from 1 to  100, with
the highest ratios applying to organisms in higher
trophic levels, and to chemicals with logarithm of
the octanol-water  partitioning coefficient (log P)
close to 6.5.

Bioaccumulation considerations are integrated into
the criteria equations  by  using food  chain
(8/15/94)
                                         3-5

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 multipliers (FMs) in conjunction with the BCF.
 The bioaccumulation and bioconcentration factors
 for a chemical are related as follows:

               BAF = FM x BCF

 By incorporating the FM and BCF terms into the
 criteria  equations,   bioaccumulation  can  be
 addressed.

 In Table 3-1,  FM values derived from the work
 of Thomann (1987, 1989) are listed according to
 log P value and trophic level of the organism.
 For chemicals with log P values  greater than
 about 7, there is additional uncertainty regarding
 the degree of bioaccumulation,  but generally,
 trophic level  effects appear  to decrease due to
 slow transport kinetics of these chemicals in fish,
 the growth rate  of the fish,  and the chemical's
 relatively low bioavailability.  Trophic  level 4
 organisms are typically the most desirable species
 for sport fishing and, therefore, FMs for trophic
 level 4 should  generally be used in the equations
 for calculating  criteria.    In those  very rare
 situations  where  only   lower  trophic  level
 organisms are  found, e.g.,  possibly oyster beds,
 an FM for a lower trophic  level might  be
 considered.

 Measured BAFs  (especially for those chemicals
 with log  P values  above 6.5) reported in the
 literature should be used when available.  To use
 experimentally measured BAFs in calculating the
 criterion, the (FM x BCF) term is replaced by the
 BAF in the equations in the following-section.
 Relatively  few  BAFs  have been  measured
 accurately and  reported, and their application to
 sites other than the specific ecosystem where they
 were developed  is problematic and subject  to
 uncertainty.    The option is also available  to
 develop BAFs  experimentally, but this  will be
 extremely resource intensive if done on  a site-
 specific basis with all the necessary experimental
and quality controls.
                                                                        c .Levels
                                                     LogP

                                                       3.5

                                                     " '3.7
                                                      -3.8
                                                       34>
                                                       44
                                                       4.5
                                                       4.6
                                                       4.7
                                                       4.8
                                                       4.9.
                                                       5.0
                                                       5.1
                                                       5.2
                                                       5,3
                                                       5.4
                                                       5,5
                                                       5.6
                                                       5.7
                                                       5.8
                                                       5.9
                                                      6.5
2,»
•> i mi ">
*. il!'*,j'v
1.0%
»^y3u
4..0
"" ^jfa 
4.3
5.8
8.0
11
23
$3
to
,„ ' 47
&4
v, 98
"' '100
•' rt»,"
                                                                    1-iH  ^^A^      ^H ; ^^ ^
                                                          re
-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
 health criteria.  The Integrated Risk Information
 System  (IRIS)  (Barns  and  Dourson,  1988;
 Appendix  N) is an electronic data base of the
 USEPA  that  provides  chemical-specific  risk
 information on the relationship between chemical
 exposure and estimated human health effects. Risk
 assessment information contained in IRIS, except
 as  specifically  noted,  has been  reviewed  and
 agreed upon  by  an  interdisciplinary group of
 scientists representing various Program  Offices
 within the Agency and represent an Agency-wide
 consensus.   Risk assessment information  and
 values are updated on  a  monthly basis and  are
 approved for Agency-wide use.  IRIS is intended
 to  make  risk  assessment information  readily
 available to those individuals  who must perform
 risk assessments and also  to increase consistency
 among   risk   assessment/risk   management
 decisions.

 IRIS contains  two types of quantitative risks
 values:  the oral Reference Dose (RfD) and  the
 carcinogenic potency estimate or  slope factor.
 The RfD (formerly known as the acceptable daily
 intake or  ADI) is the  human health  hazard
 assessment  for  noncarcinogenic (target  organ)
 effects.    The  carcinogenic  potency estimate
 (formerly  known  as  qi*) represents the upper
 bound cancer-causing potential resulting from
 lifetime exposure to a substance. The RfD or the
 oral carcinogenic potency  estimate is used in the
 derivation of EPA human  health criteria.

 EPA  periodically  updates  risk   assessment
 information,  including  RfDs,  cancer  potency
 estimates, and related information on contaminant
 effects, and reports the current information  on
 IRIS.  Since IRIS Contains the Agency's most
 recent quantitative risk assessment values,  current
 IRIS values should be used by States in updating
 or developing new human health criteria.  This
 means that the 1980 human health criteria should
be  updated with the  latest IRIS  values.  The
procedure for deriving an updated human health
water quality criterion would require inserting the
current Rfd or carcinogenic potency estimate on
IRIS into the equations in  Exhibit 3.1 or 3.2, as
appropriate.
                    EPA's
                  water quality
                    criterion
                   available
                             Evaluate other
                             sources of data,
                             e.g.. FDA action
                             levels, MCLs, risk
                             assessment, fish
                             consumption
                             advisory levels
Figure 3-1.   Procedure  for determining  an
              updated  criterion  using  IRIS
              data.

Figure 3-1 shows the procedure for determining
an  updated criterion  using  IRIS  data.   If a
chemical   has   both  carcinogenic   and  non-
carcinogenic effects, i.e., both a cancer potency
estimate  and a  RfD, both  criteria  should  be
calculated. The  most stringent criterion applies.

     Calculating Criteria for Non-carcinogens

The RfD is an estimate of the daily exposure to
the human population that is likely to  be without
appreciable risk of causing  deleterious effects
during a lifetime. The RfD is expressed in units
of mg toxicant per kg human body weight per
day.

RfDs are derived from the "no-observed-adverse-
effect level" (NOAEL) or the "lowest-observed-
adverse-effect level"  (LOAEL)  identified  from
chronic or subchronic human epidemiology studies
or animal exposure studies.   (Note:  "LOAEL"
(8/15/94)
                                          3-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 and  "NOAEL"  refer to  animal  and  human
 toxicology and are therefore  distinct from the
 aquatic   toxicity   terms   "no-observed-effect
 concentration" (NOEC)  and  "lowest-observed-
 effect  concentration"  (LOEC).)   Uncertainty
 factors are then applied to the NOAEL or LOAEL
 to account for uncertainties in the data associated
 with variability among individuals, extrapolation
 from nonhuman test species to humans, data on
 other than long-term exposures, and the use of a
 LOAEL  (USEPA,  1988a).    An  additional
 uncertainty factor may be applied to account for
 significant weakness or gaps in the database.

 The RfD is  a threshold  below  which systemic
 toxic  effects are  unlikely  to  occur.   While
 exposures above the RfD  increase the probability
 of adverse effects, they do not produce a certainty
 of adverse effects.   Similarly,  while exposure at
 or below the RfD reduces the probability, it does
 not guarantee the absence of effects in all persons.
 The  RfDs contained  in  IRIS are  values that
 represent EPA's consensus (and have uncertainty
 spanning perhaps an order of magnitude). This
 means an RfD of 1.0 mg/kg/day could range from
 0.3 to 3.0 mg/kg/day.

 For noncarcinogenic effects, an updated criterion
 can be derived using the equation in Exhibit 3-1.

 If the receiving  water body is  not used as  a
 drinking water source,  the factor  WI  can be
 deleted.    Where  dietary  and/or   inhalation
 exposure values are unknown,  these  factors may
 be deleted from the above calculation.

     Calculating Criteria for Carcinogens

 Any human health  criterion  for a carcinogen is
 based on at least three interrelated considerations:
 cancer   potency,   exposure,   and   risk
 characterization. When developing State criteria,
 States may make their own judgments on each of
 these factors  within reasonable  scientific bounds,
 but  documentation to support their judgments
 must be clear and in the public record.
Maximum protection of human health from the
potential  effects of exposure  to  carcinogens
through  the  consumption of  contaminated fish
and/or other aquatic life would require a criterion
of zero.   The zero level is based  upon  the
assumption of non-threshold effects (i.e., no safe
level exists below which any increase in exposure
does not result in an increased risk of cancer) for
carcinogens.    However,  because a  publicly
acceptable policy for safety does not require the
absence  of all  risk, a numerical  estimate of
pollutant   concentration   (in   jig/1)   which
corresponds  to  a  given level of risk  for a
population of a specified size is selected instead.
A cancer risk level is defined as the number of
new cancers  that may result in a population of
specified  size due  to an increase in  exposure
(e.g., 10"6 risk level  =  1 additional cancer in a
population of 1 million).  Cancer risk is calculated
by multiplying the experimentally derived cancer
potency  estimate by the concentration of  the
chemical in the fish and the average daily human
consumption of contaminated fish.  The risk for a
specified population (e.g., 1 million people or 10"
6) is then calculated by dividing the risk level by
the specific cancer  risk.  EPA's ambient water
quality  criteria  documents  provide risk  levels
ranging from 10"5 to 10~7 as  examples.

The cancer potency  estimate, or  slope  factor
(formerly known as  the c^*), is derived using
animal  studies.     High-dose  exposures   are
extrapolated  to  low-dose  concentrations  and
adjusted to a lifetime exposure period through the
use of a linearized multistage model. The model
calculates the upper 95 percent confidence limit of
the slope of a  straight line  which the model
postulates to occur at low doses.  When based on
human (epidemiological) data,  the slope factor is
based on the observed increase in cancer risk and
is not extrapolated.   For  deriving criteria  for
carcinogens, the oral cancer potency estimates or
slope factors from IRIS are used.

It is important to note that cancer potency factors
may overestimate or underestimate the actual risk.
Such  potency  estimates are  subject  to  great
uncertainty because of two primary factors:
3-8
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
    where;
          "t   '='

            s
           IN

           TO    *=
           BCF
                  ,-wi
aj(dated water quality criterion (mg/J.)

oral reference dose (nag toxicant/kg human body weight/day)

weight of an average human adult (70 kg)
     s    j  -f  y
dietary ^ expoiswre  (oilier  than fish)  (mg toxicant/kg body human
weight/day)    .

inltialation exposure (mg toxicant/kg body human weight/day)

average human adult water intake (2 I/day)

daily fish consumption (kg fish/day)

ratio of lipid traction of fish tissue ^consumed to 3%

food chaitt multiplier (from Table 3-1}

bioconceatradoa factor (tag  toxicant/kg fish divided by mg toxicant/L
water) for fish with 3% lipid content
  Exhibit 3-1.  Equation for Deriving Human Health Criteria Based on Noncarcinogenic Effects
•    adequacy  of the  cancer  data base  (i.e.,
     human vs. animal data); and

•    limited information regzirding the mechanism
     of cancer causation.

Risk levels of 10'5, 10'6, and 10'7 are often used
by States as minimal risk levels hi interpreting
their  standards.   EPA  considers  risks  to  be
additive, i.e., the risk from individual chemicals
is not necessarily the overall risk from exposure
to water. For example, an individual risk level of
10'6  may yield a higher  overall risk  level if
multiple carcinogenic chemicals are present.

For  carcinogenic  effects,  the  criterion can  be
determined by using the equation in Exhibit 3-2.
                        If the receiving water body is not designated as a
                        drinking water  source,  the  factor WI  can be
                        deleted.

                             Deriving Quantitative Risk Assessments in
                             the Absence of IRIS Values

                        The RfDs or cancer potency estimates  comprise
                        the existing dose-response factors for developing
                        criteria.    When  IRIS  data are  unavailable,
                        quantitative  risk  level  information  may  be
                        developed according  to a  State's own procedures.
                        Some   States  have  established  their  own
                        procedures whereby dose-response factors can be
                        developed  based upon  extrapolation  of acute
                        and/or chronic animal  data to concentrations of
                        exposure  protective of  fish consumption  by
(8/15/94)
                                                                  3-9

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
          C(mg/I) «
    where:
                    %* [WI Hh FC x L x (FM x
C     =    updated water quality criterion (rag/1)


RL    =    risk level (10*) where x Is usually in the fangeTof 4 to 6
      "   	                                "      ^ •%$ * "S f " >J'        ^ ±   "'*'••  <•
                                                 "  "^ •• / /,        ,/^S,
WT   —    weight of an average human adult (70 kg)
                                            f A    <     A V*          J -wiwi     '• v ^ ff
                                                       «,            *s
qt*    =    carcinogenic potency factor (kg day/mg)


WI    =    average human adult water intake (2 I/day)


FC    =    daily fish consumption (kg fish/day)


L     »    ratio of lipid fraction of fish tissue consumed to 3 % assume! by EPA
                                            ,       u. vu, w, v ™ ™ ^    ^   ' X "*

FM    as    food chain multiplier (from Table 3-1)


BCF   =    bioconCentration factor  (mg  loxicant/kg fish divided by mg toxicant/L
             water) for fish with 3% lipid content
                                  ^  *v       fv~f  s «! i ii-v wvi
                                                                                             II	I	
  Exhibit 3-2.  Equation for Deriving Human Health Criteria Based on Carcinogenic Effects
humans.

13.21 Relationship of Section 304(a) Criteria
T"""11" to State Designated Uses

The section 304(a)(l) criteria published by EPA
from time to time  can be used to support the
designated uses found  in State standards.  The
following sections briefly discuss the relationship
between  certain  criteria  and individual  use
classifications.  Additional information on this
subject also can be  found  in  the "Green Book"
(FWPCA, 1968);  the "Blue Book" (NAS/NAE,
1973); the "Red Book"  USEPA, 1976); the EPA
Water Quality Criteria Documents (see Appendix
I); the"Gold Book"  (USEPA,  1986a); and future
EPA  section  304(a)(l) water quality criteria
publications.
                                     Where a water body is designated for more than
                                     one use, criteria  necessary to protect the most
                                     sensitive use must be applied. The following four
                                     sections discuss the major types of use categories.
                                    3.2.1  Recreation

                                    Recreational uses of water include activities such
                                    as  swimming,  wading,  boating,  and fishing.
                                    Often insufficient data exist on the human health
                                    effects  of physical  and  chemical  pollutants,
                                    including most toxics, to make a determination of
                                    criteria  for  recreational  uses. However, as  a
                                    general guideline, recreational waters that contain
                                    chemicals in concentrations  toxic  or  otherwise
                                    harmful to man  if ingested, or irritating  to the
                                    skin or  mucous membranes of the human body
340
                                                                                    (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                  Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
upon brief immersion, should be avoided.  The
section  304(a)(l) human  health effects criteria
based on direct human drinking water intake and
fish consumption might provide useful guidance in
these  circumstances.   Also,  section  304(a)(l)
criteria  based on human  health effects may be
used to  support this designated use where fishing
is included in the State definition of "recreation."
In this  latter situation, only the portion of the
criterion based on  fish consumption should be
used.   Section  304(a)(l)   criteria  to  protect
recreational uses are also available for certain
physical,  microbiological, and  narrative  "free
from" aesthetic criteria.

Research regarding  bacteriological indicators has
resulted in EPA recommending that States use
Escherichia coli or enterococci  as indicators of
recreational water quality (USEPA, 1986b) rather
than  fecal coliform  because  of  the  better
correlation with gastroenteritis in swimmers.

The "Green  Book" and  "Blue Book" provide
additional information on protecting  recreational
uses such as pH criteria to prevent eye irritation
and microbiological criteria  based on aesthetic
considerations.

3.2.2  Aquatic Life

The section  304(a)(l) criteria  for  aquatic life
should be used directly to support this designated
use.  If subcategories of this use are adopted
(e.g., to  differentiate between coldwater  and
warmwater fisheries), then appropriate  criteria
should be set to reflect the varying needs of such
subcategories.

3.2.3  Agricultural and Industrial Uses

The "Green Book" (FWPCA,  1968) and "Blue
Book"   (NAS/NAE,   1973)   provide   some
information  on  protecting  agricultural   and
industrial uses.  Section 304(a)(l)  criteria for
protecting  these uses have not been specifically
developed for numerous parameters pertaining to
these uses, including most toxics.
Where  criteria  have  not  been   specifically
developed for these uses,  the criteria developed
for human health and aquatic life  are  usually
sufficiently stringent to protect these uses.  States
may also establish criteria specifically designed to
protect these uses.

3.2.4  Public Water Supply

The drinking water exposure component of the
section 304(a)(l) criteria based  on human health
effects can apply directly to this use classification.
The criteria also may be appropriately modified
depending upon whether the specific water supply
system  falls  within  the  auspices  of the Safe
Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) regulatory control
and the type and level of treatment imposed upon
the supply before delivery to the consumer. The
SDWA controls the presence of contaminants in
finished ("at-the-tap") drinking water.

A brief description of relevant sections  of the
SDWA is necessary to explain how the Act will
work in conjunction with section 304(a)(l) criteria
in protecting human health  from the effects of
toxics due to consumption of water.  Pursuant to
section 1412 of the SDWA, EPA has promulgated
"National Primary Drinking Water Standards" for
certain radionuclide, microbiological, organic, and
inorganic substances.  These standards establish
maximum  contaminant  levels  (MCLs),  which
specify  the maximum  permissible  level  of a
contaminant in water  that may be delivered to a
user of a public  water system  now defined as
serving  a minimum  of 25 people.    MCLs are
established based  on consideration of a range of
factors including not only the health  effects of the
contaminants  but  also  treatment  capability,
monitoring availability, and costs. Under section
1401(l)(D)(i) of the SDWA, EPA is also allowed
to establish the minimum quality criteria for water
that may  be taken into  a public water supply
system.

Section  304(a)(l)  criteria provide  estimates of
pollutant  concentrations  protective  of  human
health, but do not consider treatment technology,
costs, and other feasibility factors.   The section
(8/15/94)
                                         3-11

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 304(a)(l)   criteria   also   include  fish
 bioaccumulation  and  consumption  factors  in
 addition to direct human drinking water intake.
 These numbers were not developed to serve as
 Mat-the-tap"  drinking water standards, and they
 have no regulatory significance under the SDWA.
 Drinking water standards are established based on
 considerations,   including  technological   and
 economic feasibility,  not  relevant  to  section
 304(a)(l) criteria.  Section 304(a)(l) criteria are
 more analogous to  the  maximum contaminant
 level  goals  (MCLGs)  (previously  known  as
 RMCLs)   under section  1412(b)(l)(B)  of the
 SDWA in which, based  upon a report from the
 National Academy of Sciences, the Administrator
 should set  target  levels  for contaminants  in
 drinking water at which "no known or anticipated
 adverse effects occur and which allow an adequate
 margin of safety." MCLGs do  not take treatment,
 cost,   and   other   feasibility  factors  into
 consideration.  Section 304(a)(l) criteria are, in
 concept, related to the health-based goals specified
 in the MCLGs.

 MCLs of the SDWA, where they exist, control
 toxic  chemicals in   finished   drinking  water.
 However,  because  of variations in  treatment,
 ambient water criteria may be  used by the States
 as a supplement to  SDWA regulations.  When
 setting water quality criteria  for public water
 supplies,  States  have  the option  of applying
 MCLs, section 304(a)(l) human health effects
 criteria, modified section 304(a)(l) criteria, or
 controls more stringent than these three to protect
 against the effects of contaminants by ingestion
 from drinking water.

 For  treated drinking water supplies serving 25
 people  or   greater,   States   must  control
 contaminants down  to levels at least as stringent
 as MCLs  (where they exist for the pollutants of
 concern)   in   the   finished   drinking   water.
 However, States also have the options to control
 toxics  in the ambient water by choosing section
 304(a)(l)   criteria,  adjusted  section  304(a)(l)
 criteria resulting from the reduction of the direct
 drinking water exposure component hi the criteria
 calculation to the extent that the treatment process
 reduces the level of pollutants, or a more stringent
 contaminant level than the former three options.
        State Criteria Requirements
 Section  131.11(a)(l) of the Regulation  requires
 States to adopt water quality criteria to protect the
 designated  use(s).   The State criteria must  be
 based on sound  scientific  rationale  and  must
 contain  sufficient parameters or constituents  to
 protect the designated use(s).  For waters with
 multiple  use  designations,  the  criteria   must
 support the most sensitive use.

 In section 131.11, States are encouraged  to adopt
 both numeric and narrative criteria.  Aquatic life
 criteria  should  protect against  both short-term
 (acute) and long-term (chronic) effects. Numeric
 criteria are particularly important where the cause
 of toxicity  is  known  or for protection against
 pollutants with potential human health impacts  or
 bioaccumulation potential. Numeric water quality
 criteria may also be  the best way  to  address
 nonpoint source pollution problems.   Narrative
 criteria can be the basis for limiting toxicity  in
 waste discharges where a specific pollutant can be
 identified as causing or contributing to the toxicity
 but  where there  are no  numeric criteria in the
 State standards.  Narrative  criteria also can be
 used where toxicity  cannot be traced  to  a
 particular pollutant.

 Section 131.11(a)(2) requires States to develop
 implementation procedures which explain how the
 State will ensure that narrative toxics criteria are
 met.

 To more fully protect aquatic habitats, it is EPA's
policy that States fully integrate chemical-specific,
 whole-effluent,    and   biological   assessment
approaches in State water quality programs (see
Appendix R).  Specifically,  each of these  three
methods can provide a valid  assessment of non-
attainment of designated aquatic life uses  but can
rarely  demonstrate  use  attainment  separately.
Therefore, EPA supports  a policy of independent
application of these three water quality assessment
3-12
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
approaches.  Independent application means that
the validity  of the results of any one  of the
approaches does not depend  on confirmation by
one or both of the other methods.  This policy is
based on the unique attributes, limitations, and
program  applications  of each  of  the  three
approaches. Each method alone can provide valid
and  independently  sufficient evidence of  non-
attainment of water quality standards, irrespective
of any evidence, or lack thereof, derived from the
other two approaches.  The failure of one method
to confirm impacts identified by another method
does  not negate  the  results  of  the   initial
assessment.

It is  also  EPA's  policy  that  States  should
designate aquatic  life uses  that  appropriately
address biological integrity and adopt biological
criteria  necessary  to  protect those  uses (see
section 3.5.3 and Appendices C, K, and R).
       Criteria for Toxicants
Applicable  requirements  for State  adoption of
water quality criteria for toxicants vary depending
upon the toxicant.  The reason for this is that the
1983  Water  Quality   Standards   Regulation
(Appendix A) and the Water Quality Act of 1987
which amended the Clean Water Act (Public Law
100-4) include more specific requirements for the
particular  toxicants  listed  pursuant  to  CWA
section 307(a). For regulatory purposes, EPA has
translated  the 65  compounds  and families of
compounds listed pursuant to section 307(a) into
126 more specific substances, which EPA refers
to as "priority toxic pollutants."  The 126 priority
toxic pollutants are listed in the WQS regulation
and in Appendix  P of this Handbook. Because of
the more  specific requirements for priority toxic
pollutants,  it  is convenient  to organize the
requirements  applicable  to  State  adoption of
criteria for toxicants into  three categories:

•    requirements  applicable to  priority  toxic
     pollutants that have been the subject of CWA
     section  304(a)(l)  criteria  guidance  (see
     section 3.4.1);
•    requirements  applicable to  priority  toxic
     pollutants that have not been the subject of
     CWA section 304(a)(l) criteria guidance (see
     section 3.4.1);  and

•    requirements applicable to all other toxicants
     (e.g.,  non-conventional   pollutants  like
     ammonia and chlorine) (see section 3.4.2).

3.4.1  Priority Toxic Pollutant Criteria

The criteria requirements  applicable to priority
toxic pollutants (i.e., the first two  categories
above) are specified in CWA section 303(c)(2)(B).
Section 303(c)(2)(B),  as added  by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, provides that:

     Whenever a State reviews water quality
     standards pursuant to paragraph (1) of
     this  subsection,  or revises or adopts
     new   standards  pursuant  to   this
     paragraph,   such  State  shall  adopt
     criteria for all toxic pollutants listed
     pursuant to section 307(a)(l) of this Act
     for which criteria have been published
     under section 304(a), the discharge or
     presence  of  which  in the  affected
     waters could reasonably be expected to
     interfere  with  those designated uses
     adopted by the State, as necessary to
     support such designated uses.   Such
     criteria  shall  be specific numerical
     criteria  for  such   toxic   pollutants.
     Where such numerical criteria are not
     available,  whenever  a  State reviews
     water  quality  standards  pursuant to
     paragraph (1), or revises or adopts new
     standards pursuant  to this  paragraph,
     such State shall adopt criteria based on
     biological monitoring  or   assessment
     methods  consistent  with  information
     published pursuant to section 304(a)(8).
     Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be
     construed  to limit or delay the use of
     effluent limitations  or  other  permit
     conditions  based  on  or  involving
     biological monitoring  or   assessment
(8/15/94)
                                          3-13

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      methods   or   previously   adopted
      numerical criteria.

  EPA,   in   devising   guidance  for   section
  303(c)(2)(B), attempted to provide States with the
  maximum  flexibility that  complied  with  the
  express  statutory language but  also  with  the
  overriding  congressional  objective:    prompt
  adoption  and implementation of numeric toxics
  criteria.     EPA  believed  that  flexibility  was
  important so that each State could comply with
  section 303(c)(2)(B)  and to the extent possible,
  accommodate its existing water quality standards
  regulatory approach.

      General Requirements

 To  carry  out  the   requirements   of  section
 303(c)(2)(B), whenever a State revises its water
 quality standards, it must  review all  available
 information and data to  first determine whether
 the discharge or the presence of a toxic pollutant
 is interfering with or is likely to interfere with the
 attainment of the designated uses of any water
 body segment.

 If the data indicate that it is reasonable to expect
 the toxic pollutant to interfere with the use, or it
 actually is interfering  with the use, then the State
 must adopt a  numeric  limit  for the specific
 pollutant.  If a State is  unsure whether a toxic
 pollutant is interfering  with,  or is likely  to
 interfere with, the designated use and therefore is
 unsure that control of the pollutant is necessary to
 support the  designated  use,  the  State  should
 undertake to develop sufficient information upon
 which to make such a determination. Presence of
 facilities that manufacture  or use the. section
 307(a)   toxic  pollutants  or other  information
 indicating that such pollutants are discharged  or
 will  be discharged strongly suggests  that such
 pollutants  could  be interfering  with  attaining
 designated uses.  If a State expects the pollutant
 not to  interfere  with the designated  use, then
 section 303(1)(2)(B) does not require a numeric
 standard for that pollutant.

 Section  303(c)(2)(B) addresses  only  pollutants
 listed as "toxic" pursuant to section  307(a) of the
 Act,  which are codified  at  40 CFR  131.36(b).
 The section 307(a) list contains 65 compounds and
 families of compounds, which potentially include
 thousands of  specific compounds.   The Agency
 has interpreted that list to include 126  "priority"
 toxic   pollutants    for   regulatory  purposes.
 Reference in this guidance to toxic pollutants or
 section  307(a) toxic pollutants refers to the  126
 priority toxic  pollutants unless otherwise noted.
 Both  the list of  priority  toxic  pollutants and
 recommended criteria levels are subject to change.

 The national criteria recommendations published
 by EPA under section  304(a)  (see  section 3.1,
above) of the  Act include values for both acute
and chronic aquatic life protection; only chronic
criteria recommendations have been established to
3-14
                                                                                        (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                  Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
protect  human  health.    To  comply  with the
statute,  a State  needs to  adopt aquatic life and
human health criteria where necessary to support
the appropriate designated uses.  Criteria for the
protection of human health are needed for water
bodies designated for public water supply.  When
fish ingestion is  considered an important activity,
then  the human  health-related  water  quality
criteria recommendation developed under section
304(a) of the CWA should be used; that is, the
portion of the criteria recommendation based on
fish consumption. For those pollutants designated
as carcinogens, the recommendation for a human
health criterion  is generally more stringent  than
the aquatic life  criterion for the same pollutant.
In   contrast,    the  aquatic   life   criteria
recommendations    for   noncarcinogens   are
generally more  stringent  than the human health
recommendations. When  a State adopts a human
health criterion for a carcinogen,  the State needs
to select a risk level.  EPA  has estimated risk
levels  of  10'5,  10'6,  and  10'7  in  its  criteria
documents under one set of exposure assumptions.
However, the State is  not limited to choosing
among the risk levels published in the section
304(a) criteria documents, nor is the State limited
to the base case exposure assumptions; it must
choose the risk level for its conditions and explain
its rationale.
                 /
EPA  generally  regulates  pollutants  treated as
carcinogens in the range of 10"6 to 10"4 to protect
average  exposed  individuals and more highly
exposed  populations. However, if a State selects
a criterion that represents an upper bound risk
level less protective than 1 in 100,000 (e.g., 10'5),
the State needs to have substantial support in the
record for this level. This support focuses on two
distinct issues.  First, the record must include
documentation that the decision maker considered
the public interest of the State in selecting the risk
level,   including   documentation  of   public
participation in the  decision making  process as
required  by   the  Water  Quality   Standards
Regulation at 40 CFR  13L20(b).  Second, the
record must include an analysis showing that the
risk level selected, when combined with other risk
assessment variables, is a balanced and reasonable
estimate of actual risk posed,  based oh the best
and  most representative information available.
The  importance  of the estimated  actual risk
increases as the degree of  conservatism  in the
selected risk level  diminishes.   EPA carefully
evaluates all assumptions used by a State if the
State chose to alter any one  of the standard EPA
assumption values (57 F.R. 60864, December 22,
1993).

EPA does not intend to propose changes to the
current requirements regarding the bases on which
a  State can  adopt numeric  criteria (40  CFR
131.11(b)(l)).  Under  EPA's   regulation,  in
addition  to  basing  numeric criteria  on EPA's
section 304(a) criteria documents, States may also
base  numeric   criteria   on   site-specific
determinations or other scientifically defensible
methods.

EPA expects each State to comply with the new
statutory requirements in any section 303 (c) water
quality standards review initiated after enactment
of the Water Quality Act of 1987. The structure
of section 303(c) is to require States to review
their water quality standards at least once each 3
year period. Section 303(c)(2)(B) instructs States
to include  reviews  for toxics criteria whenever
they initiate a triennial review.  Therefore, even
if a State has complied with  section 303(c)(2)(B),
the State must review its standards each triennium
to ensure that section  303(c)(2)(B) requirements
continue to be  met, considering that EPA may
have published additional section 304(a) criteria
documents  and  that  the  State  will have new
information on  existing water  quality  and  on
pollution sources.

It should be noted that nothing in the Act or in the
Water Quality Standards Regulation restricts the
right of a State to adopt numeric criteria for any
pollutant not listed pursuant to section 307(a)(l),
and  that  such  criteria  may be expressed  as
concentration limits for an individual pollutant or
for a toxicity parameter itself  as measured  by
whole-effluent toxicity testing. However, neither
numeric toxic criteria nor whole-effluent toxicity
 (8/15/94)
                                         3-15

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  should be used as a surrogate for, or to supersede
  the other.

      State Options

  States may meet the requirements of CWA section
  303(c)(2)(B)   by   choosing   one  of  three
  scientifically and technically sound options (or
  some combination thereof):

  (1)  Adopt statewide numeric  criteria in State
      water quality standards for all section 307(a)
      toxic  pollutants  for  which   EPA  has
      developed criteria guidance, regardless  of
      whether  the pollutants are known to be
      present;

  (2)  Adopt  specific  numeric criteria  in State
      water quality standards for section  307(a)
      toxic pollutants  as  necessary  to  support
      designated uses  where  such pollutants are
      discharged  or are present  in the affected
      waters and could reasonably be expected to
      interfere with designated uses;

 (3)  Adopt a "translator procedure" to be applied
      to a  narrative  water  quality   standard
      provision that prohibits toxicity in receiving
      waters. Such a procedure is to  be used by
      the  State  in calculating derived  numeric
      criteria, which shall be used for all purposes
      under section 303(c) of the CWA.  At  a
      minimum, such criteria need to be developed
      for  section  307(a)  toxic  pollutants, as
      necessary to  support designated uses, where
      these pollutants are discharged or present in
      the affected waters and could reasonably be
     expected to interfere with designated uses.

Option  1   is consistent  with  State authority to
establish water quality standards.  Option 2 most
directly reflects the CWA requirements and is the
option recommended by EPA. Option 3,  while
meeting the requirements of the CWA, is best
suited to supplement numeric criteria from option
1 or 2.  The three options are discussed in more
detail below.
      OPTION 1

  Adopt statewide numeric criteria in State water
  quality standards for  all section 307(a)  toxic
  pollutants for which EPA has developed criteria
  guidance, regardless of whether the pollutants
  are known to be present.

  Pro:

  •    simple, straightforward implementation

  •    ensures that States  will satisfy statute

  •    makes   maximum   uses   of   EPA
      recommendations

  •    gets specific numbers into State water quality
      standards fast, at first

 Con:

 •    some priority toxic pollutants may  not be
      discharged in State

 •    may cause unnecessary monitoring by States

 •    might result in "paper standards"

 Option 1 is within a State's legal authority under
 the CWA to adopt broad water quality standards.
 This  option is the most comprehensive approach
 to satisfy the statutory requirements because it
 would include all of the  priority toxic pollutants
 for which EPA has  prepared section  304(a)
 criteria guidance for  either or both aquatic life
 protection  and  human  health protection.    In
 addition to a simple adoption of EPA's section
 304(a) guidance as standards, a State must select
 a risk level for those toxic pollutants which are
 carcinogens (i.e., that cause or may cause cancer
 in humans).

 Many States find this option attractive because it
 ensures comprehensive coverage of the priority
 toxic  pollutants  with scientifically  defensible
criteria without the need  to conduct a resource-
intensive evaluation of the particular segments and
3-16
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
pollutants requiring criteria.   This option also
would not be  more  costly to dischargers than
other options because  permit limits  would  be
based only  on the regulation of the particular
toxic pollutants in their  discharges and not on the
total listing in the water quality standards.  Thus,
actual permit limits should be the same under any
of the options.

The State may also exercise; its authority to use
one or more of the techniques for adjusting water
quality standards:

•    establish or revise designated stream uses
     based  on  use  attainability  analyses (see
     section 2.9);

•    develop site-specific criteria; or

•    allow short-term variances (see section 5.3)
     when appropriate.

All  three  of  these  techniques  may  apply  to
standards developed under  any  of  the  three
options  discussed in  this guidance.  It is  likely
that States electing to use option 1 will rely more
on  variances because the other two options are
implemented with more  site-specific data being
available.   It  should be noted,  however, that
permits  issued pursuant to such  water quality
variances still must comply with any applicable
antidegradation and antibacksliding requirements.

     OPTION 2

Adopt specific numeric criteria in State  water
quality  standards  for section  307(a)  toxic
pollutants as necessary to support designated
uses where such pollutants  are discharged or
are present in the affected  waters and  could
reasonably  be  expected  to  interfere  with
designated uses.
Pro:
     directly reflects statutoiry requirement
•    standards based on  demonstrated need  to
     control problem pollutants

•    State can use EPA's  section 304(a) national
     criteria   recommendations   or    other
     scientifically acceptable alternative, including
     site-specific criteria

•    State can consider current or potential toxic
     pollutant problems

•    State can go beyond section 307(a)  toxics
     list, as desired

Con:

•    may be  difficult and time  consuming  to
     determine  if,  and   which, pollutants  are
     interfering with the designated use

•    adoption of standards can require lengthy
     debates on  correct  criteria  limit  to  be
     included in standards

•    successful State toxic control programs based
     on narrative criteria may be halted or slowed
     as the  State applies its limited  resources to
     developing numeric standards

•    difficult to update criteria once adopted as
     part of standards

•    to be absolutely technically defensible, may
     need site-specific criteria in many situations,
     leading to a  large workload for  regulatory
     agency

EPA recommends that a State  use this option to
meet the statutory requirement.  It directly reflects
all  the  Act's  requirements  and  is flexible,
resulting in adoption of  numeric water quality
standards as needed. To  assure that the State is
capable of  dealing  with  new problems as they
arise, EPA  also recommends that States adopt a
translator procedure the same  as, or similar to,
that described in option 3, but applicable to  all
chemicals causing toxicity and not  just priority
pollutants as is the case for option 3.
(8/15/94)
                                          3-17

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 Beginning  in  1988, EPA provided States with
 candidate lists of priority toxic pollutants and
 water bodies in support of CWA section 304(1)
 implementation.   These lists were developed
 because States were required to evaluate existing
 and readily available water-related data to comply
 with section 304(1), 40 CFR 130.10(d). A similar
 "strawman"  analysis  of  priority  pollutants
 potentially requiring adoption of numeric criteria
 under section 303(c)(2)(B) was furnished to most
 States in September or October of 1990 for their
 use in ongoing and subsequent triennial  reviews.
 The primary differences between the "strawman"
 analysis and the section 304(1) candidate lists were
 that  the  "strawman" analysis (1)  organized the
 results by chemical rather than by water body, (2)
 included data for certain  STORET monitoring
 stations  that were not used in constructing the
 candidate lists, (3) included data from the Toxics
 Release   Inventory  database,  and  (4)  did not
 include  a  number of  data  sources  used  in
 preparing the candidate lists (e.g., those, such as
 fish  kill  information,   that   did  not  provide
 chemical-specific information).

 EPA intends for States, at a minimum, to use the
 information gathered in support of section 304(1)
 requirements as a starting point for identifying (1)
 water segments that will need new and/or revised
 water quality standards  for section 307(a) toxic
 pollutants, and (2) which priority toxic pollutants
 require adoption  of numeric  criteria.  In the
 longer term, EPA expects similar determinations
 to occur  during  each  triennial review of water
 quality standards as required by section 303(c).

 In identifying the need for numeric criteria, EPA
 is encouraging States to use information and data
 such as:

 •    presence  or   potential   construction  of
     facilities that  manufacture or use  priority
     toxic pollutants;

 *    ambient water  monitoring data, including
     those for sediment and aquatic life (e.g., fish
     tissue data);
 •    NPDES permit applications and permittee
      self-monitoring reports;

 •    effluent guideline development  documents,
      many of which  contain  section >307(a)(l)
      priority pollutant scans;

 •    pesticide   and   herbicide   application
      information and other records of pesticide or
      herbicide inventories;

 •    public water supply source monitoring data
      noting   pollutants   with   Maximum
      Contaminant Levels (MCLs); and

 •    any other  relevant information on  toxic
      pollutants   collected  by   Federal,  State,
      interstate agencies,  academic  groups,  or
      scientific organizations.

 States are also  expected  to take  into  account
 newer information as it became available, such as
 information  in annual  reports from the Toxic
 Chemical Release Inventory requirements of the
 Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
 Know Act of 1986 (Title III, Public Law 99-499).

 Where the State's review indicates a reasonable
 expectation of a  problem from the discharge or
 presence  of toxic  pollutants,  the  State should
 identify   the pollutant(s)  and   the  relevant
 segment(s).   In  making these determinations,
 States should use their own EPA-approved criteria
 or  existing  EPA  water  quality  criteria  for
 purposes  of  segment identification.  After the
 review, the State may use other means to establish
 the final  criterion as it revises its standards.

 As  with  option 1,  a State using  option  2 must
 follow   all   its   legal   and   administrative
requirements  for  adoption  of  water  quality
 standards. Since the resulting numeric criteria are
part of a  State's water quality standards, they are
required to be submitted by the State to EPA for
review and either approval or disapproval.

EPA believes this  option offers the State optimum
flexibility.   For section  307(a) toxic pollutants
3-18
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                  Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
adversely affecting  designated  uses,  numeric
criteria are available for permitting purposes. For
other situations,  the  State has  the  option  of
defining site-specific criteria..

     OPTION 3

Adopt  a procedure  to  be  applied to  the
narrative water quality standard provision that
prohibits toxicity in receiving waters. Such a
procedure  would   be used by  a   State  in
calculating derived numeric criteria to be used
for all purposes of water quality criteria under
section  303(c) of the CWA.  At  a  minimum
such criteria need  to be derived for section
307(a) toxic pollutants where the discharge or
presence  of such  pollutants  in the affected
waters   could  reasonably  be  expected  to
interfere with designated uses,  as necessary to
support such designated uses.
Pro:
     allows a State flexibility to control priority
     toxic pollutants

     reduces time  and cost required  to adopt
     specific numeric  criteria as  water  quality
     standards regulations

     allows immediate use of  latest  scientific
     information  available at  the time a  State
     needs to develop derived numeric criteria

     revisions and additions to derived numeric
     criteria can be made without need to revise
     State law

     State can deal more easily  with a situation
     where  it did  not establish  water  quality
     standards  for  the  section  307(a)  toxic
     pollutants during  the most recent triennial
     review

     State can address problems from non-section
     307(a) toxic pollutants
Con:

•    EPA is  currently on notice that a derived
     numeric criterion may invite legal challenge

•    once the necessary procedures are adopted to
     enhance legal defensibility (e.g., appropriate
     scientific methods  and  public participation
     and review), actual savings in time and costs
     may be less than expected

•    public   participation in   development  of
     derived  numeric  criteria  may  be  limited
     when  such criteria  are not addressed in  a
     hearing on water quality standards

EPA believes that adoption of a narrative standard
along with a translator  mechanism as part of a
State's  water  quality   standard  satisfies  the
substantive requirements of the statute.   These
criteria  are subject to all the State's legal  and
administrative  requirements  for  adoption  of
standards plus  review  and  either  approval or
disapproval   by  EPA,   and   result  in  the
development  of  derived numeric  criteria  for
specific section  307(a) toxic pollutants. They are
also  subject  to  an  opportunity   for  public
participation.   Nevertheless,  EPA believes the
most  appropriate use  of option  3  is as  a
supplement to either option 1 or 2. Thus, a State
would have formally adopted numeric criteria for
toxic  pollutants that occur frequently; that have
general  applicability statewide  for  inclusion in
NPDES permits, total maximum daily loads, and
waste load allocations; and that also  would have
a  sound  and  predictable method   to  develop
additional numeric criteria  as  needed.    This
combination  of  options  provides  a complete
regulatory scheme.

Although the approach in option 3 is similar to
that currently  allowed  in  the Water   Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)(2)), this
guidance  discusses several  administrative  and
scientific  requirements  that  EPA believes  are
necessary to comply with section 303(c)(2)(B).
(8/15/94)
                                         3-19

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
.  (1)  The Option 3 Procedure Must Be Used To
       Calculate Derived Numeric Water Quality
       Criteria

  States  must adopt a specific procedure to be
  applied to a narrative water quality criterion.  To
  satisfy section 303(c)(2)(B), this procedure shall
  be  used by  the  State  in  calculating derived
  numeric  criteria,  which shall  be used  for all
  purposes under section 303(c) of the CWA.  Such
  criteria need to be developed for section 307(a)
  toxic pollutants as necessary to support designated
  uses, where these pollutants are discharged or are
  present  in  the   affected   waters   and  could
  reasonably  be  expected  to  interfere  with the-
  designated uses.

  To assure protection from short-term exposures,
  the State procedure should ensure development of
  derived numeric water quality criteria based on
  valid acute aquatic  toxicity tests that are lethal to
  half the affected organisms (LC50) for the species
  representative of or similar to those found in the
  State.   In addition, the State procedure  should
  ensure  development  of derived numeric  water
  quality criteria  for protection  from  chronic
  exposure  by using an appropriate safety factor
  applicable to  this  acute limit.    If  there  are
  saltwater  components  to  the  State's  aquatic
  resources, the State should establish appropriate
  derived numeric criteria for saltwater in addition
  to those for freshwater.

  The State's documentation  of the tests  should
  include a detailed discussion of its quality control
  and  quality assurance procedures.   The State
  should also include a description (or reference
  existing technical agreements with EPA)  of the
 procedure it will use to calculate derived acute
 and chronic numeric criteria from the test data,
 and how these derived criteria will be used as the
 basis for  deriving appropriate TMDLs, WLAs,
 and NPDES permit  limits.

 As discussed above, the procedure for calculating
 derived numeric criteria needs to protect aquatic
 life from  both  acute and  chronic exposure to
 specific chemicals.  Chronic  aquatic life criteria
 are to be met at the edge of the mixing zone.
 The acute criteria are to be met (1) at the end-of-
 pipe if mixing is not rapid and complete and a
 high rate diffuser is not present;  or (2) after
 mixing if mixing is rapid and complete or a high
 rate diffuser is present. (See EPA's  Technical
 Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
 Control,  USEPA  1991a.)

 EPA  has  not established  a  national  policy
 specifying the point of application in the receiving
 water  to be used with  human health criteria.
 However, EPA has approved State standards that
 apply human health criteria for fish consumption
 at the  mixing zone boundary and/or apply the
 criteria for  drinking  water  consumption,  at  a
 minimum, at the  point  of use.   EPA has also
 proposed more stringent  requirements for the
 application  of human health  criteria for highly
 bioaccumulative pollutants in the Water Quality
 guidance  for the  Great  Lakes System  (50 F.R.
 20931,  21035,   April   16,   1993)  including
 elimination of mixing zones.

 Li addition, the  State should  also include an
 indication  of  potential  bioconcentration  or
 bioaccumulation by providing for:

 •    laboratory tests that measure the steady-state
     bioconcentration  rate   achieved   by   a
     susceptible organism; and/or

 •    field data in  which ambient concentrations
     and  tissue loads  are  measured to give an
     appropriate factor.

 In  developing  a  procedure  to  be   used in
 calculating  derived  numeric  criteria  for the
 protection  of  aquatic  life,   the  State  should
 consider the potential impact that bioconcentration
 has on aquatic and terrestrial food chains.

The  State   should    also  use  the  derived
bioconcentration factor and food chain multiplier
to calculate chronically protective numeric criteria
for humans that consume aquatic organisms.  In
calculating this derived  numeric criterion, the
State should indicate data requirements to be met
 3-20
                                                                                       (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
when dealing with either threshold (toxic) or non-
threshold  (carcinogenic) compounds.   The State
should describe the species and the minimum
number of tests, which may generally be met by
a single mammalian chronic: test if it is of good
quality and if the weight of evidence indicates that
the results  are  reasonable.   The  State  should
provide the method to calculate a derived numeric
criterion from the appropriate test result.

Both the threshold and non-threshold criteria for
protecting human health should contain exposure
assumptions, and the State  procedure should be
used to calculate derived numeric criteria that
address the consumption of water, consumption of
fish, and  combined  consumption of  both  water
and  fish.     The  State  should  provide  the
assumptions regarding  the amount of fish and the
quantity of water consumed per person per day,
as  well  as  the rationale  used  to  select  the
assumptions.  It needs to include the number of
tests, the  species necessary to establish a dose-
response relationship,  and  the procedure  to be
used to calculate the  derived numeric criteria.
For non-threshold contaminants, the State should
specify the model used to extrapolate to low dose
and  the  risk level.    It  should  also  address
incidental  exposure  from other water  sources
(e.g.,  swimming).   When calculating  derived
numeric   criteria  for  multiple  exposure  to
pollutants, the  State  should  consider additive
effects,  especially for carcinogenic  substances,
and should factor in the contribution to the daily
intake of toxicants from other sources (e.g., food,
air) when  data are available,

(2)  The  State Must Demonstrate  That the
     Procedure Results  in Derived Numeric
     Criteria Are Protective

The State needs to demonstrate that its procedures
for  developing  criteria,   including  translator
methods, yield fully protective criteria for human
health and for aquatic life. EPA's review process
will proceed according to EPA's regulation of 40
CFR 131.11, which requires that criteria be based
on sound  scientific rationale and be protective of
all designated uses.  EPA will use the expertise
and experience it has gamed in developing section
304(a) criteria for toxic pollutants by application
of its  own translator method (USEPA, 1980b;
USEPA, 1985b).

Once EPA has approved the  State's procedure,
the Agency's review of derived numeric criteria,
for example, for pollutants  other  than section
307(a) toxic pollutants resulting from the State's
procedure, will focus on the adequacy of the data
base rather than  the calculation  method.   EPA
also  encourages States to apply such a procedure
to calculate derived numeric criteria to be used as
the  basis for  deriving permit  limitations  for
nonconventional  pollutants   that   also   cause
toxicity.

(3)  The State Must Provide Full  Opportunity
     for Public Participation in Adoption of the
     Procedure

The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires
States to hold public hearings to review and revise
water  quality  standards  in  accordance   with
provisions  of  State law and  EPA's Public
Participation Regulation (40 CFR 25).  Where a
State plans to adopt a procedure to  be applied to
the  narrative   criterion,  it must  provide  full
opportunity   for  public  participation  in  the
development and adoption of the procedure as part
of the  State's water quality standards.

While  it is not necessary for  the State to  adopt
each derived numeric  criterion  into its  water
quality standards and submit it to EPA for review
and  approval,  EPA is  very  concerned that all
affected  parties  have   adequate  opportunity  to
participate in  the  development of a derived
(8/15/94)
                                         3-21

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 numeric  criterion  even though it is  not  being
 adopted directly as a water quality standard.

 A State  can  satisfy the need  to provide an
 opportunity  for  public  participation  in  the
 development of derived numeric criteria in several
 ways, including:

 •   a specific hearing on the derived numeric
     criterion;

 *   the opportunity for a public  hearing on an
     NPDES permits as long as public notice is
     given that a criterion for a toxic pollutant as
     part  of  the  permit  issuance  is   being
     contemplated; or

 *   a hearing coincidental with any other hearing
     as long as it is made clear that development
     of a  specific  criterion  is  also   being
     undertaken.

 For example,  as  States develop their lists and
 individual control strategies (ICSs) under section
 304(1), they may seek full public participation.
 NPDES   regulations   also   specify  public
 participation requirements related to State permit
 issuance.  Finally, States have public participation
 requirements  associated  with  Water  Quality
 Management Plan updates.    States may take
 advantage  of any of these public participation
 requirements to fulfill the requirement for public
 review of any resulting derived numeric criteria.
 In such cases, the State must give prior notice that
 development   of   such   criteria  is   under
 consideration.

 (4)  The Procedure Must Be Formally Adopted
     and Mandatory

 Where a State  elects to supplement its narrative
 criterion with  an accompanying  implementing
 procedure,  it  must  formally  adopt  such a
 procedure as a part of its water quality standards.
 The procedure  must be used by the State to
 calculate derived numeric criteria that will be used
 as the basis for  all standards' purposes,  including
 the following: developing TMDLs, WLAs, and
 limits in NPDES permits; determining whether
 water  use designations  are being  met;  and
 identifying potential  nonpoint source pollution
 problems.

 (5)   The Procedure Must Be Approved by EPA
      as  Part  of the State's Water  Quality
      Standards Regulation

 To be consistent with the requirements of the Act,
 the State's procedure to be applied to the narrative
 criterion  must be submitted  to EPA  for review
 and approval, and will become a part of the
 State's  water  quality  standards.   (See 40 CFR
 131.21  for further discussion.) This requirement
 may be satisfied by a reference in the standards to
 the procedure, which may be contained in another
 document, which has  legal effect and is binding
 on the State, and all the requirements for public
 review,  State  implementation, and EPA  review
 and approval are satisfied.

     Criteria  Based on Biological Monitoring

 For priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has
 not issued section  304(a)(l)  criteria guidance,
 CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires States to adopt
 criteria   based  on  biological  monitoring  or
 assessment methods.   The  phrase  "biological
 monitoring or  assessment methods" includes:

 •    whole-effluent toxicity control methods;

 •    biological criteria methods; or

 •    other  methods    based  on   biological
     monitoring or assessment.

 The phrase "biological monitoring or assessment
 methods" in   its broadest  sense  also includes
 criteria developed through translator procedures.
 This  broad interpretation of that  phrase  is
 consistent  with.  EPA's  policy   of applying
 chemical-specific, biological,  and whole-effluent
 toxicity  methods independently in an  integrated
 toxics control program. It is also consistent with
 the intent of Congress to expand State standards
programs beyond chemical-specific approaches.
3-22
                                                                                     (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
States should also consider developing protocols
to derive and adopt numeric criteria for priority
toxic pollutants (or other pollutants) where EPA
has not issued  section 304(a) criteria  guidance.
The State  should consider  available laboratory
toxicity test data that may be sufficient to support
derivation of chemical-specific criteria.  Existing
data need  not  be  as  comprehensive as  that
required to meet EPA's 1985 guidelines in order
for a State to  use its own protocols  to  derive
criteria.  EPA has described such protocols in the
proposed Water Quality  Guidance for  the Great
Lakes System (58 F.R. 20892, at 21016, April 16,
1993.) This is particularly important where other
components  of  a  State's  narrative   criterion
implementation procedure (e.g., WET controls or
biological criteria) may not ensure full protection
of  designated  uses.   For  some pollutants,  a
combination  of   chemical-specific  and  other
approaches is  necessary  (e.g.,  pollutants  where
bioaccumulation   in   fish   tissue  or  water
consumption by humans is a primary concern).

Biologically  based  monitoring  or assessment
methods serve as the basis for control  where no
specific numeric criteria exist or where calculation
or  application  of pollutant-by-pollutant criteria
appears  infeasible.  Also,  these methods may
serve  as   a   supplemental  measurement  of
attainment of water quality standards in addition
to  numeric  and  narrative  criteria.     The
requirement  for  both  numeric   criteria  and
biologically based methods demonstrates  that
section  303(c)(2)(B)  contemplates  that  States
develop a comprehensive toxics control program
regardless of the  status of EPA's section  304(a)
criteria.

The  whole-effluent  toxicity   (WET)  testing
procedure is the principal biological monitoring
guidance developed by  EPA to date. The purpose
of the WET procedure is to control point  source
dischargers of toxic pollutants.  The procedure is
particularly useful for monitoring and controlling
the toxicity of complex effluents that may  not be
well controlled through chemical-specific numeric
criteria.   As such,  biologically based effluent
testing procedures are a necessary component of
a  State's toxics control program under section
303(c)(2)(B)  and   a   principal   means   for
implementing a  State's  narrative  "free  from
toxics" standard.

Guidance documents EPA considers to serve the
purpose of section 304(a)(8) include the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control (USEPA, 1991a; Guidelines for Deriving
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses (Appendix
H);  Guidelines  and  Methodology  Used  in  the
Preparation of Health Effect Assessment Chapters
of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents
(Appendix  J); Methods for Measuring  Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms (USEPA, 1991d); Short-Term Methods
for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents
and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms
(USEPA, 1991e); and  Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic  Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving  Waters  to  Marine   and  Estuarine
Organisms (USEPA, 199If).

3.4.2   Criteria for Nonconventional Pollutants

Criteria requirements applicable to toxicants that
are not priority toxic pollutants (e.g., ammonia
and  chlorine), are specified  in  the  1983  Water
Quality  Standards   Regulation   (see  40  CFR
131.11).  Under these requirements, States must
adopt criteria based on  sound scientific rationale
that  cover  sufficient  parameters  to  protect
designated uses.   Both numeric  and narrative
criteria (discussed in sections 3.5.1  and  3.5.2,
below)  may  be   applied   to   meet   these
requirements.
       Forms of Criteria
States are required to adopt water quality criteria,
based on sound scientific rationale, that contain
sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the
designated  use.  EPA believes that an effective
State water  quality standards program should
include both parameter-specific  (e.g.,  ambient
numeric criteria) and narrative approaches.
(8/15/94)
                                         3-23

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 3.5.1  Numeric Criteria

 Numeric criteria are required where necessary to
 protect designated uses.   Numeric criteria  to
 protect aquatic life should be developed to address
 both short-term (acute)  and long-term (chronic)
 effects.  Saltwater species, as well as freshwater
 species, must be adequately protected.  Adoption
 of numeric criteria is particularly  important for
 toxicants known to be impairing surface waters
 and  for toxicants with  potential  human health
 impacts (e.g., those  with  high bioaccumulation
 potential).   Human health should be protected
 from exposure  resulting from consumption  of
 water and fish or other aquatic life (e.g., mussels,
 crayfish). Numeric water quality criteria also are
 useful in addressing nonpoint  source  pollution
 problems.

 In evaluating  whether chemical-specific numeric
 criteria for toxicants that  are not  priority toxic
 pollutants are required,  States should consider
 whether other approaches (such as whole-effluent
 toxicity criteria or biological controls) will ensure
 full protection of designated uses.  As mentioned
 above, a combination of independent approaches
 may be required  in some cases to support the
 designated uses and comply with the requirements
 of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (e.g.,
 pollutants where bioaccumulation in fish tissue or
 water  consumption  by  humans is a primary
 concern).

 3.5.2  Narrative Criteria

 To supplement numeric criteria for toxicants, all
 States  have also  adopted  narrative criteria for
 toxicants.  Such narrative criteria are statements
 that describe the desired  water quality goal,  such
 as the following:

     All waters,  including those within
     mixing  zones,   shall  be  free from
     substances  attributable  to  wastewater
     discharges  or other pollutant sources
     that:
     (1)  Settle   to   form   objectional
          deposits;

     (2)  Float  as  debris,  scum,  oil,  or
          other matter forming nuisances;

     (3)  Produce objectionable color, odor,
          taste, or turbidity;

     (4)  Cause injury to, or are toxic to,
          or produce adverse physiological
          responses in humans, animals, or
          plants; or

     (5)  Produce undesirable or nuisance
          aquatic life (54 F.R. 28627, July
          6, 1989).

EPA considers that the narrative criteria apply to
all designated  uses at all flows and are necessary
to meet the  statutory  requirements  of section
303(c)(2)(A) of the CWA.

Narrative toxic criteria (No, 4, above) can be the
basis for establishing chemical-specific limits for
waste discharges where a specific pollutant can be
identified as causing or contributing to the toxicity
and  the State  has not  adopted chemical-specific
numeric criteria. Narrative toxic criteria are cited
as a basis for  establishing whole-effluent toxicity
controls in EPA permitting regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(d)(l)(v).

To ensure that narrative criteria for toxicants are
attained, the Water Quality Standards Regulation
requires   States  to   develop  implementation
procedures (see 40  CFR 131.11(a)(2)).   Such
implementation procedures (Exhibit 3-3) should
address all mechanisms to be used by the State to
ensure  that   narrative  criteria  are   attained.
Because   implementation of  chemical-specific
numeric  criteria is a  key component  of State
toxics   control  programs,   narrative  criteria
implementation  procedures   must describe  or
reference  the  State's procedures to implement
such  chemical-specific  numeric  criteria  (e.g.,
procedures  for  establishing  chemical-specific
permit  limits   under  the NPDES   permitting
3-24
                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
    State implementation procedures for narrative toxics criteria should describe tile following;


    «    Specific, scientilteatly defeasible methods by which the State will implement its narrative
         toxics standard for all toxicants, including:

         -  methods for chemical-specific criteria, including mei&ods for applying chemical-spedfie
           criteria in permits, developing or modifying chemical-spedfic criteria via a "translator
           procedure" (defined and discussed below), and calculating $ite*spe£ific criteria based
           on local water chemistry or biology);

         -  methods for developing and implementing  whole-effluent toxicity criteria and/or
           controls; and

         -  methods for developing and implementing biological criteria.
    «    How these methods will be integrated in the State's toxics control program (le,, how the
         State will proceed when the specified methods produce conflicting or inconsistent results).
         Application criteria and information needed to apply numerical criteria, for examples

         -  methods the State will uSf to Meatiiy those pollutants to, be regulated in a specific
           discharge;

         -  an incremental estncer risk level for carcinogens;

         -  methods for identifying compliance thresholds in permits where calculated limits are
           below detection;

         -  methods for selecting appropriate hardness, pH, and temperature variables for criteria
           expressed  as functions;

         -  methods or policies controlling the size and in~zone quality of mixing zones;

         -  design flows to be used in translating chemical-specific numeric criteria for aquatic life
          . aad human health into permit limits; aad

         -  other methods and information needed to apply standards on a case-by-case basis.
  Exhibit 3-3.   Components of a State Implementation Procedure for Narrative Toxics Criteria


(8/15/94)                                                                                   3-25

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 program).  Implementation procedures must also
 address State programs to control whole-effluent
 toxicity  (WET)  and may  address programs to
 implement   biological  criteria,   where   such
 programs  have  been developed  by the  State.
 Implementation  procedures therefore  serve  as
 umbrella documents that describe how the State's
 various toxics control programs are integrated to
 ensure adequate protection for aquatic  life and
 human health and  attainment of the  narrative
 toxics criterion.  In essence, the procedure should
 apply the  "independent  application"  principle,
 which provides  for  independent  evaluations  of
 attainment of a designated use based on chemical-
 specific, whole-effluent toxicity,  and biological
 criteria   methods   (see   section  3.5.3  and
 Appendices C, K, and R).

 EPA encourages, and may  ultimately  require,
 State implementation procedures to provide for
 implementation of biological criteria. However,
 the regulatory basis for requiring whole-effluent
 toxicity (WEI) controls is clear. EPA regulations
 at  40  CFR   122.44(d)(l)(v) require   NPDES
 permits to contain WET limits where a permittee
 has  been shown to cause,  have the reasonable
 potential to cause, or contribute to an in-stream
 excursion of a narrative criterion. Implementation
 of chemical-specific controls is also required by
 EPA regulations  at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l).  State
 implementation procedures should, at a minimum,
 specify or  reference methods to be  used  in
 implementing chemical-specific and whole-effluent
 toxicity-based  controls,   explain   how  these
 methods  are  integrated,  and  specify  needed
 application criteria.

 In addition to EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 131,
 EPA has regulations at 40 CFR 122.44 that cover
 the  National   Surface  Water Toxics   Control
 Program.   These  regulations are  intrinsically
 linked to  the requirements  to  achieve  water
 quality standards, and  specifically address the
 control of  pollutants both with  and  without
 numeric   criteria.     For   example,   section
 122.44(d)(l)(vi) provides the permitting authority
 with several options for establishing effluent limits
 when a State  does not have a chemical-specific
 numeric criterion for a pollutant present  in  an
 effluent at  a  concentration  that  causes  or
 contributes to a violation of the State's narrative
 criteria.

 3.5.3   Biological Criteria

 The Clean Water Act  of  1972 directs EPA  to
 develop programs that will evaluate, restore, and
 maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
 integrity of the Nation's waters.  In response to
 this directive, States and EPA have implemented
 chemically based water quality  programs that
 address  significant  water pollution  problems.
 However, over the past 20 years, it has become
 apparent that these programs alone cannot identify
 and address all surface water pollution problems.
 To help create a more comprehensive program,
 EPA is setting a priority for the development  of
 biological criteria as part of State water quality
 standards.  This effort will help States and EPA
 (1) achieve the biological integrity objective of the
 CWA  set forth  in section  101, and (2) comply
 with the statutory requirements under sections 303
 and 304 of the Act (see Appendices C  and K).

    Regulatory Bases for Biocriteria

 The primary statutory basis for EPA's policy that
 States  should develop  biocriteria  is  found  in
 sections  101(a)  and 303(c)(2)(B)  of the  Clean
 Water  Act. Section 101(a) of the CWA gives the
 general goal of biological criteria.  It establishes
 as the objective of the Act the restoration and
 maintenance  of  the chemical,  physical,  and
 biological integrity of the Nation's waters.  To
 meet this objective, water quality criteria should
 address  biological integrity.    Section 101(a)
 includes the  interim water quality  goal for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
 wildlife.

 Section 304(a) of the Act provides the legal basis
for the development of informational criteria,
including biological criteria.  Specific  directives
for the development of regulatory biocriteria can
be found in section 303(c), which requires EPA  to
develop criteria  based on biological assessment
3-26
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Qualify Criteria
methods  when  numerical  criteria  are  not
established.

Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and publish
water quality criteria and information on methods
for measuring water quality and establishing water
quality criteria for toxic pollutants on bases other
than pollutant-by-pollutant,  including biological
monitoring and assessment methods that assess:

•    the  effects   of  pollutants   on   aquatic
     community  components (".  .  .  plankton,
     fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life .  . .") and
     community  attributes  (".   .   . biological
     community   diversity,  productivity,  and
     stability . . .") in any body of water; and

•    factors  necessary  "...  to  restore and
     maintain  the   chemical,   physical,  and
     biological integrity of all navigable waters .
     .."  for "...  the protection of shellfish,
     fish, and wildlife for classes and categories
     of receiving waters . .  . ."

Once biocriteria are formally adopted into State
standards,  biocriteria   and  aquatic  life  use
designations  serve as direct., legal endpoints for
determining  aquatic  life  use  attainment/non-
attainment.   CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) provides
that when numeric  criteria, are  not  available,
States shall  adopt criteria  for toxics based on
biological monitoring or assessment methods;
biocriteria can be used to meet this requirement.

     Development  and  Implementation   of
     Biocriteria

Biocriteria  are numerical  values   or  narrative
expressions that describe the expected reference
biological  integrity   of  aquatic   communities
inhabiting waters of a designated  aquatic life use.
In the  most desirable scenario,  these would be
waters  that  are  either in pristine  condition or
minimally impaired.   However, in some areas
these conditions no longer exist and may not be
attainable.   In these situations, the reference
biological  communities  represent  the  best
attainable conditions. In either case, the reference
conditions then become the basis for developing
biocriteria for major surface water types (streams,
rivers,  lakes,  wetlands,  estuaries,  or  marine
waters).
                              e
Biological criteria support designated aquatic life
use  classifications  for  application  in  State
standards (see chapter 2).  Each State develops its
own designated use classification system based on
the generic uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife).
Designated   uses   are   intentionally  general.
However,  States  may  develop   subcategories
within use designations to refine and clarify the
use  class.    Clarification of the  use class  is
particularly helpful  when a variety of surface
waters with distinct  characteristics  fit within the
same use  class, or  do  not  fit well into any
category.

For example, subcategories of aquatic life uses
may be  on the basis of attainable  habitat (e.g.,
coldwater versus warmwater  stream systems  as
represented  by distinctive trout  or  bass fish
communities, respectively).   Special uses may
also be designated to protect particularly unique,
sensitive,    or  valuable   aquatic   species,
communities, or habitats.

Resident biota  integrate  multiple  impacts over
time and can detect impairment from known and
unknown causes.  Biological criteria can be used
to  verify  improvement   in  water  quality  in
response to  regulatory and  other  improvement
efforts   and   to  detect  new  or  continuing
degradation  of waters.   Biological criteria also
provide  a  framework for developing improved
best  management  practices  and   management
measures for nonpoint source impacts.  Numeric
biological    criteria   can   provide   effective
monitoring criteria for more definitive evaluation
of the health of an aquatic ecosystem.

The assessment of the biological  integrity of a
water body should include  measures  of the
structure and function of the  aquatic community
within a specified habitat. Expert  knowledge of
the system  is required  for  the   selection  of
 (8/15/94)
                                                                                          3-27

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 appropriate   biological   components   and
 measurement  indices.    The  development  and
 implementation of biological criteria requires:

 *    selection  of  surface  waters  to   use  in
      developing reference conditions  for  each
      designated use;

 *    measurement of the structure and function of
      aquatic  communities in  reference  surface
      waters to establish biological criteria;

 •    measurement of  the physical habitat  and
      other environmental characteristics  of the
      water resource; and

 *    establishment of a protocol to compare the
      biological criteria to  biota in comparable test
      waters to determine whether impairment has
      occurred.

 These elements serve as  an interactive network
 that  is  particularly   important  during  early
 development  of biological criteria where rapid
 accumulation   of  information  is  effective  for
 refining both  designated  uses and  developing
 biological  criteria values and  the  supporting
 biological monitoring and assessment techniques.

 3.5.4  Sediment Criteria

 While ambient water quality criteria are playing
 an  important  role in assuring  a  healthy aquatic
 environment, they alone have not been sufficient
 to  ensure  appropriate  levels  of environmental
 protection.  Sediment contamination,  which can
 involve deposition of toxicants  over long periods
 of time, is responsible for water  quality impacts
 in some areas.

 EPA  has authority to pursue  the development of
 sediment criteria  in  streams,  lakes  and other
 waters of the United States under sections 104 and
 304(a)(l) and  (2) of the CWA as follows:

 *    section   104(n)(l)   authorizes   the
     Administrator to establish national programs
      that study the effects of pollution, including
      sedimentation, in estuaries on aquatic life;

 •    section 304(a)(l) directs the Administrator to
      develop  and publish  criteria  for water
      quality, including information on the factors
      affecting  rates of organic  and  inorganic
      sedimentation for varying types of receiving
      waters;

 •    section 304(a)(2) directs the Administrator to
      develop and publish information on, among
      other issues, "the  factors necessary for the
      protection and propagation of shellfish, fish,
      and  wildlife  for classes and  categories of
      receiving waters.  ..."

 To  the extent that sediment criteria  could be
 developed that address the concerns of the section
 404(b)(l) Guidelines for discharges of dredged or
 fill  material under the CWA  or  the  Marine
 Protection,  Research, and Sanctuaries Act, they
 could also be incorporated into those regulations.

 EPA's  current  sediment  criteria  development
 effort, as described below, focuses on criteria for
 the protection of aquatic life.  EPA anticipates
 potential future expansion of this effort to include
 sediment  criteria  for the protection of human
 health.

     Chemical Approach to Sediment Criteria
     Development

 Over the  past  several  years, sediment  criteria
 development activities have centered on evaluating
 and   developing  the Equilibrium  Partitioning
 Approach  for generating sediment  criteria.  The
 Equilibrium Partitioning Approach  focuses  on
 predicting   the  chemical   interaction  between
 sediments  and  contaminants.    Developing  an
 understanding   of  the  principal  factors  that
 influence  the sediment/contaminant  interactions
 will  allow predictions to be made  regarding the
level  of contaminant concentration that benthic
and other organisms may be exposed to.  Chronic
water  quality   criteria,   or  possibly   other
toxicological endpoints, can then  be  used  to
3-28
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                  Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
predict potential biological effects.  In addition to
the development of sediment criteria, EPA is also
working  to  develop a  stamdardized  sediment
toxicity  test  that  could  be  used   with  or
independently of  sediment  criteria  to assess
chronic effects in fresh and marine waters.

     Equilibrium  Partitioning (EqP) Sediment
     Quality  Criteria  (SQC)  are  the  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency's  best
     recommendation of the concentration of a
     substance  in  sediment  that  will   not
     unacceptably affect  benthic  organisms or
     their uses.

Methodologies  for deriving;  effects-based  SQC
vary for different classes  of compounds.   For
non-ionic organic chemicals,  the  methodology
requires  normalization  to organic carbon.  A
methodology for deriving effects-based sediment
criteria  for  metal  contaminants  is  under
development  and  is   expected  to   require
normalization to acid volatile sulfide.  EqP SQC
values can  be derived for varying degrees of
uncertainty   and  levels   of  protection,  thus
permitting   use  for ecosystem protection  and
remedial programs.

     Application of Sediment Criteria

SQC would provide a basis for  making  more
informed decisions on the environmental impacts
of contaminated  sediments.   Existing  sediment
assessment  methodologies are limited  in  their
ability   to   identify  chemicals  of   concern,
responsible  parties, degree of contamination, and
zones  of impact.  To make the most informed
decisions, EPA believes  that a comprehensive
approach using SQC and biological test methods
is preferred.

Sediment criteria will be particularly valuable in
site-monitoring  applications   where   sediment
contaminant   concentrations   are  gradually
approaching a  criterion  over time  or  as  a
preventive tool to ensure that point and  nonpoint
sources of contamination  are controlled and that
uncontaminated sediments remain uncontaminated.
Also  comparison  of  field  measurements  to
sediment criteria will be a reliable method for
providing early warning of a potential problem.
An early warning would provide an opportunity to
take corrective action before adverse impacts
occur.   For the reasons mentioned above, it has
been identified that SQC are essential to resolving
key contaminated  sediment  and  source  control
issues in the Great Lakes.

     Specific Applications

Specific applications  of sediment criteria are
under development.  The primary use of EqP-
based sediment criteria will  be to assess risks
associated with contaminants  in sediments.  The
various  offices and programs concerned  with
contaminated sediment have different regulatory
mandates and, thus,  have different  needs and
areas for potential application of sediment criteria.
Because each regulatory need is different, EqP-
based    sediment   quality   criteria   designed
specifically  to meet the needs of one office or
program may have to be implemented in different
ways to meet the needs of another office or
program.

One mode of application of EqP-based numerical
sediment quality  criteria would  be  in a tiered
approach.    In  such  an    application,  when
contaminants in sediments exceed the sediment
quality criteria the sediments would be considered
as causing unacceptable impacts.  Further testing
may or may not be required depending  on site-
specific conditions and the  degree in which a
criterion has been violated.   (In locations where
contamination significantly exceeds a criterion, no
additional testing  would be  required.   Where
sediment contaminant  levels are close  to  a
criterion, additional testing might be necessary.)
 Contaminants in a sediment at concentrations less
than the sediment criterion would  not be of
concern.  However, in some cases the sediment
could not be considered safe because it might
contain other contaminants above safe levels for
which no sediment criteria exist.   In addition, the
synergistic,  antagonistic, or  additive  effects of
 (8/15/94)
                                                                                         3-29

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 several contaminants in the sediments may be of
 concern.

 Additional testing in other tiers of an evaluation
 approach, such astoxicity tests, could be required
 to determine if the sediment is safe.  It is likely
 that such testing would incorporate  site-specific
 considerations. Examples of specific applications
 of  sediment criteria  after they  are developed
 include the following:

 •    Establish permit limits for point sources to
      ensure that uncontaminated sediments remain
      uncontaminated   or  sediments   already
      contaminated have an opportunity to cleanse
      themselves.  Of course,  this would  occur
      only after criteria and the means to tie point
      sources   to  sediment  contamination  are
      developed.

 *    Establish  target levels for nonpoint sources
      of sediment contamination.

 *    For  remediation  activities, SQC would be
      valuable in identifying:

      -  need for remediation,

      -  spatial extent of remediation area,

      -  benefits  derived   from   remediation
        activities,

      -  responsible parties,
ttt/H/l/ll/UtHltittt
      -  impacts  of   depositing   contaminated
        sediments in water environments, and

      -  success of remediation activities.,

 In tiered testing sediment evaluation processes,
 sediment criteria and biological testing procedures
 work very well together.

      Sediment Criteria Status

      Science Advisory Board Review

 The  Science Advisory Board has  completed a
 second review of the EqP approach to deriving
 sediment   quality   criteria   for  non-ionic
 contaminants.    The  November   1992  report
 (USEPA, 1992c) endorses the EqP approach to
 deriving criteria as  "...  sufficiently valid to be
 used  in the regulatory process if the uncertainty
 associated   with the  method  is   considered,
 described,  and  incorporated,"   and that  "EPA
 should  .  .  .  establish criteria on  the  basis of
 present  knowledge  within  the  bounds  of
 uncertainty. ..."

 The Science Advisory Board also identified the
 need  for  ".  .  .a  better understanding of the
 uncertainty around the assumptions inherent in the
 approach, including assumptions of equilibrium,
 bioavailability,  and kinetics, all critical to the
 application of the EqP."

     Sediment   Criteria  Documents   and
     Application Guidance

 EPA  efforts  at producing  sediment  criteria
 documents   are  being  directed first  toward
 phenanthrene,   fluoranthene,   dieldrin,
 acenaphthene, and endrin.  Efforts are also being
 directed towards producing a guidance document
 on the derivation and interpretation  of sediment
 quality criteria.   The  criteria documents were
 announced  in  the Federal Register in  January
 1994; the public comment  period  ended June
 1994.   Final  documents  and  implementation
guidance should be available in early 1996.
3-30
                                                                                     (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
     Methodology  for  Developing  Sediment
     Criteria for Metal Contaminants

EPA is proceeding to develop a methodology for
calculating sediment criteria for benthic toxicity to
metal contaminants, with key work focused on
identifying and understanding the role of acid
volatile sulfides (AVS), and other binding factors,
in  controlling  the   bioavailability  of  metal
contaminants.  A variety of field and laboratory
verification  studies  are  under  way  to add
additional support to the methodology.  Standard
AVS  sampling and  analytical  procedures  are
under  development.  Presentation of the metals
methodology to the SAB for review is anticipated
for Fall 1994.

     Biological Approach to Sediment Criteria
     Development

Under the Contaminated Sediment  Management
Strategy, EPA programs have committed to using
consistent  biological  methods  to  determine  if
sediments  are contaminated.    In  the  water
program, these biological methods will be used as
a complement to the sediment-chemical criteria
under development.    The biological  methods
consist of both toxicity and bioaccumulation tests.
Freshwater and saltwater benthic species, selected
to represent  the  sensitive  range  of species'
responses  to toxicity,  are used in toxicity tests  to
measure sediment toxicity.  Insensitive freshwater
and saltwater benthic species that form the base of
the food  chain are  used in  toxicity tests  to
measure   the  bioaccumulation  potential   of
sediment.  In  FY  1994, acute toxicity tests and
bioaccumulation tests selected by all the Agency
programs should be standardized and available for
use.   Training for States amd  EPA Regions on
these methods is expected to begin in FY1995.

In the next few years, research will be conducted
 to develop standardized chronic toxicity tests for
 sediment  as  well   as  toxicity  identification
 evaluation (TIE) methods, Ittie TIE approach will
 be used to identify  the specific chemicals in a
 sediment causing acute or chronic toxicity in the
 test   organisms.     Under  the  Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy, EPA's programs
have  also  agreed to incorporate these chronic
toxicity and TIE methods into  their  sediment
testing when they are available.

3.5.5  Wildlife Criteria

Terrestrial  and  avian  species  are  useful  as
sentinels for the health of the ecosystem as a
whole.    In many  cases,  damage  to wildlife
indicates that the ecosystem  itself  is  damaged.
Many wildlife species that are heavily dependent
on the  aquatic  food web reflect the  health of
aquatic systems.  In the case  of toxic chemicals,
terminal predators such  as  otter,  mink, gulls,
terns, eagles, ospreys,  and turtles are useful as
integrative indicators of the status or health of the
ecosystem.

      Statutory and Regulatory Authority

Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA sets,  as an interim
goal  of,

      .  . . wherever attainable . .  .  water
      quality  which   provides   for   the
      protection  and  propagation  of  fish,
      shellfish,  and wildlife .  . .  (emphasis
      added).

Section 304(a)(l) of the Act also requires EPA to:

      .  . . develop and publish . .  . criteria for
      water quality accurately reflecting ...  the
      kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
      health and welfare including .  . .  wildlife.

The  Water Quality Standards Regulation reflect
 the statutory goals and  requirements by requiring
 States  to adopt,  where  attainable,  the  CWA
 section  101(a)(2)  goal uses  of protection and
 propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife (40
 CFR 131.10), and to adopt water quality criteria
 sufficient to protect  the designated  use (40 CFR
 131.11).
 (8/15/94)
                                                                                            3-31

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      Wildlife Protection in  Current  Aquatic
      Criteria

 Current  water quality  criteria  methodology  is
 designed to protect fish, benthic invertebrates, and
 zooplankton; however, there is a provision in the
 current aquatic life criteria guidelines (Appendix
 H) that  is  intended  to protect wildlife  that
 consume   aquatic  organisms   from   the
 bioaccumulative potential of a compound.   The
 final residue value can be based on either the
 FDA  Action Level or a wildlife feeding study.
 However,   if   maximum  permissible   tissue
 concentration is not  available from a  wildlife
 feeding study,  a final residue value cannot be
 derived and the criteria quantification procedure
 continues without further consideration of wildlife
 impacts.     Historically,  wildlife   have  been
 considered   only  after  detrimental  effects  on
 wildlife populations have been observed in  the
 environment (this occurred with  relationship to
 DDT, selenium, and PCBs).

     Wildlife Criteria Development

 EPA's national wildlife  criteria  effort began
 following  release  of  a  1987   Government
 Accounting   Office   study   entitled  Wildlife
 Management - National Refuge Contamination Is
 Difficult To Confirm and Clean Up (GAO, 1987).
 After waterfowl deformities observed at Kesterson
 Wildlife  Refuge  were   linked  to  selenium
 contamination in the water, Congress requested
 this  study   and   recommended   that  "the
 Administrator of EPA, in close coordination with
 the  Secretary  of the Interior,  develop water
 quality  criteria for protecting wildlife and their
 refuge habitat."

 In  November of 1988,  EPA's  Environmental
 Research  Laboratory in Corvallis sponsored a
 workshop  entitled  Water  Quality Criteria  To
 Protect Wildlife Resources,  (USEPA,  1989g)
 which was co-chaired by EPA  and the Fish and
 Wildlife Service (FWS).  The workshop brought
 together 26  professionals from  a variety  of
institutions,    including   EPA,   FWS,   State
governments, academia, and consultants who had
 expertise  in  wildlife toxicity,  aquatic toxicity,
 ecology,  environmental  risk  assessment,   and
 conservation.  Efforts at he workshop focused on
 evaluating the need for, and developing a strategy
 for  production  of  wildlife  criteria.     Two
 recommendations came out of that workshop:

      (1)  The process by which  ambient
          water   quality   criteria   are
          established should be modified to
          consider effects on wildlife; and

      (2)  chemicals  should  be prioritized
          based  on  their   potential   to
          adversely impact wildlife species.
 Based  on  the  workshop  recommendations,
 screening  level wildlife criteria (SLWC)  were
 calculated  for priority pollutants and chemicals of
 concern submitted by the FWS to gauge the extent
 of the problem by:

     (1)  evaluating  whether  existing  water
          quality criteria  for  aquatic  life are
          protective of wildlife, and

     (2)  prioritizing chemicals for their potential
          to adversely impact wildlife species.

 There  were 82  chemicals for which EPA had the
 necessary toxicity information as well as ambient
 water  quality  criteria,  advisories,  or lowest-
 observed-adverse-effect  levels    (LOAELs)  to
 compare with the SLWC values.  As would be
 expected,  the majority of chemicals  had SLWC
 larger   than  existing  water  quality  criteria,
 advisories,  or  LOAELs   for  aquatic  life.
 However,  the  screen   identified   classes  of
 compounds for which  current  ambient  water
 quality criteria may not be  adequately protective
 of  wildlife:    chlorinated   alkanes,  benzenes,
phenols, metals, DDT,  and dioxins. Many  of
 these compounds are produced in  very large
amounts and  have  a variety of  uses (e.g.,
 solvents, flame retardants,  organic syntheses  of
fungicides  and  herbicides,  and manufacture  of
plastics and textiles.  The manufacture and use of
3-32
                                                                                     (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                  Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
these materials produce waste byproduct).  Also,
5 of the  21  are among  the  top 25 pollutants
identified at Superfund sites in 1985 (3 metals, 2
organics).

Following this initial effort,, EPA held a national
meeting in April 19921 to constructively discuss
and evaluate proposed methodologies for deriving
wildlife criteria to build consensus among the
scientific  community as  to the most defensible
scientifically approaches) to be pursued by EPA
in developing useful and effective wildlife criteria.

The conclusions of this national meeting were as
follows:

•    wildlife criteria should have a tissue-residue
     component when appropriate;

•    peer-review of wildlife criteria and data sets
     should be used in their derivation;

•    wildlife criteria should incorporate methods
     to establish site-specific wildlife criteria;

•    additional amphibian and reptile toxicity data
     are needed;

•    further   development    of  inter-species
     lexicological sensitivity factors are needed;
     and
•    criteria methods should measure biomarkers
     in conjunction with other studies.

On  April  16,  1993,  EPA proposed  wildlife
criteria  in the Water Quality Guidance for the
Great Lakes  System (58  F.R. 20802).   The
proposed wildlife criteria are based on the current
EPA noncancer  human health criteria approach.
In  this  proposal,  in  addition  to  requesting
comments on  the proposed Great  Lakes criteria
and  methods,  EPA also requested comments on
possible modifications  of the proposed Great
Lakes   approach   for   consideration  in  the
development of national wildlife criteria.

3.5.6  Numeric Criteria for Wetlands

Extension of  the EPA  national 304(a) numeric
aquatic  life  criteria to wetlands is recommended
as part of a program to  develop  standards and
criteria for wetlands.   Appendices D and  E
provide an overview of the need for standards and
criteria for wetlands. The 304(a) numeric aquatic
life  criteria are designed  to  be protective  of
aquatic life  for  surface waters  and are generally
applicable to  most wetland types.   Appendix E
provides a possible approach, based on the site-
specific guidelines,  for detecting  wetland types
that might not be protected by direct application
of national 304(a) criteria.  The evaluation can be
 simple  and  inexpensive for those wetland types
for  which sufficient water chemistry and species
assemblage  data are available, but  will be less
 useful for wetland types for which these data are
 not  readily  available.  In  Appendix E, the site-
 specific approach is described  and recommended
 for  wetlands for which modification of the 304(a)
 numeric criteria are considered necessary.  The
 results  of this type of evaluation,  combined with
 information on  local or regional environmental
 threats, can be used to prioritize wetland types
 (and individual criteria) for further site-specific
 evaluations and/or additional data collection.
 Close coordination among regulatory  agencies,
 wetland scientists, and criteria experts will  be
 required.
 (8/15/94)
                                                                                          3-33

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
         Policy on Aquatic Life  Criteria for
         Metals
  It is the policy of the Office of Water that the use
  of dissolved metal to set and measure compliance
  with water quality standards is the recommended
  approach, because dissolved metal more closely
  approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in
  the  water  column  than does  total recoverable
  metal.    This  conclusion  regarding  metals
  bioavailability is supported by a majority of the
  scientific community within and outside  EPA.
  One reason is that a primary mechanism for water
  column toxicity is adsorption at the gill surface
  which requires metals to be in the dissolved form.

  Until  the   scientific  uncertainties   are  better
  resolved, a  range of different risk management
  decisions can  be justified by  a State.   EPA
  recommends that State water quality standards be
 based on  dissolved  metal—a conversion factor
  must be used in order to express the EPA criteria
 articulated as total recoverable as dissolved. (See
 the paragraph  below for  technical  details  on
 developing  dissolved criteria.)   EPA will also
 approve a State risk management decision to adopt
 standards based on  total recoverable metal,  if
 those standards  are  otherwise  approvable as a
 matter of law.   (Office of Water  Policy and
 Technical   Guidance  on   Interpretation  and
 Implementation of Aquatic Life  Metals Criteria
 USEPA, 1993f)

 3.6.1 Background

 The implementation of metals criteria is complex
 due to the site-specific nature of metals toxicity.
 This issue covers a number of areas including the
 expression of aquatic  life criteria; total maximum
 daily   loads   (TMDLs),    permits,   effluent
 monitoring,   and  compliance;   and   ambient
 monitoring.  The following Sections, based on the
 policy memorandum  referenced  above, provide
 additional guidance  in   each of these areas.
 Included in this Handbook as  Appendix J are
 three guidance documents issued along with the
 Office  of Water  policy  memorandum  with
 additional technical details.  They are:  Guidance
 Document on Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria
 as Dissolved Criteria (Attachment #2), Guidance
 Document on Dynamic Modeling and Translators
 (Attachment #3),  and  Guidance Document on
 Monitoring  (Attachment  #4).   These will be
 supplemented as additional information becomes
 available.

 Since metals toxicity is significantly affected by
 site-specific factors, it presents a  number of
 programmatic challenges.   Factors that must be
 considered  in the management of metals  in the
 aquatic environment include:  toxicity specific to
 effluent chemistry;  toxicity specific to ambient
 water chemistry; different patterns of toxicity for
 different metals;  evolution  of the  state of the
 science  of  metals  toxicity,  fate,  and transport;
 resource limitations for  monitoring,  analysis,
 implementation, and research functions; concerns
 regarding some of the analytical data currently on
 record due to  possible  sampling  and analytical
 contamination; and lack of standardized protocols
 for  clean and ultraclean metals analysis.   The
 States have the key role in the risk management
 process  of  balancing  these  factors  in  the
 management of water programs. The site-specific
 nature  of this  issue  could  be  perceived as
 requiring  a  permit-by-permit  approach   to
 implementation.  However, EPA believes that this
 guidance can be effectively implemented on a
 broader level, across any waters with roughly the
 same physical and  chemical characteristics, and
 recommends  that States work with the EPA with
 that  perspective in mind.

 3.6.2  Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria

     Dissolved vs.  Total Recoverable Metal

 A  major issue  is  whether, and  how,  to use
 dissolved metal concentrations ("dissolved metal")
 or total recoverable  metal  concentrations ("total
recoverable metal") in setting State water quality
standards.  In the past, States  have used both
approaches when applying the same EPA Section
304(a) criteria guidance.  Some  older  criteria
documents may  have facilitated these different
3-34
                                                                                       (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                    Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
approaches to interpretation of the criteria because
the documents were somewhat  equivocal with
regards to analytical methods.  The May  1992
interim guidance continued the policy that either
approach was acceptable.

The position that the dissolved metals approach is
more accurate has  been questioned because it
neglects the possible toxicity of paniculate metal.
It is true that some studies have indicated that
paniculate metals  appear to contribute to the
toxicity of metals, perhaps because of factors such
as desorption of metals at  the gill surface, but
these  same   studies indicate the  toxicity  of
paniculate metal is substantially less than that of
dissolved metal.

     Furthermore,   any  error   incurred  from
excluding the contribution of paniculate metal will
generally be compensated by other factors which
make criteria conservative.  For example, metals
in toxicity  tests are added as  simple salts to
relatively clean water. Due to the likely presence
of a significant concentration of metals binding
agents in many discharges  and ambient  waters,
metals  in  toxicity  tests would  generally  be
expected to be more bioavailable than  metals in
discharges or in ambient waters.

     If total recoverable metal is used  for the
purpose of specifying water quality standards, the
lower  bioavailability  of paniculate metal and
lower bioavailability of sorbed metals as they are
discharged may result in an overly conservative
water  quality standard.  The use  of  dissolved
metal  in  water quality  standards gives a  more
accurate result in the water column.  However,
total recoverable measurements in ambient water
have value, in that exceedences  of criteria on a
total recoverable basis are an indication that metal
loadings  could be  a stress  to  the ecosystem,
particularly  in  locations other than the water
column (e.g., in the sediments).

The reasons for the potential consideration of total
recoverable   measurements   include   risk
management  considerations  not   covered  by
evaluation of water column toxicity alone.  The
ambient water quality criteria are neither designed
nor intended to protect sediments, or to prevent
effects in  the  food webs  containing  sediment
dwelling organisms. A risk manager, however,
may consider sediments and food chain effects
and may decide to take a conservative  approach
for metals,  considering  that  metals are  very
persistent chemicals. This conservative approach
could include the use of total recoverable metal in
water  quality   standards.     However,   since
consideration  of  sediment  impacts   is  not
incorporated into  the  criteria  methodology, the
degree  of  conservatism  inherent in  the total
recoverable  approach  is   unknown.     The
uncertainty  of metal impacts in  sediments stem
from  the  lack of sediment criteria  and  an
imprecise understanding of the fate and transport
of metals.  EPA will continue to pursue research
and other activities to close these knowledge gaps.

     Dissolved Criteria

In the toxicity tests used to develop EPA metals
criteria for aquatic life, some fraction of the metal
is dissolved while  some fraction is bound to
particulate  matter.  The present  criteria  were
developed    using   total    recoverable   metal
measurements  or  measures  expected  to give
equivalent  results in  toxicity  tests,  and are
articulated as total recoverable.  Therefore, in
order to express the EPA criteria as dissolved, a
total recoverable to dissolved conversion factor
must  be used.   Attachment #2 in Appendix J
provides guidance for  calculating EPA  dissolved
criteria   from  the published  total recoverable
criteria.  The data expressed as percentage metal
dissolved are presented as  recommended  values
and ranges. However, the choice within ranges is
a State  risk management  decision.    EPA has
recently  supplemented the data for copper and is
proceeding  to  further supplement the  data  for
copper and other metals. As testing is completed,
EPA will make this information available and this
is expected to reduce the magnitude of the ranges
for some  of the conversion  factors provided.
EPA  also strongly encourages the application of
dissolved   criteria  across   a   watershed  or
 (8/15/94)
                                          3-35

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  waterbody, as technically sound and the best use
  of resources.

      SUe-Spectfic Criteria Modifications

  While the above methods will correct some  site-
  specific factors affecting metals toxicity, further
  refinements  are  possible.    EPA  has issued
  guidance   for   three   site-specific   criteria
  development   methodologies:      recalculation
  procedure, water-effect ratio  (WER) procedure
  (called the indicator species procedure in previous
  guidance) and resident species procedure.  (See
  Section 3.7 of this Chapter.)

  In the National  Toxics  Rule (57  PR  60848,
 December  22,  1992), EPA recommended  the
 WER as  an  optional method for  site-specific
 criteria development  for  certain  metals.  EPA
 committed  in the  NTR  preamble  to  provide
 additional guidance  on determining  the WERs.
 The Interim Guidance on the Determination  and
 Use of Water-Effect  Ratios for Metals was issued
 by EPA on February 22,  1994  and is intended to
 fulfill that commitment.   This interim guidance
 supersedes all guidance concerning water-effect
 ratios and the recalculation procedure previously
 issued by EPA.   This guidance is included as
 Appendix L to this Handbook.

 In order  to meet current needs,  but allow  for
 changes suggested by protocol users, EPA issued
 the guidance  as "interim."    EPA will  accept
 WERs developed using this guidance, as well as
 by using other scientifically defensible protocols.
 3.6.3  Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
        and  National   Pollutant  Discharge
        Elimination System (NPDES) Permits

      Dynamic Water Quality Modeling

 Although not specifically part of the reassessment
 of water quality criteria for metals, dynamic or
 probabilistic models are another useful tool for
 implementing water quality criteria, especially for
 those criteria  protecting aquatic  life.   These
 models provide another  way to  incorporate site-
 specific data.  The Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control  (TSD)
 (USEPA, 1991a) describes  dynamic, as well as
 static (steady-state) models.  Dynamic models
 make the best use of the specified magnitude,
 duration, and frequency  of water quality criteria
 and,  therefore,  provide  a   more   accurate
 representation  of the  probability  that a water
 quality  standard exceedence  will  occur.    In
 contrast, steady-state models frequently apply a
 number  of  simplifying,  worst case assumptions
 which makes them  less complex but also  less
 accurate than dynamic models.

Dynamic models have received increased attention
over the last  few  years  as a result  of  the
widespread  belief that steady-state modeling is
over-conservative   due    to    environmentally
conservative dilution assumptions. This belief has
led to the misconception that dynamic models will
always lead to less stringent regulatory controls
(e.g., NPDES  effluent limits) than steady-state
models, which is not true in every application of
dynamic models.  EPA considers  dynamic models
to be a more accurate approach to implementing
water quality criteria and continues to recommend
their use.   Dynamic modeling  does require a
commitment of resources to develop appropriate
data.  (See Appendix J,  Attachment #3 and the
USEPA, 1991a for details on the use of dynamic
models.)

     Dissolved-Total Metal Translators

Expressing ambient  water quality  criteria  for
metals as the dissolved form of a metal poses a
3-36
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                    Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
need to be able to translate from dissolved metal
to  total  recoverable  metal  for TMDLs  and
NPDES permits.  TMDLs for metals must be able
to calculate:   (1)  dissolved  metal  in order to
ascertain  attainment of water quality standards,
and (2) total recoverable metal in order to achieve
mass balance necessary for permitting purposes.

EPA's NPDES regulations require that limits of
metals in  permits be stated as total recoverable in
most cases (see 40 CFR §122.45(c)) except when
an  effluent guideline  specifies  the  limitation in
another form of the metal, the approved analytical
methods  measure only dissolved metal, or the
permit writer expresses a nietals limit in another
form  (e.g., dissolved, valent specific,  or  total)
when  required  to  carry out provisions of the
Clean  Water Act.  This is because  the chemical
conditions in ambient waters  frequently differ
substantially from those in the effluent, and there
is no  assurance that  effluent  particulate metal
would not dissolve after discharge.  The NPDES
rule does not require that  State  water quality
standards  be  expressed  as  total  recoverable;
rather, the rule requires permit writers to translate
between different metal forms in the calculation of
the permit limit so that a total  recoverable limit
can be established. Both the TMDL and NPDES
uses of water quality criteria require the ability to
translate  between  dissolved   metal  and total
recoverable metal.  Appendix J, Attachment #3
provides  guidance on  this translation.

3.6.4   Guidance on Monitoring

     Use  of Clean  Sampling and Analytical
     Techniques

In assessing waterbodies to determine the potential
for toxicity problems due to metals,  the quality of
the data used is  an important issue.  Metals data
are used  to determine attainment status for water
quality standards, discern trends in water quality,
estimate  background loads for TMDLs, calibrate
 fate  and transport   models,   estimate  effluent
 concentrations  (including effluent variability),
 assess permit compliance, and  conduct  research.
 The quality of trace level metal data, especially
below  1  ppb,  may be  compromised due  to
contamination  of  samples  during  collection,
preparation, storage, and analysis. Depending on
the level of metal present, the use of "clean" and
"ultraclean" techniques for sampling and analysis
may   be   critical   to   accurate  data   for
implementation of aquatic life criteria for metals.

The significance of the  sampling and analysis
contamination problem  increases as the ambient
and effluent metal concentration decreases and,
therefore, problems are more likely in ambient
measurements.  "Clean" techniques refer to those
requirements (or practices for sample  collection
and handling)  necessary  to  produce reliable
analytical data in the part per billion (ppb) range.
"Ultraclean"    techniques   refer   to    those
requirements  or practices necessary to produce
reliable analytical data in the part per trillion (ppt)
range.  Because typical concentrations  of metals
in  surface waters and  effluents vary  from one
metal to another,  the effect of contamination on
the quality  of metals monitoring data  varies
appreciably.

EPA plans to develop protocols on the use of
clean   and   ultra-clean    techniques   and   is
coordinating with the  United States Geological
Survey (USGS) on this project, because  USGS has
been doing work on these techniques  for some
time, especially the  sampling procedures.   Draft
protocols for clean  techniques were presented at
the Norfolk, VA analytical methods conference in
the Spring  of  1994  and  final  protocols  are
expected to be available in early 1995.   The
development  of comparable protocols  for  ultra-
clean techniques is underway and are expected to
be available in late 1995.  In developing these
protocols, we  will consider the costs of these
techniques  and will give guidance   as  to  the
situations where their use is necessary.  Appendix
L, pp.  98-108 provide  some general guidance.on
the use  of clean  analytical  techniques.    We
recommend that this guidance be used by  States
and Regions  as an  interim step, while the clean
 and ultra-clean protocols  are being developed.
 (8/15/94)
                                                                                            3-37

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      Use of Historical Data

 The concerns about metals sampling and analysis
 discussed above raise  corresponding  concerns
 about the validity of historical data.   Data on
 effluent  and ambient metal concentrations  are
 collected by a variety of organizations including
 Federal  agencies (e.g.,  EPA,  USGS),  State
 pollution control agencies and health departments,
 local  government   agencies,   municipalities,
 industrial dischargers, researchers,  and others.
 The data are collected for a variety of purposes as
 discussed above.

 Concern  about  the  reliability  of  the sample
 collection and  analysis  procedures is greatest
 where they have been used  to monitor very low
 level metal concentrations.  Specifically, studies
 have shown data sets with contamination problems
 during sample collection and laboratory  analysis,
 that  have resulted in inaccurate  measurements.
 For example, in  developing a TMDL for New
 York Harbor,  some historical  ambient data
 showed extensive metals problems in the harbor,
 while other  historical ambient data showed only
 limited metals problems.  Careful resampling and
 analysis in 1992/1993 showed the latter view was
 correct.   The key to producing accurate data is
 appropriate quality assurance  (QA)  and quality
 control (QC) procedures.  EPA believes that most
 historical data for metals, collected and analyzed
 with appropriate QA and QC at levels of 1 ppb or
 higher,  are  reliable.    The  data  used  in
 development of EPA criteria are also considered
 reliable,  both because they  meet  the above test
 and because the toxicity test solutions are created
 by adding known amounts of metals.

 With respect to effluent monitoring reported by an
 NPDES permittee, the permittee is responsible for
 collecting  and  reporting   quality  data  on  a
 Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). Permitting
 authorities  should continue to  consider  the
 information reported  to  be  true,  accurate, and
 complete as certified by the permittee. Where the
 permittee  becomes aware of  new  information
 specific to the effluent discharge that questions the
quality of previously  submitted DMR data,  the
 permittee must promptly submit that information
 to  the  permitting  authority.   The  permitting
 authority will consider all information submitted
 by  the  permittee  in  determining  appropriate
 enforcement responses  to monitoring/reporting
 and  effluent  violations.    (See  Appendix J,
 Attachment #4 for additional details.)
        Site-Specific Aquatic Life Criteria
 The purpose of this section is to provide guidance
 for the development of site-specific water quality
 criteria   which   reflect  local   environmental
 conditions.  Site-specific criteria are allowed by
 regulation and are subject to EPA review  and
 approval.  The Federal water quality standards
 regulation at  section  131.11(b)(l)(ii)  provides
 States with the opportunity to adopt water quality
 criteria that are "... modified to reflect site-specific
 conditions."   Site-specific  criteria,  as with  all
 water quality criteria, must be based on a sound
 scientific  rationale   in  order  to  protect  the
 designated use.  Existing guidance and practice
 are that EPA will approve site-specific criteria
 developed using appropriate procedures.

 A site-specific criterion is intended to come closer
 than  the  national criterion  to   providing  the
 intended level of protection to the aquatic life at
 the site,  usually by taking  into account  the
 biological  and/or  chemical  conditions (i.e.,  the
 species  composition  and/or   water   quality
 characteristics)  at the  site. The fact that the U.S.
 EPA  has made these procedures available  should
 not be interpreted as implying that the agency
 advocates that  states  derive site-specific  criteria
 before setting state standards. Also, derivation of
 a  site-specific  criterion does  not  change  the
 intended level of protection of the aquatic life at
 the site.

 3.7.1   History    of   Site-Specific   Criteria
       Guidance

National water quality criteria for aquatic life may
be under- or over-protective if:
3-38
                                                                                       (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
(1)   the  species  at  the site are  more  or less
     sensitive than those included in the national
     criteria  data set (e.g.,, the national criteria
     data set contains  data  for trout, salmon,
     penaeid shrimp, and  other aquatic species
     that  have  been  shown to  be  especially
     sensitive to some materials), or

(2)   physical and/or chemical  characteristics of
     the   site alter  the biological availability
     and/or  toxicity  of  the   chemical   (e.g.,
     alkalinity, hardness, pH,  suspended  solids
     and salinity influence the concentration(s) of
     the  toxic  form(s) of some  heavy metals,
     ammonia and other chemicals).

Therefore,  it is  appropriate  that  site-specific
procedures  address   each  of  these  conditions
separately as well as the combination of the two.
In  the  early   1980's,  EPA   recognized that
laboratory-derived water quality criteria might not
accurately reflect site-specific conditions and, in
response, created three procedures to derive site-
specific  criteria.  This  Handbook contains the
details of these procedures, referenced below.

1.   The Recalculation Procedure is intended to
     take  into   account  relevant  differences
     between the  sensitivities of  the aquatic
     organisms  in the  national dataset  and the
     sensitivities of  organisms that occur  at the
     site (see Appendix L, pp.  90-97).

2.   The Water-Effect Ratio Procedure (called the
     Indicator  Species  Procedure  in USEPA,
     1983a;  1984f ) provided for the use of a
     water-effect ratio (WER) that is intended to
     take  into  account  relevant  differences
     between the toxicities  of the chemical in
     laboratory  dilution water  and in site water
     (see Appendix  L).

3.   The Resident Species Procedure intended to
     take into account  both  kinds of differences
     simultaneously (see Section 3.7.6).

These procedures were first published in the 1983
Water Quality  Standards Handbook (USEPA,
1983a) and expanded upon in the Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water
Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria
(USEPA, 1984f). Interest has increased in recent
years as states have devoted more attention  to
chemical-specific water quality criteria for aquatic
life.  In addition, interest in water-effect  ratios
increased when they were integrated into some of
the aquatic life  criteria  for metals that  were
promulgated  for  several  states  in  the National
Toxics Rule (57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992).
The  Office  of  Water  Policy  and  Technical
Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals (USEPA, 1993f)
(see  Section  3.6  of  this Handbook) provided
further guidance on site-specific criteria for metals
by recommending the use of dissolved metals for
setting  and measuring compliance with  water
quality standards.

The early guidance concerning WERs (USEPA,
1983a;  1984f) contained few details and needed
revision, especially to take  into account newer
guidance concerning metals.   To meet this need,
EPA   issued  Interim   Guidance   on   the
Determination and  Use of Water-Effect Ratios for
Metals in 1994  (Appendix L).    Metals  are
specifically addressed in Appendix L because of
the National Toxics Rule and because of current
interest in aquatic life criteria for metals; although
most  of this guidance  also applies  to  other
pollutants, some obviously applies only to metals.
Appendix L  supersedes  all guidance concerning
water-effect  ratios  and  the Indicator  Species
Procedure given  in  Chapter 4  of the  Water
Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA, 1983a) and
in Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
Specific Water Quality  Criteria   by  Modifying
National Criteria (USEPA, 1984f). Appendix L
(p. 90-98) also supersedes the guidance in these
earlier documents for the Recalculation Procedure
for performing site-specific criteria  modifications.
The   Resident  Species   Procedure   remains
essentially unchanged since 1983 (except for
changes in the averaging periods to conform  to
the 1985 aquatic life criteria guidelines (USEPA,
 1985b) and is presented in Section  3.7.6, below.
 (8/15/94)
                                                                                           3-39

-------
  Wfter Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 The previous guidance  concerning site-specific
 procedures  did  not  allow  the  Recalculation
 Procedure and the WER procedure to be used
 together in the derivation of a site-specific aquatic
 life criterion; the only way to take into account
 both  species  composition and water quality
 characteristics in  the determination  of a site-
 specific criterion was to use the Resident Species
 Procedure. A specific change contained Appendix
 L is that, except in jurisdictions that are subject to
 the National  Toxics  Rule,  the  Recalculation
 Procedure and the WER Procedure may now be
 used  together provided that  the  recalculation
 procedure  is  performed   first.     Both  the
 Recalculation Procedure and the WER Procedure
 are based directly on the guidelines for deriving
 national aquatic life criteria (USEPA 1985 ) and,
 when the two are  used together,  use of the
 Recalculation Procedure must  be performed first
 because the Recalculation Procedure has specific
 implications concerning the determination  of the
 WER.

 3.7.2   Preparing  to  Calculate  Site-Specific
        Criteria

 Adopting  site-specific  criteria  in water quality
 standards  is a State option—not a  requirement.
 Moreover, EPA is not advocating that States use
 site-specific criteria development procedures for
 setting all aquatic life criteria as opposed to using
 the  National   Section    304(a)    criteria
 recommendations.  Site-specific criteria are  not
 needed  in all situations.  When a State considers
 the possibility of developing site-specific criteria,
 it is essential  to involve the  appropriate EPA
 Regional office at the start of the project.

 This early  planning is also essential  if it appears
 that data generation and testing  may be conducted
 by a party other than the State or EPA.  The State
 and EPA need to apply the procedures judiciously
 and must consider the complexity of the problem
 and the extent of knowledge available concerning
 the fate  and  effect  of  the   pollutant under
 consideration.    If  site-specific  criteria  are
 developed without early EPA involvement in the
planning and design of the  task, the State may
expect EPA  to take additional time to  closely
scrutinize the results before granting any approval
to the formally adopted standards.

The following sequence of decisions need to be
made before any of the procedures are initiated:

4  verify that site-specific criteria are actually
    needed (e.g., that the use of clean sampling
    and/or analytical techniques, especially for
    metals,  do  not result in  attainment  of
    standards.)

4  Define the site boundaries.

4  Determine  from   the   national  criterion
    document  and  other  sources if physical
    and/or chemical characteristics are known to
    affect  the  biological  availability  and/or
    toxicity of a material of interest.

4  If data  in the national criterion document
    and/or from other sources indicate that the
    range of sensitivity of the selected resident
    species to the material of interest is different
    from the range for the species in the national
    criterion document, and variation in physical
    and/or chemical characteristics of the site
    water is not expected to be a factor, use the
    Recalculation Procedure (Section 3.7.4).

3-40
                                                                                      (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                    Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
4   If data  in  the  national criterion document
     and/or  from  other sources  indicate  that
     physical and/or chemical characteristics of
     the site water  may affect  the biological
     availability and/or toxicity of the material of
     interest, and the selected  resident  species
     range of sensitivity is similar to that for the
     species  in the national  criterion document,
     use  the  Water-Effect  Ratio  Procedure
     (Section 3.7.5).

4   If data  in  the  national criterion document
     and/or  from other  sources  indicated  that
     physical and/or chemical characteristics of
     the site water  may affect  the biological
     availability and/or toxicity of the material of
     interest, and the selected  resident  species
     range of sensitivity  is different from that for
     the  species  in   the   national  criterion
     document, and if both these differences are
     to  be   taken  into   account,   use  the
     Recalculation Procedure in conjunction with
     the Water-Effect Ratio  Procedure or  use the
     Resident Species Procedure (Section 3.7.6).

3.7.3  Definition of a Site

Since the rationales for  site-specific criteria are
usually based on potential differences in  species
sensitivity, physical and chemical characteristics
of the water, or a combination of the two, the
concept  of  site  must  be  consistent with  this
rationale.

In the general context of site-specific criteria, a
"site"   may  be  a   state,   region,  watershed,
waterbody, or segment of a waterbody.  The site-
specific  criterion is  to  be  derived  to provide
adequate protection  for the entire  site, however
the site is defined.

If water quality effects  on toxicity are  not  a
consideration, the  site  can be as  large as  a
generally consistent biogeographic  zone permits.
For example, large portions of the  Chesapeake
Bay, Lake Michigan, or the Ohio River may be
considered as one site if their respective  aquatic
communities  do not vary substantially. However,
when a site-specific criterion is derived using the
Recalculation Procedure, all species that "occur at
the site"  need to be  taken into  account when
deciding what species, if any, are to be deleted
from  the dataset.  Unique  populations  or less
sensitive  uses   within   sites  may  justify   a
designation as a distinct site.

If the  species   of  a  site  are  lexicologically
comparable to those in the national criteria data
set for a material of interest, and physical and/or
chemical water characteristics are the only factors
supporting modification  of the  national criteria,
then  the  site  can be defined  on the basis  of
expected  changes in  the material's  biological
availability and/or toxicity due to physical and
chemical variability of the site water.  However,
when a site-specific criterion is derived  using a
WER, the WER is to be adequately protective of
the entire site.   If,  for  example,  a site-specific
criterion is being derived for an estuary, WERs
could be determined using samples of the surface
water obtained from various sampling  stations,
which, to avoid confusion, should not be called
"sites". If all the WERs were sufficiently similar,
one site-specific criterion could  be derived  to
apply to the whole estuary.   If the WERs were
sufficiently different, either the lowest WER could
be used to derive a site-specific criterion for the
whole estuary, or the data might indicate that the
estuary should be divided into two or more sites,
each with its own criterion.

3.7.4  The Recalculation Procedure

The Recalculation Procedure is intended to cause
a  site-specific  criterion  to  appropriately differ
from a national aquatic life criterion if justified by
demonstrated pertinent toxicological differences
between the aquatic species that occur at  the site
and those that were used in the  derivation of the
national criterion. There are at least three reasons
why such differences might exist between the two
sets of species.

4  First, the national dataset  contains  aquatic
     species that are sensitive to many pollutants,
(8/15/94)
                                          3-41

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
     but these and comparably sensitive species
     might not occur at the site.

 +   Second, a species that is critical at the site
     might  be  sensitive  to  the  pollutant  and
     require a lower criterion. (A critical species
     is  a  species  that  is  commercially  or
     recreationally important  at the site, a species
     that exists at the site and  is  listed  as
     threatened or endangered under section 4 of
     the Endangered Species Act, or a species for
     which there is evidence that the loss of the
     species from  the  site is likely to  cause an
     unacceptable impact  on a commercially or
     recreationally important species, a threatened
     or endangered species,  the abundances of a
     variety of other species, or the structure or
     function of the community.)

 +   Third,  the  species that occur at the  site
     might represent a narrower mix of species
     than those in the national dataset  due to a
     limited  range  of  natural   environmental
     conditions.

The procedure presented in Appendix L, pp. 90-
98  is structured so that corrections and additions
can be made to the national  dataset without the
deletion process being  used to take into account
taxa that do not occur at the site;  in effect, this
procedure makes it possible to update the national
aquatic  life  criterion.    All  corrections  and
additions  that have been approved by EPA are
required,  whereas use of the deletion process  is
optional.  The deletion process may not be used
to remove species from  the criterion calculation
that are not currently present at a  site due  to
degraded  conditions.

The Recalculation Procedure is  more likely  to
result in lowering a criterion if the net result  of
addition and deletion is to decrease the number  of
genera in the dataset, whereas the procedure  is
more likely to result  in raising a criterion if the
net result of addition and deletion is to increase
the number of genera in  the dataset.

For the lipid soluble chemicals  whose national
Final Residue Values are based on Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) action levels, adjustments
in those values based  on  the percent lipid content
of resident aquatic species is appropriate for the
derivation of  site-specific Final Residue Values.
For lipid-soluble materials,  the national Final
Residue Value is based on an average 11 percent
lipid content for edible portions for the freshwater
chinook salmon and lake trout and an average of
10  percent lipids  for the  edible  portion  for
saltwater  Atlantic herring.  Resident species of
concern may  have  higher (e.g.,  Lake Superior
siscowet,  a race of lake trout)  or lower (e.g.,
many sport fish) percent lipid content than used
for the national Final Residue Value.
3-42
                                       (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
For   some   lipid-soluble   materials  such  as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCS) and DDT,  the
national Final Residue Value is based on wildlife
consumers of fish and aquatic invertebrate species
rather than an  FDA action  level because  the
former provides a more stringent residue level.
See the National Guidelines (USEPA, 1985b) for
details.

For  the  lipid-soluble materials whose  national
Final Residue Values  are  based  on  wildlife
effects, the limiting wildlife species (mink  for
PCB and brown pelican for DDT) are considered
acceptable surrogates for  resident  avian and
mammalian species  (e.g., herons,  gulls, terns,
otter, etc.) Conservatism is appropriate for those
two chemicals, and no less restrictive modification
of the national Final Residue Value is appropriate.
The  site-specific  Final Residue Value would be
the same as the national value.

3.7.5  The   Water-Effect   Ratio   (WER)
Procedure

The guidance on the Water-Effect Ratio Procedure
presented in Appendix L  is intended to  produce
WERs that may  be used to derive site-specific
aquatic life criteria from most national and state
aquatic life  criteria that  were derived  from
laboratory toxicity data.

     As   indicated   in   Appendix   L,    the
determination of a water-effect ratio may require
substantial resources.    A  discharger should
consider   cost-effective,  preliminary measures
described in this Appendix L (e.g., use of "clean"
sampling  and  chemical  analytical  techniques
especially for metals, or  in non-NTR States, a
recalculated criterion) to determine if an indicator
species site-specific criterion is really needed. In
many instances, use of these other measures may
eliminate the need for deriving water-effect ratios.
The   methods  described  in  the  1994  interim
guidance  (Appendix L) should be sufficient to
develop site-specific criteria that resolve concerns
of dischargers when  there appears to be no
instream  toxicity but,  where  (a)  a  discharge
appears to exceed existing  or proposed  water
quality-based permit limits, or  (b) an  instream
concentration appears to exceed an existing or
proposed water quality criterion.

WERs obtained using the methods described in
Appendix L should only be used to adjust aquatic
life criteria that were derived using laboratory
toxicity  tests.   WERs  determined  using the
methods described  herein cannot be used to adjust
the residue-based mercury Criterion Continuous
Concentration (CCC) or the field-based  selenium
freshwater  criterion.

Except  in  jurisdictions  that are subject to the
NTR,  the  WERs  may  also be used with  site-
specific aquatic life criteria that are derived using
the   Recalculation  Procedure  described  in
Appendix L (p. 90).

     Water-Effect  Ratios in the Derivation of
     Site-Specific Criteria

A central question concerning WERs is whether
their  use by a State results in a  site-specific
criterion subject to  EPA review and  approval
under Section 303(c) of the  Clean Water Act?

Derivation  of a water-effect ratio by a State is a
site-specific criterion adjustment subject to EPA
review  and approval/disapproval under Section
303(c).   There are  two options by  which this
review can be accomplished.

     Option 1:

A State may derive  and submit each individual
water-effect ratio determination to EPA for review
and  approval.   This  would be accomplished
through the normal review  and  revision process
used by a State.

     Option 2:

A State can amend its water quality standards to
provide  a  formal procedure  which  includes
derivation  of  water-effect  ratios,  appropriate
definition of sites,  and enforceable  monitoring
provisions  to assure that  designated  uses are
(8/15/94)
                                         3-43

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 protected.  Both this procedure and the resulting
 criteria   would   be   subject  to  full  public
 participation requirements.  EPA would review
 and approve/disapprove this protocol as a revised
 standard   as  part  of  the  State's  triennial
 review/revision.  After adoption of the procedure,
 public review of a site-specific criterion could be
 accomplished  in  conjunction with  the  public
 review required for permit issuance.  For public
 information, EPA recommends that once a year
 the State publish a list  of site-specific  criteria.

 An exception to this policy applies to the waters
 of the jurisdictions included  in the  National
 Toxics Rule.  The EPA review is not required for
 the jurisdictions included in the National Toxics
 Rule where EPA established the procedure for the
 State for application to the criteria promulgated.
 The  National  Toxics  Rule  was  a  formal
 rulemaMng process (with notice and comment) in
 which EPA pre-authorized the use of  a correctly
 applied water-effect ratio.  That same process has
 not yet taken place in  States not included in the
 National Toxics Rule.

 However,  the National Toxics  Rule does not
 affect  State authority  to  establish  scientifically
 defensible   procedures  to  determine   Federally
 authorized  WERs,  to  certify those  WERs in
 NPDES  permit proceedings, or  to deny  their
 application based on the State's risk management
 analysis.

 As described in Section 131.36(b)(iii) of the water
 quality standards regulation (the official regulatory
 reference to the National Toxics Rule), the water-
 effect  ratio is a  site-specific calculation.    As
 indicated on page 60866 of the preamble to the
 National Toxics Rule, the rule was constructed as
 a rebuttable presumption. The water-effect ratio is
 assigned a value of 1.0 until a different water-
 effect  ratio  is   derived  from   suitable  tests
 representative  of  conditions  in  the  affected
 waterbody.  It is the responsibility of the State to
 determine whether to rebut the assumed value of
 1.0 in the National Toxics Rule and apply another
 value of the water-effect ratio in order to establish
a site-specific criterion.  The site-specific criterion
 is then used to develop appropriate NPDES permit
 limits. The rule thus provides a State with the
 flexibility  to derive an  appropriate site-specific
 criterion for specific waterbodies.

 As a point of emphasis, although a water-effect
 ratio  affects   permit  limits   for   individual
 dischargers, it  is  the State in all cases  that
 determines if derivation of a site-specific criterion
 based on the water-effect ratio is allowed and it is
 the  State that ensures that the calculations and
 data analysis are done completely and correctly.

 3.7.6 The Resident Species Procedure

 The resident Species Procedure for the derivation
 of a site-specific criterion accounts for differences
 in resident species  sensitivity and differences in
 biological availability and/or toxicity of a material
 due  to  variability  in  physical and  chemical
 characteristics of a  site water.  Derivation of the
 site-specific  criterion  maximum concentration
 (CMC)  and  site-specific  criterion  continuous
 concentration (CCC) are accomplished after the
 complete   acute  toxicity  minimum  data  set
 requirements have been  met by conducting tests
 with resident species in site water.  Chronic tests
 may  also  be  necessary.    This procedure is
 designed to compensate concurrently for any real
 differences  between  the  sensitivity  range  of
 species represented in the national data set and for
 site   water  which  may markedly  affect  the
 biological  availability and/or toxicity  of  the
 material of interest.

 Certain families of organisms have been specified
 in the National Guidelines acute toxicity minimum
 data  set  (e.g., Salmonidae in fresh  water and
 Penaeidae or Mysidae in salt water); if this or any
 other requirement  cannot  be  met because the
 family or other group (e.g., insect or  benthic
 crustacean) in fresh water is not represented by
resident  species, select  a substitute(s)  from  a
 sensitive family represented  by one  or  more
resident species and meet the 8 family minimum
data set requirement. If all the families at the site
have been  tested  and the minimum data set
requirements have not been  met, use the most
3-44
                                                                                       (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                   Chapter 3 - Water Quality Criteria
sensitive resident family mean acute value as the
site-specific Final Acute Value.

To derive the criterion maximum concentration
divide the site-specific Final Acute Value by two.
The site-specific Final Chronic Value  can be
obtained as described in the Appendix L.  The
lower of the site-specific Final Chronic Value (as
described  in  the  recalculation   procedure  -
Appendix L,  p.  90) and  the  recalculated  site-
specific Final Residue  Value becomes the  site-
specific criterion continuous concentration unless
plant or other data (including data obtained from
the site-specific tests) indicates a lower  value is
appropriate.  If a problem is identified, judgment
should be  used in establishing the site-specific
criterion.

The frequency  of testing  (e.g.,  the need  for
seasonal testing) will be related to the variability
of the physical and chemical characteristics of site
water as it is expected to affect the biological
availability  and/or toxicity of the material  of
interest.     As  the  variability  increases,  the
frequency  of testing will  increase.  Many of the
limitations  discussed  for the  previous  two
procedures would also apply to this procedure.
                                          Endnotes

1. Proceedings in production.

        Contact:   Ecological Risk Assessment Branch (4304)
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   401 M Street, S.W.
                   Washington, DC 20460
                   Telephone (202) 260-1940
(8/15/94)                                                                                  3-45

-------

-------
                                                                 Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
                                 CHAPTER 4

                            ANTIDEGRADATION

                                (40 CFR 131.12)


                               Table of Contents


4.1  History of Antidegradation	4-1

4.2  Summary of the Antidegradation Policy	 4-1

4.3  State Antidegradation Requirements	4-2

4.4  Protection of Existing Uses - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(l)	4-3

     4.4.1     Recreational Uses  	4-4

     4.4.2     Aquatic Life/Wildlife Uses	4-5

     4.4.3     Existing Uses and Physical Modifications	4-5

     4.4.4     Existing Uses and Mixing Zones  	4-6

4.5  Protection of Water Quality in High-Quality Waters  - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)  	4-6

4.6  Applicability of Water Quality Standards to Nonpoint Sources Versus Enforceability
     of Controls	4-9

4.7  Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW) - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3)   	  4-10

4.8  Antidegradation Application and Implementation	4-10

     4.8.1     Antidegradation,  Load Allocation, Waste Load Allocation, Total Maximum
              Daily Load, and Permits  	4-12

     4.8.2     Antidegradation and the Public Participation Process	4-13

-------

!a'f.  |    I 	 ::;r:;v!'	»

?-;	'^fefl	fe^'Ti^ir
LI	i:	a	te	i;	       	i£	i	i;;,;	;l! h

-------
                                                                        Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
                                        CHAPTER 4
                                  ANO0EGRADATION
This  chapter   provides  guidance   on   the
antidegradation  componenf;   of water  quality
standards,  its application  in conjunction  with
the other parts  of the water quality standards
regulation,  and  its  implementation   by  the
States. Antidegradation  implementation  by the
States  is based  on a  set of procedures  to  be
followed when  evaluating activities  that  may
impact the quality of the waters of the  United
States.  Antidegradation   implementation is an
integral   component   of   a   comprehensive
approach  to protecting  and enhancing  water
quality.
         History of Antidegradation
The first antidegradation  policy statement  was
released  on February 8,1968, by the Secretary
of the U.S. Department  of the Interior.  It was
included in EPA1 s first Water Quality Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 130.17,40 F.R. 55340-41,
November 28, 1975), and was  slightly refined
and re-promulgated  as  part  of  the  current
program regulation  published on November  8,
1983  (48  F.R.  51400,  40  CFR   131.12).
Antidegradation  requirements and  methods for
implementing  those  requirements are minimum
conditions  to be included  in a State's  water
quality   standards.      Antidegradation    was
originally based on  the spirit, intent, and goals
of the Act, especially the clause "... restore
and maintain  the  chemical,   physical   and
biological  integrity   of  the  Nation's  waters"
(101(a))  and the provision of 303(a) that made
water  quality standards  under  prior law the
"starting  point"  for  CWA  water   quality
requirements.    Antidegradation  was  explicitly
incorporated  in the  CWA through:

•    a  1987  amendment  codified  in section
     303(d)(4)(B)    requiring    satisfaction   of
     antidegradation
     making   certain
     permits; and
requirements
changes   in
 before
NPDES
     the  1990 Great  Lakes  Critical Programs
     Act codified in  CWA section 118(c)(2)
     requiring  EPA  to publish  Great  Lakes
     water   quality   guidance   including
     antidegradation     policies    and   imple-
     mentation  procedures.
          Summary  of the Antidegradation
          Policy
Section  131.12(a)(l),  or  "Tier  1," protecting
"existing uses," provides the  absolute  floor of
water quality in all waters  of the United States.
This paragraph   applies a minimum   level of
protection  to all  waters.

Section  131.12(a)(2),  or  "Tier  2," applies to
waters whose quality exceeds that necessary to
protect  the section 101(a)(2)  goals of the Act.
In this case, water quality  may not be lowered
to less than the level necessary to fully protect
the  "fishable/swimmable"   uses  and  other
existing uses and  may be lowered even to those
levels  only after  following all  the provisions
described in section 131.12(a)(2).

Section  131.12(a)(3),  or  "Tier  3," applies to
Outstanding    National   Resource    Waters
(ONRW)  where the ordinary use classifications
and supporting  criteria  may not be sufficient or
appropriate.  As described in the preamble to
the Water Quality Standards Regulation, "States
may allow some  limited activities which result
in temporary and short-term  changes  in water
quality," but  such  changes  in  water  quality
should  not impact  existing uses or  alter  the
essential character or  special use that makes
the water an ONRW.
(9/15/93)
                                          4-1

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 The  requirement   for potential  water  quality
 impairment associated with thermal discharges
 contained   in  section   131.12 (a)(4)   of  the
 regulation   is  intended  to  coordinate   the
 requirements  and   procedures   of   the
 antidegradation  policy with those established in
 the   Act   for   setting  thermal   discharge
 limitations. Regulations  implementing  section
 316 may be  found at 40  CFR 124.66.  The
 statutory scheme and legislative history indicate
 that limitations developed  under  section  316
 take precedence over other  requirements of the
 Act.

 As the States  began to focus more attention on
 implementing  their antidegradation  policies, an
 additional  concept was developed by the States,
 which EPA  has  accepted   even  though  not
 directly mentioned in previous EPA guidance or
 in the  regulation.  This concept,  commonly
 known as  "Tier 21A,"is an application  of the
 antidegradation  policy that has implementation
 requirements  that are more stringent than for
 HTier2" (high-quality waters), but somewhat less
 stringent   than  the  prohibition  against   any
 lowering of water  quality in "Tier3"(ONRWs).
 EPA  accepts  this  additional  tier in  State
 antidegradation  policies because it is clearly  a
 more  stringent  application  of  the  Tier  2
 provisions  of the  antidegradation   policy  and,
 therefore,  permissible under section 510 of the
 CWA.

 Tile  supporting   rationale   that  led  to   the
 development  of the Tier 2l/z concept  was  a
 concern by the  States that  the  Tier  3 ONRW
 provision  was so  stringent that its application
 would likely prevent States from taking actions
 in  the  future   that   were  consistent   with
 important social and economic development  on,
 or upstream  of, ONRWs.  This concern  is  a
 major reason  that  relatively few water  bodies
 are designated  as  ONRWs.   The Tier  2Vz
 approach  allows States to provide  a very high
 level  of   water   quality protection  without
precluding   unforeseen   future  economic  and
social development considerations.
          State Antidegradation Requirements
 Each State must develop, adopt, and retain  a
 statewide  antidegradation   policy  regarding
 water   quality   standards    and    establish
 procedures for its implementation  through the
 water quality management process.  The State
 antidegradation   policy  and  implementation
 procedures   must   be  consistent   with  the
 components  detailed in 40 CFR  131.12.  If not
 included in the standards  regulation of a State,
 the policy must be specifically referenced  in the
 water quality standards  so  that  the  functional
 relationship   between  the   policy  and  the
 standards is clear. Regardless of the location of
 the   policy,   it  must  meet  all  applicable
 requirements.      States   may   adopt
 antidegradation   statements   more   protective
 than   the   Federal   requirement.       The
 antidegradation   implementation   procedures
 specify how the State will determine on a case-
 by-case basis whether,  and to what extent, water
 quality may be lowered.

 State  antidegradation   polices   and   imple-
 mentation  procedures  are subject to  review by
 the Regional Administrator.   EPA  has clear
 authority to  review and approve  or disapprove
 and promulgate an antidegradation  policy for a
 State.   EPA's review  of the  implementation
 procedures   is   limited   to  ensuring   that
 procedures are included that  describe how the
 State will implement the  required elements  of
 the   antidegradation    review.     EPA   may
 disapprove and federally promulgate all or part
 of  an    implementation  process   for
 antidegradation   if, in the  judgment  of  the
 Administrator,  the State's process (or certain
 provisions thereof)  can be implemented  in such
 a way as to circumvent the intent and purpose
 of the antidegradation  policy. EPA encourages
 submittal of  any amendments  to  the  statement
 and implementing procedures to the Regional
 Administrator for pre-adoption  review so that
 the State may take EPA comments into account
prior to final action.
4-2
                                                                                     (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 4 -
If a  State's antidegradation  policy does not
meet  the  Federal  regulatory  requirements,
either through State actioiQ to revise its policy
or through revised Federal  requirements, the
State would be given the opportunity to make
its policy consistent with the regulation.   If this
is  not  done,  EPA  has   the   authority   to
promulgate the policy for the State pursuant  to
section 303(c)(4)  of the  Clean Water Act (see
section 6.3, this Handbook).
          Protection of Existing Uses - 40 CFR
This section requires  the protection of existing
uses and the level  of water quality to protect
those uses.  An "existing use" can be established
by demonstrating  that:

•    fishing,  swimming, or other  uses  have
     actually   occurred  since   November   28,
     1975; or

•    that the   water quality is suitable  to allow
     the use  to be attained—unless  there are
     physical problems,  such  as substrate  or
     flow, that prevent the use  from  being
     attained.

An example  of the  latter  is an  area where
shellfish  are  propagating  and  surviving  in a
biologically suitable habitat  and are  available
and suitable for harvesting  although, to date, no
one has attempted  to harvest them. Such facts
clearly  establish that  shellfish  harvesting  is an
"existing"   use,   not    one   dependent    on
improvements   in  water quality.   To  argue
otherwise would be to  say that the only tune an
aquatic  protection  use  "exists" is if  someone
succeeds in catching fish.

Full protection  of the  existing  use   requires
protection of the entire  water body with a few
limited  exceptions  such  as certain   physical
modifications  that  may  so  alter a water  body
that  species composition cannot be maintained
(see section  4.4.3,this Handbook), and mixing
zones  (see section  4.4.4,this Handbook).   For
example, an activity that lowers water quality
such  that  a buffer zone must be  established
within a previous shellfish harvesting  area  is
inconsistent  with the antidegradation  policy.

Section  131.12(a)(l) provides the absolute floor
of water quality in all  waters of the  United
States. This paragraph  applies a minimum level
of protection to  all waters. However, it is most
pertinent to waters having beneficial uses that
are less  than the section 101(a)(2)  goals of the
Act.  If it can be proven, in that  situation,  that
water quality  exceeds that necessary to fully
protect the existing use(s)  and exceeds water
quality standards but is not of sufficient quality
to cause a better use to  be achieved, then that
water quality  may  be  lowered  to  the  level
required to fully protect the existing use as long
as  existing  water  quality   standards   and
downstream  water quality  standards  are not
affected.  If this does  not involve  a change  in
standards,  no public hearing would be required
under   section    303(c).   However,    public
participation   would  still   be  provided   in
connection  with the  issuance of a  NPDES
permit or amendment  of a section 208 plan or
section  319 program.    If, however,  analysis
indicates  that  the  higher water  quality does
result in a better use, even if not  up to the
section 101(a)(2) goals, then the water quality
standards must be upgraded to reflect the uses
presently being attained  (131.10(i)).

If a  planned  activity will foreseeably  lower
water quality to  the extent that it  no longer is
sufficient to protect  and  maintain  the existing
(9/15/93)
                                           4-3

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 uses  in  that  water  body,  such an  activity is
 inconsistent with EPA's antidegradation policy,
 which requires  that  existing  uses are  to be
 maintained.    In  such  a  circumstance,   the
 planned  activity must be avoided  or  adequate
 mitigation   or preventive  measures  must be
 taken to ensure  that the existing uses and the
 water   quality   to  protect   them   will  be
 maintained.

 Section  4.4.1, this Handbook,  discusses  the
 determination  and protection   of recreational
 "existing"  uses,   and   section  4.4.2,    this
 Handbook,  discusses  aquatic   life protection
 "existing" uses (of  course, many other types of
 existing uses may occur in a water body).

 4.4.1    Recreational Uses

 Recreational uses traditionally  are divided into
 primary   contact   and   secondary   contact
 recreation  (e.g., swimming  vs. boating; that is,
 recreation  "in" or  "on" the water.)  However,
 these   two  broad  uses   can   logically  be
 subdivided  into a variety of  subcategories  (e.g.,
 wading, sailing, power boating,  rafting).   The
 water quality  standards  regulation  does  not
 establish  a  level of specificity  that each State
 must  apply in determining  what  recreational
 "uses" exist. However,  the following principles
 apply.

 •    The State selects the level of specificity it
     desires for identifying recreational existing
     uses (that is,  whether  to  treat secondary
     contact  recreation  as a single use  or to
     define   subcategories   of   secondary
     recreation).  The State has two limitations:

          the State  must be  at  least as specific
          as the uses listed  in  sections  101(a)
          and  303(c)  of the  Clean  Water  Act;
          and

          the State  must be  at least as specific
          as  the  written  description   of  the
          designated use classifications  adopted
          by the State.
 •    If the  State  designated use classification
      system  is  very  specific   in  describing
      subcategories    of  a   use,  then   such
      specifically defined uses, if they exist, must
      be protected fully under antidegradation.
      A State  with  a  broadly  written  use
      classification system may, as a matter of
      policy, interpret  its classifications  more
      specifically   for   determining    existing
      uses—as long as it is done consistently. A
      State   may   also   redefine    its   use
      classification   system,   subject   to  the
      constraints  in  40 CFR  131.10, to  more
      adequately reflect existing uses.

 •    If the use  classification  system in a State is
      defined  in broad terms  such as primary
      contact   recreation,   secondary   contact
      recreation, or  boating, then it is a State
      determination  whether  to allow changes in
      the type of  primary or secondary contact
      recreation  or boating activity that would
      occur on a specific water body as long as
      the basic  use  classification  is  met.   For
      example, if a State defines a use simply as
      "boating,"it is the State's decision whether
      to allow  something  to occur  that  would
      change the type of boating from canoeing
      to power boating as long as the  resulting
      water quality allows the "boating" use to be
      met.  (The public record used originally to
      establish  the use  may  provide  a clearer
      indication  of  the  use intended  to be
      attained  and protected  by the State.)

The rationale is that the required  water quality
will allow  a boating  use  to  continue and that
use meets the goal of the  Act.  Water quality is
the key. This interpretation  may allow a State
to  change   activities  within  a  specific   use
category but it does  not create a mechanism to
remove use classifications; this latter action is
governed   solely  by  the provisions   of  the
standards  regulation  (CWA section  131.10(g)).

One situation where  EPA might conceivably be
called  upon  to  decide  what  constitutes  an
existing use is where  EPA is writing an NPDES
4-4
                                                                                         (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 4 - Antidegradatioa
permit. EPA has the responsibility under CWA
section  301(b)(l)(C)   to  determine  what  is
needed  to  protect  existing  uses  under  the
State's   antidegradation    requirement,    and
accordingly  may  define  "existing uses"  or
interpret  the State's  definition  to  write  that
permit if the State has not done so.  Of course,
EPA's determination  would be subject  to State
section 401 certification  in such a case.

4.4.2     Aquatic Life/Wildlife Uses

No   activity  is    allowable   under   the
antidegradation  policy which would  partially or
completely eliminate  any existing use whether
or not that use  is designated  in a State's water
quality standards.  The aquatic protection use is
a broad category requiring farther explanation.
Non-aberrational   resident   species  must  be
protected,  even if not prevalent  in  number or
importance.  Water quality should be such that
it  results  in no  mortality and  no  significant
growth or reproductive impairment  of resident
species.   Any lowering of water quality  below
this fall level of protection is not allowed.

A State  may develop subcategories  of aquatic
protection  uses but  cannot  choose  different
levels of protection  for like uses.  The fact that
sport or commercial  fish are not present does
not mean  that the water  may not be supporting
an aquatic life protection  function.  An existing
aquatic   community   comi>osed  entirely  of
invertebrates  and plants, such as may be found
in a pristine alpine tributary stream,  should still
be  protected whether or not  such a  stream
supports a fishery.

Even   though    the   shorthand   expression
"fishable/swimmable"  is  often  used, the  actual
objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of our Nation's waters"  (section  101 (a)).  The
term   "aquatic  life"  would   more  accurately
reflect the protection  of the aquatic  community
that was intended in section 101(a)(2)  of the
Act.
Section 131.12(a)(l) states, "Existing instream
water uses and level of water quality necessary
to protect the existing uses shall be maintained
and protected." For example, while sustaining a
small coldwater fish population, a stream  does
not  support  an  existing  use  of a  "coldwater
fishery."The existing stream temperatures  are
unsuitable  for a thriving coldwater fishery. The
small marginal  population  is  an artifact and
should not be employed  to mandate  a more
stringent  use (true  coldwater  fishery) where
natural conditions are not suitable for that use.

A use attainability  analysis or other  scientific
assessment   should  be   used  to  determine
whether the aquatic life population  is in fact an
artifact or is a stable population requiring water
quality protection.   Where species appear  in
areas not normally  expected,  some  adaptation
may have occurred and site-specific criteria may
be  appropriately    developed.   Should   the
coldwater   fish  population   consist  of   a
threatened   or  endangered  species,  it  may
require   protection  under  the  Endangered
Species Act.  Otherwise, the stream need only
be protected as a warmwater fishery.

4.4.3    Existing   Uses   and   Physical
         Modifications

A literal interpretation  of40CFR 131.12(a)(l)
could prevent certain physical modifications to
a  water  body that  are clearly allowed by the
Clean   Water  Act,  such  as   wetland   fill
operations  permitted  under section 404 of the
Clean  Water  Act.   EPA interprets   section
131.12(a)(l) of the antidegradation  policy to be
satisfied  with regard to fills in wetlands if the
discharge   did   not  result   in   "significant
degradation"  to  the  aquatic  ecosystem  as
defined under section  230.10(c) of the section
404(b)(l) Guidelines.

The section 404(b)(l) Guidelines state that the
following  effects  contribute   to  significant
degradation,  either  individually or collectively:
(9/15/93)
                                           4-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      . . . significant adverse effects on (1)
      human  health or  welfare,  including
      effects on municipal  water supplies,
      plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and
      special aquatic  sites (e.g., wetlands);
      (2) on the life  stages of aquatic life
      and   other   wildlife  dependent   on
      aquatic   ecosystems,  including  the
      transfer,  concentration,  or spread of
      pollutants or their byproducts beyond
      the site  through biological, physical,
      or chemical process; (3) on ecosystem
      diversity, productivity, and stability,
      including loss of  fish  and  wildlife
      habitat or loss  of the capacity  of a
      wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify
      water, or reduce wave energy; or (4)
      on   recreational,    aesthetic,    and
      economic values.

 These  Guidelines   may be used by  States  to
 determine  "significant degradation"  for wetland
 fills.  Of course, the  States are  free  to adopt
 stricter  requirements   for wetland fills in then-
 own antidegradation  polices, just as  they may
 adopt  any other  requirement  more   stringent
 than  Federal   law requires.    For  additional
 information  on  the  linkage   between  water
 quality standards  and  the section 404 program,
 see Appendix  D.

 If any wetlands were found to have better water
 quality  than   "fishable/swimmable,"  the  State
 would be allowed to lower water quality to the
 no significant degradation level as long as the
 requirements  of section  131.12(a)(2)  were
 followed.    As  for  the  ONRW  provision of
 antidegradation   (131.12(a)(3)),  there   is  no
 difference in the way it applies to wetlands and
 other  water bodies.

 4.4.4     Existing Uses and Mixing Zones

 Mixing zones are another  instance  when the
 entire extent of  the water body is not required
 to be  given full existing  use protection.  The
 area within  a properly designated  mixing zone
 (see  section 5.1) may  have  altered  benthic
 habitat  and  a  subsequent   alteration   of the
 portions of the aquatic community.  Any effect
 on the existing use must be limited to the area
 of the regulatory mixing zone.
          Protection of Water Quality in High-
          Quality Waters - 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)
This section provides general program guidance
in  the development   of procedures  for  the
maintenance   and protection  of water quality
where the quality of the water exceeds levels
necessary  to  support   propagation   of  fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on
the  water.    Water  quality  in  "high-quality
waters" must be maintained  and  protected  as
prescribed  in section  131.12(a)(2) of the WQS
regulation.
4-6
                                                                                        (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                        Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
High-quality waters  are those  whose  quality
exceeds  that necessary  to  protect  the  section
101(a)(2) goals of the  Act,  regardless  of use
designation.  All parameters do not need to be
better quality than the State's ambient criteria for
the water to be deemed a "high-quality  water."
EPA   believes   that   it  is   best  to  apply
antidegradation  on  a  parameter-by-parameter
basis.  Otherwise, there is potential for  a large
number of waters not  to receive antidegradation
protection, which is  important to  attaining the
goals of the Clean Water Act to  restore  and
maintain the integrity  of the Nation's  waters.
However, if a State has an official interpretation
that differs from this interpretation, EPA  will
evaluate  the State interpretation for conformance
with the statutory and regulatory intent of the
antidegradation  policy.    EPA  has  accepted
approaches that do not use a  strict pollutant-by-
pollutant basis (USEPA, 1989c).

In  "high-quality waters," under  131.12(a)(2),
before any lowering of water quality occurs, there
must be an antidegradation review consisting of:

•    a finding that it is necessary to accommodate
     important economical or social development
     in the area in which the  waters are located
     (this phrase is intended to convey a general
     concept regarding what level of social and
     economic  development  could be  used to
    justify a change in high-quality waters);

•    full  satisfaction  of all  intergovernmental
     coordination   and  public   participation
     provisions (the intent here is to ensure that
     no activity that will cause water quality to
     decline  in existing  high-quality waters is
     undertaken without adequate public review
     and intergovernmental coordination); and

•    assurance  that  the  highest statutory  and
     regulatory requirements  for point sources,
     including new source performance standards,
     and best management practices for nonpoint
     source pollutant controls  are achieved (this
     requirement  ensures   that   the   limited
     provision for lowering water quality of high-
     quality waters down to "fishable/swimmable"
     levels will not be used to undercut the Clean
     Water Act requirements for point source and
     nonpoint   source    pollution    control;
     furthermore, by ensuring  compliance with
     such statutory and regulatory controls, there
     is  less chance that a lowering of water
     quality will be sought to accommodate new
     economic and social development).

In addition, water quality may not be lowered to
less than the level necessary to fully  protect  the
"fishable/swimmable"  uses and  other existing
uses.  This provision is intended to provide relief
only in a few extraordinary circumstances where
the economic  and  social need for the activity
clearly outweighs the benefit of maintaining water
quality   above   that  required  for
"fishable/swimmable" water, and  both cannot be
achieved.   The burden of demonstration on  the
individual proposing such  activity will be very
high.   In any case, moreover, the existing  use
must  be maintained and the  activity shall  not
preclude   the   maintenance   of   a
"fishable/swimmable"  level  of  water  quality
protection.

The antidegradation review requirements of this
provision   of  the  antidegradation  policy   are
triggered by any action that would result in  the
lowering of water quality in a high-quality water.
Such activities as new discharges or expansion of
existing facilities would presumably lower water
quality and would not be permissible unless  the
State  conducts a   review consistent  with  the
previous paragraph.  In addition,  no permit may
be issued, without an antidegradation review, to
a discharger to high-quality waters with effluent
limits greater than actual  current loadings if such
loadings will cause a lowering of water quality
(USEPA,  1989c).

Antidegradation is not a "no growth" rule and was
never designed or intended to be such.  It is a
policy that allows public decisions to be made on
important environmental actions. Where the State
intends to provide for development, it may decide
under   this   section,   after   satisfying    the
    (8/15/94)
                                       4-7

-------
 Wtter Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 requirements for intergovernmental coordination
 and public participation, that some lowering of
 water quality in "high-quality waters" is necessary
 to  accommodate important  economic or  social
 development.  Any such lower water quality must
 protect existing uses fully,  and the State must
 assure that the highest statutory and regulatory
 requirement for all new and existing point sources
 and all cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for
 nonpoint source control are being achieved on the
 water body.

 Section 131.12(a)(2) does not REQUIRE a State
 to  establish BMPs for nonpoint sources  where
 such BMP requirements  do  not exist.   We
 interpret Section 131.12(a)(2) as REQUIRING
 States to adopt an antidegradation policy that
 includes a provision that will assure that all cost-
 effective and reasonable BMPs established under
 State authority are implemented for nonpoint
 sources before the State authorizes degradation of
 high quality waters by point sources (see USEPA,
 1994a.)

 Section 131.12(a)(2) does not mandate that States
 establish controls on nonpoint sources. The Act
 leaves it to the States to determine what, if any,
 controls  on nonpoint  sources  are needed  to
 provide for attainment of State water  quality
 standards (See  CWA Section 319.)  States may
 adopt  enforceable  requirements,  or voluntary
 programs to address nonpoint source pollution.
 Section 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) does not require that
 States  adopt  or implement best  management
 practices for nonpoint sources prior to allowing
 point source degradation of a high quality water.
 However,   States  that have  adopted nonpoint
 source controls must assure that such controls are
 properly implemented  before  authorization  is
 granted to allow point source degradation of water
 quality.

The  rationale   behind   the   antidegradation
regulatory  statement regarding  achievement of
statutory requirements  for point sources and  all
cost effective and reasonable BMPs for nonpoint
sources is to assure that, in high quality waters,
where there are existing point or nonpoint source
 control compliance problems, proposed  new or
 expanded  point  sources  are  not  allowed to
 contribute additional pollutants that could result in
 degradation.  Where such compliance problems
 exist, it would be inconsistent with the philosophy
 of the antidegradation policy  to authorize the
 discharge of additional pollutants in the absence of
 adequate assurance that any existing compliance
 problems will be resolved.

 EPA's regulation also requires maintenance of
 high quality waters except where the State finds
 that degradation  is "necessary to accommodate
 important economic and social development in the
 area in which the waters  are located." (40 CFR
 Part 131.12(a) (Emphasis added)).   We believe
 this phrase should be interpreted to prohibit point
 source   degradation   as  unnecessary   to
 accommodate important  economic  and  social
 development if it could be partially or completely
 prevented  through implementation  of existing
 State-required BMPs.

 EPA   believes  that its  antidegradation  policy
 should be interpreted on a pollutant-by-pollutant
 and waterbody-by-waterbody basis. For example,
 degradation of a high quality  waterbody  by  a
 proposed   new    BOD   source   prior   to
 implementation of required BMPs on  the same
 waterbody that are related  to BOD loading should
 not be allowed.  However, degradation by the
 new point source of BOD should not be barred
 solely  on the basis that BMPs unrelated to BOD
 loadings, or which relate to  other waterbodies,
 have not been implemented.

 We recommend  that  States  explain  in  their
 antidegradation polices or procedures how, and to
 what extent, the State will require implementation
 of otherwise non-enforceable (voluntary) BMPs
 before allowing point source degradation of high
 quality   waters.      EPA   understands   this
recommendation exceeds the Federal requirements
 discussed  in  this  guidance.    For example,
nonpoint   source   management  plans   being
developed under section 319 of the Clean Water
Act are likely to identify potential problems and
certain  voluntary  means  to  correct   those
   4-8
                                                                                  (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
problems.  The State should consider how these
provisions will be implemented in  conjunction
with the water quality standards program.
          Applicability  of   Water   Quality
          Standards   to   Nonpoint   Sources
          Versus Enforceability of Controls
The  requirement  in  Section  131.21(a)(2) to
implement  existing  nonpoint  source  controls
before  allowing degradation of a  high quality
water,  is a subset of  the  broader  issue of the
applicability of water quality standards versus the
enforceability of controls designed to implement
standards.   A  discussion of the broader issue is
included here with the intent of further clarifying
the nonpoint source antidegradation  question. In
the following discussion, the central message is
that water quality standards apply broadly and it
is  inappropriate  to  exempt whole  classes of
activities from standards and thereby  invalidate
that broader,  intended  purpose of adopted State
water quality standards.

Water quality standards serve the dual function of
establishing water quality  goals  for a specific
waterbody and providing the basis for regulatory
controls.  Water quality stamdards apply to both
point and nonpoint sources!.   There  is a direct
Federal implementation mechanism to regulate
point sources  of pollution but no parallel Federal
regulatory process for  nonpoint sources.  Under
State law,  however, States can and do  adopt
mandatory nonpoint source controls.

State water quality standards play the central role
in a  State's water quality management program,
which identifies the overall mechanism States use
to integrate the various Clean Water Act  water
quality  control   elements  into  a   coherent
management  framework.   This  includes,  for
example: (1)  setting and  revising water quality
standards   for  all  surface  waterbodies,  (2)
monitoring water quality to provide information
upon which water quality-based decisions will be
made, progress evaluated, amd success measured,
(3)  preparing  a water quality inventory report
under section  305(b) which documents the status
of the States'SL water  quality,  (4)  developing a
water quality management plan  which lists the
standards,  and  prescribes  the  regulatory  and
construction  activities  necessary  to  meet the
standards,  (5)  calculating  total maximum  daily
loads and wasteload allocations for point sources
of pollution  and load allocations  for nonpoint
sources of pollution in the implementation of
standards,(6)  implementing  the  section   319
management  plan  which  outlines the  State's
control strategy for nonpoint sources of pollution,
and (7) developing  permits under Section 402.

Water quality standards  describe the  desired
condition of the aquatic environment,  and, as
such,  reflect any   activity  that  affects  water
quality.   Water quality standards have broad
application and use  in evaluating potential impacts
of water quality from a broad range of causes and
sources and are not limited to evaluation of effects
caused by the discharge of pollutants  from point
sources.   In this regard, States  should have in
place methods by which the State can determine
whether or not their standards have been achieved
(including uses, criteria, and implementation of an
antidegradation policy).  Evaluating attainment of
standards is  basic  to successful application of a
State's water quality standards program.  In the
broad application of standards, these evaluations
are  not  limited  to those activities  which  are
directly controlled  through a mandatory process.
Rather,  these  evaluations  are  an  important
component of a State's water quality management
program  regardless  of  whether  or  not  an
enforcement  procedure is in place for the activity
under review.

Water quality standards are implemented through
State or EPA-issued water quality-based permits
and  through  State  nonpoint  source  control
programs.     Water    quality  standards   are
implemented through enforceable NPDES permits
for point sources and through the installation and
maintenance  of BMPs for  nonpoint  sources.
Water quality standards usually are not considered
self-enforcing except where they are established as
enforceable under State law. Application of water
quality standards in the overall context of a water
    (8/15/94)
                                                                                          4-9

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 quality management program, however,  is not
 limited  to  activities  for  which   there  are
 enforceable implementation mechanisms.

 In simple terms, applicability and enforceability
 are two distinctly separate functions in the water
 quality standards  program.    Water  quality
 standards  are applicable to all waters and in all
 situations,  regardless of  activity  or source of
 degradation.  Implementation  of those standards
 may not be possible in all circumstances; in such
 cases,  the use attainability  analysis  may  be
 employed.  In describing the desired condition of
 the environment, standards establish a benchmark
 against which all activities which might affect that
 desired condition are, at a minimum, evaluated.
 Standards  serve as the  basis  for  water quality
 monitoring and there is value in identifying the
 source and cause  of  a  exceedance even  if, at
 present, those sources of impact are not regulated
 otherwise controlled.

 It is  acceptable for a State to specify particular
 classes  of  activities  for   which  no  control
 requirements  have been  established in  State law.
 It is not acceptable,  however, to specify that
 standards do  not apply  to particular  classes of
 activities (e.g.  for purposes of monitoring and
 assessment).  To do so would abrogate one  of the
 primary functions of water quality standards.
          Outstanding   National   Resource
          Waters   (ONRW)   -   40   CFR
Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs)
are provided the highest level of protection under
the antidegradation policy. The policy provides
for protection  of water quality in high-quality
waters that  constitute an ONRW by prohibiting
the lowering of water quality.  ONRWs are often
regarded as highest quality waters of the United
States: That is clearly the thrust of 131.12(a)(3).
However, ONRW designation also offers special
protection for waters of • "exceptional ecological
significance."  These are water bodies that are
important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
whose  water   quality,  as   measured  by  the
 traditional parameters such as dissolved oxygen or
 pH, may  not  be particularly high  or whose
 characteristics cannot be adequately described by
 these parameters (such as wetlands).

 The regulation  requires  water  quality to  be
 maintained and protected  in  ONRWs.    EPA
 interprets this  provision  to  mean no  new  or
 increased discharges  to ONRWs and no new or
 increased discharge to tributaries to ONRWs that
 would  result  in lower  water  quality  in the
 ONRWs.  The only exception to this prohibition,
 as discussed in the preamble to the Water Quality
 Standards Regulation (48  F.R. 51402), permits
 States to allow some limited activities that result
 in temporary and short-term changes in the water
 quality of  ONRW.   Such activities must not
 permanently degrade water quality or result  in
 water quality lower than that necessary to protect
 the existing uses in the ONRW.  It is difficult to
 give an  exact  definition  of  "temporary"  and
 "short-term" because of the variety of activities
 that might be considered.   However, in rather
 broad terms, EPA's view of temporary is weeks
 and months, not  years.  The intent  of  EPA's
 provision  clearly  is to  limit   water  quality
 degradation to the shortest possible time.   If a
 construction activity  is involved, for example,
 temporary is  defined  as   the  length  of  time
 necessary to construct the  facility and make it
 operational.  During  any  period of time when,
 after opportunity for  public participation  in the
 decision, the State allows temporary degradation,
 all  practical    means   of  minimizing    such
 degradation shall be implemented.  Examples of
 situations in which flexibility is appropriate are
 listed in Exhibit 4-1.
          Antidegradation
          Implementation
Application   and
Any one or a combination of several activities
may trigger the  antidegradation policy analysis.
Such activities include a scheduled water quality
standards review,  the establishment of new or
revised load allocations, waste load allocations,
total maximum daily loads, issuance of NPDES
permits,  and  the  demonstration  of need  for
   4-10
                                                                                  (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                          Chapter 4 - AnMegra&afion
   Example 1  A notional park wishes to replace <* defective septic tank-dratnfieM
                  system  in a campground. The campground is located immediately
                            to a matt stream with the ON&W me designation*
                  Under the- regulation, the construction could occur if best management practices were
                             followed to minimize any disturbance of water quality of aquatic habitat.
   Example 2  Same situation except the campground is served by a small sewage
                  treatment plant already discharging to the 0NRW. It is desired to
                  enlarge the treatment system and provide higher levels of treatment.
                  Under theregulation, this vtetBr-qadifc^-fedfaanoingfUStida WOUtd b6pertnittfed if fhene Was
                  only teiapOfary increase ia S6dim6nt aadf perhaps^ in organic loading;, which W&ttld
                  dwlng (lie ^stflal wBstniottoa phase,
   Example 3  A National forest with a mature, second growth of trees which are
                  suitable for harvesting* with associated road repair and
                  re-staMtteation.  Streams in the area are designated as ONRWand
                  support trout fishing.
                  The regulatioa intends that best management practices for timber harvesting be followed
                  and might include preventive measures more stringeat than for similar logging ia less
                  ensiranmeaially SensitrVfe areas.  Of eotirs&, if flife lands were being, considered, for
                  designation as wilderness areas or other similar designations, EPA*s regulation should not
                  &6 fconstraed as encouraging or condoning timbering operations. The regulation allows
                  only temporary and short-term Water quality degradation while maintaining existing Use*
                  or new uses consistent with tiie purpose pf the management of the ON&W area.
   Other examples of these types of activities Include maintenance and/or repair of existing boat lamps or boat
   doefeSj, restoration of existiag sea walls, repair of existing stormwater pipes, and replacement or repair of
   existing bridges.
 Exhibit 4-1.   Examples  of  Allowable  Temporary  Lowering  of Water  Quality  in
                Outstanding National Resource Waters
(8/15/94)                                                                                  4-11

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 advanced treatment or request by private or public
 agencies or individuals for a special study of the
 water body.

 Nonpoint source activities are not exempt  from
 the provisions of the antidegradation policy. The
 language  of  section  131.12  (a)(2)  of  the
 regulation:   "Further, the State shall assure that
 there shall  be  achieved the highest statutory and
 regulatory requirements for  all new and existing
 point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable
 best management practices  for nonpoint source
 control ..."  reflects statutory provisions of the
 Clean Water Act.  While it is true that the Act
 does not establish a federally  enforceable program
 for nonpoint sources, it clearly intends that the
 BMPs  developed and  approved under sections
 20S(j), 208,  303(e),  and 319  be  aggressively
 implemented by the States.

 4.8.1  Antidegradation,    Load   Allocation,
        Waste Load Allocation, Total Maximum
        Daily Load, and Permits

 In developing or revising a load allocation (LA),
 waste load allocation (WLA), or total maximum
 daily load (TMDL) to reflect new information or
 to   provide  for  seasonal  variation,     the
 antidegradation policy, as an integral part of the
 State water  quality  standards, must be applied as
 discussed in this section.

 The  TMDL/WLA/LA process distributes   the
 allowable pollutant loadings to a water body. Such
 allocations  also  consider the  contribution to
 pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources.  This
 process must reflect applicable State water quality
 standards including the antidegradation policy.
 No waste load allocation  can be developed or
 NPDES  permit  issued  that would  result in
 standards being  violated.    With  respect to
 antidegradation, that means existing uses must be
 protected, water quality  may not be lowered in
 ONRWs, and in the case of waters whose quality
 exceeds that necessary for the section 101(a)(2)
 goals of the Act, an  activity cannot result in a
 lowering of water  quality unless the applicable
public participation, intergovernmental review,
 and   baseline  control   requirements   of  the
 antidegradation policy have been met. Once the
 LA, WLA, or TMDL revision is completed, the
 resulting permits  must  incorporate  discharge
 limitations based on this revision.

 When a pollutant discharge ceases for any reason,
 the  waste  load  allocations  for  the  other
 dischargers in the area may be adjusted to reflect
 the additional loading available consistent with the
 antidegradation policy under two circumstances:

 •   In "high-quality waters" where after the full
     satisfaction  of all public participation and
     intergovernmental review requirements, such
     adjustments are  considered  necessary  to
     accommodate important economic or social
     development,  and  the  "threshold"  level
     requirements (required point and nonpoint
     source controls) are met.

 •   In less than  "high-quality waters," when the
     expected improvement in water quality (from
     the ceased  discharge)  would  not  cause a
     better use to be achieved.

 The adjusted loads  still must meet water quality
 standards,  and the new waste  load  allocations
 must be at least as stringent as technology-based
 limitations.      Of  course,    all   applicable
 requirements of the section 402 NPDES permit
 regulations would have to be  satisfied before a
 permittee could increase its discharge.

 If a permit is being renewed, reissued or modified
 to include less  stringent limitations based on the
 revised   LA/WLA/TMDL,  the    same
 antidegradation  analysis  applied  during  the
 LA/WLA/TMDL stage  would apply during the
 permitting stage.  It would be reasonable to allow
 the showing made during the LA/WLA/TMDL
 stage to satisfy the antidegradation showing at the
permit stage.  Any restrictions to less stringent
limits based on antibacksliding  would also apply.

If a State issues an  NPDES permit that violates
the required antidegradation policy,  it would be
subject to a discretionary EPA veto under section
   4-12
                                                                                  (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                        Chapter 4 - Antidegradation
402(d) or to a citizen challenge.  In addition to
actions on permits, any waste load allocations and
total  maximum  daily  loads   violating   the
antidegradation  policy  are  subject  to  EPA
disapproval and  EPA  promulgation  of a new
waste load  allocation/total maximum daily load
under section 303 (d) of the Act.  If a significant
pattern  of  violation  was  evident, EPA could
constrain the award of grants or possibly revoke
any Federal permitting capability  that had been
delegated  to the State.  Where EPA  issues an
NPDES permit,  EPA  will,  consistent with its
NPDES regulations, add any additional or more
stringent effluent limitations required  to ensure
compliance with the State antidegradation policy
incorporated  into   the  State  water  quality
standards.  If a State fails to require compliance
with its antidegradation policy through section 401
certification  related  to  permits issued by  other
Federal agencies (e.g., a Corps  of  Engineers
section  404  permit),   EPA  could  comment
unfavorably upon permit issuance.  The public, of
course,  could bring pressure  upon the permit
issuing agency.

For example applications of ;antidegradation in the
WLA and permitting process, see Exhibit 4-2.

4.8.2  Antidegradation   and  the  Public
       Participation Process

Antidegradation,  as with  other  water quality
standards  activities, requires public participation
and  intergovernmental coordination  to be  an
effective tool in the water  quality management
process.   40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) contains explicit
requirements   for   public   participation   and
intergovernmental coordination  when determining
whether to allow lower water quality in  high-
quality  waters.   Nothing in  either  the water
quality  standards or  the waste load  allocation
regulations  requires the same  degree  of public
participation or intergovernmental coordination for
such non-high-quality  waters as is required  for
high-quality waters. However public participation
would still be provided in  connection with  the
issuance of a NPDES permit or amendment of a
208  plan.    Also,  if the  action that causes
reconsideration of the existing waste loads (such
as dischargers withdrawing from the area) will
result in an improvement  in water  quality that
makes a better use attainable, even if not up to the
"fishable/swimmable" goal, then the water quality
standards must be upgraded and full public review
is required for any  action affecting changes in
standards.  Although not specifically required by
the standards  regulation  between the  triennial
reviews, we recommend that the State conduct a
use attainability analysis to  determine  if water
quality improvement will result in attaining higher
uses than currently designated in situations where
significant changes in waste loads are expected.

The   antidegradation   public   participation
requirement may be satisfied  in several  ways.
The State may hold a public hearing or hearings.
The State may also satisfy the requirement by
providing public notice and the opportunity for the
public to request  a hearing.  Activities that may
affect several water bodies in a river basin or sub-
basin  may be considered in a single hearing.  To
ease the resource burden on both the  State and
public, standards  issues may be combined  with
hearings  on  environmental  impact  statements,
water management plans, or permits.  However,
if this  is  done, the  public  must be clearly
informed that  possible changes in water quality
standards are being considered along with other
activities. It is inconsistent with the water quality
standards regulation to  "back-door" changes in
standards through actions on EIS's, waste load
allocations, plans, or permits.
    (8/15/94)
                                      4-13

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
      Example 1
                                                                   ! --"*„'!
           Several facilities on a stream segment discharge phosphorus-containing wastes.
           Ambient phosphorus concentrations meet the designated class & (non*
           jfishabie/swimmabh) standards,^bui farefy.  Three dischargers achieve
           elimination by developing land treatment systems^ Asa resul^ actual water
           quality improves (i.e+, phosphorus levels decline) but not quite to the level
           needed to meet class A (ftshable/swbnmable) standards* Can the remaining
           dischargers now be allowed to increase their phosphorus discharge without an
           antidegradation analysis with the result that water quality declines (phosphorus
           levels increase) to previous levels?          '              ,\.          *•
                                                                     f         **    ' <  f
           Nothing in the water quality standards regulation explicitly prohibits this. Ofeourse, changes in their
           NPDES permit limits may be subject to non-water quality constraints, such as BFT, BAT, or the
           NPDES antibacfcsliding provisions, which may restrict the increased loads.
      Example 2

           Suppose, in the above situation, water quality improves to $e point that actual
           water qualify now meets class A requirements. Is the answer different?


           Yes, The standards must be upgraded (see section 2.8).


      Examples

           As an alternative case, suppose phosphorus loadings go down and water quality
           improves because of a change in farming practices (e.g., initiation of a
           successful nonpoint source program.) Are the above answers the same?
                     •  ; ;?-.                              >~       <•      ^ •y?t™         "   ^ V
          ^es* Whether the improvement results from, a change in point or nonpowit source activity is immaterial
          to how any aspect pf the standards regulation operates,  Section t3L10(d) clearly indicates that uses
          are deemed attainable if they can be achieved by "... cost-effective and reasonable best management
          practices for nonpoint source control,* Section 131,12
-------
                                                              Chapter 5 - General Policies
                                CHAPTERS

                           GENERAL POLICIES

                              (40 CFR 131.13)


                              Table of Contents


5.1 Mixing Zones	5-1
    5.1.1    State Mixing Zone Methodologies  	5-2
    5.1.2    Prevention of Lethality to Passing Organisms	5-6
    5.1.3    Human Heailth Protection	5-7
    5.1.4    Where Mixing Zones Are Not Appropriate	5-8
    5.1.5    Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material	5-9
    5.1.6    Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects  	5-9

5.2 Critical Low-Flows	5-9

5.3 Variances From Water Quality Standards  	5-11

-------





:	        	i
                             ',:,
              I;	:;
                  '•<(• t'r-ft1

                         iiNII
	1!	
id'.!:!.

                         >s:mmm,i
                        if""!"1 i'l—fBijijiii	i|!ni,i;B»i|™i	: |i,j;-j	>i|>i';jji;||||i	py
                        mmmijil
                        li!^tiii^';.;'.|i:f|ji|

-------
                                                                       Chapter 5 - General Policies
                                        CHAPTER 5
                                  GENERAL POLICIES
States  may, at their discretion,  adopt  certain
policies   in   their  standards   affecting  the
application  and implementation   of standards.
For example, policies concerning mixing zones,
water quality  standards  variances, and  critical
flows for water quality-based permit limits may
be adopted.  Although thesie are areas of State
discretion, EPA retains authority to review and
approve  or disapprove  such policies (see  40
CFR 131.13).
        Mixing Zones
It  is not  always necessary to meet all  water
quality  criteria  within the discharge  pipe to
protect  the integrity of the  water body as a
whole. Sometimes it is appropriate to allow for
ambient  concentrations  above  the criteria in
small areas  near outfalls.   These  areas  are
called  mixing zones.  Whether  to establish  a
mixing  zone  policy  is   a   matter   of  State
discretion, but  any State  policy allowing for
mixing zones must be consistent with the  Clean
Water  Act and is subject to approval of the
Regional  Administrator.

A  series of guidance documents  issued by EPA
and its predecessor agencies have addressed the
concept of a mixing zone  as  a limited area or
volume of water where  initial  dilution  of a
discharge  takes place.  Mixing zones have been
applied  in the water quality standards  program
since its inception.  The present  water quality
standards   regulation  allows  States' to  adopt
mixing zones as a matter  of  States discretion.
Guidance  on defining mixing zones previously
has been  provided in  sevei^l  EPA documents,
including  FWPCA (1968); NAS/NAE (1972);
USEPA (1976); and USEPA  (1983a).
EPA1 s current mixing zone guidance, contained
in this  Handbook  and  the  Technical Support
Document   for  Water  Quality-based  Toxics
Control  (USEPA,  1991a),  evolved  from  and
supersedes these sources.

Allowable mixing zone characteristics should be
established  to ensure that:

•  mixing zones do not  impair  the  integrity of
   the water body as a whole,

•  there is  no lethality  to organisms passing
   through the mixing zone  (see  section 5.1.2,
   this Handbook);  and

•  there  are  no  significant   health   risks,
   considering likely pathways of exposure (see
   section 5.1.3, this Handbook).

EPA   recommends   that   mixing   zone
characteristics  be  defined  on  a case-by-case
basis after  it has  been  determined  that  the
assimilative  capacity of the receiving system can
safely   accommodate  the   discharge.    This
assessment  should  take  into  consideration  the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of the discharge  and the receiving  system; the
life history  and behavior of organisms  in the
receiving system;  and the desired uses of the
waters.   Mixing zones should not  be permitted
where they  may endanger  critical  areas (e.g.,
drinking  water  supplies,  recreational  areas,
breeding grounds, areas  with sensitive biota).

EPA has developed  a holistic  approach  to
determine whether  a mixing zone is tolerable
(Brungs, 1986). The method considers  all the
impacts  to the water body and  all the impacts
that  the drop in water quality will have on the
surrounding ecosystem and water  body uses. It
is  a  multistep  data  collection  and analysis
(9/15/93)
                                          5-1

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Sec6nd Edition
procedure  that  is  particularly  sensitive  to
overlapping   mixing  zones.     This  method
includes the identification  of all upstream  and
downstream  water bodies  and the  ecological
and  cultural  data pertaining  to  them;  the
collection  of data  on  all present  and future
discharges to the water  body; the assessment of
relative  environmental   value  and  level  of
protection  needed  for the  water  body;  and,
finally, the allocation  of environmental  impact
for  a discharge  applicant.   Because  of the
difficulty in  collecting  the  data necessary for
this  procedure   and   the  general  lack  of
agreement   concerning   relative  values,   this
method  will be  difficult to implement  in full.
However,  the method does  serve as a guide on
how to proceed  in allocating a mixing zone.

Mixing zone allowances will increase  the mass
loadings of the pollutant to the water body and
decrease   treatment   requirements.     They
adversely  impact  immobile  species, such  as
benthic communities,  in the immediate vicinity
of  the  outfall.   Because  of these  and other
factors, mixing zones must be applied carefully,
so as not to impede progress toward the Clean
Water Act goals of maintaining  and improving
water quality.    EPA  recommendations   for
allowances for  mixing zones, and appropriate
cautions about their use, are  contained  in this
section.
              MIXING ZONES

   A limited area or volume of water where
   initial dilution of a discharge takes place
   and where  numeric water quality criteria
   can  be  exceeded  but  acutely  toxic
   conditions  are prevented.
 sections 2.2, 4.3, 4.4) discusses  mixing zone
 analyses for situations  in which the discharge
 does not  mix  completely  with the receiving
 water within a  short  distance.   Included  are
 discussions of  outfall  designs  that  maximize
 initial  dilution   in the  mixing  zone,  critical
 design  periods  for mixing zone analyses, and
 methods to  analyze and model  nearfield and
 farfield mixing.

 5.1.1 State Mixing Zone Methodologies

 EPA recommends  that  States have a definitive
 statement  in their  standards on  whether or not
 mixing zones are allowed. Where mixing zones
 provisions  are part of the State  standards,  the
 State  should   describe  the  procedures   for
 defining mixing zones.  Since  these areas  of
 impact,   if   disproportionally   large,   could
 potentially adversely impact the productivity of
 the   water  body  and  have   unanticipated
 ecological   consequences,   they   should  be
 carefully evaluated and appropriately  limited in
 size.  As our understanding  of pollutant  impacts
 on  ecological systems evolves, cases could be
 identified where no mixing zone is appropriate.

 State water  quality standards should describe
 the  State's methodology for determining   the
 location, size, shape, outfall design,  and  in-zone
 quality  of mixing zones.   The methodology
 should  be  sufficiently  precise   to   support
 regulatory  actions, issuance   of permits,  and
 determination  of BMPs  for nonpoint  sources.
 EPA recommends  the following:

 •  Location

Biologically important areas are to be identified
and protected.   Where necessary to preserve  a
zone  of passage  for migrating  fish or other
organisms  in a  water  course,  the standards
should specifically identify  the portions of the
waters to be kept free from mixing zones.
                                                 Where a mixing zone is allowed, water quality
The Technical  Support  Document  for Water   standards  are met at the edge of that regulatory
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA,  1991a,
5-2
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                       Chapter 5 - General Policies
mixing zone during design flow conditions and   created by water  with inadequate  chemical or
generally provide:                               physical quality.
•  a continuous  zone  of passage that meets
   water quality criteria for free-swimming and
   drifting organisms;  and

•  prevention of impairment  of critical resource
   areas.

Individual State mixing  zone dimensions  are
designed  to limit the impact of a mixing zone
on the water body.  Furthermore,  EPA's review
of State waste load allocations (WLAs) should
evaluate   whether assumptions of complete or
incomplete  mixing are appropriate  based  on
available  data.

In river systems, reservoirs, lakes,  estuaries, and
coastal waters, zones of passage are defined as
continuous  water routes  of  such  volume,  area,
and   quality   as   to   allow   passage   of
free-swimming and drifting organisms so that no
significant  effects  are   produced  on  their
populations.     Transport   of a  variety  of
organisms  in  river   water   and  by  tidal
movements in estuaries is biologically important
for a number of reasons:

•  food is carried  to  the sessile  filter feeders
   and other  nonmotile organisms;

•  spatial  distribution   of  organisms   and
   reinforcement of weakened populations are
   enhanced;  and

•  embryos  and larvae  of  some fish species
   develop while drifting.

Anadromous  and catadromous  species must be
able  to reach suitable spawning  areas.  Their
young (and in some cases the adults)  must be
assured  a return route  to  their  growing and
living areas. Many species make  migrations for
spawning and  other   purposes.   Barriers or
blocks that prevent or interfere with these types
of essential transport  and  movement  can be
   Size

Various  methods  and techniques for defining
the surface area and volume of mixing zones for
various types of waters have been formulated.
Methods that  result in  quantitative  measures
sufficient for permit actions  and that protect
designated  uses of a water body as a whole are
acceptable.     The  area  or  volume  of  an
individual  zone  or group  of zones  must  be
limited  to  an  area or  volume as  small  as
practicable  that will not  interfere   with the
designated   uses   or  with  the  established
community  of  aquatic life  in the segment for
which the uses are designated.

To ensure  that mixing zones do not impair the
integrity of the  water  body,  it  should  be
determined  that the mixing zone will not cause
lethality  to   passing  organisms  and   that,
considering likely pathways  of exposure,  no
significant human  health risks exist. One means
to achieve these objectives is to limit the size of
the area affected by the mixing zones.

In  the general case, where a State  has  both
acute and chronic aquatic life criteria, as well as
human   health    criteria,  independently
established  mixing  zone  specifications  may
apply to each of the three types of criteria.  For
application  of  two-number  aquatic life criteria,
there  may be  up to two types of mixing zones
(see  Figure 5-1).   In the  zone immediately
surrounding the outfall, neither  the acute nor
the chronic criteria  are met. The acute criteria
are met at  the edge of this zone. In the next
mixing zone,   the acute,  but not the  chronic,
criteria are met.  The chronic criteria are met
at the edge of the second mixing zone.  The
acute  mixing  zone may be  sized  to prevent
lethality  to passing  organisms, the  chronic
mixing zone sized to protect the ecology of the
water body as a whole,  and the  health criteria
mixing zone sized to prevent  significant human
risks.   For any particular  pollutant from any
 (9/15/93)
                                           5-3

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
                               Chronic criteria
                               (e.g., CCC) met
 Figure 5-1. Diagram  of the Two Parts of the
            Aquatic Life Mixing Zone
 particular  discharge, the  magnitude, duration,
 frequency,  and  mixing  zone  associated  with
 each of the three  types  of criteria  (acute and
 chronic  aquatic  life, and  human health) will
 determine  which one most limits the allowable
 discharge.

 Concentrations  above  the chronic criteria are
 likely to prevent sensitive  taxa from taking up
 long-term residence in the mixing zone.  In this
 regard,  benthic   organisms   and   territorial
 organisms  are likely to be of greatest concern.
 The higher the concentrations occurring within
 certain  isopleths, the more taxa are likely to be
 excluded, thereby  affecting  the  structure and
 function of the ecological community. It is thus
 important  to minimize the overall size of the
 mixing   zone   and   the   size   of   elevated
 concentration isopleths within the mixing zone.

 To determine that, for  aquatic life protection, a
 mixing zone is appropriately  sized, water quality
 conditions   within  the mixing  zone  may be
 compared to laboratory-measured  or predicted
 toxicity benchmarks as follows:
 It is not necessary  to meet chronic criteria
 within the  mixing zone,  only at the edge of
 the  mixing zone.   Conditions  within the
 mixing zone would thus  not be adequate to
 assure survival, growth, and reproduction of
 all organisms  that might otherwise  attempt
 to  reside  continuously  within the  mixing
 zone.

 If   acute  criteria   (criterion   maximum
 concentration,  or CMC,  derived from 48- to
 96-hour exposure tests) are met throughout
 the  mixing zone, no  lethality  should result
 from temporary  passage  through the mixing
 zone.  If acute  criteria are exceeded no more
 than  a  few minutes  hi  a parcel of water
 leaving  an  outfall (as assumed in deriving
 the  section 5.1.2  options  for  an  outfall
 velocity of 3 m/sec,  and a size of 50 times
 the  discharge  length  scale),   this likewise
 assures no  lethality  to passing organisms.

 If a  full analysis  of concentrations   and
 hydraulic residence  times within the  mixing
 zone  indicates   that   organisms   drifting
 through the centerline of the  plume along
 the path of maximum exposure  would not be
 exposed  to concentrations  exceeding   the
 acute criteria when averaged over the 1-hour
 (or   appropriate   site-specific)   averaging
 period  for  acute criteria, then lethality to
 swimming  or   drifting  organisms   should
 ordinarily not  be expected, even for rather
 fast-acting  toxicants.   In many  situations,
 travel  time through the  acute  mixing zone
 must be less than roughly 15 minutes if a 1-
 hour average exposure is not to exceed the
 acute criterion.

 Where  mixing zone  toxicity  is  evaluated
 using the probit  approach described  in the
 water   quality   criteria   'Blue   Book"
 (NAS/NAE,  1973),  or  using  models of
 toxicant   accumulation    and   action   in
 organisms  (such as described  by Mancini,
 1983,  or   Erickson  et   al.,  1989),   the
phenomenon of delayed mortality should be
5-4
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                        Chapter 5 - General Policies
   taken into account before judging the mixing
   zone concentrations  to be safe.

 The above recommendations  assume that the
 effluent is repulsive, such that  free-swimming
 organisms would avoid the mixing zones. While
 most toxic effluents  are  repulsive, caution is
 necessary  in evaluating attractive mixing zones
 of known effluent toxicity, and denial of such
.mixing zones  may well be  appropriate.   It is
 also  important  to  assure that  concentration
 isopleths  within any plume; will not  extend to
 restrict passage of  swimming organisms into
 tributary  streams.

 In all cases, the size  of the mixing zone and the
 area  within  certain  concentration   isopleths
 should  be evaluated  for their  effect on the
 overall biological integrity of the water body. If
 the   total   area    affected    by   elevated
 concentrations    within   all   mixing   zones
 combined  is small compared with the total area
 of a water body (such as a river segment), then
 mixing zones are likely to have little  effect on
 the  integrity  of the  water  body as  a  whole,
 provided  that they do not impinge on unique or
 critical  habitats.    EPA   has  developed   a
 multistep  procedure  for evaluating the overall
 acceptability of mixing zones (Brungs, 1986).

   Shape

 The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple
 configuration that is easy to locate in a body of
 water   and  that  avoids  impingement  on
 biologically important  area:s.  In lakes, a circle
with a specified radius is generally preferable,
but other shapes may be specified in the case of
unusual  site requirements.   Most States allow
mixing  zones  as  a policy  issue  but provide
spatial dimensions  to limit the area!  extent of
the mixing zones.  The mixing zones are then
allowed  (or not  allowed)   after  case-by-case
determinations.  State regulations  dealing with
streams  and rivers generally limit mixing zone
widths, cross-sectional areas, and flow volumes,
and  allow  lengths  to  be  determined  on a
case-by-case basis.  For lakes,  estuaries,  and
coastal waters, dimensions are usually specified
by surface area, width, cross-sectional  area, and
volume.   "Shore-hugging"  plumes should  be
avoided  in all water bodies.

   Outfall Design

Before designating any  mixing zone,  the State
should   ensure  that   the   best   practicable
engineering  design is used and that the location
of the existing or proposed outfall will avoid
significant adverse  aquatic resource and water
quality impacts of the wastewater discharge.

   In-Zone Quality

Mixing   zones  are  areas  where  an  effluent
discharge undergoes  initial dilution  and  are
extended  to cover the secondary  mixing in the
ambient  water body.   A mixing zone is an
allocated  impact zone where acute and chronic
water quality criteria can be exceeded as long
as a  number  of protections  are maintained,
including freedom from the  following:

(1)    materials  in  concentrations   that   will
      cause acutely  toxic conditions to aquatic
      life;

(2)    materials in concentrations  that settle to
      form objectionable deposits;

(3)    floating  debris,  oil,  scum,  and  other
      material  in  concentrations  that  form
      nuisances;
 (9/15/93)
                                          5-5

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
(4)   substances in concentrations  that produce
      objectionable   color,  odor,  taste,   or
      turbidity; and

(5)   substances in concentrations  that produce
      undesirable  aquatic  life or result in a
      dominance  of nuisance species.

Acutely  toxic conditions are defined  as those
lethal  to  aquatic  organisms  that  may pass
through  the  mixing  zone.   As  discussed  in
section  5.1.2 below, the underlying assumption
for allowing a mixing zone is that  a small area
of concentrations in excess of acute and chronic
criteria  but  below  acutely  toxic  releases  can
exist  without causing adverse effects to the
overall  water body.    The State  regulatory
agency  can decide to allow or deny a mixing
zone on a site-specific basis. For a mixing zone
to be permitted, the discharger  should  prove  to
the  State   regulatory  agency  that all State
requirements  for a mixing zone are  met.

5.1.2 Prevention  of  Lethality  to  Passing
      Organisms

Lethality  is a function of the magnitude   of
pollutant  concentrations  and the  duration  an
organism  is exposed  to those  concentrations.
Requirements for wastewater plumes that tend
to  attract  aquatic  life  should  incorporate
measures   to reduce  the  toxicity (e.g., via
pretreatment,  dilution) to minimize lethality or
any irreversible  toxic effects on aquatic life.

EPA's water  quality criteria provide guidance
on  the  magnitude and duration  of pollutant
concentrations  causing lethality.  The  CMC  is
used as a  means  to prevent lethality  or other
acute effects. As explained in Appendix D  to
the  Technical Support Document  for  Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991a),
the CMC is a toxicity level and should not be
confused  with an  LC50 level.   The  CMC  is
defined as one-half  of the final  acute  value
(FAV)  for  specific  toxicants  and  0.3 acute
toxicity unit (TUJ for effluent toxicity (USFJPA,
1991a,  chap. 2).   The CMC describes  the
condition under which lethality will not occur if
the duration of the exposure to the CMC level
is  less   than  1  hour.     The  CMC   for
whole-effluent toxicity is  intended  to prevent
lethality  or acute effects in the aquatic  biota.
The  CMC for individual toxicants  prevents
acute effects  in all but a small percentage of
the tested  species.  Thus,  the areal extent and
concentration  isopleths of the mixing zone must
be  such  that  the  1-hour average  exposure of
organisms  passing  through the mixing zone is
less than the CMC. The organism must be able
to  pass  through   quickly  or flee the   high-
concentration  area.   The objective  of mixing
zone  water  quality   recommendations   is to
provide  time-exposure histories  that produce
negligible   or  no  measurable   effects   on
populations of critical species in the  receiving
system.

Lethality to passing organisms can be prevented
in the mixing zone in one of four ways.  The
first method  is to prohibit  concentrations  in
excess of the  CMC  in  the pipe   itself, as
measured directly at the end of the pipe.  As an
example, the  CMC should be met in the pipe
whenever a continuous discharge is made to an
intermittent stream. The second approach is to
require  that the CMC be met  within  a very
short  distance from the outfall during chronic
design flow conditions for receiving waters (see
section 5.2, this Handbook).

If the second alternative  is selected,  hydraulic
investigations  and calculations indicate that the
use of a high-velocity discharge  with  an  initial
velocity of 3 m/sec, or greater, together with a
mixing zone spatial limitation of 50 times the
discharge length  scale in any direction,  should
ensure  that  the CMC is met  within  a  few
minutes under practically all conditions.

The discharge length  scale  is defined  as the
square root of the  cross-sectional  area  of any
discharge pipe.

A third  alternative  (applicable  to any  water
body) is not to use a high-velocity discharge.
5-6
                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 5 - General Policies
Rather  the discharger  should provide  data  to
the State regulatory agency showing that the
most restrictive of the following conditions are
met for each outfall:

•  The CMC should be met within 10 percent
   of the distance from the edge of the outfall
   structure  to  the edge  of the  regulatory
   mixing zone in any spatial  direction.

•  The CMC should be met  within a distance
   of 50 times  the discharge length scale in any
    spatial direction.  In the case  of a multiport
    diffuser, this requirement  must be met  for
    each port using the  appropriate  discharge
    length  scale  of  that port.  This  restriction
    will ensure  a dilution factor  of at  least  10
    within  this  distance   under  all  possible
    circumstances, including situations  of severe
    bottom  interaction,  surface interaction,  or
    lateral  merging.

 •  The CMC  should  be met within a distance
    of 5 times  the local  water  depth  in  any
    horizontal   direction  from  any  discharge
    outlet.   The  local water depth is defined as
    the natural water depth (existing prior to the
    installation    of  the   discharge   outlet)
    prevailing    under    mixing-zone    design
    conditions  (e.g., low-flow for rivers).  This
    restriction will prevent locating the discharge
    in very shallow environments or very close to
    shore,   which  would  result   in  significant
    surface and bottom  concentrations.

 A fourth alternative  (applicable  to any  water
 body)  is for the discharger to provide data to
 the  State  regulatory   agency showing  that  a
 drifting organism would not be  exposed to  1-
 hour  average  concentrations   exceeding  the
 CMC, or would not receive harmful  exposure
 when  evaluated  by other  valid lexicological
 analysis (USEPA,  1991a, chap. 2).  Such data
 should  be  collected   during  environmental
 conditions that replicate critical conditions.

 For the third and fourth alternatives, examples
 of such data include monitoring studies, except
for those situations where collecting chemical
samples  to develop monitoring  data  would be
impractical, such as at deep outfalls in oceans,
lakes,  or embayments.   Other types  of data
could  include  field  tracer  studies using dye,
current  meters,  other  tracer  materials,  or
detailed    analytical    calculations,   such  as
modeling  estimations   of concentration   or
dilution  isopleths.

The following outlines a method,  applicable to
the fourth alternative,  to determine whether a
mixing zone is tolerable for a free-swimming or
drifting  organism.   The  method  incorporates
mortality rates (based on toxicity studies for the
pollutant  of  concern  and a representative
organism)   along   with   the   concentration
isopleths of the mixing zone and  the  length of
time the organism may spend in each isopleth.
The  intent of the method  is  to prevent the
actual  time of exposure  from exceeding the
exposure time required to elicit an effect:
                                <; 1
                 ET(X) at C(l
 where T(n)  is the exposure tune an organism is
 in isopleth  n, and  ET(X)  is the "effect time."
 That is, ET(X) is the exposure time required to
 produce  an  effect (including a delayed effect) in
 X  percent   of  organisms  exposed  to   a
 concentration equal to C(n),the concentration in
 isopleth   n.      ET(X)    is   experimentally
 determined;  the effect is usually mortality.  If
 the summation  of ratios  of exposure  time to
 effect tune  is  less than  1, then the  percent
 effect will not occur.

 5.1.3 Human Health Protection

 For protection of human health,  the presence of
 mixing zones  should not  result in significant
 health risks when evaluated using  reasonable
 assumptions about  exposure pathways.  Thus,
 where   drinking  water  contaminants   are  a
 concern, mixing zones should not encroach on
  (9/15/93)
                                                                                              5-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 drinking  water  intakes.   Where  fish tissue
 residues  are  a concern  (either  because  of
 measured  or predicted residues), mixing zones
 should not be projected  to result in significant
 health  risks to average consumers  of fish and
 shellfish, after considering exposure duration  of
 tile  affected aquatic  organisms in the mixing
 zone and  the  patterns of fisheries  use  hi the
 area.

 While fish tissue contamination tends to be a
 far-field problem affecting entire water bodies
 rather than a narrow-scale problem  confined to
 mixing zones, restricting  or eliminating mixing
 zones  for  bioaccumulative pollutants  may be
 appropriate   under   conditions  such  as  the
 following:

 *  Mixing zones should be restricted such that
   they do not encroach on areas often  used for
   fish  harvesting  particularly  of  stationary
   species such as shellfish.

•  Mixing zones might be denied  (see section
   5.1.4) where such denial is used as a device
   to  compensate  for uncertainties  in  the
   protectiveness of the water quality criteria or
   uncertainties  in the  assimilative capacity of
   the  water body.
 5.1.4 Where   Mixing
       Appropriate
Zones   Are  Not
 States  are  not  required  to  allow  mixing zones
 and,  if  mixing zones  are  allowed, a  State
 regulatory  agency may decide to deny a mixing
 zone   in  a   site-specific   case.     Careful
 consideration    must   be    given   to    the
 appropriateness  of a  mixing  zone  where  a
 substance   discharged    is   bioaccumulative,
 persistent,   carcinogenic,   mutagenic,   or
 teratogenic.

 Denial   should   be   considered  when
 bioaccumulative pollutants are in the discharge.
 The potential for a pollutant to bioaccumulate
 in living organisms  is measured  by:

 •  the bioconcentration  factor (BCF), which is
   chemical-specific and describes the degree to
   which  an organism  or tissue can acquire a
   higher contaminant  concentration  than  its
   environment  (e.g., surface water);

 •  the duration  of exposure; and

 •  the concentration of the chemical of interest.

While any BCF value greater  than 1 indicates
that   bioaccumulation  potential   exists,
bioaccumulation  potential  is   generally  not
considered  to  be significant unless the  BCF
exceeds 100 or more.  Thus, a chemical that is
discharged to a receiving stream  resulting  in
                                                                                     (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 5 - General Policies
low concentrations  and has  a low BCF value
will not result  in a bioaccumulation  hazard.
Conversely, a chemical  that  is discharged to a
receiving    stream   resulting   in   a   low
concentration  but having a high BCF value may
result in a bioaccumulation hazard. Also, some
chemicals of relatively low toxicity, such as zinc,
will  bioconcentrate  in  fish  without harmful
effects resulting from human  consumption.

Factors  such as  size  of zone,  concentration
gradient within the zone, physical habitat,  and
attraction of aquatic life are important  in this
evaluation.  Where unsafe fish tissue levels or
other evidence  indicates  a lack of assimilative
capacity  in a  particular  water  body  for  a
bioaccumulative pollutant, care should be taken
in calculating discharge limits for this pollutant
or the additivity of multiple pollutants.   In such
instances,   the  ecological  or  human  health
effects  may be so adverse that a mixing zone is
not appropriate.

Another  example  of when a regulator  should
consider  prohibiting  a  mixing zone  is  in
situations where an effluent  is known to attract
biota.  In such cases, provision of a continuous
zone of passage around the mixing area  will not
serve the purpose  of protecting aquatic  life. A
review   of  the    technical   literature   on
avoidance/attraction  behavior revealed  that the
majority  of toxicants elicited  an avoidance  or
neutral response at low concentrations  (Versar,
 1984).  However,  some  chemicals  did elicit an
attractive   response,  but  the data  were  not
 sufficient to  support  any predictive  methods.
Temperature   can be  an attractive  force and
may  counter   an  avoidance response  to  a
pollutant, resulting in attraction  to the toxicant
discharge.  Innate  behavior  such as migration
may  also supersede  an avoidance response and
 cause a fish to incur a significant exposure.

 5.1.5 Mixing  Zones  for  the  Discharge  of
       Dredged or Fill Material

 EPA,  in conjunction  with the Department  of
 the  Army, has  developed   guidelines  to  be
applied in evaluating the discharge of dredged
or fill material  in navigable waters (see 40 CFR
230).  The  guidelines  include  provisions  for
determining    the   acceptability   of   mixing
discharge  zones   (section  230.11(f)).    The
particular   pollutant    involved   should   be
evaluated  carefully  in establishing  dredging
mixing  zones.    Dredged  spoil  discharges
generally  result   in   temporary   short-term
disruption and do not represent continuous
discharge that  will affect beneficial uses over a
long term. Disruption of beneficial uses should
be the primary consideration   in establishing
mixing zones for dredge and fill activities. State
water  quality  standards  should  reflect these
principles if mixing zones for dredging activities
are referenced.

5.1.6  Mixing  Zones for Aquaculture Projects

The Administrator  is authorized,  after  public
hearings, to permit certain discharges associated
with approved  aquaculture  projects (section 318
of the  Act).    The  regulations  relating  to
aquaculture   (40  CFR  122.56  and   125.11)
provide  that the aquaculture  project area  and
project   approval   must   not   result   in   the
enlargement of any previously approved mixing
zone.    In  addition,   aquaculture  regulations
provide  that designated project areas must  not
include  so large a portion  of the body of water
that  a substantial  portion  of  the indigenous
biota  will be  exposed to  conditions  within  the
designated  projects area  (section 125.11(d)).
Areas  designated  for approved  aquaculture
projects  should be treated in the  same manner
as other  mixing  zones.    Special allowances
 should not be made for these areas.
          Critical Low-Flows
 Water quality  standards  should protect water
 quality for designated uses in critical low-flow
 situations.     In  establishing   water  quality
 standards,  States may designate a critical  low-
 flow  below  which  numerical  water quality
 criteria  do not apply.  At all tunes, waters  shall
 (9/15/93)
                                                                                             5-9

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 be free from  substances  that settle  to  form
 objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum, oil,
 or other matter; produce  objectionable  color,
 odor,  taste,  or turbidity;  cause  acutely  toxic
 conditions; or produce undesirable or nuisance
 aquatic life.

 To  do  steady-state  waste   load  allocation
 analyses, these low-flow values become design
 flows for sizing treatment  plants,  developing
 waste  load allocations,  and developing  water
 quality-based effluent limits.  Historically, these
 so-called "design" flows were  selected  for the
 purposes of waste load allocation  analyses that
 focused   on    instream    dissolved   oxygen
 concentrations  and protection  of aquatic life.
 EPA introduced hydrologically and biologically
 based analyses  for the protection of aquatic life
 and human health  with  the publication of the
 Technical Support Document for Water  Quality-
 based  Toxics Control   These  concepts  have
 been   expanded   subsequently  in  guidance
 entitled  Technical  Guidance  Manual   for
 Performing  Wasteload  Allocations,  Book  6,
 Design Conditions, (USEPA, 1986c). These new
 developments  are included in Appendix  D of
 the 1991 Technical Support Document for Water
 Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA,  199la).
 The discussion  here is greatly simplified;  it is
 provided to support EPA's recommendation  for
 baseline application values for instream flows
 and thereby maintain the intended  stringency of
 the criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  EPA
 recommended   either  of  two  methods   for
 calculating acceptable low-flows, the traditional
 hydrologic  method  developed   by  the  U.S.
 Geological  Survey  and  a biologically based
 method  developed  by EPA.

 Most States  have  adopted  specific low-flow
 requirements  for streams and  rivers to  protect
 designated uses against  the  effects of toxics.
 Generally, these have followed the guidance in
 the TSD.   EPA  believes  it is essential  that
 States   adopt   design flows  for  steady-state
 analyses  so  that  criteria  are  implemented
 appropriately.   The  TSD  also recommends  the
 use of three dynamic models to perform waste
 load allocations.  Because  dynamic  waste load
 models  do not  generally  use specific steady-
 state  design  flows but  accomplish  the  same
 effect  by  factoring   in  the  probability   of
 occurrence   of  stream  flows based  on  the
 historical   flow   record,   only  steady-state
 conditions  will be discussed here.   Clearly, if
 the criteria are implemented using inadequate
 design flows, the resulting toxics controls would
 not be  fully effective because  the resulting
 ambient  concentrations  would  exceed  EPA's
 criteria.

 In the  case  of aquatic  life,  more frequent
 violations than the assumed exceedences  once
 in 3 years would result in diminished vitality of
 stream ecosystems  characteristics  by the loss of
 desired  species  such  as sport  fish.   Numeric
 water, quality criteria  should apply at all  flows
 that are  equal to or greater  than flows specified
 in Exhibit 5-1.

 EPA is recommending  the harmonic mean flow
 to  be applied  with human  health criteria  for
 carcinogens. The concept of a harmonic  mean
 is a standard statistical  data  analysis technique.
 EPA's model for human health effects assumes
 that such effects  occur because of a  long-term
 exposure  to  low  concentration   of  a   toxic
 pollutant   (for example,  2 liters  of  water per
 day  for  70  years).     To  estimate   the
 concentrations  of the toxic pollutant in those 2
 liters per day by  withdrawal from streams with
 a high daily variation  in flow, EPA believes the
 harmonic mean flow is the  correct  statistic to
use in computing such design flows rather  than
other averaging techniques.   For  a description
of harmonic means, refer to Rossman (1990).
5-10
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                         Chapter 5 - General Policies
             r  -  AQUATIC LIFE

  Acute Criteria 
-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 Variance   procedures    involve  the   same
 substantive  and  procedural  requirements  as
 removing a designated use (see  section 2.7,this
 Handbook), but unlike use removal, variances
 are both discharger and pollutant  specific, are
 time-limited,  and  do not forego  the  currently
 designated use.

 A variance should  be used instead of removal
 of a use where the State believes the standard
 can ultimately be attained.   By maintaining the
 standard rather than  changing it, the State  will
 assure   that   further  progress  is  made  in
 improving  water   quality   and   attaining  the
 standard.   With  a variance,  NPDES  permits
 may be written such that reasonable progress is
 made  toward  attaining  the standards  without
 violating section  402(a)(l)  of the Act,  which
 requires  that NPDES permits  must  meet  the
 applicable water quality standards.

 State  variance procedures,  as  part   of State
 water quality standards,  must be consistent with
 the substantive requirements  of 40 CFR 131.
 EPA has approved  State-adopted  variances in
 the past and will continue to do so if:

 *   each  individual variance  is included as part
    of the water quality standard;

 *   the  State  demonstrates  that meeting  the
    standard is unattainable  based on one or
    more  of the  grounds outlined  in  40 CFR
    131.10(g) for removing a designated use;

 *   the justification  submitted  by the  State
    includes documentation   that treatment
    more  advanced  than that  required   by
    sections  303(c)(2)(A> and  (B)  has been
    carefully considered,  and that alternative
    effluent  control  strategies   have  been
    evaluated;

 •  the    more  stringent  State   criterion   is
   maintained  and  is binding upon  all  other
   dischargers   on   the   stream   or  stream
   segment;
•  the discharger who is given a variance  for
   one  particular  constituent  is  required  to
   meet   the  applicable   criteria  for  other
   constituents;

•  the variance  is granted  for a specific period
   of  time  and  must  be  rejustified  upon
   expiration but  at least every 3 years (Note:
   the 3-year limit is derived from the triennial
   review requirements of section 303(c) of the
   Act.);

•  the discharger either must meet the standard
   upon  the  expiration of this time period  or
   must   make    a   new   demonstration   of
   "unattainability";

•  reasonable progress is being made toward
   meeting the standards; and

•  the variance was subjected to public  notice,
   opportunity   for   comment,   and   public
   hearing. (See section 303(c)(l) and 40 CFR
   131.20.) The public notice should contain a
   clear  description   of  the  impact  of the
   variance   upon  achieving  water  quality
   standards  in the affected stream  segment.
5-12
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                            Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
                                CHAPTER 6

                      PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW
                            AND REVISION OF
                     WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

                         (40 CFR 131 - Subpart C)


                              Table of Contents
6.1 State Review and Revision  	6-1
    6.1.1     Consultation with EPA  	6-1
    6.1.2     Public Notice Soliciting Suggestions for Additions or Revisions to
             Standards   	6-1
    6.1.3     Review of General Provisions   	6-3
    6.1.4    Selection of Specific Water Bodies for Review	6-3
    6.1.5     Evaluation of Designated Uses	6-4
    6.1.6    Evaluation of Criteria	6-6
    6.1.7    Draft Water Quality Standards Submitted to EPA for Review	6-7
    6.1.8    Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to Standards   	6-7
    6.1.9    State Adopts Revisions; Submits Standards Package to EPA for Review  . . 6-7

6.2 EPA Review and Approval	6-8
    6.2.1     Policies and Procedures Related to Approvals	6-11
    6.2.2    Policies and Procedures Related to Disapprovals	6-11
    6.2.3    Policies and Procedures Related to Conditional Approvals   	  6-12

6.3 EPA Promulgation ,	6-13

-------

                                                                      if	i
                              !!	!	•
1^^

:H!	!»f
                                     a	   	
                                                	.i..	lii-l	I	i	!  i


                                    	i
                                      ''

                                                            H	Si	Ii
                                                              lifiH	rWl"

                                                       iSIMlMi	ilj
                 ii	
                                                 iii^^


                                           ••l^^
                                                         	P^^	m
                                                B;ifhf;:: i, ;' i1 "I i,'! 'i;  i,";,!l ;1  !! Ji'f1 l!;i" -'•', tin i",""l!l ' i




                                                                                   1


                                                                	i	!	!	!	i	i!	
i"  -v",1'1 i ir"'; ,,'fc'in '>'• 'ifiiifjil'"'''1'! ^'''rjii.iy'lftMIH
!'.!!	;!i.-riiiii|l|iiJKii ''iaijlll	j-)-!!^^              	IKlililll

-------
                                  Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
                                       CHAPTER 6
            PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND REVISION OF WATER
                                QUALITY STANDARDS
State  review  and  revision  of water  quality
standards  are discussed  in section 6.1. of this
chapter.     Guidance   is  provided   on  the
administrative and regulatory requirements  and
procedures that should be followed in the State
review and submittal  process as  well as the
implication  of  a  State's  failure to  submit
standards.     EPA   review  and  approval
procedures are discussed in section 6.2, and the
procedures   for   promulgation   of  Federal
standards  are described in section  6.3.
         State Review and Revision
Section  303(c)(l)  of the  Clean  Water  Act
requires  that a State shall, from time to time,
but at least  once  every 3 years,  hold  public
hearings  to  review applicable  water quality
standards and, as appropriate,  to  modify and
adopt  standards.    The  3-year  period  is
measured from the date of the letter  in which
the State informs  EPA  that  revised or  new
standards have been adopted  for the affected
waters and are being submitted for EPA review
or, if no changes were made in the standards
for those waters, from the date of the letter in
which the State informs EPA that the standards
were  reviewed  and no changes were made.

States identify additions or revisions necessary
to  existing  standards  based  on  their 305(b)
reports,   other    available   water   quality
monitoring   data,   previous   water  quality
standards reviews, or requests from  industry,
environmental  groups, or the public.   Water
quality  standards reviews  and revisions  may
take  many  forms,  including  additions to and
modifications   in  uses,  in  criteria,  in  the
antidegradation   policy, in the antidegradation
implementation procedures, or in other general
policies.

6.1.1    Consultation with EPA

State consultation  with  EPA regional offices
should occur  when States  begin activities  to
revise or adopt new water quality standards and
long before the  State standards  are  formally
submitted for EPA review.  Reasons for early
consultation with EPA include the following:

•    States will benefit from early identification
     of potential areas  of disagreement  between
     EPA  and  the   States,  and  EPA  can
     determine   where   assistance   may  be
     provided;

•    EPA must be in  a position to respond  to
     litigation  and to  congressional  and  other
     inquiries  relating  to actions on the revised
     State water quality  standards;

•    Headquarters  must  be ready to support
     promulgation actions when State standards
     have been disapproved;

•    early consultation with EPA  allows issues
     to  be  discussed  well before   a formal
     review request is received  from the State;
     and

•    EPA  actions  related  to  State  standards
     should receive as comprehensive  a review
     as possible.

6.1.2  Public Notice Soliciting  Suggestions for
       Additions or Revisions to Standards

An important  component  of the water quality
standards  setting  and  review  process   is  a
 (9/15/93)
                                          6-1

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
                Consultation with EPA
               , PubHo Notice Soliciting
               Suggestions for Additions
               or Revisions to Standards
             Review of Genera! Provisions
            Appropriate Use Designations
              (Chapter 2)
            Criteria review and Development
              (Chapters)
            AnlfdsgYadation Policy
            Implamofitation (Chapter 4)
            Downgrade/Variance Provisions
              (Section 5.3)
            Inclusion of AM Waters of the U.S.
              (Section 1.3)
            Low Flow Provisions (Section 5.2)
            Mixing Zone Provisions (Section 5.1)
            DaflnWons
            Other
                 Selection of Specific
               Waterbodtea for Review
             CWA §305(b) Report
             CWA §304(0 Ust
             CWA §303(d) Waters
             CWA §319 Waters
             Construction Grants Priority List
             Expired Major Permits
             Waters Not Meeting CWA
             §101 (a){8) Goals
             Unclassified Waterbodtes
             Public Input
            Evaluation of Designated Uses
                    (Chapter 2)
                Evaluation of Criteria
                    (Chapters)
   Draft Water Quality
 Standards Submitted to
    EPA for Review
   Public Hearing on
  Proposed Changes to
Water Quality Standards
 State Adopts Revisions
 State Attorney General
 Certifies Water Quality
      Standards
State Submits Revisions,
 Methods, Justifications
 and Attorney General
 Certification to EPA for
       Review
        EPA
      Approves
      Standards
     (Section 6.2)
                                            Yes
State Proposes Revisions
                                                                                                   No
                                EPA Promulgates Federal
                                 Water Quality Standards
                                      (Section 6.3)
 Standards to Permits
       Process
  Figure 6-1. Simplified Flow Chart of a Typical State Water Quality Standards Review Process
6-2
                                                                                                            (9/15/93)

-------
                                    Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
-meaningful involvement of those affected by the
standards  decisions.   At a  minimum,  section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires  States
to  hold a public  hearing   in reviewing  and
revising water quality standards. (State law may
require  more than  one  hearing.)   However,
States are  urged  to  involve the public more
actively  in the review process.  Involvement  of
the public includes the .involvement  of citizens
affected by standards  decisions, the  regulated
community (municipalities  and  industry),  and
inter-governmental   coordination  with  local,
State, and Federal agencies,  and Indian Tribes
with  an interest  in water quality issues.   This
partnership will ensure  the  sharing  of ideas,
data,  and  information, which will increase the
effectiveness   of   the   total   water   quality
management  process.

Public  involvement  is  beneficial  at  several
points in the water quality  standards  decision
making  process.    Enlisting  the support  of
municipalities,  industries,   environmentalists,
universities,  other  agencies,,  and the  affected
public in collecting and evaluating information
for the decision making  process  should assist
the State in improving the  scientific  basis for,
and hi building support for, standards decisions.
The more  that people  and groups are involved
early in  the process  of sietting  appropriate
standards,  the more support  the State will have
in implementing  the standards.

6.1.3  Review of General Provisions

In each  3-year water quality standards  review
cycle, States  review the general provisions  of
the   standards   for   adequacy   taking   into
consideration:

•    new Federal  or State statutes, regulations,
     or guidance;

•    legal  decisions involving  application   of
     standards; or

•    other  necessary clarifications or revisions.
     Inclusion  of All Waters of the  United
     States

Water  quality  standards  are needed  for all
"waters of the United States,"  defined  in the
National   Pollution   Discharge   Elimination
System Regulations at 40 CFR 122.2 to include
all interstate waters, including wetlands, and all
intrastate   lakes,  rivers,  streams   (including
intermittent  streams),  wetlands, natural ponds,
etc.,  the  use, degradation   or destruction  of
which would affect or could affect interstate  or
foreign commerce.  The term "waters of the
United States" should be read broadly during
the standards  review  process.   States  should
ensure that all waters under this definition are
included in the States' water quality  standards,
are   assigned   designated   uses,  and   have
protective  criteria.

   Definitions

Terms  used in  the  Water Quality  Standards
Regulation  are defined in 40 CFR 131.3.  The
glossary of this  document contains  these  and
other  water  quality standards-related   terms
defined  by  the  Clean  Water  Act,   EPA
regulation, or guidance. States, when reviewing
their   water quality  standards,   should  at  a
minimum  define  those terms  included  in the
Definitions  section  of the  regulation  to  be
synonymous with the EPA definitions.

6.1.4  Selection of Specific Water Bodies for
       Review

The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
States to establish procedures  for identifying
and reviewing the standards on specific water
bodies  in  detail.    Any  procedures  States
establish   to   revise  standards   should   be
articulated   in the  continuing  planning process
consistent  with the water quality  management
regulation.   Water bodies  receiving a detailed
standards  review are most likely to  be those
where:
(9/15/93)
                                           6-3

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
*  combined  sewer  overflow  (CSO)  funding
   decisions are pending;

*  water quality-based permits are scheduled to
   be issued or reissued;

•  CWA goal uses are not being met;

*  toxics   have   been   identified  and   are
   suspected of precluding a  use or may be
   posing  an  unreasonable   risk to  human
   health;  or
   there   may  be   potential   impacts
   threatened  or endangered species.
on
States  may have other reasons  for  wishing to
examine a water body in detail,  such as human
health   problems,  court  orders,  or costs  or
economic and  social impacts of implementing
the existing water  quality  standards.    States
must reexamine any water body with standards
not consistent  with the section  101(a)(2)  goals
of the Act every 3 years, and if new information
indicates that  section 101(a)(2) goal uses  are
attainable,  revise its standards  to  reflect  those
uses.

States are encouraged to  review standards for a
large  enough  area  to consider  the interaction
between  both  point  and   nonpoint  source
discharges.  In carrying out standards  reviews,
the States  and  EPA  should  ensure  proper
coordination of all water quality programs.
6.1.5  Evaluation of Designated Uses

Once priority water bodies have been selected
for  review,   the  designated   uses  must  be
evaluated.  This may involve some level of data
collection up to and including a full water body
survey and  assessment;  however,  an intensive
survey of the  water body is not  necessary if
adequate  data are available.   The purpose  of
the evaluation is  to pinpoint problems and to
characterize present uses, attainable uses (uses
that could exist in the absence of anthropogenic
effects),  uses  impaired  or precluded,  and  the
reasons why uses are impaired or precluded.
Information generated in the survey also can be
used to establish the basis for seasonal uses and
subcategories  of uses.

Included in section  2.9 of this Handbook  are
examples  of a range of physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the  water body that
may  be  surveyed  when  evaluating   aquatic
protection uses.  This information  is then used
in determining the existing species in the water
body and the health  of those species, as well as
what species could be in the water body  given
the physical characteristics of the water body, or
what species might be in the water  if the quality
of the  water were improved.

   Review of the Cause of Uses Not Being Met

If the survey indicates that designated  uses  are
impaired,  the  next  step  is to  determine  the
cause.  In many situations, physical conditions
and/or the presence  of pollutants   prevent  the
water  body from meeting its  designated  use.
Physical  limitations   refer  to   such factors  as
depth,  flow, habitat,  turbulence,  or structures
such as dams that might make a use unsuitable
or impossible  to  achieve regardless  of water
quality.

If uses  are  precluded   because   of  physical
limitations  of the water body, the State  may
wish to examine modifications that  might  allow
a habitat suitable  for a species  to thrive where
it could  not before.   Some of the techniques
6-4
                                            (9/15/93)

-------
                                   Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
which   have   been    used   include   bank
stabilization, current deflectors, construction  of
oxbows, or installation  of spawning  beds.   A
State also might wish to consider improving the
access to the water body, improving  facilities
nearby  so  that it can  be used for recreational
purposes,  or  establishing  seasonal   uses   or
subcategories  of a use.

If uses are not  being  met because  of water
pollution problems, the first step in the process
is to determine  the  cause.  If the  standards
review process is well coordinated with the total
maximum  daily  load   (TMDL)  determination
and  the  permit process,  permitees   may   be
required  to  conduct   some of the  analyses
necessary  to  determine   why  uses   are  not
attained (For more information  on the TMDL
process, see chapter 7, this Handbook.) When
background levels of pollutants  are irreversible
and   criteria  cannot  be  met,  States should
evaluate other more appropriate  uses and revise
the water quality standards  appropriately.

   Determination of Attainable Uses

Consideration  of the  suitability  of the water
body to attain a use is an integral part of the
water quality standards  review and  revision
process.  The data  and iriformation  collected
from the water body survey provide a  firm basis
for  evaluating  whether  the  water  body   is
suitable for  the  particulair  use.   Suitability
depends   on  the  physical,  chemical,   and
biological  characteristics of the  water body,  its
geographic setting and scenic qualities, and the
socioeconomic  and cultural characteristics  of
the   surrounding  area.   Suitability  must   be
assessed through the  professional judgment  of
the  evaluators.   It  is their  task to  provide
sufficient  information   to  the  public and  the
State decision makers.

In some instances, physical factors may preclude
the   attainment   of  uses   regardless    of
improvements in the chemistry of the  receiving
water.   This is particularly  true  for fish and
wildlife protection uses where the  lack of a
proper substrate  may preclude certain  forms of
aquatic  life   from  using   the  stream   for
propagation,  or the lack of cover, depth, flow,
pools, riffles, or impacts from channelization,
dams, or diversions may preclude  particular
forms  of  aquatic  life  from   the   stream
altogether.     While   physical  factors   may
influence   a   State's   decision   regarding
designation  of uses  for a water  body. States
need  to give consideration to the incidental uses
that  may  be  made    of  the   water  body
notwithstanding  the  use  designation.    For
example, even though it may not make sense to
encourage   use  of a   stream   for  swimming
because  of the flow, depth, or velocity of the
water, the States and EPA  must recognize that
swimming and/or  wading may, in fact, occur.
To protect public health,  States  must set criteria
to reflect swimming if it appears  that primary
contact  recreation   will, in  fact, occur  in the
stream.

While   physical  factors  are  important   in
evaluating  whether a use is  attainable,  physical
limitations  of the  stream  may not be  an
overriding factor.   Common  sense and good
judgment play an  important  role  in  setting
appropriate  uses and criteria. In setting criteria
and uses, States  must assure the attainment  of
downstream  standards.   The downstream  uses
may  not be   affected   by the  same  physical
limitations as the upstream  uses.

If a change in the  designated  use is warranted
based on a use attainability  analysis, States may
modify the uses currently assigned.  In  doing so,
the State  should designate  uses that can  be
supported   given the  physical,  chemical,  or
biological limitations of the water body.  Or, a
State may designate uses on a seasonal  basis.
Seasonal use designations  may be appropriate
for streams  that lack adequate  water volume to
support  aquatic life year round, but can be used
for  fish spawning,  etc., during  higher  flow
periods.  In setting seasonal uses, care must be
taken not to allow the  creation of conditions
instream that  preclude uses in another season.
EPA encourages  the designation  of seasonal
 (9/15/93)
                                           6-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 uses   as   an   alternative   to   completely
 downgrading the use of a water body.

    Economic Impact Assessment

 The Water Quality Standards Regulation allows
 States  to establish uses that  are  inconsistent
 with the section  101(a)(2)  goals of the Act if
 the more stringent technology required to meet
 the goals will cause substantial and widespread
 economic and social impact. These are impacts
 resulting  specifically from imposition  of the
 pollution  controls and  reflect such factors as
 unemployment, plant closures, and changes in
 the governmental  fiscal  base.  The  analysis
 should address the incremental effects of water
 quality standards beyond technology-based  or
 other  State requirements.   If the requirements
 are not demonstrated to have an incremental,
 substantial,  and  widespread   impact  on  the
 affected  community, the   standard   must  be
 maintained or made compatible with the goals
 of the Act.

 6.1.6   Evaluation of Criteria

 Changes  in  use designations  also  must  be
 accompanied  by consideration  of the  need for
 a  change in criteria.  If a use is removed,  the
 criteria to protect  that  use  may be deleted  or
 revised to assure protection of the remaining
 uses. If a use is added, there must be adequate
 water   quality  criteria  to  protect  the  use.
 Regardless  of whether changes or modifications
 in uses are made, criteria protective of the  use
 must be adopted.   Certain criteria are deemed
 essential  for inclusion  in all State  standards,
 and criteria for section 307(a) toxic pollutants
 must  be  addressed   consistent   with  section
 303(c)(2)(B)  (see chapter 3, this  Handbook).
 All State  standards  should  contain the  "free
 froms" narrative statements  (see  section 3.5.2)
 in addition to numerical limits that can be used
 as a basis  for regulating discharges into surface
 waters. Also, water quality parameters  such as
 temperature,    dissolved   oxygen,   pH,  and
 bacteriological  requirements  are  basic to  all
 State standards.

 EPA's  laboratory-derived  criteria  may  not
 always accurately  reflect  the   bioavailability
 and/or  toxicity of  a  pollutant because  of the
 effect   of  local   physical   and  chemical
 characteristics   or varying sensitivities of  local
 aquatic   communities.      Similarly,  certain
 compounds may be more or less toxic in some
 waters  because of differences in temperature,
 hardness,  or other  conditions.    Setting  site-
 specific criteria is appropriate where:

 •  background  water quality parameters,  such
    as pH,  hardness, temperature,  color, appear
    to  differ significantly  from the laboratory
    water used  in developing the section  304(a)
    criteria; or

 •  the  types of local aquatic  organisms differ
    significantly from those actually tested  in
    developing  the section 304(a)  criteria.

 Developing site-specific criteria is a method  of
 taking  local conditions into  account so  that
 criteria are adequate  to protect the designated
 use without being more or less stringent  than
 needed.   A three-phase  testing  program  that
 includes water quality sampling and analysis, a
 biological  survey, and acute bioassays provides
 an approach for developing site-specific criteria.
 Much of the data and  information for the water
 quality sampling and analysis and  the biological
 survey can be obtained while conducting the
 assessment  of the  water  body.   Included  in
 section  3.10 of this Handbook  are scientifically
 acceptable  procedures for setting  site-specific
pollutant   concentrations   that   will protect
6-6
                                                                                       (9/15/93)

-------
                                   Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standard
designated uses. EPA believes that setting site-
specific criteria will occur on only a limited
number  of stream  segments  because  of the
resources  required  to conduct  the analyses and
the  basic  soundness   of the  section  304(a)
recommendations.

6.1.7  Draft   Water   Quality   Standards
       Submitted to EPA for Review

While not a regulatory requirement, prudence
dictates that draft  State water quality standards
be  submitted  to EPA for  review.   The  EPA
regional  office and  Headquarters  will conduct
concurrent reviews of draft standards and make
comments  on proposed revisions to assist the
State  hi   producing   standards   that   are
approvable  by the  Regional  Administrator.
Continuing cooperation  between the State and
EPA is essential  to timely  approval of  State
standards.

6.1.8  Public Hearing on Proposed Changes to
       Standards

Before  removing  or  modifying any use or
changing criteria, the Clean Water Act requires
the State  to hold  a public hearing.  More than
one hearing  may  be required  depending  on
State regulations.    It  may be appropriate to
have EPA review  the adequacy of justifications
including   the data  and  the  suitability  and
appropriateness  of the  analyses  and how the
analyses   were  applied  prior to  the  public
hearing.  In cases where the analyses are judged
to be inadequate,  EPA  will identify how the
analyses  could  be unproved and suggest the
additional types of evaluations or data needed.
By consulting with EPA frequently  throughout
the review process, States can be better assured
that  EPA will be able to expeditiously review
State submissions and make the determination
that  the standards meet the requirements  of the
Act.

The analyses and supporting  documentation
prepared  hi  conjunction   with  the  proposed
water quality standards revision should be made
available  to  the  interested  public prior to the
hearing.    Open  discussion  of the  scientific
evidence  and  analysis  supporting   proposed
revisions  in  the water  quality  standards  will
assist the State in making its decision.

6.1.9  State   Adopts   Revisions;   Submits
       Standards Package to EPA for Review

Within  30 days of their final  administrative
action,  States  submit to EPA  water  quality
standards revisions,  supporting  analyses,  and
State Attorney  General  certification that the
standards were  duly adopted  pursuant to  State
law. Final administrative action is meant  to be
the  last  action  a  State  must take  before its
revision  becomes  a rule under State law and it
can  officially transmit State-adopted   standards
to EPA for review. This last action might be a
signature, a review by a legislative committee or
(9/15/93)
                                           6-7

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
State Board,  or a delay  mandated  by a State
administrative procedures  act.

In   reviewing  changes   in   uses   that   are
inconsistent with the section 101(a)(2) goals of
the  Act  or  changes  in criteria,  EPA  will
carefully consider the adequacy of the analyses
and  the  public  comments received  during the
hearing  process.   Standards  are to meet  the
goals of the Act unless the  State  can  clearly
demonstrate that the uses reflected in the goals
are unattainable.
       EPA Review and Approval
When States adopt new or revised water quality
standards,  the State is  required  under  CWA
Section 303(c) to submit such standards to EPA
for review and approval/disapproval.   Section
131.20(c)  of the  Water  Quality   Standards
Regulation  requires  the submittal  to EPA to
occur within 30 days of the final State  action.
Figure 6.2 outlines  EPA's review process. EPA
reviews and approves/disapproves  the standards
based on  whether  the standards   meet  the
requirements  of  the CWA and  the  Water
Quality  Standards  Regulation.     States  are
encouraged  to provide early drafts to the EPA
Regional Office so that  issues can be resolved
during  the  water  quality  standards   review
process, prior to  formal  State  proposal  or
adoption of revised or new standards.

When reviewing State water quality standards,
EPA  ensures  that the  standards  meet  the
minimum requirements   of the Act  and Water
Quality  Standards  Regulation.    Pursuant  to
section 510 of the  Act,  State  water  quality
standards may be  more stringent than  EPA's
minimum requirements.

The  general  elements   of an  EPA  review
include, but are not limited to, the following:

*  EPA   determines   whether   "fishable/
   swimmable"  designated  uses  have  been
   assigned  to  all  State  waters  or  a  use
   attainability analysis  (UAA) is available to
   support  the  designation   of  other  uses.
   Other uses may satisfy the  CWA section
   101(a)(2) goal if properly  supported  by a
   UAA.  EPA  reviews the  adequacy of the
   analyses.

•  EPA determines  whether the  State's water
   quality criteria are sufficient to protect  the
   designated uses by ensuring that all numeric
   criteria  are based on CWA Section 304(a)
   guidance,  304(a)  guidance   modified   to
   reflect  site-specific  conditions,  or other
   scientifically  defensible  methods.  EPA's
   decision  to accept criteria based on  site-
   specific calculations  or alternative scientific
   procedures  is based  on a determination  of
   the validity and adequacy of the supporting
   scientific  procedures  and assumptions  and
   not  on  whether  the  resulting  criterion is
   more  or  less  stringent  than  the  EPA
   guideline.

•  EPA ensures  that uses and/or  criteria  are
   consistent  throughout the water  body  and
   that  downstream standards  are protected.  A
   review   to  determine  compliance  with
   downstream  standards  is  most  likely  to
   involve  bodies  of water  on,  or crossing,
   interstate  and international  boundaries.

•  Where the analyses supporting any changes
   in the   standards  are  inadequate,   EPA
   identifies  how  the   analyses  need to  be
   improved   and  suggests   the  type   of
   information or analyses needed.

•  For  waters  where   uses  have  not been
   designated  in  support  of the  fishable/
   swimmable   goal  of  the   CWA,  EPA
   determines whether the alternative uses  are
   based on an acceptable UAA  and whether
   such  UAAs have been reviewed every 3
   years as required by 40 CFR 131.20(a).

•  EPA ensures  that  general   "free  from"
   narrative  criteria are included that  protect
   all waters at all flows from substances  that
6-8
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                    Chapter 6 • Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
                         State Submits Draft
                         WQS to Region for
                          Informal Review
                        Region Reviews Draft
                               WQS
                    HQ Reviews Draft WQS
                         Comments Given to
                               State
                          State Adopts or
                           Revises WQS
             State Submits Revisions, Methods, Justifications
              and Attorney General Certification to Regional
                       Administrator for Review
                                or
                 X- (60 days)
                                                              or
            (90 days)
         Regional Administrator
            Approves WQS
Regional Administrator
  Disapproves WQS
                                                   (90 days)
                            Yes
          te
      Adopts
      Required
      Changes
                                           EPA Begins
                                           Promulgation
                              Concurrent HQ Review
Regional Administrator
Conditionally Approves
        WQS
 If Conditions Not Met
    by State, WQS
     Considered
     Disapproved
  Figure 6-2. Overview of EPA Water Quality Standards Review Process
(9/15/93)
                                                       6-9

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
    settle  to form objectionable  deposits; float
    as  debris,   scum,  oil,  or  other   matter;
    produce objectionable  color, odor, taste,  or
    turbidity;  are  acutely  toxic;  or  produce
    undesirable  or nuisance aquatic life.

*   EPA  determines  whether  the  State  has
    included  criteria for CWA  section  307(a)
    "priority" pollutants sufficient to satisfy the
    requirements of CWA section 303(c)(2)(B).

•   For toxic pollutants  where  EPA  has not
    issued  guidance or it is not known which
    toxicant  or toxicants  are  causing  the
    problem,   EPA   ensures   that   the  State
    standards include or reference a method  for
    implementing   the  narrative  toxics  "free
    from" criterion.

•   EPA ensures that the State's antidegradation
    policy  meets the  requirements   of section
    131.12 of  the  Water  Quality  Standards
    Regulation.

•   EPA reviews whether  the State has provided
    or referenced a procedure for implementing
    the antidegradation  policy.

*   Where  (optional)   general   policies  are
    included in the State water quality standards
    (e.g.,  mixing  zone  provisions,   variance
    policies, low-flow exemption  policies), EPA
    reviews whether the policies are consistent
    with the latest EPA guidance.

*   EPA reviews comments and  suggestions on
    previous State water  quality standards   to
    ensure that  any areas for  improvement   or
    conditions  attached  to previous approvals
    have been acted upon satisfactorily.

•   EPA  reviews  whether  the  policies  are
    consistent with the latest EPA guidance and
    regulatory  requirements.

•   EPA ensures that  the  State  has  met the
    minimum  requirements  for a  standards
    submission  as outlined  in section  131.6 of
    the Water Quality Standards Regulation.

•   EPA  reviews   whether   the  State  has
    complied with the procedural  requirements
    (e.g., public  participation)  for conducting
    water quality standards  reviews.

Since   1972,  EPA   review  and  approval/
disapproval includes  concurrent reviews by the
Regions and Headquarters.   However, because
the  EPA   regional   Administrator   has  the
responsibility for approving/disapproving water
quality   standards   and   because    of  the
decentralized  structure  of EPA,  the  regional
offices are  the primary point of contact with the
States.   The EPA  regional  offices,  not the
States, are responsible for providing  copies  of
State   water   quality   standards   to   EPA
Headquarters   for review  and  for  acting  as
liaison between  States and EPA Headquarters
on  most matters affecting  the water  quality
standards  program.  The basic internal  EPA
review  procedures   have been  described   in
various guidance documents  over  the years; the
most was a memorandum  dated December  17,
1984. This  memorandum  also made one minor
change  to  the  process.    It required   that
Headquarters  be  consulted   immediately  for
possible  advice  and   assistance  when  the
Regional Office learns that a State:

•   is proposing  to lower designated water uses
    below the section  101(a)(2) goals of the Act;

•   is not raising water uses to meet the section
    101(a)(2) goals of the Act; or

•   is considering  adopting  a water  quality
    criterion  less  stringent  than,   currently
    included in a State's  standard.

To  expedite Headquarters   review,  copies  of
State water  quality standards revisions (draft
and final)  must  be provided  to  the  Director,
Standards  and Applied Science Division, at the
time they  are  received  by  the Region.  The
Standards   and Applied   Science  Division  will
6-10
                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                   Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water <2waficy Standards
involve other  EPA  offices  in  the review  as
appropriate,   and  provide   comments   and
suggestions,  if any,  to  regional  offices  for
consideration  in  State-EPA  negotiations  and
final standards decisions.  Their review will be
expeditiously  accomplished  so as  not to  slow
regional  approval/disapproval.     Neither  the
regional  nor Headquarters  review  need  be
limited only to revisions to existing standards  or
to new standards.

In general, three outcomes are possible:

•  EPA approval, in whole  or  in  part,  of the
   submitted  State water quality standards;

•  EPA disapproval, in whole or in part, of the
   submitted State water quality standards; and

•  EPA conditional  approval,  in whole  or in
   part, of the submitted  State  water quality
   standards.

Unconditional   approval   or disapproval   of
State-adopted  water quality standards within the
statutory time limits is the preferred approach.
Conditional approvals should be used only as a
limited exception  to this general  policy for
correcting minor deficiencies  in State  standards
and  only  if a State provides assurance that  it
will  submit corrections  on a specified, written
schedule.   Failure of a State to respond  in a
timely manner to  the  conditions expressed  in
the  letter  means   that  the   standards   are
disapproved  and  the  Region  must  promptly
request Headquarters to initiate a promulgation
action.  Where this occurs,, the  Region should
formally notify the State  in  writing that their
failure  to  meet  the  conditions   previously
specified  results  in the  standards  now being
disapproved  as  of the  original date  of  the
conditional approval  letter.

6.2.1  Policies  and  Procedures  Related  to
       Approvals

Authority to approve or disapprove  State water
quality   standards   is   delegated   by   the
Administrator  to each Regional Administrator.
The  Administrator  retains  the  authority  to
promulgate standards.  Revisions to State water
quality standards that meet the requirements of
the  Act  and  the  Water  Quality   Standards
Regulation  are approved  by  the  appropriate
EPA Regional  Administrator.    The Regional
Administrator  must, within 60 days, notify the
Governor  or  his  designee  by  letter   of the
approval and forward a copy of the letter to the
appropriate  State  agency.  The letter  should
contain any information that might be helpful in
understanding  the scope of the approval  action.
If particular events  (e.g., State implementation
decisions, pending Federal legislation pertaining
to water quality standards  requirements)  could
result in a failure of the approved standards to
continue to meet  the requirements of the Act,
these  events  should  be  identified  in  the
approval   letter.     Such  events  should be
identified for the record to guide future  review
and revision activities.

When only a portion of the revisions  submitted
meet the  requirements  of the  Act and the
Water  Quality   Standards   Regulation,   the
Regional  Administrator may approve only that
portion.  If only a partial approval is made, the
Region  must,  hi  notifying the  State,  be  as
specific  as  possible  in   identifying  what is
disapproved    and   why.      The   Regional
Administrator  must  also clearly  indicate  what
action  the State  could   take  to  make  the
disapproved item acceptable.

6.2.2  Policies  and  Procedures  Related  to
       Disapprovals

If the Regional Administrator  determines that
the revisions submitted are not consistent with
or do not meet the requirements  of the  Act or
the Water Quality  Standards   Regulation,  the
Regional  Administrator must disapprove  such
standards   within  90 days.  Such  disapproval
must be via written notification  to the Governor
of the State  or his designee.   The letter  must
state  why the revisions are not consistent with
the  Act  or  the  Water  Quality   Standards
(9/15/93)
                                          6-11

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Regulation and specify the revisions that  must
be adopted to  obtain full approval.  The letter
must   also   notify  the  Governor  that   the
Administrator   will   initiate   promulgation
proceedings  if the  State  fails to  adopt   and
submit the necessary revisions within 90 days
after notification.

A State   water quality standard  remains  in
effect, even though disapproved  by EPA,  until
the State  revises it or EPA promulgates a rule
that   supersedes   the   State  water   quality
standard.     This   is  because  water  quality
standards  are State laws, not Federal laws, and
once  the  law  is  amended by the  State, the
previously   adopted   and   EPA-approved
standards  no longer legally exist.
6,23  Policies  and  Procedures  Related
       Conditional Approvals
                                           to
Conditional  approvals  are  EPA  approvals
contingent  on the  performance  of  specified
actions  on the part  of a State in  a timely
manner.    There   is  an  implicit  or explicit
statement  in the letter to the State  that failure
to satisfy the identified  conditions  will nullify
the conditional  approval and lead  to Federal
promulgation action. Problems have arisen with
inconsistent use of conditional approvals among
the regions and with foUowup actions to ensure
that a State is responding to the conditions  in a
timely  manner.
Because  promulgation of Federal  standards  is
inherently   a  lengthy  process,  the  use  of
conditional  approvals evolved over the years as
another   mechanism   to   maintain   the
State-Federal    relationship   in   establishing
standards.   When  used  properly, conditional
approvals can result in standards that  fully meet
the requirements   of the Act  without undue
Federal  intervention  and  promote  smooth
operation of the national  program.

If used improperly,  conditional approvals can be
an unacceptable delaying tactic to establishing
standards and can be construed as EPA failing
to properly  exercise its  duty  to  review  and
either  approve  or disapprove  and   promptly
initiate  promulgation action after  the allotted
90-day period for State action.  This improper
use of conditional  approvals must be  avoided.

It is  incumbent on  a   Region  that uses  a
conditional  approval to ensure that State action
is timely.   When  a State  fails  to  meet  the
agreed-upon  schedule,  EPA   should initiate
promulgation  action. Conditional approvals are
to be used  only to correct minor deficiencies
and  should  be the  exception, not  the  rule,
governing regional responses to State standards.
Note that requests for clarification  or additional
information  are not approval  actions  of any
type.

This policy is modeled  after  that applied to
EPA  approval of State  implementation  plans
6-12
                                                                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                   Chapter 6 - Procedures for Review and Revision of Water Quality Standards
(SIPs) in the air program. (See 44 F.R. 38583,
July 2, 1979.  See also Mississippi Commission
on Natural Resources v. Costle, 625 F. 2d 1269
(5th Cir.) 1980.)

   Necessary   Elements    of  Conditional
   Approvals

First, conditional approvals are appropriate only
for "minor deficiencies." Blatant disregard of
Federal statutory or regulatory requirements or
changes that will affect major permit  issuance
or reissuance  are not  minor  deficiencies.  In
addition, the State's standards submission  as a
whole must be  in substantial  compliance with
FJPA's regulation.   Major deficiencies  must be
disapproved    to    allow   prompt    Federal
promulgation  action.

Second, the State must commit, in writing, to a
mutually  satisfactory,  negotiated  schedule to
correct the identified regulatory deficiencies in
as short  a time period  as possible.  The time
allowed should  bear a reasonable  relationship
to   the   required    action.     However,  in
consideration  of the first element above,  it is
expected  that the time period for compliance
will be limited to a few months.  It is definitely
not  expected  that  a  year or  more  will be
required.  If that is the cases, disapproval  would
be   more    appropriate.      Headquarters
concurrence  in the schedule  is required  if it
extends for more than  3 months.
       EPA Promulgation
As a matter  of policy, EPA prefers that States
adopt their  own standards.   However, under
section  303(c)(4)  of  the  Act,  FJPA   may
promulgate Federal standards:

•   if a revised or new  water quality  standard
    submitted by a State is determined by the
    Administrator  not to be; consistent  with the
    requirements  of the  Clean Water  Act, or
•  in  any  case   where  the   Administrator
   determines that a new or revised standard  is
   necessary to meet  the  requirements  of the
   Act.

Under the latter provision of the statute,  FJPA
would be able to promulgate  standards  for a
State,  or  States,   that  failed  to  conduct  a
triennial   review and  submit  new  or  revised
standards  to FJ?A for review  so long as the
Administrator determined  new standards  were
necessary.   Where one of these conditions  is
met,  the  Administrator  has  the authority  to
publish proposed  revisions  to  the  State(s)
standards  in the Federal Register. Generally, a
public hearing  will be held  on  the proposed
standards.  Final  standards  are  promulgated
after   giving  due  consideration   to   written
comments received and statements made at any
public hearings  on the proposed  revisions.

Although    only   the   Administrator   may
promulgate State standards, the Regional Office
has a major  role  in the promulgation  process.
The Regional   Office provides  the necessary
background  information  and   conducts  the
public hearings. The Regional Office prepares
drafts of the rationale  supporting EPA's action
included in the proposed and final rulemakings.
The rationale  should clearly state  the reason  for
the disapproval  of the State standard.

If conditions  warrant (e.g., a State remedies the
deficiencies in its  water quality standards  prior
to  promulgation),  the   Administrator  may
terminate   the rulemaking  proceeding  at any
time.  However, if a proposed  rulemaking has
been  published  hi the  Federal Register, then the
Regional  Administrator must  not approve the
State's changes  without obtaining concurrence
from Headquarters.

Whenever   promulgation   proceedings   are
terminated,   a  notice  of  withdrawal  of the
proposed  rulemaking  will be published in the
Federal Register.   The Regional  Offices are
responsible   for  initiating  such  action  and
 (9/15/93)
                                          6-13

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
furnishing a rationale for use in preparing  the
notice for the Administrator's signature.

An   EPA-proinulgated    standard   will  be
withdrawn when revisions to State water quality
standards are made that meet the requirements
of the Act.  In such a situation, the Regional
Office should initiate the withdrawal action by
notifying the Standards  and Applied Science
Division  (WH-585)  that  it  is  requesting  the
withdrawal,  specifying  the   rationale  for  the
withdrawal,   and    obtaining   Headquarters
concurrence  on the acceptability of the State's
water  quality   standards.    EPA's  action  to
withdraw  a federally promulgated  standard
requires  both a proposed and final rulemaking
if the State-adopted  standards are less stringent
than federally promulgated standards but, in the
Agency's judgment, fully meet the requirements
of the Act. EPA will withdraw the Federal rule
without a notice and comment rulemaking  when
the State standards are no  less stringent than
the Federal rule (i.e.,standards  that provide, at
least,  equivalent  environmental  and  human
health protection).

Withdrawal of a Federal promulgation is based
on  a determination  that  State-adopted  water
quality standards meet the requirements  of the
Clean   Water  Act.    Such   State-adopted
standards may be the same  as,  more stringent
than, or less stringent than the  Federal  rule.
6-14                                                                                   (9/15/93)

-------
                                 Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
                               CHAPTER 7

                     THE WATER QUALITY-BASED
                             APPROACH TO
                         POLLUTION CONTROL
                             Table of Contents


7.1 Determine Protection Level	7-2

7.2 Conduct Water Quality Assessment	7-3

    7.2.1    Monitor Water Quality  	7-3

    7.2.2    Identify Impaired (Water Quality-Limited) Waters	7-3

7.3 Establish Priorities	7-5

7.4 Evaluate Water Quality Standards for Targeted Waters	7-6

7.5 Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities	 7-7

7.6 Establish Source Controls	7-8

    7.6.1    Point Source Control - the NPDES Process	7-9

    7.6.2    Nonpoint Source Controls	7-10

    7.6.3    CWA Section 401 Certification	7-10

7.7 Monitor and Enforce Compliance	7-12

7.8 Measure Progress .	7-13

-------
fct?:	Tit*	s-r	•	!	-mm	;;	I
!	I	!!!	i	i!	!	!!!	'-SUM	!^	miti

-------
                                         Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
                                        CHAPTER 7
                     THE WATER QUAOTY-BASED APPROACH
                              TO POLLUTION CONTROL
This chapter briefly describes the overall water
quality-based  approach and its relationship  to
the water quality standards program. The water
quality-based  approach emphasizes  the  overall
quality  of  water   within  a  water  body and
provides  a  mechanism   through   which  the
amount of pollution  entering  a water body is
controlled based on the intrinsic conditions  of
that body of water and  the standards  set  to
protect  it.

As shown in Figure 7.1, the water quality-based
approach  contains  eight  stages.  These stages
each  represent  a major  Clean  Water  Act
program with specific regulatory requirements
and guidance. The presentations  in this chapter
summarize how the different programs  fit into
the overall  water  quality  control scheme and
are not intended as implementation  guidance.
Implementation  of these  programs should be
consistent   with  the   specific  programmatic
regulations  and guidance  documents  provided
by  the  appropriate  program  office,  many  of
which are cited  herein.

The first stage, "Determining Protection  Level,"
involves State development  of water  quality
standards, the subject of the preceding chapters
of this Handbook.

In the second stage, "Monitoring and Assessing
Water Quality," States  identify impaired waters,
determine if water quality standards  are being
met, and detect pollution  trends.  Sections  of
the Clean Water Act  require  States  to compile
data, assess, and report on the status of their
water bodies.   States  generally use  existing
information   and  new  data  collected  from
ongoing  monitoring programs to assess their
waters.  This stage is discussed in section 7.2.
of this Handbook.
In  the third stage,  "Establishing  Priorities,"
States  rank water  bodies  according  to  the
severity of the pollution, the uses to be made of
the   waters,   and   other    social-economic
considerations,   and  determine  how best  to
utilize available  resources to solve  problems.
Section 7.3 of  this  Handbook  discusses  the
ranking and targeting of water bodies.

In  the fourth  stage,  "Evaluating   WQS  for
Targeted  Waters," the  appropriateness  of the
water  quality standards for specific  waters is
evaluated.   States may  revise or reaffirm their
water quality standards.  A State may choose,
for example, to develop site-specific  criteria for
a particular  stream because a particular  species
needs to be protected.  This  stage is discussed
in section 7.4 of this Handbook.

In  the  fifth stage  "Defining and  Allocating
Control Responsibilities,"  the level  of  control
needed  to  meet  water  quality  standards  is
established,   and  control  responsibilities   are
defined and allocated.  States  use mathematical
models  and/or   monitoring to determine total
maximum  daily  loads  (TMDLs)  for water
bodies;   the  TMDLs   include  waste load
allocations  (WLAs)  for point  sources, load
allocations (LAs)  for nonpoint  sources, and  a
margin of safety.  The TMDL is the amount of
a pollutant that may be  discharged into a water
body and  still maintain  water quality  standards.
Pollutant  loadings above this amount generally
will result in waters  exceeding the   standards.
Allocations  for  pollution limits for point and
nonpoint  sources are calculated to ensure that
water  quality  standards   are  not   exceeded.
Section 7.5  discusses  the TMDL process  in
greater detail.
(9/15/93)
                                          7-1

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
                                  Determine Protection Level
                                  Review/Revise State WQS
                       8
                Measure Progress
              Modify TMDL if needed
         Monitor and Enforce
             Compliance
            Self-Monitoring
          Agency Monitoring
             Enforcement
         Conduct WQ Assessment
          (a) Monitor Water Quality
          (b) Identify Impaired Waters
                                                                        \
                 Establish Priorities
               Rank/ Target Waterbodies
                      I
         Establish Source Controls
            Pofnt Source Permits
              NFS Programs
             §401 Certification
               Evaluate WQS for
               Targeted Waters
             Reaffirm / Revise WQS
                           Define and Allocate Control Responsibilities
                                       TMDL/WLA/LA
    Figure 7-1. Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
In the sixth stage, "Establishing Source Control,"
States   and  EPA  implement   point  source
controls  through  NPDES permits,  State  and
local governments implement nonpoint  source
management programs through State laws and
local ordinances, and  States assure attainment
of water quality standards  through  the  CWA
section  401  certification  process.    Control
actions  are  discussed in Section 7.6.

In the seventh stage, "Monitoring and Enforcing
Compliance," States  (or EPA)  evaluate  self-
monitoring  data reported by dischargers to see
that the conditions of the NPDES permit are
being   met  and  take  actions   against   any
violators.     Dischargers  are  monitored  to
determine   whether  or  not they  meet permit
conditions  and  to ensure that expected  water
quality  improvements   are  achieved.    State
nonpoint  source  programs  are  monitored and
enforced  under  State  law and  to  the extent
provided by State law.

In the  final  stage,  "Measuring  Progress," the
States (and EPA) assess the effectiveness  of the
controls  and  determine  whether water quality
standards have  been  attained,  water quality
standards need to be revised, or more stringent
controls  should be applied.
         Determine Protection Level
The water quality-based approach  to pollution
control   begins  with  the   identification   of
problem  water bodies.   State  water  quality
standards  form the  basis  and  "yardstick" by
which States can assess the water body status
7-2
                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                         Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Foffulion Control
 and implement needed pollution  controls.   A
 water quality standard defines the water quality
 goals of a water  body, or portion  thereof, by
 designating the use or uses to be  made  of the
 water, by  setting  criteria  necessary  to protect
 the  uses,  and  by preventing degradation  of
 water   quality   through   antidegradation
 provisions. States adopt water quality standards
 to protect public health or welfare, enhance the
 quality of water, and serve the purposes  of the
 Clean Water Act.  "Serve the purposes  of the
 Act" (as defined in sections  101(a), 101(a)(2),
 and 303(d) of the Act) means that water quality
 standards  should  (1)  include provisions for
 restoring  and  maintaining  chemical, physical,
 and biological  integrity  of  State  waters; (2)
 provide,  wherever attainable, water quality for
 the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
 and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water
 ("fishable/swimmable"); and (3)  consider the
 use  and value  of State waters for public water
 supplies,  propagation  of fish  and wildlife,
 recreation,  agricultural and industrial purposes,
 and navigation.  The preceding chapters of this
 Handbook   provide  EPA's guidance  on the
 water quality standards program.
          Conduct Water Quality Assessment
Once  State  water  quality   standards   have
determined  the appropriate  levels of protection
to be  afforded  to State  water bodies, States
conduct  water quality monitoring and identify
those waters that are "waterquality limited,"or
not meeting  the standards.

7.2.1    Monitor Water Quality

Monitoring  is an important element throughout
the  water   quality-based   decision   making
process.  In this step, monitoring provides  data
for identifying impaired  waters.   The Clean
Water  Act specifies that  States and  Interstate
Agencies, in cooperation  with EPA,  establish
water quality monitoring  systems necessary  to
review and revise water quality  standards, assess
designated  use attainment,  calculate  TMDLs,
 assess compliance  with permits, and  report on
 conditions and trends in ambient waters.  EPA
 issued   guidance  in  1985  for  State  Water
 Monitoring and Waste load Allocation (USEPA,
 1985d).  Guidance for preparing CWA section
 305(b) reports is contained in the Guidelines for
 the Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality
 Assessments  (305 (b) Reports) (USEPA,  1993a).
 Both of these  documents discuss monitoring as
 an  information  collection   tool   for  many
 program needs.  The Intergovernmental  Task
 Force on Monitoring  Water  Quality report
 (ITFM,  1992) proposes  actions  to  improve
 ambient  water quality monitoring in the United
 States to  allow  better  management  of water
 resources.

 Sections 208(b)(2)(F)  through (K) of the CWA
 require  the development of a State  process to
 identify, if appropriate, agricultural, silvicultural,
 and other  nonpoint  sources of pollution.  NPS
 monitoring concerns  are discussed  in several
 NPS guidance documents along with methods to
 monitor    and   evaluate   nonpoint   sources
 (Watershed   Monitoring   and   Reporting
 Requirements   for   Section   319   National
 Monitoring Program Projects (USEPA,  199 Ig)
 and Guidance  Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint  Pollution in Coastal
 Waters (USEPA, 1993b).

 7.2.2     Identify Impaired (Water Quality-
          Limited) Waters

 EPA's   Water   Quality   Planning   and
 Management  Regulation  (40 CFR  Part  130)
 establishes  the process  for identifying  water
 quality-limited   water   still   requiring   total
 maximum  daily  loads   (TMDLs).    Waters
 require TMDLs when certain pollution control
 requirements  (see Exhibit 7.1) are not stringent
 enough to  maintain water quality standards for
 such waters.

 The  most  widely  applied  water   pollution
 controls  are   the  technology-based   effluent
 limitations  required by sections 301 (b) and 306
 of the Clean Water Act. In some cases, a State
(9/15/93)
                                          7-3

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  (b)(l) Each State shall identify those water
  segments still requiring WLAs/LAs and TMDLs
  within its boundaries for which:

       (i) Technology-based effluent limitations
       required by sections 301(b), 306,307, or
       other section of the Act;

       (ii) More stringent effluent limitations
       (including prohibitions) required by either
       State or local authority preserved by section
       510 of the Act, of Federal authority («,#.,
       law, regulation, or treaty); and

       (Hi) Other pollution control requirements
       (e.g., best management practices) required by
       local, State, or Federal authority

  are not stringent enough to implement any water
  quality standard applicable to such waters.
Exhibit 7-1. Identifying Waters Still Requiring
             TMDLs: 40 CFR 130.7(b)
or  local  authority  may establish  enforceable
requirements beyond technology-based controls.
Examples  of such requirements  may be those
that (1) provide more stringent NPDES permit
limitations to protect a valuable water resource,
or (2) provide for the management  of certain
types of nonpoint source pollution.

Identification of  good quality waters that  are
threatened   is  an  important   part  of  this
approach.  Adequate control of new discharges
from either point  or nonpoint sources should be
a  high  priority  for  States  to  maintain   the
existing  use or uses of these water bodies. In
the  identification  of threatened  waters, it is
important  that the 303(d)  process consider all
parts  of the  State  water  quality standards
program    to    ensure   that   a  State's
antidegradation  policy and narrative provisions,
as  well  as  parameter-specific   criteria,   are
maintained.
Section 303(d) requires States  to identify those
water  quality-limited  waters needing TMDLs.
States  must regularly update their lists of waters
as assessments are made  and report these  lists
to EPA  once every 2 years.  In their biennial
submission,  States  should  identify  the water
quality-limited  waters  targeted   for  TMDL
development  in  the  next  2  years, and   the
pollutants  or stressors  for  which the  water is
water  quality-limited.

Each  State  may have different  methods  for
identifying  and compiling information  on  the
status  of its water  bodies,  depending on its
specific  programmatic  or cross-programmatic
needs    and   organizational   arrangements.
Typically,   States   utilize   both   existing
information   and  new  data  collected  from
ongoing  monitoring programs to assess whether
water  quality standards are  being  met, and to
detect  trends.

States  assess  their   waters  for a  variety of
purposes, including targeting cleanup  activities,
assessing  the  extent  of   contamination   at
potential Superfund sites, and meeting federally
mandated  reporting  requirements.    While  the
identification of water  quality-limited  waters
may appear  to be a major task for the States,  a
significant  amount  of this  work  has  already
begun  or has been  completed  under sections
305(b), 304(1), 314(a), and 319(a) of the Clean
Water  Act  as amended in 1987.

Section  305(b)  requires  States  to  prepare  a
water  quality  inventory  every   2  years  to
document the status of water bodies  that have
been  assessed.   Under  section  304(1), States
identified all surface  waters adversely affected
by  toxic   (65   classes   of   compounds),
conventional  (such as BOD,  total  suspended
solids, fecal coliform, and oil and  grease), and
nonconventional   (such as ammonia, chlorine,
and iron)  pollutants   from  both  point  and
nonpoint sources.  Under section 314(a), States
identify publicly owned lakes for which uses  are
known to be impaired by point and nonpoint
sources,  and report  those  identified  in their
7-4
                                        (9/15/93)

-------
                                         Chapter 7 -The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
305(b)  reports.   Section  319  of the  CWA
requires   each  State  to  develop   an  NFS
assessment report. Guidance on the submission
and approval process for Section 319 reports is
contained   hi  Nonpoint  Source  Guidance
(USEPA, 1987c).

Lists  prepared  to  satisfy nsquirements  under
section 305(b), 304(1), 314(a) and 319 should be
very useful in preparing  303 (d) lists. Appendix
B   of   Guidance  for   Water  Quality-based
Decisions: The TMDL Process (USEPA, 199 Ic)
provides a summary  of these  supporting CWA
programs.
          Establish Priorities
Once waters needing  additional controls  have
been  identified,  a State prioritizes  its list of
waters using established ranking processes that
should  consider  all  water pollution  control
activities within the State.  Priority ranking has
traditionally been a process defined by the State
and  may vary in  complexity  and design.  A
priority  ranking   should  enable the  State  to
make efficient use of its available resources and
meet  the objectives of the Clean Water Act.

The  Clean  Water Act states  that  the priority
ranking for such waters must take into account
the severity of the pollution and the uses to be
made  of  such   waters.    Several  documents
(USEPA, 1987e, 1988c,d, 1989d, 1990c, 1993c)
are  available from EPA  to  assist  States  in
priority setting.

According  to EPA's State Clean Water  Strategy
document:   "Where all water quality problems
cannot be addressed immediately, EPA and the
States will, using multi-year  approaches,   set
priorities and direct efforts and resources  to
maximize  environmental  benefits  by dealing
with  the most  serious  water quality problems
and the most valuable  and  threatened  resources
first."
Targeting  high-priority  waters  for  TMDL
development  should reflect an evaluation  of the
relative  value and benefit of water  bodies
within the State and take into consideration the
following:

•    risk to  human health, aquatic  life,  and
     wildlife;

•    degree of public interest and support;

•    recreational,   economic,   and   aesthetic
     importance of a particular water body;

•    vulnerability  or fragility  of a  particular
     water body as an aquatic  habitat;

•    immediate  programmatic   needs  such as
     waste load  allocations  needed for permits
     that are coming up for revisions or for new
     or   expanding   discharges,    or   load
     allocations  for needed  BMPs;

•    waters and pollution  problems  identified
     during the  development   of  the section
     304(1) "longlist";

•    court  orders  and  decisions  relating  to
     water quality; and

•    national  policies  and  priorities  such as
     those    identified   in   EPA's   Annual
     Operating Guidance.

States  are required  to submit their  priority
rankings to EPA for review.  EPA expects all
waters  needing  TMDLs to be ranked,  with
"high" priority waters — targeted  for initiation
(9/15/93)
                                          7-5

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 of TMDL development within 2 years following
 the listing process — identified.  (See USEPA
 (1991c)  for further  details on submission  of
 priorities to EPA.)

 To effectively develop and implement TMDLs
 for all waters identified, States  should establish
 multi-year   schedules   that   take    into
 consideration   the   immediate   TMDL
 development for targeted  water bodies and the
 long-range  planning  for  addressing  all water
 quality-limited waters still requiring TMDLs.

 While the CWA  section  319 NFS assessment
 report identifies  the overall dimensions  of the
 State's NFS water quality problems and States
 are to develop  statewide  program  approaches
 for specific  categories of pollution to address
 NTS  problems,  States  are also encouraged  to
 target subsets of waters for concerted  action on
 a  watershed-by-watershed   basis.   EPA  has
 issued guidance   on NFS targeting  (USEPA,
 1987e).
          Evaluate  Water Quality  Standards
          for Targeted Waters
At this point in the water quality management
process, States have identified  and  targeted
priority water quality-limited water bodies.  It is
often   appropriate,   to   re-evaluate   the
appropriateness of the water quality  standards
for  the  targeted   waters  for several reasons
including, but  not limited to, the following.

First, many States have not conducted  in-depth
analyses of appropriate uses and criteria for all
water  bodies  but  have  designated  general
fishable/swimmable   use   classifications   and
statewide  criteria  on  a  "best  professional
judgment"  basis to many waters.  In addition,
many  States make general assumptions  about
the antidegradation  status  of State waters  (e.g.,
all  waters  not  specifically  assigned  to  an
antidegradation  category will be considered tier
2  or high-quality  waters).  It is possible  that
these  generally  applied  standards,  although
meeting  the  minimum  requirements  of the
CWA   and   WQS   regulation,   may   be
inappropriate  (either over- or under-protective)
for a specific water body that has not had an in-
depth standards  analysis.  For example,  if a
water body was classified as a coldwater fishery
based solely on its proximity to other coldwater
fisheries, a water  body-specific  analysis  may
show that  only  a  warmwater  fishery use  is
existing or attainable.  If the listing of the water
body was based on exceedences of criteria  that
are more stringent for coldwater fish  (such as
ammonia or  dissolved oxygen),  changing the
designated  use  through  a  use  attainability
analysis  and applying appropriate  criteria  may
allow standards to be met without further water
quality controls.

Second,  even if an in-depth analysis has been
done in the past, changes  in the uses of the
water body  since that time  may have made
different   standards   more  appropriate   or
generated  an  additional  "existing use" which
must be  protected.  For example,  a water body
designated for fish, aquatic  life, and recreation
in the past may now be used  as a public water
supply, without that use and protective  criteria
ever  being formally adopted  in the  standards.
Another   example   might  be   a  designated
warmwater  fishery that, due to  the removal of
a thermal discharge,  now supports a coldwater
fishery as the existing use.

Third, monitoring  data  used to  identify  the
water body as impaired  may be historical,  and
subsequent  water quality improvements  have
allowed  standards  to be met.  And fourth,  site-
specific criteria may be appropriate because of
specific  local  environmental conditions.   For
example, the species capable of living at the site
are more or less sensitive than  those included
in the national criteria  data  set, or  physical
and/or chemical characteristics of the site alter
the biological availability  and/or  toxicity of the
chemical.
7-6
                                      (9/15/93)

-------
                                         Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
          Define   and
          Responsibilities
Allocate   Control
For  a  water  quality-limited  water  that  still
requires a TMDL, a State must establish a TMDL
that quantifies pollutant sources, and a margin of
safety,  and  allocates allowable  loads  to the
contributing point and nonpoint source discharges
so that the water quality standards are attained.
The   development   of   TMDLs   should  be
accomplished by setting priorities, considering the
geographic  area  impacted  by   the  pollution
problem,  and in  some cases  where  there are
uncertainties from lack of adequate data,  using a
phased approach to establishing control measures
based on the TMDL.

Many  water  pollution concerns  are areawide
phenomena  caused   by   multiple dischargers,
multiple pollutants (with potential synergistic and
additive   effects),    or   nonpoint  sources.
Atmospheric  deposition   and  ground   water
discharge may also result  in significant pollutant
loadings  to  surface waters.  As a result,  EPA
recommends that States  develop TMDLs  on  a
watershed basis  to  efficiently  and  effectively
manage the quality of surface waters.

The  TMDL process  is a rational  method for
weighing  the  competing pollution concerns and
developing  an  integrated pollution  reduction
strategy  for point and nonpoint  sources.  The
TMDL process  allows States  to take a  holistic
view of  their water quality problems from the
perspective  of instream  conditions.   Although
States  may  define a water body to correspond
with their current programs,  it is expected that
States  will  consider  the  extent  of  pollution
problems  and  sources  when   defining  the
geographic  area  for  developing TMDLs.   In
general, the geographical approach for  TMDL
development  supports  sound   environmental
management and efficient use of limited water
quality  program  resources.   In  cases  where
TMDLs are  developed on watershed levels, States
should consider organizing permitting  cycles so
that all permits in a given watershed expire at the
same time.

Mathematical  modeling is a valuable tool for
assessment  of  all  types  of  water  pollution
problems.   Dissolved oxygen  depletion  and
nutrient enrichment from point  sources  are the
traditional modeling problems of the past.  They
continue to  be problems and are joined by such
new challenges as nonpoint source loadings, urban
stormwater  runoff,   toxics,    and  pollutants
involving sediment and bioaccumulative pathways.
These new pollutants and pathways require the
use of new models.

All models  are simplifications  of reality  that
express our  scientific  understanding   of the
important  processes.    Where  we  don't  fully
understand the processes), or cannot collect the
data that would be required to set parameters in a
model  that  would simulate the process(es), we
make simplifying  assumptions.    All  of  these
   (8/15/94)
                                                             7-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Sefcond Edition
 simplifications increase  the  uncertainty of our
 ability to predict responses  of already highly-
 variable systems. While the  use of conservative
 assumptions   does  reduce   the  possibility  of
 underestimating  pollutants   effects   on  the
 waterbody, the use of conservative assumptions
 does not reduce the uncertainty.  Calibration of a
 model to given waterbody does more to reduce
 uncertainty surrounding the system's response to
 reduced pollutant loadings.   Sensitivity  analyses
 can further this process.

 For TMDLs  involving  both  traditional and
 nontraditional problems, the margins of safety can
 be increased and additional monitoring required to
 verify attainment of water quality standards, and
 provide data needed to recalculate the TMDL if
 necessary (the phased approach).

 EPA regulations provide that load allocations for
 nonpoint sources and natural background "are best
 estimates  of  the loading which may range from
 reasonably accurate estimates to gross allotments
 ..." (40 CFR 130.2(g)). A phased approach to
 developing TMDLs  may be appropriate  where
 nonpoint sources are involved and where estimates
 are based on limited information.  Under the
 phased  approach,  TMDL includes  monitoring
 requirements  and a  schedule for  reassessing
 TMDL allocations to ensure attainment of water
 quality standards.  Uncertainties that cannot be
 quantified may also  exist for certain pollutants
 discharged primarily by point sources.  In such
 situations a large margin of safety and follow-up
 monitoring are appropriate.

 By  pursuing  the  phased   approach   where
 applicable,  a  State  can  move   forward  to
 implement water quality-based control measures
 and adopt an explicit schedule for implementation
 and assessment. States  can  also use the phased
 approach to address a greater number of water
 bodies including threatened waters or watersheds
 that would otherwise not be managed.  Specific
 requirements  relating to  the phased approach are
 discussed  in  Guidance for Water Quality-based
Decisions: The TMDL Process (USEPA 1991c).
          Establish Source Controls
 Once a TMDL has been established for a water
 body (or watershed) and the appropriate source
 loads  developed,   implementation  of   control
 actions should  proceed.   The State or  EPA is
 responsible  for implementation,  the  first step
 being  to update the water quality management
 plan.  Next, point and nonpoint source  controls
 should  be  implemented  to  meet  waste  load
 allocations  and load allocations, respectively.
 Various  pollution   allocation   schemes  (i.e.,
 determination of allowable loading from different
 pollution sources in the same water body) can be
 employed by States to optimize alternative point
 and nonpoint source management strategies.

 The NPDES permitting  process is used  to limit
 effluent  from  point  sources.    Section  7.6.1
 provides a  more  complete description  of  the
 NPDES process and how it fits  into  the water
 quality-based   approach   to   permitting.
 Construction decisions regarding publicly owned
 treatment  works (POTWs),  including advanced
 treatment  facilities, must also be based  on  the
 more  stringent  of technology-based  or  water
 quality-based limitations. These decisions should
 be coordinated  so  that the facility plan for  the
 discharge is consistent with the limitations in the
 permit.

 In the case  of nonpoint  sources, both State and
 local laws may authorize the implementation of
 nonpoint source controls such as the installation of
 best management  practices  (BMPs)  or  other
 management measures.  CWA  section 319 and
 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
 1990  (CZARA)  section  6217 State management
programs  may  also be  utilized  to  implement
nonpoint source control measures and practices to
ensure improved water quality. Many BMPs may
be implemented through section  319  programs
even where State  regulatory programs  do  not
exist.  In such cases, a State needs to  document
the coordination that may be necessary  among
State and local agencies, landowners, operators,
and   managers   and   then   evaluate   BMP
   7-8
                                                                                 (8/15/94)

-------
                                         Chapter 7 -The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
implementation,   maintenance,   and   overall
effectiveness to ensure that load allocations  are
achieved.  Section 7.6.2 discusses some of  the
programs  associated  with  implementation   of
nonpoint source control measures.

States  may  also  grant,  condition,  or  deny
"certification"  for  a  federally  permitted   or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
the waters of the United States, if it is the State
where  the discharge  will originate.   The State
decision  is based  on a State's determination of
whether  the proposed activity  will comply with
the requirements of certain sections of the Clean
Water  Act,  including  water  quality  standards
under  section  303.    Section  7.6.3    of  this
Handbook contains further discussion  of section
401 certification.

7.6.1     Point Source Control - the NPDES
          Process

Both technology-based and water  quality-based
controls  are  implemented through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting process.   Permit  limits  based  on
TMDLs are called water quality-based  limits.

Waste  load  allocations establish  the level  of
effluent quality necessary to protect water quality
in the receiving water and to ensure attainment of
water quality standards.  Once allowable loadings
have been developed  through WLAs for specific
pollution  sources,  limits are  incorporated  into
NPDES permits.  It is important to ensure that the
WLA  accounts for the fact that effluent quality
is often highly variable.  The  WLA and permit
limit should be calculated to prevent water quality
standards impairment at all times. The reader is
referred  to the Technical Support Document for
Water  Quality-based Toxics Control  (USEPA,
199 la)  for additional  information on deriving
permit limits.

As a result of the 1987 Amendments to the Act,
Individual  Control  Strategies   (ICSs)   were
established under section 304(1)(1) for  certain
point  source   discharges  of  priority   toxic
pollutants. ICSs consist of NPDES permit limits
and  schedules  for achieving such  limits, along
7with  documentation  showing  that  the control
measures selected are appropriate and adequate
(e.g., fact sheets including information on  how
water quality-based limits were developed,  such
as total  maximum daily  loads and waste  load
allocations).  Point sources with approved ICSs
are to be in compliance with those ICSs as  soon
as possible or in no case later than 3 years from
the establishment of the ICS (typically by 1992 or
1993).

When establishing WLAs for point sources in a
watershed, the TMDL record should show that, in
the case  of any credit for future nonpoint source
reductions (1) there is reasonable assurance that
nonpoint source controls will be implemented and
maintained, or (2) that nonpoint source reductions
are demonstrated through an effective monitoring
program. Assurances may include the application
or   utilization  of   local   ordinances,   grant
conditions, or other enforcement authorities. For
example, it may be appropriate to provide that a
permit may be reopened when  a WLA  requiring
more  stringent  limits  is   necessary  because
attainment of a nonpoint source load  allocation
was not demonstrated.

Some compliance implementation time may,  in
certain situations,  be necessary and appropriate
for permittees to meet new permit limits based on
new standards.  Under the Administrator's April
16, 1990 decision in an  NPDES appeal (Star-Kist
Caribe  Inc..  NPDES  Appeal  No. 88-5),  the
Administrator stated that the only basis in which
a permittee may delay  compliance after July  1,
1977 (for a post July  1977 standard), is pursuant
to a schedule of compliance established in the
permit which is authorized by the State in the
water quality standard  itself or in other State
implementing regulations.   Standards  are made
applicable to  individual  dischargers  through
NPDES  permits which reflects the applicable
Federal or State water quality standards. When a
permit is issued, a schedule of compliance for
water quality-based limitations  may be included,
as necessary.
   (8/15/94)
                                       7-9

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 7,6.2     Nonpoint Source Controls

 In addition to permits for point sources, nonpoint
 sources controls such as management measures or
 best management practices (BMPs) are also to be
 implemented  so  that  surface  water  quality
 objectives are met.  To fully address water bodies
 impaired  or  threatened  by nonpoint  source
 pollution, States should implement their nonpoint
 source management programs and ensure adoption
 of   control  measures  or  practices  by  all
 contributors of nonpoint source  pollution to  the
 targeted watersheds.

 Best  management  practices  are the  primary
 mechanism in section 319 of the CWA to enable
 achievement of water quality standards.  Section
 319 requires each State, in addition to developing
 the assessment reports discussed  in section 7.2.1
 of  this Handbook, to adopt NFS  management
 programs to control NFS pollution.

 Sections 208(b)(2)(F) through (K) of the CWA
 also require States to set  forth  procedures and
 methods including land  use requirements,  to
 control to the extent feasible nonpoint sources of
 pollution reports.

 Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Reauthorization
 Amendments of  1990  (CZARA)  requires  that
 States  with  federally  approved  coastal  zone
 management programs develop Coastal Nonpoint
 Pollution Control Programs to be approved by
 EPA and NOAA.  EPA and NOAA  have issued
 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program;
 Program Development and Approval Guidance
 (NOAA/EPA,  1993),   which  describes   the
program development and approval process and
 requirements.  State programs are to employ an
 initial  technology-based  approach   generally
 throughout the coastal management  area, to be
 followed by a more stringent water quality-based
 approach   to  address   known   water  quality
 problems.  The Management Measures generally
 implemented throughout the coastal management
 area  are  described  in  Guidance  Specifying
 Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
 Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA, 1993b).

 7.6.3     CWA Section 401 Certification

 States  may  grant,    condition,    or   deny
 "certification"  for  a  federally  permitted  or
 licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
 the waters  of the United  States, if it is the  State
 where the discharge will originate. The language
 of section 401(a)(l) is very broad  with respect to
 the activities  it covers:

     [A]ny  activity,  including,  but  not
     limited to, the construction or operation
     of facilities, which  may result in any
     discharge  . . .

 requires water quality certification.

 EPA  has identified five Federal permits and/or
 licenses that authorize activities that may result in
 a discharge to the waters:   permits for point
 source discharge under section 402 and discharge
 of dredged and fill material under section 404 of
 the Clean Water Act;  permits for  activities in
 navigable waters that may affect navigation under
 sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
 (RHA);  and  licenses required for hydroelectric
projects issued under the Federal Power  Act.
There  are likely other  Federal permits   and
licenses, such as permits  for activities on public
lands,   and  Nuclear  Regulatory Commission
licenses, which  may result in a discharge and thus
require 401 certification. Each  State should work
with EPA and the Federal agencies active in its
State to  determine whether 401 certification  is in
fact applicable.
   7-10
                                                                                  (8/15/94)

-------
                                          Chapter 7-The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
 Congress intended for the States to use the water
 quality certification  process to ensure  that  no
 Federal license or permits would  be issued that
 would violate State standards or become a source
 of pollution in the future.   Also,  because the
 States'  certification of a construction permit or
 license also  operates  as  certification  for  an
 operating  permit  (except  in  certain instances
 specified in section 401(a)(3)), it is imperative for
.a State review  to consider  all potential  water
 quality impacts  of the project, both direct and
 indirect, over the life of the project.

 In addition,  when  an  activity  requiring 401
 certification in one State (i.e. the State in which
 the discharge originates) will have an impact  on
 the water quality of another State,  the statute
 provides that after receiving notice of application
 from a Federal  permitting or licensing  agency,
 EPA will notify any States whose water quality
 may be affected.  Such States  have the  right to
 submit their objections and  request  a hearing.
 EPA  may  also  submit  its   evaluation  and
 recommendations. If the use of conditions cannot
 ensure compliance with the affected State's water
 quality requirements, the Federal permitting  or
 licensing  agency shall  not Issue such permit  or
 license.

 The  decision   to grant,  condition,  or  deny
 certification is based on a State's determination
 from data submitted by am  applicant (and any
 other information available to the State) whether
 the proposed  activity  will  comply  with  the
 requirements  of  certain  sections  of the Clean
 Water  Act  enumerated in  section  401(a)(l).
These requirements address  effluent limitations
for conventional and nonconventional pollutants,
water quality standards, new source performance
standards, and toxic pollutants (sections 301, 302,
303,   306,   and  307).    Also  included  are
requirements of State law or regulation more
stringent  than those  sections or  their  Federal
implementing regulations.

States adopt surface  water  quality  standards
pursuant to section 303 of the Clean Water Act
and have broad authority to base those standards
on the waters'  use and value for "... public
water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife,
recreational purposes, and  . .  .  other purposes"
(33 U.S.C.  section 1313 (c)(2)(A)).  All permits
must include  effluent  limitations  at  least  as
stringent  as  needed  to  maintain  established
beneficial uses and to attain the  quality of water
designated by States for their waters. Thus, the
States'  water  quality  standards are a critical
concern of the 401 certification process.

If a State grants  water quality certification to an
applicant  for a Federal license or permit, it is in
effect saying that  the proposed  activity will
comply with State water quality standards (and the
other CWA and State law provisions enumerated
above).   The State may thus  deny  certification
because the applicant has not  demonstrated that
the project will comply with those requirements.
Or it may place whatever limitations or conditions
on the certification it determines  are necessary to
ensure compliance with those provisions, and with
any other "appropriate" requirements of State law.

If  a   State  denies  certification,  the   Federal
permitting or licensing agency is  prohibited from
issuing a permit or license.  While  the procedure
varies from State to  State,  a State's decision to
grant or deny certification is ordinarily subject to
an administrative appeal, with review in  the State
courts designated for appeals of agency decisions.
Court review is typically limited to the question of
whether the State agency's  decision is supported
by the record and is  not arbitrary or capricious.
The courts generally presume regularity in agency
procedures and defer to agency expertise in their
    (8/15/94)
                                       7-11

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
review. (If the  applicant is  a Federal agency,
however, at least one Federal court has ruled that
the State's certification decision may be reviewed
by the Federal courts.)

States may also waive water quality certification,
either  affirmatively or  involuntarily.   Under
section 401(a)(l),  if the State fails to act  on a
certification request "within  a reasonable  time
(which shall not  exceed one  year)"  after the
receipt of an application, it forfeits its authority to
grant conditionally or to deny certification.

The  most  important  regulatory  tools for the
implementation of 401 certification are the States'
water quality standards regulations and their 401
certification   implementing   regulations  and
guidelines.  Most  Tribes do  not yet have water
quality standards, and developing them would be
a  first step  prior to  having  the  authority  to
conduct water quality certification.  Also, many
States have not adopted regulations implementing
their authority to grant, deny,  and condition water
quality  certification.      Wetland   and  401
Certification: Opportunities and  Guidelines for
States and Eligible  Indian Tribes (USEPA, 1989a)
discusses  specific  approaches,  and elements  of
water  quality standards and 401  certification
regulations  that  EPA views  as  effective  to
implement the States'  water quality certification
authority.
         Monitor and Enforce Compliance
As noted  throughout  the  previous  sections,
monitoring  is  a  crucial  element  of  water
quality-based  decision   making.    Monitoring
provides data for assessing compliance with water
quality-based controls and for evaluating whether
the TMDL and control actions that are based on
the TMDL protect water quality standards.

With  point sources, dischargers are required to
provide reports  on  compliance  with  NPDES
permit limits.  Their discharge monitoring reports
(DMR)  provide  a key source of effluent quality
data.  In some instances,  dischargers may also be
required in the permit to assess the impact of their
discharge on the receiving water.  A monitoring
requirement can be put into  the permit as  a
special condition as long  as the information is
collected for purposes of writing a permit limit.

States should also ensure that effective monitoring
programs  are in place  for evaluating  nonpoint
source  control  measures.    EPA  recognizes
monitoring as a high-priority activity in a State's
nonpoint source management program  (55 F.R.
35262,  August 28,  1990).   To  facilitate  the
implementation  and evaluation of NPS controls,
States should consult current guidance (USEPA,
199 Ig);  (USEPA,  1993b).    States  are  also
encouraged to use innovative monitoring programs
(e.g., rapid bioassessments (USEPA, 1989e), and
volunteer monitoring (USEPA,  1990b) to provide
for adequate point and nonpoint source monitoring
coverage.

Dischargers are monitored to determine whether
or not they are meeting their  permit conditions
and  to  ensure that  expected  water  quality
improvements are  achieved.  If a State has not
been delegated  authority for the NPDES permit
program, compliance reviews of all permittees in
that State are the  responsibility of EPA.  EPA
retains   oversight   responsibility   for   State
compliance programs in NPDES-delegated States.
NPDES  permits   also  contain  self-monitoring
requirements  that  are  the  responsibility  of the
individual discharger.  Data obtained through self-
monitoring  are reported  to   the  appropriate
regulatory agency.

Based  on a  review of data,  EPA or a State
regulatory agency  determines  whether or not a
NPDES   permittee  has   complied  with  the
requirements  of the NPDES permit.  If a facility
has been identified as having apparent violations,
EPA  or  the State  will  review  the  facility's
compliance history. This review focuses on the
magnitude, frequency, and duration of violations.
A determination of the appropriate enforcement
response is then made.  EPA and States  are
authorized to bring civil or criminal action against
facilities that violate their NPDES permits. State
   7-12
                                   (8/15/94)

-------
                                         Chapter 7 - The Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution Control
 nonpoint source programs are enforced  under
 State law and to the extent provided by State law.

 Once control measures have been implemented,
 the  impaired  waters  should  be  assessed  to
 determine  if water quality standards have been
 attained or  are no longer  threatened.   The
 monitoring program used to gather the  data for
 this  assessment should be designed based on the
 specific pollution  problems or sources.   For
 example, it is difficult to ensure, a priori, that
 implementing  nonpoint  source  controls  will
 achieve expected   load   reductions   due   to
 inadequate selection  of practices or  measures,
 inadequate design or implementation, or lack of
 full  participation by all contributing nonpoint
 sources (USEPA, 1987e).  As a result, long-term
 monitoring efforts must be consistent over time to
 develop a data base  adequate for analysis  of
 control actions.
          Measure Progress
If the water body achieves the applicable State
water quality standards,  the water body may be
removed  from  the  303(d) list of  waters  still
needing TMDLs.  If the water quality standards
are not met, the TMDL and allocations of load
and  waste   loads  must  be  modified.    This
modification should  be bascxl on  the additional
data and information gathered as required by the
phased approach for developing a TMDL, where
appropriate;  as  part  of  routine  monitoring
activities; and when assessing the water  body for
water quality standards attainment.
   (8/15/94)                                                                            7.43

-------

-------
       REFERENCES
                               W
                               I
                               W
                               CO
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

        SECOND EDITION

-------
                                      illllll
Illllllllllillllllllllllllllll
nil iiiiiiiii    ii  iiiiiii in i
illllll III Illllll IP l  illllll 11 ||i||i|illlllllllill
iiiiiii ill i iiiiiii  i    ill ill  ill iiiiiii in in i in i
 Illllll Illllll III I   11 Illllll 11 111 III  I  ill  111  III  Illllll Illllll                                •••                        lllllllH

-------
                                                                                  References


                                     REFERENCES
Barnes, D.G., and M. Dourson.  1988. Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health Risk
     Assessments. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 8,  471-486.

Battelle Ocean Sciences. 1992.  Evaluation of Trace-Metal Levels in Ambient Waters and
     Tributaries to New York/New Jersey Harbor for Waste Load Allocation.  U.S. EPA, Office of
     Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC and Region II, New York, NY.   (Source
     #1.)

Brown, D.S., and J.D. Allison.  1987.  MINTEQAl, An Equilibrium Metal Speciation Model-
     User's Manual.  U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. EPA 600/3-87-
     012.  (Source #2.)

Brungs, W.A. 1986.  Allocated Impact Zones for Areas of Non-Compliance.  USEP A, Region 1.
     Water Management Division, Boston, MA. (Source #3.)

Brungs, W.A., T.S. Holderman, and M.T. Southerland.  1992.  Synopsis of Water-effect Ratios for
     Heavy Metals as Derived for Site-specific Water Quality Criteria.  Draft.  U.S. EPA Contract
     68-CO-0070. (Source #4.)

Carlson, A.R., W.A. Brungs, G.A.  Chapman, and DJ. Hansen.  1984. Guidelines for Deriving
     Numerical Aquatic Site-specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria.  U.S.
     EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.  EPA 600/3-84-099.  NTIS #PB 85-
     121101.  (Source #2 or #9.)

Cole, G.A.  1979.  Textbook of Limnology.  The C.V. Mosby Co.  St. Louis MO

Erickson, R., C. Kleiner, J. Fiandt, and T. Hignland. 1989.  Report on the Feasibility of
     Predicting the Effects of Fluctuating Concentrations on Aquatic Organisms.  USEPA, ERL,
     Duluth, MN.  (Source #16.)

FWPCA (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration). 1968. Water Quality Criteria (the
     "Green Book"), Report of the National Technical Advisory  Committee to the Secretary of the
     Interior.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. (Out of Print.)

GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office) 1987. Wildlife Management; National Refuge
     Contamination is Difficult to Confirm and Clean Up.  Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee
     on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and  Commerce, House of
     Representatives.  Washington, DC.   GAO/RCED-87-128. (Source #6.)

ITFM. 1992. Ambient Water-quality Monitoring in the United States: First Year Review,
     Evaluation,  and Recommendations.  Intergovermental Task Force on Monitoring Water
     Quality. Washington, IDC.  (Source #15.)
   (9/15/93)                                                                       REF-1

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Karr, J.R.  1981. Assessment ofBiotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries, Vol. 6, No.6,
     pp. 21-27.

Mancini, J.L.  1983. A Method for Calculating Effects on Aquatic Organisms of Time-Varying
     Concentrations.  Water Res. 17:1355-61.

Martin, T.D., J.W. O'Dell, E.R. Martin, and G.D. McKee.  1986.  Evaluation of Method 200.1
     Determination of Acid-Soluble Metals.  Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab,
     Cincinnati, OH. (Source #4.)

McLusky, D.S.  1971. Ecology of Estuaries.  Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd.  London.

NAS/NAE.  1973.  Water Quality Criteria 1972 (the "Blue Book"), a Report of the Committee on
     Water Quality Criteria.  National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineering,
     Washington, DC. NTIS-PB 236199.  USGPO #5501-00520.  (Source #2  or #7.)

NOAA/EPA. 1993.  Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program; Program Development and
     Approval Guidance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  (Source #8.)

Puls, R.W., and MJ. Barcelona.  1989. Ground Water Sampling for Metals Analyses.  EPA
     Superfund Ground Water Issue.  U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development.  EPA
     540/4-89-001. (Source #9.)

Rossman, Lewis J.  1990. Design Stream Flows Based on Harmonic Means.  J. of Hydraulics
     Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 7.

Thomann, R.V.  1987. A Statistical Model of Environmental Contaminants Using Variance
     Spectrum Analysis.  Report to National Science Foundation.  NTTS #PB 88-235130/A09.
     (Source #2.)

Thomann, R.V.  1989. Bioaccumulation Model of Organic Chemical Distribution in Aquatic Food
     Chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 699-707.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  1984.  Agricultural Statistics.  USDA, Washington, DC.  p. 506.

USEPA (U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency).  1972.  Biological Field and Laboratory Methods
    for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. Office of Research and
     Development, Washington, DC.  EPA 670/4-73-001.  (Source #9.)

       _.  1976.  Quality Criteria for Water 1976 (the "Red Book").  Office of Water and Hazardous
    Materials, Washington, DC.  GPO #055-001-01049-4. (Source #7.)

    	. 1980a.  Notice of Water Quality Criteria Documents.  Criteria and Standards Division,
    Washington, DC.  45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980.
   REF-2                                                                     (9/15/93)

-------
                                                                                   References
     	. 1980b.  Guidelines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of Health Effects Assessment
      Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Documents.  Criteria and Standards Division,
      Washington, DC.  45 F.R. 79347, November 28, 1980.
                                    ^         .      I               '      '
     	. 1980c. Seafood Consumption Data Analysis.  Stanford Research Institute International,
      Menlo Park, CA.  Final Report, Task 11, Contract No. 68-01-3887.  Office of Water
      Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.  (Source #10.)

        _. 1981. Notice of Water Quality Criteria Documents.  Criteria and Standards Division,
     Washington, DC. 46 F.R. 40919, August 13, 1981.

    	. 1983a. Water Quality Standards Handbook.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
     Washington, DC. (Out of Print.)

    	. 1983b. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and
     4.1.4).  Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.  EPA 600/4-79-
     020.  (Source #9.)

        _. 1983c. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
     Use Attainabilty Analyses,  Volume I.  Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
     (Source #10.)

    	•  1983d.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II
     Streams and Rivers - Chapter 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen.  Monitoring
     and Data Support Division, Washington, DC.  EPA 440/4-84-020.  (Source #10.)

    	.  1983e.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II
     Streams and Rivers - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts. Monitoring and Data Support
     Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-021.  (Source #10.)

    	•  1983f.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV
     Lakes and Impoundments - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts.  Monitoring and Data
     Support Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-84-019. (Source #10.)

    	•  1984a.  Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
     Use Attainability Analyses, Volume II, Estuarine Systems.  Criteria and Standards Division,
     Washington, DC. (Source #10.)

    	•  1984b.  Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting
     Use Attainability Analyses, Volume III, Lake Systems. Criteria and Standards Division,
     Washington, DC. (Source #10.)

    	•  1984d.  State Water Quality Standards Approvals: Use Attainability  Analysis Submittals.
     (Memorandum from Director, Criteria and Standards Division to Director, Water Management
     Division, Region I; November 28.)  Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)
(8/15/94)                                                                              REp.3

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
    	. 1984e. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations.  Book II
    Streams and Rivers.  Chapter 3 Toxic Substances. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
    Washington, DC.  EPA 440/4-84-022. (Source #10.)
        . 1984f.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria by
    Modifying National Criteria. Office of Research and Development.  Duluth, MN.  (Out of
    Print.)

    	. 1985a. Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
    Organisms. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC.  EPA 600-4-85-013.
    (Source #9.)

       _. 19855. Guidelines for Deriving National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
    Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
    DC.  45 F.R. 79341, November 28, 1980, as amended at 50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985.
    NTIS #PB 85-227049.  (Source #2.)

    	. 1985c.  Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
    Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms.  Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
    OH. EPA 600-4-85-0145.

       _. 1985d.  Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Waste Load Allocation Programs.
     Office of Water Regulations and Standards.  Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-85-031. (Out of
     Print.)

    	. 1985e. Interpretation of the Term "Existing Use".  (Memorandum from Director, Criteria
     and Standards Division to Water Quality Standards Coordinator, Region IV; February 21.)
     Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

       _. 1985f. Selection of Water Quality Criteria in State Water Quality Standards.
     (Memorandum from Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Water Division
     Directors, Region I - X; February 28.)  Washington, DC. (Source #11.)

    	. 1985g.  Variances in Water Quality Standards.  (Memorandum from Director, Office of
     Water Regulations and Standards to Water Division Directors; March 15.)  Washington, DC.
     (Source #11.)

       _. 1985h.  Antidegradation, Waste Loads, and Permits. (Memorandum from Director,
     Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Water Management Division Directors, Region I
     -X.) Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

    	, 1985L Antidegradation Policy.  (Memorandum from Director, Criteria and Standards
     Division to Water Management Division Directors,  Region I - X; November 22.)
     Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

    	. 1986a.  Quality Criteria for Water (the "Gold Book") Office of Water Regulations and
     Standards, Washington DC.  EPA 440/5-86-001.  USGPO #955-002-00000-8. (Source #7.)
REF-4                                                                             (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                                  References
       _. 1986b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. Office of Water Regulations and
    Standards, Washington DC.   EPA 440/5-84-002. PB 86-158045.  (Source #2.)

    	. 1986c. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book 6,
    Design Conditions.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-
    87-002.  (Source #10.)

    	. 1986d. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations, Book VI,
    Design Conditions: Chapter 1 - Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling.  Office of
    Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.  EPA 440/4-87-004. (Source #10.)

    	. 1986e. Answers to Questions on Nonpoint Sources and WQS.  (Memorandum from
    Assistant Administrator for Water to Water Division Director, Region X; March  7.)
    Washington, DC. (Source #11.)

    	. 1986f.  Determination of "Existing Uses" for Purposes of Water Quality Standards
    Implementation. (Memorandum from Director, Criteria and Standards Division to Water
    Management Division Directors, Region I - X, WQS Coordinators, Region I - X; April 7.)
    Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

    	. 1986.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations.  Book IV
    Lakes, Reservoirs, and Impoundments.  Chapter 3 Toxic Substances.  Office of Water
    Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.  EPA 440/4-87-002.  (Source #10.)

    	. 1987d.  Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards.  (Memorandum from
    Chief, Nonpoint Source Branch to Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs; August 19.)
    Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

    	. 1987e.  Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control.  Office of Water
    Regulations and Standards.  Washington, DC.  (Source #8.)

    	. 1988a.  Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Taxicity of Effluents and Receiving
    Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms.  Office of Research and Development,  Cincinnati,
    OH.  EPA 600/4-87-028.

    	. 1988d.  State Clean Water Strategies; Meeting the Challenges for the Future.  Office of
    Water.  Washington, DC.  (Source #5.)

       _. 1988e.  Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality StandardSfor CWA Section
    303(c)(2)(B).  Office of Water.  Washington, DC.  (Source #10.)

    	. 1989a. Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities for States and Eligible Indian
    Tribes.  Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC.  (Source #12.)

        . 1989b. Exposure Factors Handbook.  Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
    Washington, DC.  EPA 600/8-89-043. (Source #9.)
(8/15/94)'                                                                            REF-5

-------
 Water Qualify Standards Handbook - Second Edition
     	. 1989c. Application of Antidegradation Policy to the Niagara River.  (Memorandum from
     Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Director, Water Management Division,
     Region IE; August 4.) Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)
    	. 1989d. Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source Projects: You Better Shop Around.  Office of
     Water; and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.  Washington, DC.  EPA 506/2-89-003.
     (Source #13.)

    	. 1989e. Rapid Bioassessment'Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers.  Assessment and
     Watershed Protection Division.  Washington, DC.  EPA 444/4-89-001.  (Source #14.)

        _. 1989f.  EPA Designation of Outstanding National Resource Waters. (Memorandum from
     Acting Director, Criteria and Standards Division to Regional Water Management Division
     Directors; May 25.)  Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

    	. 1989g.  Guidance for the Use of Conditional Approvals for State WQS. (Memorandum
     from Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards to Water Division Directors,
     Regions I - X; June 20.)  Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

    	. 1989h.  Designation of Recreation Uses. (Memorandum from Director, Criteria and
     Standards Division to Director, Water Management Division, Region IV; September 7.)
     Washington, DC. (Source #11.)

    	. 1989L  Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wildlife Resources.  Environmental Research
     Laboratory.  CoralUs, OR. EPA 600/3-89-067. NTIS #PB 89-220016.  (Source #2.)

       _. 1989J. Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish:
     a Guidance Manual.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards.  Washington, DC.  EPA
     503/8-89-002.  (Source #10.)

    	.  1990a.  Biological Criteria, National Program  Guidance for Surface Waters.  Office of
     Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.  EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #10)

       _.  1990b.  Volunteer Water Monitoring:  A Guide for State Managers.  Office of Water.
     Washington, DC.  EPA 440/4-90-010.  (Source #14.)

    	. 1990c.  The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual, Second Edition.  Office of
     Water. Nonpoint Source Branch. Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-90-006.  (Source #14.)

       _. 1991a.  Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.  Office of
     Water, Washington, DC.  EPA 505/2-90-001. NITS #PB 91-127415.  (Source #2.)

    	. 199 Ib.  Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples.
     Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268. EPA 600/4-91-010.
     (Source #9.)

       _. 1991c.  Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process.  Office of
     Water, Washington, DC.  EPA 440/4-91-001  (Source #14.)
REF-6                                                                             (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                                   References

    	. 1991d. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms. 4th.
    ed.  Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.  EPA 600/4-90-027.  (Source #9.)

    	. 199 le. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
    Waters to Freshwater Organisms. 3d. ed. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
    OH.  EPA 600/4-91-002.  (Source #9.)

    	. 1991f. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
     Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. 2d. ed. Office of Research and Development,
     Cincinnati, OH. EPA 600/4-91-003. (Source #9.)

    	. 1991g.  Watershed Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for Section 319 National
     Monitoring Program Projects.  Assessment and Watershed Protection Division. Washington
     DC.  (Source #8.)

    	. 199 Ih.  Section 401 Certification and FERC Licenses.  (Memorandum from Assistant
     Administrator, Office of Water to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; January
     18.)  Washington, DC.  (Source #11.)

   	. 199 li.  Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality
     Program. (Memorandum from Director, Office of Science and Technology to Water
     Management Division Directors, Regions I - X; June 19.)  (Source #4.)

   	. 1992b.  Interim Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria
    for Metals.  57 F.R. 24041. Office of Science and Technology.  Washington, DC.  (Source
     #4.)

   	. 1993a.   Guidelines for Preparation of the 1994 State Water Quality Assessments 305(b)
     Reports.  Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.  Washington, DC.  (Source #14.)

   	. 1993b.  Guidance Specifying  Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in
     Coastal Waters. Office of Water.  Washington, DC.  840-B-92-002.  (Source #8.)

    	. 1993c.  Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples.  Office of Water. Washington,
     DC.  EPA 841-B-93-001. (Source #14.)

    	. 1993d.  Final Guidance on the Award and Management ofNonpoint Source Program
    Implementation Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act for Fiscal Year 1994 and
    Future Years. Office of Water.  Washington, DC. (Source #8.)

    	. 1993e.  Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories;
    Volume 1 - Fish Sampling and Analysis (in preparation). Office of Water.  Washington, DC.
    EPA 823-R-93-002.  (Source #9.)

    	. 1993f.  Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
    Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria.  Office of Water.  Washignton, DC.
    (Source #10.)
(8/15/94)                                                                              REF-7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
        _. 1994a.  Interpretation of Federal Antidegradation Regulatory Requirement.  Office of
     Science and Technology. Washington, DC.  (Source 11.)

 	.  1994b.  Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals.
     Office of Water.  Washington, DC.  EPA-823-B-94-001.  (Source #10.)

 Vernberg, W.B.  1983.  Responses to Estuarine Stress.  In: Ecosystems of the World: Estuaries and
     Enclosed Seas. B.H. Ketchum, ed.  Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, pp.
     43-63.

 Versar. 1984.  Draft Assessment of International Mixing Zone Policies. Avoidance/Attraction
     Characteristics, and Available Prediction Techniques.  USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
     and Standards and USEPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.

 Windom, H.L., J.T. Byrd, R.G. Smith, and F. Huan. 1991. Inadequacy of NASQAN Data for
     Assessing Metals  Trends in the Nation's Rivers.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 25, 1137.
                            SOURCES OF DOCUMENTS
(1)  Seth Ausubel
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Region 2
     26 Federal Plaza
     New York, NY  10278
     Ph: (212) 264-6779

(2)  National Technical Information Center
     (NTIS)
     5285 Front Royal Road
     Springfield, VA  22161
     Ph: (703)487-4650

(3)  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Region 1
     Water Quality Standards Coordinator
     Water Division
     JFK Federal Building
     One Congress Street
     Boston, MA 02203
     Ph: (617) 565-3533
(4)  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Health and Ecological Criteria Division
    401 M Street, S.W. (4304)
    Washington, DC 20460
    Ph:  (202)260-5389
    (See Appendix V)

(5)  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Water
    401 M Street, S.W. (4301)
    Washington, DC 20460
    Ph:  (202)260-5700
REF-8
                                                                                  (8/15/94)

-------
                                                                                  References
(6)   U.S. General Accounting Office
     Post Office Box 6015
     Gaithersburg, MD 20877         ;,
     Telephone: 202-512-6000
     (First copy free)

(7)   U.S. Government Printing Office
     Superintendent of Documents
     North Capitol Street H Streets, NW
     Washington, DC 20401
     Ph:  (202) 783-3238

(8)   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Nonpoint Source Control Branch
     401  M Street, S.W. (4305F)
     Washington, DC 20460
     Ph:  (202) 260-7100

(9)   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Center for Environmental Research
     Office of Research and Development
     Room G72
     26 West Martin  Luther King Drive
     Cincinnati, OH 45268
     Ph:  (513) 569-7562

(10)  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Water Resource Center
     RC-4100
     401  M Street, S.W.
     Washington, DC 20460'
     Ph:  (202) 260-7786 (voice mail
     publication request line)
     (See Appendix V)
(11) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Standards and Applied Science Division
  .., 401 M Street, S.W. (4305)
    Washington, DC 20460
    Fax: (202) 260-9830
    Ph:  (202)260-7301
    (See Appendix V)

(12) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Wetlands Division
    401 M Street, S.W. (4502F)
    Washington, DC 20460
    Ph:  (202) 260-7719

(13) EPIC
    U. S. Environme'ntal Protection Agency
    11029 Kenwood Road
    Building 5
    Cincinnati, OH 45242
    Fax: (513) 569-7186
    Ph:  (513)569-7980

(14) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Assessment and Watershed Protection
    Division
    401 M Street, S.W. (4503F)
    Washington, DC 20460
    Ph: (202) 260-7166
& U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994-381-683
(8/15/94)
                                    REF-9

-------

-------

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	I	m	in	iiiiin	n|	i	
                           IN I   I lill  l   I Hill Ml1 ill I   II illllli IIIIIWI lllllllllllll ill illlllH  'I'llllllll'ill11!1 llllllllilii linilllH I li  iilllli Illiillll Ililill  III
     lill  u 11   ' i iilllli ill 'I 'iiiin  in 11111>  1111111 iilllli iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1 iiiiiiiiiiiii ill iii •••i (li iiiiiiiiiiiii in i'liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii n Illiillll   nil iiiiiiiii
lill illlllHI 11   ' (Illiillll 1 1111 ill	i llillll 11 111 lllllll       lill IIII
 111 lllllll  111 11  lnl  lllllllllllll lllllll  ml 111 ill  111 i|||||||iill|
  II  11111	      I' ill, ',i	IIIIII     IF  I'  inil II i	1 f H11U  ll'lill f ,1  IB i, I '111	I  "i t	IIH^^^^                 ••

-------
&EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
                Office of Water
                (4305)
EPA-823-B-94-005b
August 1994
Water Quality Standards
Handbook:  Second Edition
             Appendixes
    Contains update #1
    August 1994
                        "... to restore and maintain the chemical,
                        physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
                        waters."

                               Section 101 (a) of the Clean Water Act
                                        Recycled/Recyclable
                                        Printed on paper that contains
                                        at least 50% recycled fiber

-------
 ',?    .i  fin    rt
                          I'„•'. i> r;  i1 ill;: ,';JE' ;.< Vli	" >yj»W L iisPaHit ill	«il! KB^^^^                               IIB^^^
                                                                          n xmimmmuiim jmiimtmimmttsmmfai IEIIIII ..... tiiaiim^^^^^^^^^             ciii! 'f 111111111111111 iiiliiiiiiii
                                   ;ii! ': .....   , i:;' ; i , !,:•:' < i,i' spi'iiiK!1 :,; ,:; ;- in, i n
                          ).; • in,;' ir"1'  V'' ;ii,i ••', i 3V!;!!" I.!.11•",!; MUHnil1», I1, llrii:.!,1:!' !:i PH f-	il'ijQi'iiJl'Bl
;,:'!!!  '   Hill    I'"  " < "j,;!! l.'n - i i,;!'". 5 IS;	!H f,,'», X > S: X ailllfl 5! iSi'SJ!!1!!!	iilliSi
              i^:<  W  v i  (V	'!^		  Bfflfr
                                   	:!li»^^^^^^
                                  i ii[j	liii I|h,; • is i11 ii<;; ,i i'vi!!:;; 3i: 7iBMf\  !n i; i' ,ii i if iiii: 1' I" lilillii i ill ti
                                 ::

-------
vvEPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
               Office of Water
               (4305)
EPA-823-B-94-005b
August 1994
Water  Quality Standards
Handbook:  Second Edition
            Appendixes
    Contains update #1
    August 1994
                      "... to restore and maintain the chemical,
                      physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
                      waters."

                             Section 101 (a) of the Clean Water Act

-------

-------
     Water Quality Standards Regulation
         APPENDIX A

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
          SECOND EDITION

-------
      Ill
      muni
      IN
      K) 111
	iji1;1 !	I'liijiilhljll'l!!  |  jflljIliflfW
                       I 'ill 1 li'ill••illlll'Iilllllilit^tH^      IIIH^^^       111Illllllllllllllllli
                     .! ild'lililHIl! IliiliilllllH

                        ill i S • . i  ;s : MilJ   v-i 	11    Si	H «^^^
..'•:  :  ill   i;i •'.':•"•• S  •'['s': iii".i <•[::-,r:\,;i;Ji.. •ClSff rii?(;!.sliit'-i:p
KM  &:-'-i	;»	ESHHIfWrafiw-
      •!il!l!l  'i :     " I,,
                    :.
                                          .

                                        l'",1! '  i't? "Ik

-------
                                                                     Appendix A - Water Quality Standards Regulation
                                    Water Quality Standards  Regulation
                 (40 CFR 131; 48 FR 51405, Nov. 8,1983; Revised through July 1,1991; amended at
            56 FR 64893, Dec. 12, 1991; 57 FR 60910,  Dec.  22, 1992)
      TITLE 40—PROTECTION
         OF ENVIRONMENT

   CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
       PROTECTION AGENCY

      SUBCHAPTER D—WATER
             PROGRAMS

    PART 131—WATER QUALITY
             STANDARDS
  Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251 *t seq.

[Amended at  56  FR 64893,  Dec.  12
1991; 57 FR  60910, Dec. 22, 1992]

Subpart A—General Provisions
Sec.
131.1     Scope
131.2     Purpose.
131.3     Definitions.
131.4     Slate authority.
131.5     EPA authority.
131.6     Minimum requirements for water
          quality standards submission.
131.7     Dispute resolution mechanism.
131.8     Requirements for Indian Tribes to be
          treated as States for purposes of
          water quality standards.

Subpart B—Establishment of Water Quality
  Standards
131.10    Designation of uses.
131.11    Criteria.
131.12    Antidegradation policy.
131.13    General policies.

Subpart C—Procedures for Review and Revision
  of Water Quality Standards
131.20    State review and revision of water
          quality standards.
131.21    EPA review and approval of water
          quality standards.
131.22    EPA promulgation of water quality
          standards.
 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quali-
  ty Standards
 131.31    Ari7x)na.
 131.33—131.34 [Reserved]
 131.35    Colville Confederated Tribes Indian
   Subpart A—General Provisions

 §131.1 Scope.
   This  part  describes the  requirements
 and procedures for developing, reviewing,
 revising and approving water quality stan-
 dards by the States as authorized by sec-
 tion 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. The
 reporting or  recordkeeping (information)
 provisions in this rule were approved by
 the Office of Management and Budget un-
 der 3504(b) of the Paperwork Reduction
 Act of 1980, U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (Approv-
 al number 2040-0049).

 §131.2 Purpose.
   A water quality  standard defines the
 water quality goals of a  water body, or
 portion thereof, by designating the use or
 uses to be made of the water and by set-
 ting criteria necessary to protect the uses.
 States adopt water quality  standards to
 protect public health or  welfare, enhance
 the quality of water and serve the pur-
 poses of the Clean Water Act (the Act).
 "Serve the purposes of the Act"  (as de-
 fined in sections  101(a)(2) and 303(c) of
 the Act) means  that water quality stan-
 dards should, wherever attainable, pro-
vide water quality for the protection  and
propagation of fish,  shellfish and wildlife
and for recreation in and on the water and
 take into consideration their use and value
of public water supplies,  propagation of
 fish, shellfish,  and wildlife, recreation in
and on the water, and agricultural, indus-
 trial, and other purposes including naviga-
 tion.
 Such standards serve the dual purposes of
 establishing the water quality goals for a
 specific water body and serve as the regu-
 latory basis for the establishment  of wa-
 ter-quality-based treatment controls and
 strategies  beyond the technology-based
 levels of treatment required by sections
 301(b) and 306 of the Act.

 §131.3 Definitions.

   (a) The  Act means the Clean  Water
 Act (Pub.  L. 92-500 , as  amended, (33
 U.S.C. 1251  etseq.)).
   (b) Criteria are elements of State water
 quality standards, expressed as constitu-
 ent  concentrations,  levels,  or  narrative
 statements, representing  a quality  of wa-
 ter that  supports a particular use.  When
 criteria are met, water quality will  gener-
 ally protect the designated use.
   (c) Section  304(a)  criteria are  devel-
 oped by  EPA under authority of section
 304(a) of the Act based on the  latest sci-
 entific information on  the relationship
 that the effect of a constituent concentra-
 tion has on  particular  aquatic species
 and/or human health. This information is
 issued periodically to  the States as guid-
 ance for  use in developing criteria.
   (d) Toxic pollutants are those  pollu-
 tants listed by the Administrator  under
section 307(a) of the Act.
   (e) Existing uses are those uses actual-
ly attained  in the water body on or after
November  28, 1975, whether or not they
are included  in  the  water quality stan-
dards.
   (0 Designated uses are those uses spec-
ified in water quality  standards for each
       (9/14/93)

-------
 water body or segment  whether or not
 they are being attained.
   (g) Use attainability analysis is a struc-
 tured scientific assessment of the factors
 affecting the attainment of the use which
 may include physical, chemical, biologi-
 cal, and economic factors as described in
 §13l.lO(g).
   (h) Water quality limited segment
 means any segment where it is known that
 water quality does  not meet  applicable
 water quality standards, and/or is not ex-
 pected  to meet applicable water quality
 standards,  even after the application of
 the technology-bases  effluent limitations
 required  by sections 301(b) and 306 of
 the Act.
   (i) Water quality standards are provi-
 sions of State or Federal law which con-
 sist of a designated  use  or  uses for the
 waters  of the United States and  water
 quality criteria for such waters based up-
 on such uses. Water quality standards are
 to protect  the public health or  welfare,
 enhance the quality  of water  and serve
 the purposes of the Act.
 [§131.30)—(1)  added at 56 FR 64893,
 Dec. 12. 1991]
   0) Slates include:  The 50 States, the
 District  of  Columbia, Guam,  the Com-
 monwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,
 American Samoa, the Trust Territory of
 the Pacific Islands, the Commonwealth of
 the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indi-
 an Tribes that  EPA determines qualify
 for treatment as States for purposes of
 water quality standards.
   (k) Federal Indian Reservation, Indian
 Reservation,  or  Reservation means all
 land within  the limits of any Indian reser-
 vation under the jurisdiction of the United
 States Government, notwithstanding  the
 issuance of any patent, and  including
 rightsof-way running  through  the reser-
 vation."
   (I) Indian Tribe or Tribe means any In-
 dian Tribe, band, group, or community
 recognized by the Secretary of the Interi-
 or and exercising governmental authority
 over a Federal Indian reservation.

 §131.4 State authority.
   (a) States (as defined in §131.3) are re-
sponsible for reviewing, establishing, and
 revising water quality standards.  As rec-
ognized by section 510 of the Clean Wa-
ter Act, States may develop water quality
standards more stringent than required by
this  regulation.  Consistent with  section
 101(g) and  518(a) of the Clean Water
 Act, water quality standards shall not be
 construed to superseder or abrogate rights
 to quantities of water.
   (b) States (as defined  in §131.3) may
 issue certifications pursuant to the  re-
 quirements of Clean Water Act section
 401. Revisions adopted by States shall be
 applicable for use in issuing State certifi-
 cations consistent with the provisions of
 §131.21 (c).
   (c) Where EPA determines that  a
 Tribe qualifies  for treatment as a State
 for  purposes of water quality standards,
 the  Tribe likewise qualifies for treatment
 as a State for  purposes  of certifications
 conducted under Clean Water Act section
 401.

 [§131.4 revised at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
 1991]

 §131.5 EPA  authority.

 [§131.5 former paragraphs (a)—(e) re-
 designated as new (a) and (a)(l)—(a)(5)
 at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12, 1991]
   (a) Under section 303 (c)  of  the Act,
 EPA is to review and to approve or disap-
 prove State-adopted water quality stan-
 dards. The review  involves a determina-
 tion of:
   (1) Whether the State has adopted wa-
 ter uses which  are consistent with the re-
 quirements of the Clean Water Act;
   (2) Whether the  state has adopted cri-
 teria that protect  the designated water
 uses;
   (3) Whether the  State has followed its
 legal procedures for revising or  adopting
 standards;
   (4) Whether the State standards which
 do not include the uses specified in section
 101 (a) (2) of the Act are based upon ap-
 propriate  technical and scientific data and
 analyses,  and
   (5) Whether, the  State submission
 meets  the requirements  included  in
 §131.6  of this  part. If EPA determines
 that   State water quality  standards are
 consistent with the factors listed  in
 paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section,
 EPA approves  the standards. EPA  must
 disapprove the  State water quality  stan-
 dards under section 303 (c) (4) of the Act,
 if State adopted standards are not consis-
 tent  with  the factors listed in paragraphs
 (a) through (e) of this section. EPA may
also promulgate a new or revised standard
where necessary to meet the requirements
of the Act.
   (b) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
 authorizes EPA to issue certifications pur-
 suant to the requirements of section 401
 in  any case where  a  State  or interstate
 agency has no authority for issuing such
 certifications.

 [§131.5(b)  added at 56 FR 64893, Dec.
 12, 1991]

 §131.6 Minimum  requirements for water
  quality standards submission.

   The following elements must be includ-
 ed in each State's water quality standards
 submitted to EPA for review:
   (a) Use designations consistent with the
 provisions  of sections 101(a)(2)  and
 303(c)(2) of the  Act.
   (b) Methods used and  analyses con-
 ducted to support water quality standards
 revisions.
   (c) Water quality criteria sufficient to
 protect the  designated uses.
   (d) An antidegradation  policy  consis-
 tent with §131.12.
   (e) Certification by the State Attorney
 General or other appropriate  legal author-
 ity within the State that the water quality
 standards were duly adopted pursuant to
 State law.
   (f) General information which will aid'
 the Agency in determining the adequacy
 of  the  scientific  basis  of  the standards
 which do not include the uses specified in
 section 101(a)(2) of the Act as well as
 information on general policies applicable
 to State standards which may affect their
 application and implementation.

 §131.7 Dispute resolution mechanism.

  (a) Where disputes between States and
 Indian Tribes arise as a result of differing
 water'quality standards on common bod-
 ies  of water, the lead EPA Regional Ad-
 ministrator,  as determined  based  upon
 OMB circular A-105, shall be responsible
 for acting in accordance with the  provi-
 sions of this section.
  (b) The Regional  Administrator shall
 attempt to resolve such disputes where:
  (l)The  difference  in  water quality
 standards results  in  unreasonable  conse-
 quences;
  (2) The dispute is  between a State (as
defined  in §131.30)  but exclusive  of all
 Indian Tribes) and a Tribe  which EPA
has determined qualifies to be treated as a
State for purposes of water quality stan-
dards;

-------
  (3) A reasonable effort to resolve the
dispute without  EPA  involvement has
been made;
  (4) The  requested  relief  is consistent
with the provisions of the Clean  Water
Act and other relevant law;
  (5) The differing State and Tribal wa-
ter quality standards have been adopted
pursuant to State and Tribal law and ap-
proved by EPA: and
  (6) A valid written request has been
submitted  by either the Tribe  or  the
State.
  (c) Either a State  or a Tribe may re-
quest EPA to resolve any dispute which
satisfies the criteria of  paragraph (b) of
this section. Written requests for EPA in-
volvement should be submitted to the lead
Regional  Administrator and must in-
clude:
  (1) A concise statement of the unrea-
sonable consequences that are alleged to
have arisen  because of  differing water
quality standards;
  (2) A concise description of the  actions
. which have been taken  to resolve  the dis-
pute without EPA involvement;
   (3) A  concise  indication  of the water
quality standards provision which  has re-
sulted in the alleged unreasonable conse-
quences;
   (4) Factual data to support the  alleged
unreasonable consequences; and
   (5) A statement  of  the  relief  sought
from  the  alleged unreasonable  conse-
quences.
   (d) Where, in the Regional Administra-
tor's judgment, EPA involvement is ap-
 propriate  based  on the factors of para-
graph (b) of this  section,  the Regional
 Administrator shall,  within  30 days, noti-
 fy  the parties in writing that  he/she  is
 initiating an EPA dispute  resolution ac-
 tion and solicit their written response. The
 Regional Administrator  shall also make
 reasonable efforts to  ensure that other in-
 terested individuals or groups have notice
 of  this action. Such efforts shall  include
 but not be limited to the following:
   (1) Written notice to responsible Tribal
 and  State Agencies, and other  affected
 Federal Agencies,
   (2) Notice to the specific individual  or
 entity that is alleging  that an unreason-
 able consequence is resulting from differ-
 ing standards  having been adopted on a
 common body of water,
   (3) Public notice  in  local  newspapers,
 radio, and television, as appropriate,
  (4) Publication in trade journal news-
letters, and
  (5) Other means as appropriate.
  (e) If  in  accordance  with  applicable
State and Tribal law an Indian Tribe and
State have entered into an agreement that
resolves the dispute or establishes a mech-
anism for resolving a dispute, EPA shall
defer to this agreement where it is consis-
tent with the Clean Water Act and where
it has been  approved by  EPA.
  (0 EPA dispute resolution actions shall
be consistent with one or a combination of
the following options:
  (1) Mediation. The Regional  Adminis-
trator may appoint a mediator to mediate
the dispute. Mediators shall be  EPA em-
ployees, employees  from other Federal
agencies, or other individuals with appro-
priate qualifications.
  (i) Where the State and Tribe agree to
participate  in the dispute resolution pro-
cess, mediation with  the intent to estab-
lish Tribal-State agreements, consistent
with Clean Water Act section 518(d)
shall normally be pursued as a first effort.
   (ii) Mediators  shall   act  as neutral
facilitators whose function is to encourage
communication and negotiation between
all parties to the dispute.
   (iii) Medfators may establish advisory
panels, to consist in part of representa-
tives from  the affected  parties, to study
the problem and recommend an appropri-
ate solution.
   (iv) The  procedure and schedule for
mediation of individual  disputes shall be
determined by the mediator  in consulta-
tion with the parties.
   (v) If formal public hearings are held in
connection  with the actions taken under
this  paragraph, Agency requirements  at
40 CFR 25.5 shall be followed.
   (2) Arbitration.  Where the  parties  to
the dispute agree to participate  in the dis-
 pute resolution process,  the Regional Ad-
 ministrator may appoint an arbitrator  or
arbitration panel to arbitrate the dispute.
 Arbitrators and panel members shall be
 EPA employees, employees  from other
 Federal  agencies, or  other  individuals
 with appropriate  qualifications. The Re-
 gional  administrator shall select as arbi-
 trators and arbitration panel members in-
 dividuals who are agreeable to all parties,
 are  knowledgeable  concerning the  re-
 quirements of the water quality standards
 program, have a basic  understanding  of
 the  political and  economic  interests  of
Tribes and States involved,, and are ex-
pected to fulfill the duties fairly and im-
partially.
  (i) The arbitrator or arbitration panel
shall conduct one or more private or pub-
lic meetings with the parties and actively
solicit  information  pertaining to the ef-
fects of differing water quality permit re-
quirements on upstream and downstream
dischargers, comparative risks  to public
health and the environment, economic im-
pacts,  present and  historical water  uses,
the quality of the .waters subject to such
standards, and other  factors  relevant to
the dispute such as whether proposed wa-
ter quality criteria are  more  stringent
than necessary to support designated uses,
more stringent than  natural background
water  quality or whether designated uses
are reasonable given natural background
water  quality.
   (ii) Following consideration of relevant
factors as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(i)
of this section, the arbitrator or arbitra-
tion panel shall  have the authority and
responsibility to  provide all  parties and
the Regional Administrator with a writ-
ten recommendation for resolution of the
dispute. Arbitration  panel recommenda-
tions shall, in general, be reached by ma-
jority  vote. However, where  the parties
agree  to binding..arbitration, or  where re-
quired by the Regional  Administrator,
recommendations of such  arbitration
panels  may  be  unanimous  decisions.
Where binding or non-binding arbitration
panels cannot reach a unanimous recom-
mendation after a  reasonable  period  of
time, the Regional Administrator may di-
 rect the panel to issue a non-binding deci-
sion by majority vote.
   (iii) The arbitrator or arbitration, panel
 members may consult with EPA's Office
of General Counsel on legal issues, but
otherwise shall have no ex pane commu-
 nications pertaining to the dispute. Feder-
 al employees who are arbitrators or arbi-
 tration panel members shall be neutral
 and shall not be predisposed for or against
 the position  of any disputing  party  based
 on any  Federal Trust responsibilities
 which their employers may have with re-
 spect  to the Tribe. In addition, arbitrators
 or arbitration panel members who are
 Federal employees shall act independent-
 ly from the normal hierarchy within their
 agency.
   (iv) The parlies  are  not obligated  to
 abide  by the arbitrator's  or arbitration

-------
 panel's recommendation unless they vol-
 untarily entered into a binding agreement
 to do so.
   (v) If a party to the dispute believes
 that the  arbitrator or arbitration panel
 has recommended an action contrary to or
 inconsistent with  the  Clean Water Act,
 the party may appeal the arbitrator's rec-
 ommendation to the Regional  Adminis-
 trator. The request for appeal must be in
 writing and must include a description of
 the statutory basis for altering the arbi-
 trator's recommendation.
   (vi) The procedure and schedule for ar-
 bitration  of individual disputes shall be
 determined by the arbitrator or arbitra-
 tion panel in consultation with parties.
   (vii) If formal public hearings are held
 in connection with the actions taken un-
 der this paragraph. Agency requirements
 at 40 CFR 25.5 shall be followed.
   (3) Dispute Resolution Default Proce-
 dure. Where one or more  parties (as de-
 fined in paragraph (g) of this section) re-
 fuse to participate in either the mediation
 or arbitration dispute  resolution process-
 es, the Regional Administrator may ap-
 point a single official or panel to review
 available  information  pertaining to the
 dispute and to issue a written recommen-
 dation for resolving the dispute. Review
 officials shall be EPA employees, employ-
 ees from other Federal agencies, or other
 individuals with  appropriate qualifica-
 tions. Review panels shall  include appro-
 priate members to be selected by the Re-
 gional Administrator in consultation with
 the participating  parties.  Recommenda-
 tions  of such review  officials or panels
 shall, to the extent possible given the lack
 of participation by one or more parties, be
 reached in a manner identical to that for
 arbitration  of disputes specified  in
 paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vii) of
 this section.
   (g) Definitions. For the purposes of this
 section:
   (1)  Dispute  Resolution  Mechanism
 means the EPA mechanism  established
 pursuant  to the  requirements of Clean
 Water Act section  518(e)  for  resolving
 unreasonable consequences that arise as a
 result of differing water quality standards
 that may  be set  by States  and  Indian
Tribes located on common bodies of wa-
 ter.
  (2) Parlies to a State-Tribal dispute in-
clude the State and the Tribe and may, at
the discretion of the Regional Administra-
 tor, include an NPDES permittee, citizen,
 citizen group, or other affected entity.
 [§131.7 added at 56  FR 64893, Dec.  12,
 1991]

 §131.8 Requirements  for Indian Tribes to
  be  treated as  States for  purposes of
  water quality standards.
   (a) The Regional Administrator, as de-
 termined  based  on OMB Circular  A105,
 may  treat an Indian  Tribe as a State  for
 purposes  of  the  water  quality standards
 program if the Tribe meets the following
 criteria:
   (l)The Indian Tribe is recognized  by
 the Secretary of the Interior and  meets
 the definitions in §131.3(k) and  (1),
   (2) The Indian Tribe has a governing
 body carrying out substantial governmen-
 tal duties and powers,
   (3) The water quality standards pro-
 gram to  be  administered  by the Indian
 Tribe pertains to the  management and
 protection of water resources which are
 within the borders of the Indian  reserva-
 tion and held by the  Indian Tribe, within
 the borders of the Indian reservation and
 held by the United States in trust for  In-
 dians, within the borders of the Indian
 reservation and  held  by a member  of the
 Indian Tribe if such property interest is
 subject to a trust restriction on alienation,
 or otherwise  within the borders of the  In-
 dian reservation, and
   (4) The Indian Tribe is  reasonably ex-
 pected to  be  capable, in the Regional Ad-
 ministrator's judgment, of carrying out
 the functions of an effective water quality
 standards program in a manner consistent
 with  the terms and purposes of  the Act
 and applicable regulations.
   (b) Requests by Indian Tribes for treat-
 ment as States for purposes of water qual-
 ity standards should  be submitted to the
 lead  EPA Regional  Administrator. The
 application shall  include the  following  in-
 formation:
   (1) A statement that the Tribe is recog-
 nized by the  Secretary of the Interior.
   (2) A  descriptive  statement  demon-
 strating that  the Tribal governing body is
 currently carrying out substantial govern-
 mental duties and powers over a defined
 area. The statement shall:
   (i)  Describe the form  of the Tribal gov-
 ernment;
   (ii) Describe the types of governmental
 functions  currently  performed  by the
Tribal governing body  such as,  but  not
limited to, the exercise  of police powers
affecting (or relating to) the health, safe-
ty, and welfare of the affected population,
taxation, and the exercise of the power of
eminent domain; and
   (iii) Identify the source of the Tribal
government's authority  to carry out the
governmental functions currently being
performed.
   (3) A descriptive statement of the Indi-
an Tribe's  authority  to regulate water
quality. The statement shall  include:
   (i) A map or  legal description of the
area over which  the Indian Tribe asserts
authority to regulate surface water quali-
ty:..
   (ii) A statement by the  Tribe's  legal
counsel (or  equivalent official) which de-
scribes the basis for the Tribes assertion
of authority;
   (iii) A copy of all documents  such as
Tribal constitutions, by-laws, charters, ex-
ecutive orders, codes,  ordinances, and/or
resolutions which support the Tribe's as-
sertion of authority; and
   (iv)  an identification of the surface wa-
ter for which the Tribe proposes to estab-
lish water quality standards.
   (4) A narrative  statement describing
the  capability of  the Indian Tribe  to
administer an effective water quality stan-
dards  program.  The narrative statement
shall include:
   (i) A description of the Indian Tribe's
previous management experience includ-
ing, but not limited to, the administration
of programs and services authorized by
the Indian Self-Determination and  Edu-
cation  Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.),  the Indian Mineral  Development
Act (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.), or the Indi-
an Sanitation Facility Construction Activ-
ity Act (42 U.S.C.  2004a);
   (ii) A list of existing environmental or
public  health programs  administered by
the Tribal governing body and copies of
related Tribal laws, policies, and regula-
tions;
   (iii)  A description of the entity  (or enti-
ties) which exercise the executive, legisla-
tive, and judicial functions of the Tribal
government;
  (iv) A description of the existing or pro-
posed,  agency of the Indian Tribe which
will assume  primary responsibility for es-
tablishing,  reviewing,  implementing and
revising water quality standards;
  (v) A description of the technical and
administrative capabilities of the staff to

-------
administer and manage an effective water
quality standards  program or  a  plan
which proposes how the Tribe will acquire
additional administrative and  technical
expertise. The plan must address how the
Tribe will obtain the funds to acquire the
administrative and technical expertise.
  (5) Additional documentation required
by the Regional Administrator which, in
the judgment of the Regional Administra-
tor, is necessary to support a Tribal re-
quest for treatment as a State.
  (6) Where  the  Tribe  has previously
qualified for treatment as a State under a
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water
Act program, the Tribe  need only provide
the required information which  has not
been submitted in a previous treatment as
a State application.
  (c) Procedure for processing  an Indian
Tribe's application for treatment as a
State.
  (l)The Regional Administrator shall
process an application of an Indian  Tribe
for treatment as a State submitted pursu-
ant to 131.8(b) in a timely manner. He
shall  promptly notify the Indian Tribe of
receipt of the application.
  (2) Within 30 days after receipt of the
Indian Tribe's application for  treatment
as a  State,  the Regional Administrator
shall  provide appropriate notice. Notice
shall:
  (i) Include information  on  the  sub-
stance and basis of the Tribe's assertion of
authority to regulate the quality of reser-
vation waters; and
  (ii) Be provided to all appropriate gov-
ernmental entities.
  (3) The Regional Administrator  shall
provide 30 days for comments  to be sub-
mitted  on the Tribal application.  Com-
ments shall be limited to the Tribe's asser-
tion of authority.
  (4) If a Tribe's asserted authority is
subject  to  a  competing or conflicting
claim, the Regional Administrator,  after
consultation  with the Secretary of the In-
terior, or his designee, and in consider-
ation of  other comments received,  shall
determine whether the  Tribe  has ade-
quately  demonstrated  that it  meets the
requirements of 131.8(a)(3).
   (5) Where the Regional Administrator
determines  that  a Tribe meets the re-
quirements  of this section,  he  shall
promptly provide written notification to
the Indian Tribe that the Tribe has quali-
fied to be treated  as a State for purposes
of water quality standards and that  the
Tribe may initiate the formulation and
adoption of water quality standards  ap-
provable under this part.
[§131.8 added at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
1991]

Subpart B—Establishment of Water
          Quality Standards

§131.10 Designation of uses.
   (a) Each State must specify appropri-
ate water uses to be achieved and protect-
ed. The classification of the waters of the
State must take into consideration the use
and value of water for public water sup-
plies, protection and propagation  of fish,
shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on
the water, agricultural,  industrial, and
other purposes including navigation. In no
case shall a State adopt waste transport or
waste assimilation as a designated use for
any waters of the United States.
   (b) In designating uses of a water body
and the  appropriate  criteria for those
uses,  the State shall  take, into consider-
ation the water quality standards of down-
stream waters  and  shall ensure that  its
water quality standards  provide  for the
attainment and maintenance of the water
quality standards of downstream waters.
   (c) States may adopt sub-categories of
a use and set the appropriate criteria to
reflect  varying needs of such sub-catego-
ries of uses, for instance, to differentiate
between cold water  and warm water fish-
eries.
   (d) At a minimum, uses are deemed at-
tainable if they can be achieved by the
imposition of effluent  limits  required un-
der sections  301(b) and  306 of the  Act
and cost-effective  and  reasonable best
management  practices  for noripoirit
source  control.
   (e) Prior to  adding or removing  any
use, or establishing sub-categories of a
use, the State shall provide notice and an
opportunity for a  public hearing under
§131.20(b) of this regulation.
   (0 States may adopt  seasonal  uses as
an alternative to  reclassifyihg  a water
body or segment thereof to uses requiring
less stringent  water  quality criteria. If
seasonal  uses are adopted, water quality
criteria should be adjusted to reflect the
seasonal uses, however, such criteria shall
not preclude the attainment and  mainte-
nance of a more protective use in  another
season.
  (g) States may remove a designated use
which is not an existing use, as defined in
§131.3, or establish sub-categories  of  a
use if the State can demonstrate that at-
taining the designated use  is not feasible
because:
  (1) Naturally occurring  pollutant con-
centrations prevent the attainment of the
use; or
  (2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or
low flow conditions or water levels prevent
the  attainment of  the use, unless these
conditions may be compensated for by the
discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges without violating State  water
conservation requirements  to enable uses
to be met; or
  (3) Human  caused conditions  or
sources of pollution prevent  the attain-
ment of the  use and cannot be  remedied
or would cause more environmental  dam-
age to correct than to  leave in place; or
  (4) Dams, diversions or  other types of
hydrologic modifications preclude the at-
tainment  of the use, and it is not feasible
to restore the  water body to its original
condition or to operate such modification
in a way  that  would result in the attain-
ment of the use; or
  (5) Physical conditions  related to the
natural features of the water body, such
as  the lack of-a proper substrate,  cover,
flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, un-
related to water quality, preclude attain-
ment of aquatic life protection uses; or
  (6) Controls more stringent than  those
required  by sections 301(b) and 306  of
the Act  would result  in substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
   (h) States may not  remove designated
uses if:
   (1) They are existing uses, as defined  in
§131.3, unless a use requiring more strin-
gent criteria is added; or
   (2) Such uses will be attained by imple-
menting  effluent  limits required  under
sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act and by
implementing  cost-effective and reason-
able best  management  practices for
nonpoint  source control.
   (i) Where existing water quality stan-
dards specify  designated  uses  less than
those which are presently being attained,
the State shall revise  its standards to re-
flect the uses actually being attained.
   (j) A State must conduct a use attaina-
bility analysis as  described in  §131.3(g)
whenever:

-------
   (l)The State designates or has desig-
 nated  uses that do  not  include the uses
 specified in section 101 (a) (2) of the Act,
 or
   (2) The State wishes to remove a desig-
 nated  use  that  is  specified in  section
 101(a)(2) of the Act or to adopt subcate-
 gories of  uses  specified  in  section
 101(a)(2)  of the Act  which  require less
 stringent criteria.
   (k) A State is not  required to conduct a
 use attainability analysis under this regu-
 lation  whenever  designating  uses which
 include  those  specified  in  section
 101(a)(2)ofthe Act.

 §131.11 Criteria.
   (a) Inclusion of pollutants:
   (I) States must adopt those water qual-
 ity criteria that protect the designated
 use. Such criteria must be based on sound
 scientific rationale and must contain suffi-
 cient parameters or constituents  to pro-
 tect the designated  use.  For waters with
 multiple  use designations,  the criteria
 shall support the most sensitive use.
   (2) Toxic pollutants.  Slates  must  re-
 view water quality data  and  information
 on  discharges to  identify  specific water
 bodies where toxic pollutants  may be ad-
 versely affecting water quality or the  at-
 tainment  of the designated water use or
 where the levels of toxic pollutants are at
 a level to warrant concern and must adopt
 criteria for such toxic pollutants applica-
 ble to  the water body sufficient to protect
 the designated use. Where a State adopts
 narrative  criteria  for toxic pollutants to
 protect designated uses, the  State must
 provide information  identifying the meth-
 od by which the State intends to regulate
 point source discharges of toxic pollutants
 on water  quality limited segments based
 on such narrative criteria.  Such informa-
 tion may be included as  part of the stan-
 dards or may be included in documents
 generated by the State in response to the
 Water Quality  Planning  and Manage-
 ment Regulations (40 CFR part 35).
  (b) Form of criteria: In establishing cri-
 teria, States should:
  (I) Establish numerical values based
on;
  (j) 304(a) Guidance; or
  (ii) 304(a) Guidance modified to reflect
site-specific conditions; or
  (iii) Other scientifically  defensible
methods;
 _ (2) Establish narrative criteria or crite-
ria  based  upon  biomonitoring  methods
where numerical criteria cannot be estab-
lished or to supplement numerical crite-
ria.

§131.12 Antidegradation policy.

   (a) The'State shall develop and adopt a
statewide antidegradation policy and
identify the methods for implementing
such policy pursuant to this subpart. The
antidegradation policy and implementa-
tion methods shall, at a minimum, be con-
sistent with the following:
   (1) Existing  inslrcam water  uses and
the level of water quality necessary to pro-
tect the existing uses shall be maintained
and protected.
   (2) Where the quality of the waters ex-
ceed levels necessary to support propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and rec-
reation in and  on the water, that  quality
shall  be maintained and protected unless
the State finds, after full  satisfaction of
the intergovernmental coordination and
public  participation  provisions  of  the
State's  continuing planning process, that
allowing lower  water quality is necessary
to accommodate important economic or
social development in the  area in  which
the waters are located. In allowing such
degradation or  lower water 'quality,  the
State shall assure water quality adequate
to protect existing uses fully. Further, the
State shall assure  that  there shall  be
achieved the highest statutory and  regula-
tory requirements for all new and existing
point  sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices for
nonpoint source control.
   (3) Where high quality  waters  consti-
tute an outstanding National  resource,
such  as waters  of  National and State
parks and wildlife refuges and waters of
exceptional recreational or ecological sig-
nificance,  that  water  quality  shall  be
maintained and protected.
   (4) In those cases where potential wa-
ter quality impairment associated  with a
thermal discharge is involved, the  an-
tidegradation  policy and  implementing
method shall be consistent, with section
316 of the Act.

§131.13 General policies.

  States may, at their discretion, include
in their State standards, policies generally
affecting their application and implemen-
tation, such as  mixing zones,  low flows
and variances. Such policies are subject to
EPA review and approval.
  Subpart C—Procedures for Review
    and Revision of Water Quality
              Standards

§131.20 State review and revision of water
  quality standards.
   (a) State review. The State shall  from
time to time, but at least once every three
years, hold public hearings  for the pur-
pose of reviewing applicable water quality
standards and, as appropriate, modifying
and adopting  standards. Any water  body
segment with water quality standards that
do not include the uses specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act shall be re-examined
every three years to determine if any new
information has become available. If such
new information indicates that the uses
specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act
are attainable, the State shall revise  its
standards accordingly.  Procedures States
establish  for  identifying and  reviewing
water bodies for review  should be incorpo-
rated into their Continuing Planning Pro-
cess.
   (b) Public  participation. The State
shall hold a public hearing for the purpose
of reviewing water quality  standards, in
accordance with  provisions of State law,
EPA's water quality management  regula-
tion (40  CFR  130.3(b)(6)) and public
participation  regulation (40 CFR  part
25). The proposed water quality stan-
dards  revision and supporting analyses
shall be made available  to the public prior
to the hearing.
   (c) Submittat to EPA. The State shall
submit the results of the review, any sup-
porting analysis for the use  attainability
analysis, the methodologies  used for site-
specific criteria development, any general
policies applicable to water quality stan-
dards and any revisions of the standards
to the  Regional Administrator for review
and approval, within 30 days of the  final
State action to adopt and certify  the re-
vised standard, or if no revisions are made
as a result of the review, within 30 days of
the completion of the review.

§131.21 EPA review and approval of water
  quality standards.
  (a) After  the State submits its officially
adopted revisions, the Regional Adminis-
trator shall either:
  (1) Notify the State within  60 days
that the revisions are approved, or
  (2) Notify the State within  90 days
that  the revisions  are disapproved. Such

-------
notification  of  disapproval  shall specify
the changes needed to assure compliance
with the requirements of the Act and this
regulation,  and shall explain  why the
State standard  is not in  compliance with
such  requirements. Any new or revised
State standard must be  accompanied  by
some type of supporting  analysis.
   (b) The  Regional Administrator's ap-
proval or disapproval of a State  water
quality standard shall be based on the re-
quirements of the Act  as described in
§§131.5, and 131.6.
   (c) A State water quality standard  re-
mains in effect, even though disapproved
by EPA, until the State revises it or EPA
promulgates a rule that supersedes the
State water quality standard.
   (d) EPA  shall,  at least  annually, pub-
lish in the  FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of
approvals under this section.

§131.22 EPA  promulgation of  water
  quality standards.
   (a) If the State  does  not adopt the
changes specified by the Regional Admin-
istrator within 90 days  after notification
of the Regional. Administrator's  disap-
proval, the Administrator shall promptly
propose and promulgate such standard.
   (b) The Administrator  may  also pro-
pose and promulgate  a  regulation, appli-
cable to one or more States, setting forth
a new or revised standard upon  determin-
 ing such a standard is necessary to meet
 the requirements of the Act.
   (c) In promulgating water quality stan-
 dards, the Administrator is subject to the
 same policies, procedures, analyses, and
 public participation  requirements  estab-
 lished  for  States in these regulations.

  Subpart D—Federally Promulgated
       Water Quality Standards

 §131.31 Arizona.
    (a) Article 6, Part 2 is amended as fol-
 lows:
    (l)Reg. 6-2-6.11 shall read:   .
   Reg. 6-2-6.11  Nutrient  Standards.  A.  The
 mean annual total phosphate and mean annual
 total nitrate concentrations of the following waters
 shall not exceed  the values given below  nor shall
 the total phosphate or total nitrate concentrations
 of more than 10 percent of the samples in any year
 exceed the 90 percent values given below. Unless
 otherwise specified, indicated values also apply to
 tributaries to the named waters.


1 . Colorado River from Utah
border to Willow Beach
2. Colorado River from Wil-
low Beach to Parker Dam
3. Colorado River from Par-
ker Dam to Imperial Dam
4. Colorado River from Im-
perial Dam to Morelos
5. Gila River from New Mex-
ico border to San Carlos
Reservoir (excluding San
6. Gila River from San Car-
los Reservoir to Ashurst
Hayden Dam (including
San Carlos Reservoir) 	
8. Verde River (except Gran-
ite Creek) 	
9. Salt River above Roose-
velt Lake 	
10. Santa Cruz River from
international boundary
near Nogales to Sahuarita
11. Little Colorado River
above Lyman Reservoir-
Mean 90 pet annual value
Total
phosphates
as PO4mg/l
0.04-0.06
0.06-0.10
0.08-0.12
0.10-0.10
0.50-0.80
0.30-0.50
0.30-0.50
0.20-0.30
0.20-0.30
0.50-0.80
0.30-0.50
Total ni-
trates as
NOjmg/l
4-7
5
5-7
5-7
  B. The above standards are intended to protect
the beneficial uses of the named waters. Because
regulation of nitrates and phosphates alone may
not be adequate to protect waters from eutrophica-
tion, .no substance shall be added  to any surface
water which produces aquatic growth to the extent
that such growths create a public  nuisance or in-
terference with beneficial uses of the water defined
and designated in Reg. 6-2-6.5..
  (2) Reg. 6-2-6.10 Subparts A and B are
amended to include Reg.  6-2-6.11 in se-
ries  with Regs.  6-2-6.6, 6-2-6.7 and 6-2-
6.8.

§131.33  [Reserved]

§131.34  [Reserved]

§131.35 Colville Confederated  Tribes
  Indian  Reservation.
  The water quality standards applicable
to the waters within the Colville Indian
Reservation, located  in the  State of
Washington.
   (a) Background.
   (1) It  is the purpose of these  Federal
water quality standards to prescribe mini-
mum water quality requirements for the
surface waters located within the exterior
boundaries of the Colville Indian Reserva-
tion to ensure compliance with  section
303 (c) of the Clean Water Act.
  (2) The  Colville Confederated Tribes
have a primary interest in the protection,
control, conservation, and utilization of
the water resources of the Colville Indian
Reservation.  Water  quality  standards
have been enacted into tribal law by the
Colville Business Council of the Confed-
erated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
as  the Colville Water Quality Standards
Act, CTC Title 33 (Resolution No. 1984-
526 (August 6, 1984) as amended by Res-
olution No. 1985-20 (January 18,  1985)).
   (b) Territory Covered. The provisions
of these water quality standards shall ap-
ply to all surface waters within the exteri-
or  boundaries of the Colville Indian Res-
ervation.
   (c) Applicability,  Administration  and
Amendment.
   (1) The water  quality standards in this
section shall be used by the Regional Ad-
ministrator  for  establishing  any water
quality  based National Pollutant  Dis-
charge  Elimination System  Permit
(NPDES) for point sources  on the  Col-
ville Confederated Tribes Reservation.
   (2) In conjunction with the issuance of
section 402 or section 404 permits,  the
 Regional  Administrator may designate
 mixing zones -in  the waters of the United
States on the reservation on a  case-by-
case  basis. The size of such  mixing zones
 and the in-zone water quality in such mix-
 ing, zones shall be consistent with the ap-
 plicable  procedures and  guidelines  in
 EPA's Water Quality Standards Hand-
 book  and the Technical Support Docu-
 ment for Water  Quality  Based Toxics
 Control.
    (3) Amendments to the section at the
 request of the Tribe shall proceed in the
 following manner.
    (i) The requested amendment shall first
 be duly  approved  by the Confederated
 Tribes of the Colville Reservation (and so
 certified  by the Tribes  Legal  Counsel)
 and submitted to the Regional Adminis-
 trator.
    (ii) The requested amendment shall be
 reviewed  by EPA  (and  by the  State of
 Washington, if the action would affect a
 boundary water).
    (iii) If deemed in compliance  with the
 Clean Water  Act,  EPA  will propose and
 promulgate an appropriate change to this
 section.

-------
   (4) Amendment  of this section  at
 EPA's initiative will follow consultation
 with the Tribe and other appropriate enti-
 ties. Such amendments will then follow
 normal EPA rulcmaking procedures.
   (5) All other applicable  provisions of
 this part 131  shall apply  on the Colville
 Confederated Tribes Reservation. Special
 attention should be  paid to  §§131.6,
 131.10,131.11 and 131.20 for any amend-
 ment to  these standards to be initiated by
 the Tribe.
   (6) All numeric  criteria  contained in
 this section apply at'all  in-stream flow
 rales greater  than  or equal to the flow
 rate calculated as the minimum 7-consec-
 utivc day average flow  with a recurrence
 frequency of  once in ten years (7Q10);
 narrative criteria ( §131.35(e)(3)) apply
 regardless of flow. The 7Q10  low flow
 shall be  calculated using methods  recom-
 mended  by the U.S. Geological  Survey.
   (d) Definitions.
   (1) "Acute  toxicity"  means a deleteri-
 ous  response  (e.g.,  mortality, disorienta-
 tion,  immobilization) to a  stimulus ob-
 served in 96 hours or less.
   (2) "Background  conditions"  means
 the biological, chemical, and physical con-
 ditions of a water body,  upstream  from
 the point or  non-point  source  discharge
 under consideration. Background sam-
 pling location in an enforcement action
 will be upstream from the point  of dis-
 charge, but not upstream from  other in-
 flows. If several discharges  to any water
 body exist, and  an enforcement action is
 being taken for possible violations to the
 standards, background  sampling will be
 undertaken  immediately upstream from
 each discharge.
   (3) "Ceremonial and Religious water
 use" means activities involving traditional
 Native  American spiritual  practices
 which involve, among other things, prima-
 ry (direct) contact with water.
   (4) "Chronic Toxicity" means the low-
 est concentration of a constituent causing
 observable effects (i.e., considering lethal-
 ity, growth, reduced  reproduction, etc.)
over a relatively long period of time, usu-
ally a 28-day test period for small fish test
species.
   (5) "Council" or  "Tribal Council"
 means the Colville Business Council of
the Colville Confederated Tribes.
   (6) "Geometric  mean"  means  the
"nth" root of a product  of "n" factors.
   (7) "Mean  retention time" means the
 time obtained by  dividing a reservoir's
 mean  annual minimum total storage  by
 the  non-zero 30-day,  ten-year low-flow
 from the reservoir.
   (8) "Mixing Zone" or "dilution zone"
 means a limited area or volume of water
 where initial dilution of a discharge takes
 place; and where numeric water quality
 criteria can be exceeded but acutely toxic
 conditions are prevented from occurring.
   (9) "pH" means the negative logarithm
 of the hydrogen ion concentration.
   (10) "Primary  contact recreation"
 means  activities where a  person would
 have direct  contact with  water  to  the
 point of complete submergence, including
 but not limited to skin diving, swimming,
 and water skiing.
   (11) "Regional  Administrator"  means
 the Administrator of EPA's Region X.
   (12) "Reservation" means all land
 within  the limits  of the Colville  Indian
 Reservation, established on July 2, 1872
 by Executive  Order, presently containing
 1,389,000 acres more or less, and under
 the jurisdiction of the United States gov-
 ernment, notwithstanding the issuance of
 any  patent, and including  rights-of-way
 running through the reservation.
   (13) "Secondary  contact  recreation"
 means activities where a person's water
 contact would be limited  to the  extent
 that bacterial infections of eyes, ears, res-
 piratory, or digestive systems or urogeni-
 tal areas would'normally be avoided (such
 as wading or fishing).
   (14) "Surface water" means,all water
 above the surface of .the ground within the
 exterior boundaries of the Colville  Indian
 Reservation including but not limited to
 lakes, ponds,  reservoirs,  artificial im-
 poundments,  streams,  rivers,  springs,
 seeps and wetlands.
  (15) "Temperature" means water tem-
 perature expressed in Centigrade degrees
 (C).
  (16) "Total  dissolved solids"  (TDS)
 means  the total filterable  residue  that
 passes through a standard glass fiber filter
 disk and remains  after  evaporation  and
 drying to a constant weight at 180 degrees
 C. it is considered to be a measure of the
dissolved salt content of the water.
  (17) "Toxicity" means acute and/or
chronic toxicity.
  (18) "Tribe" or  "Tribes" means the
Colville Confederated Tribes.
   (19) "Turbidity" means the clarity of
 water expressed as nephelometric turbidi-
 ty units (NTU) and measured with a cali-
 brated turbidimeter.
   (20) "Wildlife habitat" means the wa-
 ters and  surrounding land areas of the
 Reservation  used by fish, other aquatic
 life and wildlife at any stage of their life
 history or activity.
   (e) General considerations. The follow-
 ing general guidelines shall apply to the
 water quality standards and classifications
 set forth  in the use designation Sections.
   (1)  Classification  Boundaries. At the
 boundary between  waters of  different
 classifications, the  water quality stan-
 dards  for the  higher classification  shall
 prevail.
   (2)  Antidegradation  Policy.  This an-
 tidegradation policy shall be applicable to
 all surface waters of the Reservation.
   (i) Existing  in-stream water  uses  and
 the level of water quality necessary to pro-
 tect the existing uses shall be maintained
 and protected.
   (ii)  Where the quality of the waters ex-
 ceeds levels necessary to support propaga-
 tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and rec-
 reation in and  on the water, that quality
 shall be maintained and protected unless
 the Regional Administrator finds, after
 full satisfaction of the inter-governmental
 coordination and public participation pro-
 visions of the Tribes' continuing planning
 process, that allowing lower water quality
 is necessary to accommodate important
 economic or social  development  in  the
 area in which  the waters are  located. In
 allowing such degradation or lower water
 quality, the Regional Administrator shall
 assure water quality adequate to protect
 existing uses fully. Further, the  Regional
 Administrator shall  assure that there
 shall  be   achieved the  highest statutory
 and regulatory requirements for all  new
 and existing point sources and  all cost-
 effective   and  reasonable best  manage-
 ment practices for nonpoint source  con-
 trol.
  (iii) Where  high  quality  waters are
 identified  as constituting an outstanding
 national or reservation  resource, such as
 waters within areas designated as unique
 water quality management areas and wa-
 ters otherwise of exceptional recreational
or ecological significance, and are desig-
nated as special resource waters, that wa-
ter  quality shall be maintained  and  pro-
tected.

-------
  (iv) In those cases where potential wa-
ter quality impairment associated with a
thermal  discharge  is involved,  this an-
tidegradation  policy's implementing
method shall be  consistent  with section
316 of the Clean  Water Act.
  (3) Aesthetic  Qualities. All  waters
within the Reservation, including  those
within mixing zones, shall be free from
substances, attributable to  wastewater
discharges or  other pollutant  sources,
that:
  (i) Settle to form objectionable depos-
its;
  (ii) Float as debris, scum, oil, or other
matter forming nuisances;
  (iii) Produce objectionable color, odor,
taste, or turbidity;
  (iv) Cause injury to, are toxic to,  or
produce adverse  physiological responses
in humans, animals, or  plants; or
  (v) Produce  undesirable or  nuisance
aquatic life.
  (4) Analytical  Methods.
   (i) The analytical testing methods used
to measure or otherwise evaluate compli-
ance with water quality standards shall to
the extent practicable,  be in  accordance
with  the "Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants"
(40 CFR part 136). When a testing meth-
od is  not available for a particular sub-
stance, the most  recent edition of "Stan-
dard  Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater"  (published  by
the American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association, and
the  Water Pollution Control Federation)
and other or superseding methods pub-
lished and/or approved by  EPA shall be
 used.
   (f) General  Water Use  and  Criteria
 Classes. The following criteria shall apply
 to the various classes of surface waters on
 the Colville Indian Reservation:
   (1) Class I (Extraordinary)—
   (i) Designated uses. The designated
 uses include, but are not limited to, the
 following:
   (A) Water supply (domestic, industrial,
 agricultural).
   (B) Slock watering.
   (C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
 tion,  rearing,  spawning,  and harvesting;
 other fish migration, rearing, spawning,
 and harvesting.
   (D) Wildlife habitat.
   (E) Ceremonial  and religious water
 use.
  (F) Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment).
  (G) Commerce and navigation.
  (ii) Water quality criteria.
  (A) Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
metric mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 8 per 100 millili-
ters, nor shall any single sample exceed an
enterococci density of 35 per 100 millili-
ters. These limits are calculated as  the
geometric mean of the collected  samples
approximately equally spaced over a thir-
ty day period.
  (B) Dissolved oxygen—The dissolved
oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg/1.
  (C) Total                dissolved
gas—concentrations shall not exceed  110
percent of the saturation value for gases
at the existing atmospheric and hydrostat-
ic pressures at any point of sample collec-
tion.
   (D) Temperature—shall  not exceed
 16.0 degrees C due to human activities.
Temperature  increases shall not, at  any
time, exceed t=23/(T+5).
   (/) When natural  conditions  exceed
 16.0 degrees C, no temperature  increase
will be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing  water by greater than 0.3 degrees C.
   (2) For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the  permissive temperature change across
the  dilution zone; and "T" represents the
 highest existing temperature in this water
 classification outside of any dilution zone.
   (3) Provided that temperature increase
 resulting from nonpoint source activities
 shall not exceed 2.8 degrees C, and the
 maximum water temperature shall not ex-
 ceed 10.3 degrees C.
   (E) pH shall be within the range of 6.5
 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation  of
 less than 0.2 units.
   (F) Turbidity shall not  exceed 5 NTU
 over background turbidity when the back-
 ground  turbidity  is 50 NTU or less,  or
 have more than a 10 percent increase in
 turbidity when the background  turbidity
 is more than  50 NTU.
   (G) Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
 al, or deleterious material concentrations
 shall be less  than those of public health
 significance, or which may cause acute or
 chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic  bi-
 ota, or which may adversely affect desig-
 nated water uses.
   (2) Class II (Excellent).—
   (i) Designated  uses.  The  designated
 uses  include but are not limited to, the
 following:
   (A) Water supply (domestic, industrial,
 agricultural).
   (B) Stock watering.
   (C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
 tion, rearing,  spawning,  and harvesting;
 other fish migration,  rearing, spawning,
 and  harvesting; crayfish  rearing, spawn-
 ing, and harvesting.
   (D) Wildlife habitat.
   (E) Ceremonial and  religious water
 use.
   (F) Recreation  (primary contact recre-
 ation, sport fishing, boating and  aesthetic
 enjoyment).
   (G) Commerce and navigation.
   (ii) Water quality criteria.
   (A) Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
 metric mean of the  enterococci bacteria
 densities in samples taken  over  a 30 day
 period shall not exceed  16/100 ml,  nor
 shall any single sample exceed an entero-
 cocci density  of  75 per 100 milliliters.
 These limits are calculated as the geomet-
 ric mean of the collected  samples approxi-
 mately equally spaced over a thirty day
 period.
   (B) Dissolved oxygen—The  dissolved
 oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mg/1.
   (C) Total dissolved gas—concentra-
 tions shall not exceed  110 percent of the
 saturation value for gases  at the existing
 atmospheric and  hydrostatic  pressures at
_ any point of sample collection.
   (D) Temperature—shall  not exceed
  18.0 degrees  C due to human  activities;
 Temperature  increases shall not, at  any
 time, exceed t=28/(T+7).
   (/) When natural conditions exceed 18
 degrees C no temperature increase will be
 allowed which will raise  the receiving wa-
 ter  temperature by greater than 0.3 de-
 grees C.
   (2) For purposes hereof, "t" represents
 the  permissive temperature change across
 the  dilution zone; and "T" represents the
 highest existing temperature  in this water
 classification outside of any dilution zone.
   (3) Provided that temperature increase
  resulting  from non-point source activities
 shall not exceed 2.8  degrees C, and the
  maximum water temperature shall not ex-
 ceed 18.3 degrees C.
    (E) pH shall be within the range of 6.5
  to 8.5 with a human-caused variation of
  less than.0.5 units.

-------
   (F) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground turbidity is 50 NTU  or less, or
have more than a  10 percent  increase in
turbidity when the background  turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
   (G) Toxic,  radioactive, nonconvention-
al, or deleterious material concentrations
shall be'less than  those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or which may adversely affect desig-
nated water uses.
   (3) Class lit (Good).—
   (i) Designated uses. The  designated
uses  include but arc not limited  to, the
following:
   (A) Water  supply (industrial,  agricul-
tural).
   (B) Stock watering.
 __ (C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
tion, rearing, spawning,  and  harvesting;
other fish migration,  rearing, spawning,
and harvesting; crayfish  rearing,  spawn-
ing, and harvesting.
   (D) Wildlife habitat.
   (E) Recreation (secondary contact rec-
reation, sport fishing, boating and aesthet-
ic enjoyment).
   (F) Commerce and navigation.
   (ii) Water quality criteria.
   (A) Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
metric mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities  in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 33/100  ml,  nor
shall any single sample exceed an entero-
cocci density  of 150 per 100 milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric mean of the collected samples approxi-
mately equally spaced  over a  thirty day
period.
   (B) Dissolved oxygen.

7 diy mean »....,»„„..„..„.
1 
-------
  (F) Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment).
  (G) Commerce and navigation.
  (ii) Water quality criteria.
  (A) Bacteriological  Criteria.  The geo-
metric  mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period  shall not exceed  33/100 ml, nor
shall any single sample exceed an entero-
cocci density  of 150  per  100 milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric mean of the collected samples approxi-
mately  equally spaced over  a thirty day
period.
   (B) Dissolved  oxygen—no measurable
decrease from natural conditions.
   (C) Total dissolved  gas concentrations
shall not exceed 110 percent  of the satura-
tion value for gases at the existing atmo-
spheric and hydrostatic pressures at amy
point of sample collection.
   (D) Temperature—no  measurable
change from natural conditions.
   (E) pH—no  measurable  change from
 natural conditions.
   (F) Turbidity shall not exceed 5  NTU
 over natural conditions.
   (G) Toxic,  radioactive, nonconvention-
 al,  or deleterious material concentrations
 shall be less than those which may affect
 public health, the natural aquatic environ-
 ment,  or the  desirability of  the water for
 any use.
    (6)  Special Resource  Water   Class
 (SRW)—
    (i) General characteristics.  These  are
 fresh or  saline waters which comprise a
 special and unique resource to the Reser-
 vation. Water quality of this class  will be
 varied and unique as determined  by the
 Regional Administrator in cooperation
 with the Tribes.
    (ii) Designated uses. The  designated
 uses include, but are not limited  to, the
 following:
    (A) Wildlife habitat.
    (B) Natural foodchain maintenance:.
    (iii) Water quality criteria.
    (A) Enterococci bacteria  densities shall
  not exceed natural conditions.
    (B)  Dissolved  oxygen—shall not show
  any  measurable  decrease  from  natural
  conditions.
     (C) Total  dissolved gas  shall not vary
  from  natural conditions.
     (D) Temperature—shall  not show any
  measurable  change  from  natural condi-
  tions.
  (E) pH shall not show any  measurable
change from natural conditions.
  (F) Settleable solids shall not show any
change from natural conditions.
  (G) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over  natural conditions.
  (H) Toxic, radioactive,  or deleterious
material concentrations shall not exceed
those found under natural conditions.
  (g) General Classifications.  General
classifications applying to various surface
waterbodies not specifically classified un-
der §131.35(h) are  as follows:
   (1)A11 surface waters that are tribu-
taries  to Class  I  waters  are classified
Class I, unless otherwise classified.
   (2) Except for  those specifically classi-
fied otherwise, all lakes with existing aver-
age  concentrations  less than 2000 mg/L
TDS and their feeder streams on the Col-
ville Indian Reservation are classified  as
 Lake Class and Class I, respectively.
   (3) All  lakes  on the  Colville Indian
 Reservation with existing average concen-
 trations of  TDS equal to or exceeding
 2000 mg/L and their feeder streams are
 classified as Lake  Class and Class I re-
 spectively  unless  specifically  classified
 otherwise.
    (4) All  reservoirs with  a mean deten-
 tion time of greater than 15 days are clas-
 sified Lake Class.
    (5) All  reservoirs with a mean deten-
 tion time of 15 days or less are  classified
 the  same  as the river  section  in  which
 they are located.
    (6) All reservoirs established on pre-ex-
 isting lakes are classified as Lake Class.
    (7) AH  wetlands are  assigned  to  the
 Special Resource Water Class.
    (8) All  other waters not specifically  as-
 signed to a classification of the reservation
 are classified as Class II.
    (h) Specific  Classifications. Specific
 classifications for  surface waters of the
 Colville Indian Reservation are as follows:
  (1) Streams:
   Alice Creek	    Class III
   Anderson Creek	   Class III
   Armstrong Creek....	    Class III
   Barnaby Creek	    Class II
   Bear Creek	    Class III
   Beaver Dam Creek	    Class II
   Bridge Creek	    Class II
   Brush Creek	    Class III
   Buckhorn Creek	    Class III
   Cache Creek	    Class III
   Canteen Creek	    Class I
   Capoose Creek	Class III
   Cobbs Creek	    Class III
   Columbia  River (rom Chief Joseph
     Dam to Wells Dam
Columbia River from northern Res-
  ervation boundary to Grand Cou-
  lee Dam (Roosevelt Lake)
Columbia River from Grand Coulee
  Dam to Chief Joseph Dam
Cook Creek	    Class I
Cooper Creek	'.	    Class III
Cornstalk Creek	    Class III
Cougar Creek	    Class I
Coyote Creek	    Class II
Deerhorn Creek	    Class III
Dick Creek	    Class III
Dry Creek	    Class I
Empire Creek	    Class III
Faye Creek	    Class I
Forty Mile Creek	    Class III
Gibson Creek	    Class I
Gold Creek	    Class II
Granite Creek	    Class II
Grizzly Creek	    Class 111
Haley  Creek	    Class III
Hall Creek	    Class II
Hail Creek, West Fork	    Class I
Iron Creek	    Class III
Jack Creek	    Class III
Jerred Creek	    Class I
Joe Moses Creek	    Class III
John Tom Creek	    Class III
Jones Creek	    Class I
Kartar Creek	   Class III
Kincaid Creek	   Class 111
King Creek	   Class III
Klondyke Creek	   Class I
Lime Creek	   Class III
Little Jim Creek	   Class III
Little Nespelem	   Class H
 Louie Creek	   Class III
 Lynx Creek	:	   Class II
 Manila Creek	   Class III
 McAllister Creek	   Class III
 Meadow Creek	   Class III
 Mill Creek	   Class II
 Mission Creek	   Class III
 Nespelem River	   Class II
 Nez Perce Creek	    Class III
 Nine Mile Creek	    Class H
 Nineteen Mile Creek	    Class III
 No Name Creek	    Class II
 North Nanamkin Creek	    Class 111
 North Star Creek	    Class III
 Okanogan River from Reservation   Class II
   north boundary to Columbia River
 Olds  Creek	    Class I
 Omak Creek	    Class II
 Onion Creek	    Class II
 Parmenter Creek	    Class III
 Peel  Creek	    Class 111
  Peter Dan Creek	    Class III
  Rock Creek	    Class I
  San Poll River	    Class I
  Sanpoil, River West Fork	    Class II
  Seventeen Mile  Creek	    Class III
  Silver Creek	   Class III
  Sitdown Creek	   Class III
  Six Mile Creek	   Class 111
  South Nanamkin Creek	   Class III
  Spring Creek	   Class III
  Stapaloop Creek	   Class III
  Stepstone Creek	   Class III
  Stranger Creek	   Class II
  Strawberry Creek	   Class III
  Swimptkin Creek	   Class III
  Three Forks Creek	   Class I
  Three Mile Creek	   Class 111
  Thirteen Mile Creek	   Class II
  Thirty Mile Creek	   Class II
  Trail Creek	   Class III
  Twentyfive Mile Creek	   Class III
  Twentyone Mile Creek	   Class III
  Twentythree Mile Creek-	:;	   Class III
  Wannacot Creek	   Class III

-------
W«U Crt«k ---------- ..
Whl»»!»w Click,-...
WWntmt Ct«k,.,.,.,,
Dbow Uk«,,,,.,™,...
Fish Uk«.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
Ook) Lak«..,:.„„,.,....
GttU Wif tarn Uk«..
Jonoion Uki.....».».
Class I
Class III
Class II

LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LaFleur Lake	
Little Goose Lake..
Little Owhl Lake....
McGinnisLake	
Nicholas Lake	
OmakLake	
Owhl Laks	
Panley Lake	
Rebecca Lake	
Round Lake	
Simpson Lake	
Soap Lake	
Sugar Lake	
Summit Lake	
Twin Lakes	
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
SRW
SRW
SRW
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
SRW
 §131.36 Toxics  criteria  for those  states
  not  complying with  Clean Water Act
  section 303(cX2XB).

   (a) Scope. This section is not a general
 promulgation of the section 304(a)  crite-
 ria for priority toxic pollutants but  is re-
 stricted to  specific pollutants in specific
 States.

   (b)(l)EPA's Section  304(a)  Criteria
for Priority Toxic Pollutants.

-------
A B C
FRESHWATER SALTWATER
Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous Maximum Continuous
,#•> c o M p o U N 0 CAS Cone, d Cone, d Cone, d Cone, d
(#) c o M P u u (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
B1 B2 C1 C2
1 Antimony 7440360 ', ,
2 Arsenic 7440382 360 m 190 m 69 m 36 m
3 Beryllium 7440417
4 cadmium 7440439 | 3.9 e,m 1.1e,mj 43m 9.3m
5a Chromium (III) 16065831 | 1700 e,m 210 e,m j
b Chromium (VI) 18540299 j 16 m 11 m ! 1100 m 	 50 m
6 Copper 7440508 \ 18 e,m 12 e,m \ 2.9 m 2.9 m
7 Lead 7439921 [ 82 e.m 3.2 e.m | 220m 8.5m
8 Mercury ' 74395-76 j 2.4 m 0.012 1 j 2.1 m 0.025 i
9 nickel .7440CI20 | 1400 e,m 160 e,m j 75 m 8.3 m
in c i • 7782492 '20 5 ! 300 m 71 m
H sUver 7440224 j 4.1 e,m i 2.3 m
12 Thallium, 7440280 j
13 zinc 7440(S66 ! 120 e.m 110 e,m 95 m 86 m
14 Cyanide 57125 j 22 5.2 1 1
16 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 1746016 j !
17 Acrolein 107028 |
18 Acrylonitrile 107131 |
19 Benzene 71432 j i
nn n__m~f«^m 75252 ! ! 	
21 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 j i
22 Chlorobenzene 108907 j !
23 Chlorodibromomethane 124481 i !
24 Chloroethane 715003 j i
25 2-Chl"r""»hy vinyl Ether 110758 | ! 	
26 Chloroform 67663 j i
D
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms «.
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
01 D2
14 a 4300 a
0.018 a,b,c 0.14 a,b,c
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
0.14 0.15
610 a 4600 a
n n
1.7 a 6.3 a
700 a 220000 a,j
7.000.000 fibers/L k
JO. 000000013 c 0.000000014 c
| *320 780
j 0.059 a,c 0.66 a,c
j 1.2 a,c 71 a,c
j 4.3 a.c 360 a,c
| 0.25 a.c 4.4 a,c
j 680 a 21000 a.j
j 0.41 a,c 34 a,c
i
i
i
— i 	 . — . 	
I 5.7 a,c 470 a,c
j 0.27 a.c 22 a.c

-------
28 1,1-Dichloroethane
29 1,2-Dichloroethane
30 1,1-Dichloroethylene
31 1,2-Dichloropropane
32 1,3-DichlorooroDVlene
33 Ethylbenzene
34 Methyl Bromide
35 Hethyl Chloride
36 Hethylene Chloride
37 1.1.2,2-Tetraehloroethane
38 Totrachtoroethylene
39 Toluene
40 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
41 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
42 1.1,2-Trichloroethane
43 Trichloroethylene
44 Vinyl Chloride
45 2-Chlorophenol
46 2,4-Dichlorophenol
47 2.4-DimethvlDhenol
48 2-Hethyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
49 2,4-Dinitrophenol
50 2-Mitrophenol
51 4-Hitrophenol
52 3-Hethvl-4-Chloroohenol
53 Pcntnchlorophenol
54 Phenol
55 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
56 Acenaphthene
75343
107062
75354
78875
542756
100414
74839
74873
75092
79345
127184
108883
156605
71556
79005
79016
75014
95578
120832
105679
534521
51285
88755
100027
59507
87865
108952
88062
83329
: :
! | 0.38 a,c 99 a,c
! i 0.057 a,c 3.2 a,c
1 i
j 	 | 	 | 	 10 a 1700 a
• i ! 3100 a 29000 a
' | 48 a 4000 a
i |nn
! ! 4.7 a,c 1600 a,c
i 	 _j 	 j 	 Q.17 a.c 	 H a,c
! j 0.8 c 8.85 c
! j 6800 a 200000 a
i ,
l i
! Inn
	 1 	 	 	 j 	 0.60 a c 42 a c
i | 2.7 c 81 c
I i 2 c 525 c
i i
i !
! ! 93 a 790 a,j
j i
i i 13.4 765
! j 70 a 14000 a
j i
i 1
i ,
20 f 13 f j 13 7.9 j 0.28 a.c 8.2 a,c.
! j 21000 a 4600000 a, j
i I 2.1 a,c 6.5 a,c
i i
i

-------
A
(#) COMPOUND CAS
Number
B
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) 
-------
(#> C 0 H P 0 U H D CAS
Number
— 	 — 	
b
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
B1 B2
C
SALTWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
C1 C2
D
H U_M A N HEALTH
(10" risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1 D2
86 Fluoranthene
87 Fluorene
88 Hexachlorobenzene
89 Hexachlorobutadiene
90 Hexachlorocvclooentadiene
91 Hexachloroethane
92 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
93 Isophorone
94 Naphthalene
95 Nitrobenzene
96 N-Hitrosodfmethylamine
97 N-Hitrosodi-n-Propylamine
98 H-Hitrosodiphenylaraine
99 Phenanthrene
100 Pvrene
101 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
102 Aldrin
103 alpha-BHC
104 beta-BHC
105 oawwi-BHC
106 delta-BHC

107 Chlordam
108 4-4' -DOT
109 4,4' -DOE
110 4.4'-000
111 OleldHn
112 alpha-Endosulfan
113 beta-Endosulfan
206440 j
86737 {
118741 |
87683 j
77474 !
67721 |
193395 |
78591 j
91203 j
98953 !
62759 j
621647 j
86306 j
85018 j
129000 !
120821 j
309002 j 3 g
319846 j
319857 j
58899 ! 2 a
319868 |

57749 | 2.4 g
50293 j 1.1 g
72559 j
72548 |
60571 j 2.5 g
959988 j 0.22 g
33213659 j 0.22 g
i j 300 a
1300 a
j 0.00075 a,c
! 0.44 a,c
	 . 	 j 	 240 a
1.9 a,c
0.0028 c
! 8.4 a,c

	 _i 	 , 	 17 a
! ! 0.00069 a,c
! j
5.0 a,c
! j
	 	 	 | 	 960 a
i
1.3 g | 0.00013 a,c
! | 0.0039 a,c
! | 0.014 a,c
0.08 g , 0.16 a 	 { 	 0.019 c
l
l
0.0043 g | 0.09 g 0.004 g | 0.00057 a,c
0.001 g j 0.13 g 0.001 g j 0.00059 a,c
! ! 0.00059 a,c
	 | 	 . 	 I 0.00083 a.c
0.0019 g | 0.71 g 0.0019 g | 0.00014 a,c
0.056 g j 0.034 g 0.0087 g | 0.93 a
0.056 g j 0.034 g 0.0087 g | 0.93 a
370 a
14000 a
0.00077 a.c
50 a,c
17000 a,j
8.9 a,c
0.031 c
600 a,c

1900 a,j
8.1 a,c

16 a,c

11000 a

0.00014 a,c
0.013 a,c
0.046 a,c
0.063 c


0.00059 a,c
0.00059 a,c
0.00059 a,c
0.00084 a,c
0.00014 a,c
2.0 a
2.0 a

-------
(#)  COMPOUND
 CAS
Number
                                            FRESHWATER
Criterion  Criterion
Max i mum    Cont i nuous
Cone, d    Cone, d
(ug/L)     (ug/L)
  B1         B2
                                                                     SALTWATER
Criterion  Criterion
Maximum    Continuous
Cone, d    Cone, d
(ug/L)     (ug/L)
  C1	C2
HUMAN     HEALTH
(10   risk for carcinogens)

   For Consumption of:
 Water &          Organisms
 Organisms        Only
 (ug/L)           (ug/L)
    D1	Si	
114 Endosulfan Sulfate
115 Endrin
116 Endrin Aldehyde
117 Heptachlor
118 Heptachlor Epoxide
119 PCB-1242
120 PCB-1254
121 PCB-1221
122 PCB-1232
123 PCB-1248
124 PCS- 1260
125 PCB-1016
126 Toxaphene
1031078
72?.08
7421934
76448
1024S73
53469219
11097(S91
11104282
11141165
12672296
/
11096825
12674112
8001352
l
i
0.18 g 0.0023 g j 0.037 g
!
0.52 g 0.0038 g j 0.053 g
0.52 g 0.0038 g j 0.053 g
0.014 g j
0.014 g |
0.014 g |
0.014 g I
0.014 a !
0.014 g I
0.014 g |
0.73 0.0002 | 0.21
!
0.0023 g

0.0036 g
0.0036 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.0002
0.93 a 2.0 a
0.76 a 0.81 a,j
0.76 a 0.81 a,j
0.00021 a,c 0.00021 a,c
G
0.00010 a.c 0.00011 a.c
0.000044 afc 0.000045 a,c
0.000044 a,c 0.000045 a,c
0.000044 a.c 0.000045 a.c
0.000044 a.c 0.000045 a.c
0.000044 a.c 0.000045 a.c
0.000044 a.c 0.000045 a.c
0.000044 a.c 0.000045 a,c
0.00073 a.c 0.00075 a.c
 Total No.  of Criteria  (h)  =
                                               24
                                                            29
                                                                        23
                                                                                      27
                                                                     91
                                                                                                                     90

-------
   Footnotes:
   a.  Criteria revised  to reflect current
 agency qi* or RfD, as contained in the
 Integrated Risk Information  System
 (IRIS).  The fish tissue  bioconcentration
 factor (BCF) from the 1980 criteria docu-
 ments was retained in all cases.
   b. The criteria refers  to  the inorganic
 form only.
   c. Criteria in the matrix based on carci-
 nogcnicily (10-* risk).  For a risk level of
 10*J, move the decimal point in the matrix
 value one place to the right.
   d.  Criteria Maximum Concentration
 (CMC)  — the highest concentration of a
 pollutant to which aquatic life can be ex-
 posed  for a short period of time (1-hour
 average) without deleterious effects. Cri-
 teria Continuous Concentration (CCC) =
 the highest concentration of a pollutant to
 which aquatic life can be exposed for an
 extended period of time (4 days) without
 deleterious effects, ug/L « micrograms
 per liter
   c. Freshwater aquatic life criteria for
 these metals are expressed as a function
 of total hardness (mg/L), and as a func-
 tion of the pollutant's  water effect ratio,
 WER, as  defined in §131.36(c).  The
 equations  are  provided in matrix at
 §131.36(b)(2). Values  displayed above in
 the matrix correspond  to a total hardness
 of 100 mg/L and a water effect  ratio of
 1.0.
   f.  Freshwater aquatic  life criteria for
 pcmachlorophcnol  are expressed  as  a
 function  of pH, and are calculated as fol-
 lows.  Values displayed above in the ma-
 trix correspond to a pH of 7.8.
 CMC -  cxp(1.005(pH) - 4.830) CCC =
    cxp(1.005(PH) - 5.290)
   g. Aquatic life criteria  for these com-
 pounds were issued in  1980 utilizing the
 1980 Guidelines for criteria development.
The acute  values shown  are final acute
values  (FAV)  which  by the  1980 Guide-
 lines are instantaneous values as  con-
 trasted with a CMC which is a one-hour
 average.
   h. These  totals simply sum the criteria
 in each column. For aquatic life, there are
 30 priority toxic pollutants with  some
 type of freshwater or saltwater, acute or
 chronic criteria. For human health, there
 are 91 priority toxic pollutants with either
 "water +  fish" or  "fish only" criteria.
 Note that these totals count chromium as
 one pollutant even though EPA has devel-
 oped criteria based on two valence states.
 In the matrix, EPA has assigned numbers
 5a and 5b to the criteria  for chromium to
 reflect the fact that the list of 126 priority
 toxic pollutants includes only a single list-
 ing for chromium.
  i. If the CCC for total mercury exceeds
 0.012  ug/L more than once in a 3-year
 period in the ambient water, the  edible
 portion of aquatic species of concern must
 be analyzed to determine  whether the
 concentration of methyl mercury exceeds
 the FDA action level (1.0 mg/kg). If the
 FDA action level is  exceeded,  the State
 must notify  the appropriate EPA Region-
 al Administrator, initiate a revision of its
 mercury criterion in its water quality
 standards so as to protect designated uses,
 and take other appropriate action such as
 issuance of  a fish consumption advisory
 for the affected area.
  j. No criteria for protection of human
 health from  consumption  of aquatic orga-
 nisms (excluding water) was presented in
 the 1980 criteria document or in the 1986
 Quality Criteria for Water. Nevertheless,
sufficient information was  presented in
the 1980 document to allow a calculation
of a criterion, even though  the  results of
such  a calculation were not shown in the
document.
  k.  The criterion for  asbestos is  the
MCL (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
   1. This letter not used as a footnote.
   m. Criteria  for  these  metals  are ex-
 pressed as a function of the water effect
 ratio, WER,  as defined  in  40  CFR
 131.36(c).
 CMC = column Bl or Cl value X WER
 CCC = column B2 or C2 value X WER
   n.  EPA  is not promulgating  human
 health criteria for this contaminant. How-
 ever, permit authorities  should  address
 this contaminant in NPDES permit ac-
 tions using  the State's existing narrative
 criteria for toxics.
   General Notes:
   1. This chart lists all  of EPA's  priority
 toxic pollutants whether  or not  criteria
 recommendations are  available. Blank
 spaces indicate the absence of criteria rec-
 ommendations. Because of  variations in
 chemical nomenclature  systems, this list-
 ing of toxic pollutants does  not duplicate
 the listing in Appendix A of 40 CFR  Part
 423. EPA has  added the Chemical  Ab-
 stracts Service (CAS) registry numbers,
 which provide a unique identification for
 each chemical.
   2. The following chemicals have organ-
 oleptic  based criteria recommendations
 that are not included on  this chart  (for
 reasons which are discussed in the pream-
 ble): copper, zinc, chlorobenzene, 2-chlo-
 rbphenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol,  acenaph-
 thene, 2,4-dimethylphenol,  3-methyl-4-
chlorophenol, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
pentachlorophenol, phenol
   3. For  purposes of this  rulemaking,
freshwater criteria and saltwater  criteria
apply as specified in 40 CFR 131.36(c).
   (2) Factors for  Calculating Metals
Criteria
CMC=WER exp|mA[ln(hardness)]+bA)
    CCC = WER
    exp(mc[ln(hardness)]+bc)

-------
                          CMC=WER exp|mA[ln(hardness)]+bA!- CCC=WER exp|mc[ln(hardness)]+bci





Nickel 	
Silver 	
niA
1.128
0.9422
0.8190
1.273
0.8460
1.72
0.8473
bA
-3.828
-1.464
3.688
-1.460
3.3612
-6.52
0.8604

0.7852
0.8545
0.8190
1.273
0.8460
0.8473
be
-3.490
-1 .465
1.561
-4.705
1.1645
0.7614
  Note: The term "exp" represents the base e exponential function.
  (c) Applicability.
  (1) The criteria in paragraph (b) of this
section  apply to the States'  designated
uses cited in paragraph (d) of this section
and supersede any criteria adopted by the
State, except when State regulations con-
tain criteria which are more stringent for
a particular use in which case the State's
criteria will continue to apply.
  (2) The criteria established  in this sec-
tion are  subject to the State's  general
rules of applicability in the same way and
to the same extent as are the other numer-
ic toxics criteria when applied to the same
use classifications  including mixing zones,
and low flow values below which numeric
standards can  be exceeded  in flowing
fresh waters.
  (i) For all waters with mixing zone reg-
ulations  or  implementation procedures,
the criteria apply  at the appropriate loca-
tions within or at the boundary  of the
mixing zones; otherwise the criteria apply
throughout  the waterbody including  at
the end of any discharge pipe, canal  or
other discharge point.
   (ii) A  State shall  not  use  a low flow
 value below which numeric standards ca.n
 be exceeded that is less stringent than the
 following for waters suitable for the estab-
 lishment of. low  flow return  frequencies
 (i.e., streams and rivers):
               Aquatic Life

 Acute criteria (CMC)    1 Q 10 or 1 B 3
 Chronic criteria (CCC)  7Q10or4B3
               Human Health
 Non-carcinogens
 Carcinogens
30 Q 5
Harmonic mean flow
  Where:
    CMC—criteria maximum concentra-
  tion—the water quality criteria to protect
  against acute effects in aquatic life and is
  theT highest  instream  concentration of a
  priority toxic  pollutant consisting of a
  one-hour average-not to be exceeded more
than once every three years on the aver-
age;
  CCC—criteria  continuous  concentra-
tion—the water quality criteria to protect
against chronic effects in  aquatic life is
the highest instream concentration  of a
priority toxic pollutant consisting of a 4-
day average not to be exceeded more than
once every three years on the average;
   1 Q 10 is the lowest one day flow with
an  average recurrence frequency of once
in 10 years determined hydrologically;
   1 B 3 is biologically based and indicates
an  allowable exceedence of once every 3
years. It is determined by  EPA's comput-
erized method (DFLOW model);
   7 Q 10 is the lowest average 7  consecu-
tive day low flow with an average recur^
rence frequency of once in 10 years deter-
mined hydrologically;
   4 B 3 is biologically based and indicates
an allowable exceedence for 4 consecutive
days once every 3 years. It is determined
by   EPA's   computerized   method
 (DFLOW model);
   30 Q 5 is the lowest average 30 consec-
 utive day low flow with an average recur-
 rence frequency of once in 5 years deter-
 mined hydrologically; and the harmonic
 mean flow is a long term mean flow value
 calculated by dividing the number of dai-
 ly flows analyzed  by  the sum of  the
 reciprocals of those daily  flows.
    (iii) If a State does not  have such a low
 flow value for numeric standards compli-
 ance, then none shall apply and  the crite-
 ria included in paragraph (d) of this sec-
 tion  herein apply at all flows.
    (3) The aquatic life criteria in the ma-
 trix in paragraph (b) of this section apply
 as follows:
    (i) For  waters  in  which the salinity  is
 equal to or less than 1 part per thousand
 95%  or more of  the time, the applicable
 criteria are the freshwater criteria in Col-
 umn B;
    (ii) For waters in which the salinity is
 equal to or greater than 10 parts per thou-
 sand 95% or more of the time,  the appli-
cable criteria are the saltwater criteria in
Column C; and
  (iii) For waters in which the salinity is
between  1 and 10 parts per thousand as
defined in paragraphs (c)(3) (i) and (ii) of
this section, the applicable criteria are the
more  stringent  of the  freshwater  or
saltwater criteria. However, the Regional
Administrator may approve the use of the
alternative freshwater or saltwater crite-
ria if scientifically defensible  information
and data demonstrate that on a site-spe-
cific basis the biology of the waterbody is
dominated by freshwater aquatic life and
that freshwater criteria are more appro-
priate; or conversely,  the biology of the
waterbody  is  dominated  by saltwater
aquatic life and that saltwater criteria are
more appropriate.
   (4) Application of metals criteria.
   (i) For purposes of calculating freshwa-
ter aquatic life  criteria for metals from
the equations in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section,  the minimum hardness  allowed
for use in those equations shall not be less
 than 25 mg/1, as calcium carbonate, even
 if the actual ambient hardness is less than
 25 mg/1 as calcium carbonate. The maxi-
 mum hardness  value for use  in  those
 equations shall  not exceed  400 mg/1  as
 calcium carbonate, even if the actual am-
 bient hardness  is greater than 400 mg/1
 as calcium carbonate.  The  same  provi-
 sions apply for calculating the metals cri-
 teria for the comparisons provided  for in
 paragraph  (c)(3)(iii) of this section,
   (ii)The  hardness values used shall  be
 consistent with the design discharge con-
 ditions established in paragraph (c)(2) of
 this  section for flows and mixing zones.
    (iii) The criteria for metals (compounds
 #1-#13 in  paragraph (b) of this section)
 are  expressed  as total  recoverable.  For
 purposes of calculating aquatic life crite-
 ria for metals from the equations in foot-
 note  M. in the criteria matrix  in para-
 graph (b)(l) of this section and the equa-
 tions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
 the  water-effect ratio is computed as a

-------
 Specific pollutant's acute or chronic toxici-
 ty values measured in water from the site
 covered  by the standard, divided by the
 respective acute or chronic toxicity value
 in laboratory dilution water. The water-
 efTcct ratio shall be assigned a value of
 1.0, except where the permitting authori-
 ty assigns a  different value that protects
 the  designated uses of the  water  body
 from the toxic effects of the pollutant, and
 is derived from suitable tests on sampled
 water representative of conditions in the
 affected  water body, consistent with the
 design discharge conditions established in
 paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For pur-
 poses of this paragraph, the term acute
 toxicity value is the  toxicity test results,
 such  as  the C6>ncitnl-ra.t/c.jitfjKj-fo one-
 half of the teSt organisms (i.e.,  LC50) af-
 ter 96 hours of exposure (e.g., fish toxicity
 tests) or the effect concentration to one-
 half of the test organisms, (i.e.,  EC50)
 after 48  hours of exposure (e.g., daphnia
 toxicity tests). For purposes of this para-
 graph, the term chronic value is the result
 from appropriate hypothesis testing or re-
 gression analysis of measurements  of
 growth, reproduction, or survival from life
 cycle, partial life cvcle, or early life stage
 tests. The determination of acute and
 chronic values shall  be according to cur-
 rent standard protocols  (e.g., those pub-
 lished by the American  Society for Test-
 ing  Materials (ASTM)) or other compa-
 rable methods. For calculation of criteria
 using site-specific values  for  both  the
 hardness and  the water effect  ratio,  the
 hardness used  in the equations in para-
 graph (b)(2) of this  section shall be as
 required  in paragraph  (c)(4)(ii) of this
 section. Water hardness shall be calculat-
 ed from the measured calcium and mag-
 nesium ions present, and the ratio of calci-
 um to magnesium shall be approximately
 the same in standard laboratory toxicity
 testing water as in the site water.
   (d) Criteria for  Specific  Jurisdic-
 tions—
   (1) Rhode Island. EPA Region I.
   (i) AH  waters assigned to the  following
 use classifications  in  the Water Quality
 Regulations for Water Pollution Control
 adopted under Chapters  46-12, 42-17 1
 and 42-35 of the General Laws of Rhode
 Island are subject to the criteria in para-
 graph (d)(l)(ii) of this  section, without
exception:
                         (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
                       trix in paragraph  (b)(l) of this section
                       apply to the use classifications identified
                       in paragraph (d)(l)(i) of this section:
                         Use classification
                       Class A
                       Class B waters where
                        water supply use is
                        designated

                       Class B waters where
                        water supply use is
                        not designated;
                       Class C;
                       Class SA;
                       Class SB;
                       Class SC
                         Applicable criteria

                       These classifications
                        are assigned the cri-
                        teria in:
                       Column D1—all
                                            Each of these classifi-
                                             cations is assigned
                                             the criteria in:
                                            Column D2—all
                         (iii) The human health criteria shall be
                      applied at the.10'5 risk level, consistent
                      with  the  State policy. To  determine ap-
                      propriate value for carcinogens, see foot-
                      note c in  the criteria matrix in paragraph
                      (b)(l) of this section.
                         (2) Vermont. EPA Region 1.
                         (i) All  waters assigned .to the following
                      use classifications in the Vermont Water
                      Quality Standards adopted under the au-
                      thority  of the Vermont Water Pollution
                      Control Act (10 V.S.A., Chapter 47) are
                      subject  to the  criteria  in  paragraph
                      (d)(2)(ii) of this section, without excep-
                      tion:
                         Class A
                         Class B
                         Class C
                         (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
                      trix in paragraph  (b)(l) of this section
                      apply to the use classifications identified
                      in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section:

                        Use classification
                      Class A
                      Class B waters where
                       water supply use is
                       designated
                      Class B waters where
                       water supply use is
                       not designated
                      Class C
  621 Freshwater

CUss A....................
Class B.,..,,...,,,	,
Class C.........	
  6.22 Saltwater:

Class SA
Class SB
Class SC
                                             Applicable criteria
                      This  classification  is
                       assigned the criteria
                       in:
                      Column B1—all
                      Column B2—all
                      Column 01—all
                                           These classifications
                                             are assigned the cri-
                                             teria in:
                                           Column B1—all
                                           Column B2—all
                                           Column D2—all
  (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed 10'6 risk lev-
el.
    (3) New Jersey, EPA Region 2.
    (i) All waters assigned to the following
 use classifications in the New Jersey Ad-
 ministrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:9-4.1 et
 seq., Surface Water  Quality Standards,
 are subject to the  criteria  in paragraph
 (d)(3)(ii) of this  section,  without excep-
 tion.
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.12(b): Class PL
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.12(c): Class FW2
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.12(d): Class SE1
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.12(e): Class SE2
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.12(0: Class SE3
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.12(g): Class SC
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.13(a):  Delaware River
     Zones 1C, ID, and IE
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.13(b):  Delaware River
     Zone 2
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.13(c):  Delaware River
     Zone 3
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.13(d):  Delaware River
     Zone 4
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.13(e):  Delaware River
     Zone 5
 N.J.A.C.  7:9-4.13(f):  Delaware River
     Zone 6
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
 trix in paragraph  (b)(l) of  this section
 apply to the use classifications identified
 in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section:

   Use classification       Applicable criteria

 PL (Freshwater Pine-   These  classifications
  lands), FW2            are assigned the cri-
                       teria in: Column
                      B1-all except #102,
                       105, 107,  108,  111,
                       112, 113,  115,  117,
                       118.
                      Column B2—all excep
                       #105, 107, 108, 111,
                       112, 113,  115,  117,
                       118, 119,  120,  121,
                       122, 123,  124, and
                       125.
                      Column  D1-all at a
                       10-8 risk level except •
                       #23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
                       68,  89, 91, 93,  104,
                       105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
                       42,  68, 89, 91,  93,
                       104,  105, at a  10-*
                       risk level.
                      Column D2—all at a
                       10-' risk level except
                       #23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
                       68, 89, 91, 93,  104,
                       105; 23, 30, 37,  38,
                       42,  68, 89, 91,  93,
                       104, 105, at a 10-»
                       risk level.
PL (Saline Water Pine-   These  classifications
 lands),  SE1, SE2,     are assigned the cri-
 SE3, SC               teria in:

-------
  Use classification
Delaware River zones
  1C, 1D, 1E, 2, 3, 4, 5
  and Delaware  Bay
  zone 6
  Applicable criteria

Column C1—all except
  #102, 105, 107, 106,
  111, 112, 113,  115,
  117, and 118.
Column C2—all except
  #105, 107, 108, 111,
  112, 113, 115,  117',
  118, 119, 120,  121,
  122, 123, 124, and
  125.
Column  D2—all  at a
  10-* risk level except
  #23, 30, 37, 38, 4!>,
  68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
  105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
  42,  68, 89,  91, 93,
  104, 105; at a 10-B
  risk level.
These classifications
  are assigned the cri-
  teria in:

Column B1—all
Column B2—all
Column D1—all at  a
  10-' risk level except
  #23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
  68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
  105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
  42, 68,  89, 91, 93,
  104, 105, at a 10-6
  risk level.
Column D2—all at  a
  10-$ risk level except
  #23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
  68, 89, 91, 93, 104.
  105; #23,30,37,38,
  42, 68, 89, 91, 93.
  104, 105, at a 10-5
  risk level.
 These  classifications
  are assigned the cri-
  teria in:
 Column C1—all
 Column C2—all
 Column D2—all at a
  10-' risk level except
  #23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
  68, 89,  91, 93, 104,
  105; #23, 30,  37, 38,
  42, 68, 89, 91, 93,
  104, 105, at a 10-6
  risk level.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
 applied at the State-proposed 10'6 risk lev-
 el  for EPA  rated Class  A, BI, and B2
 carcinogens;  EPA rated Class C carcino-
 gens shall be applied at 10'5 risk level. To
 determine  appropriate value for carcino-
 gens, see footnote c. in the matrix in para-
 graph (b)(l) of this section.
   (4) Puerto Rico, EPA Region 2.
   (i) All waters assigned to the following
 use classifications in the Puerto Rico Wa-
 ter Quality  Standards  (promulgated by
 Resolution Number  R-83-5-2)  are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(4)(ii)
of this section, without exception.
  Article 2.2.2—Class SB
  Article 2.2.3—Class SC
  Article 2.2.4—Class SD
  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph  (b)(l)  of this  section
apply to  the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section:

  Use classification        Applicable criteria
Delaware River zones
  3,4, and 5, and Dela-
  ware Bay zone 6
 Class SD               This Classification is
                        assigned the criteria
                        in:
                       Column  B1—all,  ex-
                        cept:  10, 102, 105,
                        107,  108, 111, 112,
                        113,  115,  117, and
                        126.
                       Column  B2—all,  ex-
                        cept: 105,  107, 108,
                        112, 113,  115, and
                        117.
                       Column  D1—all,  ex-
                        cept: 6, 14, 105, 112,
                        113, and 115.
                       Column  D2—all,  ex-
                        cept:  14, 105, 112,
                        113, and 115.
 Class SB, Class SC  ;    This. Classification  is
                        assigned the criteria
                        in:
                       Column C1—all, ex-
                        cept 4, 5b, 7, 8, 10,
                        11,13,102,105,107,
                        108, 111,  112, 113,
                        115, 117, and 126.
                       Column C2—all, ex-
                        cept:  4, 5b, 10, 13,
                        108, 112,  113, 115,
                        and 117.
                       Column D2—all, ex-
                        cept:  14,  105. 112,
                         113, and 115.
    (iii) The human health criteria shall be
 applied at the State-proposed 10"5 risk lev-
 el. To determine appropriate value  for
 carcinogens, see footnote c, in the criteria
 matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
    (5) District of Columbia, EPA Region
 3.                                ,
    (i) All waters assigned to the following
 use classifications in chapter  li  Title 21
 DCMR, Water Quality Standards  of the
 District of Columbia are subject  to  the
 criteria  in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this sec-
 tion, without exception:
    1101.2 Class C waters
    (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
 trix  in  paragraph  (b)(l) of  this section
 apply to the use classification identified in
 paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section:
  Use classification       Applicable criteria

Class C                This classification  is
                        assigned  the  addi-
                        tional criteria in:
                      Colum  B2—#10, 118,
                        126.
                      Colum  D1—#15,  16,
                        44,-67, 68,79, 80,81,
                        88, 114, 116, 118.
                      Colum  D2—all.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10"6 risk lev-
el.
   (6) Florida, EPA Region 4.
   (i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in Chapter  17-301  of
the Florida  Administrative Code  (i.e.,
identified in Section 17-302.600) are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)
of this section, without exception:
   Class I
   Class II
   Class III
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix paragraph (b)(l) of this section apply
to the  use  classifications identified  in
paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section:
                                                                                          Use classification

                                                                                        Class I
                                                                                        Class II
 Class III (marine)
 Class III (freshwater).
                         Applicable criteria

                       This classification is
                         assigned the criteria
                         in:
                       Column D1— #16
                       This classification is
                         assigned the criteria
This classification  is
  assigned the criteria
  in:
Column D2— #16
    (iii) The human health criteria shall be
 applied at the State-adopted 10'6 risk lev-
 el.
   (7) Michigan, EPA  Region 5.
   (i) All  waters assigned to the  following
 use  classifications in  the Michigan  De-
 partment of Natural Resources  Commis-
 sion General  Rules,  R 323.1100 designat-
 ed uses, as defined at R 323.1043. Defini-
 tions;  A to N, (i.e., identified in Section
 (g) "Designated use") are subject  to the
 criteria in paragraph (d)(7)(ii) of this sec-
 tion, without exception:
   Agriculture
   Navigation
   Industrial  Water  Supply
   Public Water Supply at the Point  of
      Water Intake
   Warmwater Fish

-------
   Other  Indigenous  Aquatic Life and
     Wildlife
   Partial Body Contact Recreation
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph  (b)(l)  of  this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section
   USB classification        Applicable criteria
Public Water supply
AH other designations
This  classification is
  assigned the criteria
  In:
   Column B1— all,
     Column B2—all,
     Column D1—all.
These classifications
  are assigned the cri-
  teria in:
   Column 81— all.
   Column B2—all,
     and
   Column D2—all.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10'5 risk lev-
el. To determine appropriate  value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
   (8) Arkansas, EPA Region 6.
   (i) All waters assigned to the following
use  classification  in  section   4C
(Watcrbody uses) identified in Arkansas
Department  of Pollution Control  and
Ecology's Regulation No. 2 as amended
and entitled, "Regulation  Establishing
Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas" are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)
of this section, without exception:
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Ecologically Sensitive Walcrbody
Natural and Scenic Waterways
Rsheries:
(I) Trout
(2) Lakes and Reservoirs
(3) Streams
   (a) Ozark Highlands Ecoregion
   (b) Boston Mountains Ecoregion
   (c) Arkansas  River Valley Ecoregion
   (d) Ouachita  Mountains Ecoregion
   (e) Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion
   (f)  Spring  Water-influenced Gulf
     Coastal Ecoregion
   (g) Least-altered Delta Ecoregion
   (h) Channel-altered Delta Ecoregion
Domestic Water Supply
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix  in  paragraph (b)(l) of this section
apply to the use classification identified in
paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section:
  Use classification

Extraordinary  Re-
 source Waters
Ecologically Sensitive
 Waterbody
Natural  and Scenic
 Waterways
Rsheries:
   (1) Trout
   (2) Lakes and Res-
    ervoirs
   (3) Streams
    (a) Ozark  High-
      lands Ecore-
      gion
    (b) Boston Moun-
      tains Ecoregion
    (c) Arkansas Riv-
      er     Valley
      Ecoregion
    (d)   Ouachita
      Mountains
      Ecoregion
    (e) Typical  Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
    (f) Spring Water-
      influenced Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
    (g) Least-altered
      Delta. Ecore-
      gion
    (h)  Channel-al-
      tered  Delta
      Ecoregion
                                            Applicable criteria
                                          These uses are each
                                            assigned the criteria
                                            in—
                                             Column B1— #4,
                                               5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
                                               10, 11, 13, 14
                                             Column B2— #4,
                                               5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
                                               10, 13, 14
                       (9) Kancas. EPA Region 7.  '
                       (i) All waters assigned to the following
                     use classification in the  Kansas Depart-
                     ment  of Health and Environment regula-
                     tions, K.A.R. 28-16-28b through K.A.R.
                     28-16-28f, are subject to the criteria  in
                     paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section, with-
                     out exception.
                     Section 28-16-28d
                       Section (2) (A)—Special Aquatic Life
                         Use Waters
                       Section (2)(B)—Expected Aquatic
                         Life Use Waters
                       Section  (2) (C)—Restricted Aquatic
                         Life Use Waters
                       Section (3)—Domestic Water Supply
                       Section (6)(c)—Consumptive  Recre-
                         ation Use.
                       (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
                     trix in  paragraph  (b)(l) of this section
                     apply to the  use classifications identified
                     in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section:
   Use classification       Applicable criteria

     Sections  (2)(A),   These classifactions
      (2)(B),  (2)(C),    are each assigned all
      (6)(C)            criteria in:
                          Column B1, all
                            except #9, 11,
                            13,  102,  105,
                            107,    108,
                            111-113,  115,
                            117, and 126;
                          Column B2, all
                            except #9, 13,
                            105, 107,  108,
                            111-113,  115,
                            117,  119-125,
                            and 126; and
                          Column D2, all
                            except   #9,
                            112,  113,  and
                            115.
 Section (3)             This classification is
                       assigned all criteria
                       in;
                          Column D1, all
                            except #9, 12,
                            112,  113,  and
                            115.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed 10'6 risk lev-
el.
   (10) California, EPA Region 9.
   (i) All waters assigned any aquatic life
or human health use classifications in the
Water Quality Control Plans for the vari-
ous  Basins of the State ("Basin Plans"),
as amended,  adopted  by the California
State Water Resources Control  Board
("SWRCB"),  except  for  ocean waters
covered  by the  Water Quality Control
Plan for Ocean  Waters  of  California
("Ocean Plan") adopted by the SWRCB
with resolution Number 90-27 on March
22,  1990, are  subject  to the criteria in
paragraph  (d)(10)(ii)  of this  section,
without exception. These criteria amend
the  portions of the  existing State stan-
dards contained in the Basin Plans.  More
particularly these criteria  amend water
quality criteria contained  in the Basin
Plan Chapters  specifying  water quality
objectives (the State equivalent of federal
water quality criteria) for the toxic pollu-
tants identified  in paragraph  (d)(10)(ii)
of this section.  Although the State  has
adopted several  use designations for each
of these waters, for  purposes  of this ac-
tion, the specific standards to be applied
in paragraph  (d)(10)(ii) of this section
are based on the presence in all waters of
some aquatic life designation  and  the
presence or absence of the MUN use des-
ignation  (Municipal  and domestic  sup-
ply). (See Basin Plans  for  more detailed
use definitions.)

-------
  Other Indigenous Aquatic Life  and
    Wildlife
  Partial Body Contact Recreation
  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in  paragraph  (b)(l) of this  section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section
  Use classification       Applicable criteria
Public Water supply
All other designations
This  classification is
  assigned the criteria
  in:
   Column  B1—all.
     Column B2—all,
     Column D1—all.
These classifications
  are assigned the cri-
  teria in:
   Column B1—all,
   Column  B2—all,
     and
   Column D2—all.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10'5 risk lev-
el. To determine appropriate  value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
   (8) Arkansas, EPA Region 6.
   ([) All waters assigned to the  following
use  classification  in  section  4C
(Watcrbody us.cs) identified in Arkansas
Department  of Pollution Control  and
Ecology's Regulation No. 2 as  amended
and entitled,  "Regulation  Establishing
Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas" are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph  (d)(8)(ii)
of this section,  without exception:
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody
Natural and Scenic Waterways
 Fisheries:   "~
(1)  Trout
 (2)  Lakes and  Reservoirs
(3)  Streams
   (a)  Ozark Highlands Ecoregion
   (b)  Boston Mountains Ecoregion
   (c)  Arkansas River Valley Ecoregion
   (d)  Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion
   (e)  Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion
   (f)  Spring  Water-influenced  Gulf
     Coastal Ecoregion
   (g)  Least-altered Delta Ecoregion
   (h)  Channel-altered Delta  Ecoregion
 Domestic Water Supply
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
^trix in paragraph (b)(l) of this  section
'apply to the use classification identified in
 paragraph  (d)(8)(i) of this section:
  Use classification

Extraordinary  Re-
 source Waters
Ecologically Sensitive
 Waterbody
Natural  and Scenic
 Waterways
Fisheries:
   (1) Trout
   (2) Lakes and Res-
     ervoirs
   (3) Streams
     (a) Ozark High-
      lands Ecore-
      gion
     (b) Boston Moun-
      tains Ecoregion
     (c) Arkansas Riv-
      er    Valley
      Ecoregion
     (d)   Ouachita
      Mountains
      Ecoregion
     (e) Typical Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
     (f) Spring Water-
      influenced  Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
     (g) Least-altered
      Delta  Ecore-
      gion
     (h)  Channel-al-
      tered   Delta
       Ecoregion
                                            Applicable criteria
                                           These uses  are each
                                            assigned the criteria
                                            in—
                                              Column B1— #4,
                                                5a, 5b,  6, 7, 8, 9,
                                                10,11,13,14
                                              Column B2— #4,
                                                5a, 5b,  6, 7, 8, 9,
                                                10, 13,  14
                        (9) Kansas, EPA Region 7,
                        (i) All waters assigned to the following
                      use classification in the Kansas Depart-
                      ment of Health and Environment regula-
                      tions, K.A.R. 28-16-28b through K.A.R.
                      28-16-28f, are subject to the criteria  in
                      paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section, with-
                      out exception.
                      Section 28-16-28d
                        Section (2)(A)—Special Aquatic  Life
                           Use Waters
                        Section  (2)(B)—Expected  Aquatic
                           Life Use Waters
                        Section  (2)(C)—Restricted  Aquatic
                           Life Use Waters
                        Section (3)—Domestic Water Supply
                        Section  (6)(c)—Consumptive Recre-
                           ation Use.
                        (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
                      trix in  paragraph  (b)(l)  of  this section
                      apply to the use classifications identified
                      in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section:
  Use classification       Applicable criteria

    Sections  (2)(A),   These classifactions
      (2)(B),  (2)(C),     are each assigned all
      (6)(C)             criteria in:
                          Column B1, all
                           except #9, 11,
                           13,  102,  105,
                           107,    108,
                           111-113,  115,
                           117, and 126;
                          Column B2, all
                           except #9, 13,
                           105,  107,  108,
                           111-113,  115,
                           117,  119-125,
                           and 126; and
                          Column D2, all
                           except   #9,
                           112,  113, and
                           115.
Section (3)             This classification is
                       assigned all criteria
                       in;
                          Column D1, all
                           except #9, 12,
                           112,  113, and
                           115.
  (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed 1 Cr6 risk lev-
el.
  (10) California, EPA Region 9.
  (i) All waters assigned any aquatic life
or human health use classifications in the
Water Quality Control Plans for the vari-
ous  Basins of the State ("Basin Plans"),
as amended,  adopted  by the California
State  Water Resources Control  Board
("SWRCB"), except  for  ocean waters
covered by the  Water Quality Control
Plan  for Ocean Waters  of  California
("Ocean Plan")  adopted by the  SWRCB
with resolution Number 90-27 on March
22,  1990,  are subject to the criteria in
paragraph  (d)(10)(ii) of this section,
without exception. These criteria amend
the  portions  of  the  existing  State  stan-
dards  contained in the Basin Plans. More
particularly  these  criteria amend  water
quality criteria  contained in the  Basin
Plan Chapters  specifying  water quality
objectives (the State equivalent of federal
water quality criteria)  for the toxic pollu-
tants  identified in paragraph  (d)(10)(ii)
of this section.  Although  the State has
adopted several use designations for each
of these waters, for purposes of this  ac-
tion, the specific standards to be applied
in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of  this section
are  based on the presence in all waters of
some  aquatic life  designation  and the
presence or absence of the MUN use des-
ignation (Municipal  and  domestic sup-
ply). (See Basin Plans for more detailed
use  definitions.)

-------
   (if) The following criteria from the ma-   defined  in paragraph  (d)(10)(i)  of this
 trix  in paragraph (b)(l)  of this section   section and identified below:
 apply  to the water and use classifications

                                   Water and use classification

 Waters ol the State defined as bays or estuaries except the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San
  Francisco Bay
 Waters of the Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta and waters of the State defined as inland (i.e., all surface
  wators ol tha State not bays or estuaries or ocean) that include a MUN use designation
Waters o( tha State defined as inland without an MUN use designation
Waters ol tha San Joaquin River from the mouth of the Merced River to Vernahs
Waters of Salt Stough. Mud Slough (north) and the San Joaquin River, Sack Dam to the mouth of the
  Merced River
Wators ol San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta
AN Inland waters of the United States or enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the United States
  that Include an MUN use designation and that the State has either excluded or partially excluded from
  coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or
  Its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has
  deferred applicability of those tables. (Category (a), (b), and (c) waters described on page 6 of Water
  Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of its Water Quality Control Plan for
  Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.)
AN Mind waters of the United States that do not include an MUN use designation and that the State has
  eniw excluded  or partially excluded from coverage  under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland
  Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicability of these tables. (Category (a),
  (b). and (c) waters described on page 6 of Water Quality Control Plan Inland Surface Waters of California)
             Applicable criteria
                                                                                                  These waters are assigned the criteria in:
                                                                                                       Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
                                                                                                       Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
                                                                                                       Column C1—pollutant 14
                                                                                                       Column C2—pollutant 14
                                                                                                       Column D2—pollutants 1, 12, 17, 18, 21,
                                                                                                        22, 29, 30,32, 33, 37, 38,42-44, 46, 48,
                                                                                                        49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90,
                                                                                                        91.93,95,96, 98
These waters are assigned the criteria in:
     Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column D1—pollutants, 1,12,15,17,18,
       21, 22,29,30,32,33, 37,38, 42-48,49,
       59, 66, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95,
       96,98

These waters are assigned the criteria in:
     Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column D2—pollutants 1, 12, 17, 18, 21,
       22, 29, 30, 32,33, 37, 38,42-44, 46,48,
       49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68,78-82,85, 89,90,
       91,93,95,96,98

In addition to the criteria assigned to these wa-
  ters elsewhere in this rule, these waters  are
  assigned the criteria in:
     Column 82—pollutant 10
In addition to the criteria assigned to these wa-
  ters elsewhere in this rule, these waters are
  assigned the criteria in:
     Column  B1—pollutant 10
     Column  B2—pollutant 10

These waters are assigned the criteria in:
     Column  B1—pollutants 5a, 10' and 14
     Column  B2—pollutants 5a, 10' and 14
     Column  C1—pollutant 14
     Column  C2—pollutant 14
     Column  D2—pollutants 1, 12, 17, 18, 21,
      22, 29, 30,32,33, 37,38,42-44, 46, 48,
      49, 54; 59, 66, 67, 68,78-82, 85, 89, 90,
      91,93,95,96,98
                                                                                                 These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
                                                                                                   lutants for which the State does not apply
                                                                                                   Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria are: .
                                                                                                      Column B1—all pollutants
                                                                                                      Column B2—all pollutants
                                                                                                      Column D1—all pollutants except #Z

-------
                                Water and use classification
                                                                                                       Applicable criteria
                                                                                           These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
                                                                               i  .            lutants for which the State does not apply
                                                                       L«S'V*fc  "*          Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria are:
                                                                                                Column B1—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column B2—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column D2—all pollutants except #2
All enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the United States^nd that the State has either excluded
  or partially excluded from coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of
  California, Tables 1 and 2, or its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California,
  Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicability of those tables. (Category (a), (b), and (c) waters described
  on page 6 of Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of its Water
  Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.)                                ^^ ^^ m assigned ^ criteria for po,.

                                                                                             lutants for which  the State  does not apply
                                                                                             Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria are:
                                                                                                Column  B1—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column  B2—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column  C1—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column  C2—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column  02—all pollutants except #2

   • The fresh water selenium criteria are included for the San Francisco Bay estuary because high levels of bioaccumulation of selenium in the estuary indicate
 that the salt water criteria are underprotective for San Francisco Bay.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
 applied at the State-adopted 10"6 risk lev-
 el.
   (11) Nevada, EPA Region 9.
   (I) All waters assigned the use classifi-
 cations in Chapter 445 of the Nevada Ad-
 ministrative Code (NAC),  Nevada Water
 Pollution Control Regulations, which are
                                 Water and
  referred  to in paragraph  (d)(ll)(ii)  of
  this section, are subject to the criteria in
  paragraph  (d)(ll)(ii)  of  this  section,
  without exception. These criteria amend
  the existing State standards contained in
  the Nevada Water Pollution Control Reg-
  ulations. More particularly, these criteria
  amend or supplement the table of numer-

use  classification
ic standards  in NAC  445.1339 for the
toxic pollutants identified  in paragraph
(d)(ll)(ii) of this  section.
  (ii) The following criteria from matrix
in paragraph (b)(l) of this section apply
to  the  waters defined  in  paragraph
(d)(ll)(i) of this section and  identified
below:
               Applicable criteria
 Waters that the State has included in NAC 445.13159 where Municipal or domestic supply is a designated
   use
 Waters that the State has included in NAC 445.1339 where Municipal or domestic supply is not a designat-
   ed use
                                                                                            These waters are assigned the criteria in:
                                                                                                 Column Bi—pollutant #118
                                                                                                 Column B2-^pollutant #118
                                                                                                 Column D1—pollutants  #15, 16, 18, 19,
                                                                                                   20,21, 23,26,27, 29,30,34,37,38,42.
                                                                                                   43, 55,58-62.64, 66,73,74,78.82, 85,
                                                                                                   87-89, 91, 92, 96, 98, 100,  103. 104.
                                                                                                   105,114.116,117, 118
    (iii) The human health criteria shall be
  applied at the  10'5 risk level, consistent
  with State policy. To determine appropri-
  ate value for carcinogens, see footnote c in
  the criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of
  this section.
    (12) Alaska.  EPA Region 10.
    (i)  All waters assigned to the following
  use classifications in the Alaska Adminis-
  trative  Code (AAC),  Chapter  18  (i.e.,
  identified in 18 AAC 70.020) are subject
  to the criteria in paragraph (d)(12)(ii) of
  this section, without exception:
  70.020.(1) (A)  Fresh Water
  70.020.(1) (A)  Water Supply
      (i)  Drinking, culinary, and food  pro-
        cessing,
      (iii) Aquaculture;
   70.020.0)  (B) Water Recreation
      (i) Contact recreation,
      (ii) Secondary recreation;
   70.020.(1)  (C)  Growth and propagation
        of fish,  shellfish, other  aquatic life,
        and  wildlife
   70.020.(2)  (A) Marine Water
   70.020.(2)  (A) Water Supply
      (i) Aquaculture,
   70.020.(2)  (B) Water Recreation
      (i) contact recreation,
      (ii) secondary recreation;
   These waters are assigned the criteria in:
        Column B1—pollutant #118
        Column B2—pollutant #118
        Column D2—all pollutants except #2.


 70.020.(2) (C) Growth  and  propagation
      of fish,  shellfish,  other aquatic life,
      and wildlife;
 70.020.(2) (D) Harvesting for consump-
      tion  of  raw  mollusks  or other raw
      aquatic life.
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
 trix' in paragraph  (b)(l) of this  section
 apply  to  the use  classifications identified
 in paragraph (d)(12)(i)  of  this section:

   Use classification        Applicable criteria

 (1)(A) i                      Column B1—all
                            Column
                              B2—#10
                            Column D1

-------
  lisa classification
(1XA)W
(1KB) I, (1KB) li, (IRC)
(2XA)(. taXBJi. and
  (2XBJ8, (2XC), (2X0)
Applicable criteria
#'s2. 16. 18-21,
23, 26. 27. 29,
30. 32, 37. 38,
42-44. 53. 55,
CQ_CO CIA RC
99~O£, O*t, DO,
68. 73. 74, 78,
82. 85, 88. 89.
91-93, 96, 98,
102-105,
1 O7 — 1 1 1
1 U / — 1 1 1,
117-126
Column B1 — all
Column
B2— #10
Column DX
#'s 2. 14, 16.
18-21, 22, 23.
26. 27, 29, 30.
32, 37. 38.
42-44, 46, 53.
54, 55, 59-62,
64, 66. 68. 73,
74, 78. 82. 85,
88-93, 95, 96,
98, 102-105!
107-111.
115-126
Column B1 — all
Colum n
B2— #10
Column D2
#'s 2, 14. 16,
18-21, 22, 23,
26, 27. 29. 30,
32, 37, 38,
42-44, 46. 53.
54. 55. 59-62,
ex RC co 7«a
Q4| DO, DO, * O,
74, 78, 82. 85,
88-93, 95. 96,
98. 102-105.
107-111,
115-126
Column C1 — all
Colu m n
po attin
Wfc"~~rr IU
Column O2
#'s 2, 14, 16.
18-21 22 23
OR 07 OQ on
£O, £f . £a, Ou,
32, 37 38
42-44, 46. 53!
54, 55, 59-62

64, 66. 68. 73,
74. 78, 82. 85,
88-93. 95, 96.
98, 102-105,
107-111.
115-126
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed risk level of
10'5. To determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
(13) Idaho. EPA Region 10.
(i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Idaho Adminis-
trative Procedures Act (IDAPA), Chap-
ter 16 (i.e., identified in IDAPA
16.01.2100,02-16.01.2100,07) are subject
to the criteria in paragraph (d)(13)(ii) of
this section, without exception:
16.01.2100.01.b. Domestic Water Sup-
plies
16.01.2100.02.3. Cold Water Biota
16.01.2100.02.b. Warm Water Biota
16.01.2100.02cc. Salmonid Spawning
16.01.2100.03.a. Primary Contact Recre-
cition

1 6.0 1.21 00.03. b Secondary Contact Rec-
reation
(ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(13)(i) of this section:

Use classification Applicable criteria
01 .b This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column 01 — all
except #14
and 115
O2.a O2.b 02.cc These classifications
are assigned the cri-
tria in*
ina in.
Column B1 — all
Column B2 — all
Column D2 — all
03. a This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column D2 — all
O3.b This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column D2 — all


(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the 10"6 risk level, consistent
with State policy.
  (14) Washington. EPA Region 10.

  (i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Washington Ad-
ministrative Code (WAC),  Chapter
173-201  (i.e.,  identified   in  WAC
173-201-045) are subject  to the criteria
in paragraph (d)(14)(ii) of this section,
without exception:

173-201-045

  Fish and Shellfish

  Fish

  Water Supply (domestic)

  Recreation

  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix  in  paragraph (b)(l)  of this  section
apply to the use  classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(14)(i) of this section:
                                                                                         Use classification

                                                                                       Fish and Shellfish; Fish
                        Applicable criteria

                      These classifications
                       are assigned the cri-
                       teria in:
                           Column B1
                                                                                      Water Supply (domes-
                                                                                        tic)
                                                                                       Recreation
                          Column D2—all
                      These  classifictions
                       are assigned the cri-
                       teria in:
                          Column D1—all
                      This classification is
                       assigned the criteria
                       in:
                          Column  D2 —
                            Marine waters
                            and
                            freshwaters
                            not  protected
                            for  domestic
                            water supply
                                                                                         (iii) The human health criteria shall be
                                                                                       applied at the State proposed risk level of
                                                                                       io-6.

                                                                                       [§131.36 added at 57 FR 60910, Dec. 22,
                                                                                       1992]

-------
          APPENDIX B
        Chronological Summary of
      Federal Water Quality Standards
          Promulgation Actions
I
R
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
           SECOND EDITION

-------
                                               liiklililll
                                                                    •  I   •,  „!,•  , fr  :tii|lll!:)'i:i9IIIB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                                                                ii'"' 'i	in, in;:,. i it; i •, •:"!>•': ;• MCI-	, ;i:   !', i ~ iiattmHminr"fiMmif-mimifam:iMif mm •;mtm	i aix: ifiBii
::,	,4^,1	^	i,	'	^	'i±^	iki,  III    	SA	..i	!i^              	i

-------
                                     Appendix B - Summary of Federal Promulgation Actions
     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              OF1B1CE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
           STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION

                             JANUARY 1993

                   CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF
              FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
                       PROMULGATION ACTIONS

  STATE        DATE   STATUS REFERENCE      ACTION
1.  Kentucky       12/2/74   Final     39 FR 41709 Established statement in WQS
                                              giving EPA Administrator authority
                                              to grant a temporary exception to
                                              stream classification and/or criteria
                                              after case-by-case studies. Also,
                                              established statement that streams
                                              not listed in the WQS are
                                              understood to be classified as
                                              Aquatic Life and criteria for this
                                              use to be met.

2*.  Arizona       6/22/76   Final     41 FR 25000 Established nutrient standards for
                                              11 streams.

3.   Nebraska      6/6/78   Final     43 FR 24529 Redesignated eight stream segments
                                              for full body contact recreation and
                                              three for partial body contact
                                              recreation and the protection of fish
                                              and wildlife.

4.   Mississippi    4/30/79   Final     44 FR 25223 Established dissolved oxygen
                                              criterion for all water uses
                                              recognized by the State.
                                              Established criterion for a daily
                                              average of not less than 5.0 mg/1
                                              with a daily instantaneous minimum
                                              of not less than 4.0 mg/1.
(9/15/93)                                                                 B-l

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  5.  Alabama        11/26/79 Proposed   44 FR 67442 Proposal to reestablish previously
                                                       approved use classifications for
                                                       segments of four navigable
                                                       waterways, Five Mile Creek,
                                                       Opossum Creek, Valley Creek,
                                                       Village Creek, and upgrade the use
                                                       designation of a segment of Village
                                                       Creek from river mile 30 to its
                                                       source.

  6.   Alabama        2/14/80   Final     45 FR 9910   Established beneficial stream use
                                                       classification for 16 streams:  8
                                                       were designated for fish and
                                                       wildlife, 7 were upgraded to  a fish
                                                       and wildlife classification,  1 was
                                                       designated as agricultural and
                                                       industrial water supply.  Proposed
                                                       streams classification rulemaking
                                                       for 7 streams withdrawn.

 7.  North Carolina  4/1/80     Final    45 FR 21246  Nullified a zero dissolved oxygen
                                                       standard variance in a segment of
                                                       Welch Creek and reestablished the
                                                       State's previous standard of 5  mg/1
                                                       average, 4 mg/1 minimum,  except
                                                       for lower concentrations caused by
                                                      natural swamp conditions.

 8-   ohio            11/28/80   Final     45 FR 79053  (1) Established water use
                                                      designation, (2) establish a DO
                                                      criterion of 5 mg/1 for warmwater
                                                      use, (3) designated 17 streams as
                                                      warmwater habitat, (4) placed  111
                                                      streams downgraded by Ohio into
                                                      podified warmwater habitat, (5)
                                                      revised certain provisions relating
                                                      to mixing zones (principally on
                                                      Lake Erie), (6) revised low  flow
                                                      and other exceptions to standards,
                                                      (7) amended sampling and
                                                      analytical protocols, and  (8)
                                                      withdrew EPA proposal to establish
                                                      a new cyanide criterion.

9.  Kentucky       12/9/80    Final     45 FR 81042  Withdrew the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)                action of 12/2/74 after adoption of
                                                      ppropriate water quality standards
                                                      by the State.


                                                                                (9/15/93)

-------
                                           Appendix B - Summary of Federal Promulgation Actions
 10.  North Carolina   11/10/81   Final     46 FR 55520 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)               action of 4/1/80 following State
                                                     adoption of a dissolved oxygen
                                                     criterion consistent with the
                                                     Federally promulgated standard.

 11.  Ohio            2/16/82    Final     47 FR 29541 Withdrew Federal promulgation of
                          (withdrawal)               11/28/80 because it was based on a
                                                     portion of the water quality
                                                     standards regulation that has been
                                                     determined to be invalid.

 12.  Nebraska        7/26/82    Final     47 FR 32128 Withdrew Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)               action of 6/6/78 after adoption of
                                                     appropriate water quality standards
                                                     by the State.

 13.  Alabama        11/26/82   Final     47 FR 53372 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)               action of 2/14/80 following State
                                                     adoption of requirements consistent
                                                     with the Federally promulgated
                                                     standard.

 14.  Idaho           8/20/85    Proposed 50 FR 33672 Proposal to replace DO criterion
                                                     downstream from dams, partially
                                                     replace Statewide ammonia
                                                     criterion, replace ammonia criterion
                                                     for Indian Creek, and delete
                                                     categorical exemption of dams from
                                                     Antidegradation Policy.

 15.  Mississippi      4/4/86     Final     51 FR 11581 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)               of 4/30/79 following State adoption
                                                     of requirements consistent with the
                                                     Federally promulgated standard.

 16.  Idaho          7/14/86    Final     51 FR 25372 Withdrew portions of proposed rule
                          (withdrawal)               to replace DO criterion
                                                     downstream from dams and delete
                                                     categorical exemptions of darns
                                                     from antidegradation rule since
                                                     State adopted acceptable standards
                                                     in both instances.

 17.  Kentucky       3/20/87    Final     50 FR 9102   Established a chloride criterion of
                                                     600 mg/1 as a 30-day average, not
                                                     to exceed a maximum of 1,200
                                                     mg/1 at any time.


(9/15/93)                                                             "             B^3

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 18. Idaho
 19*.Coleville
     Indian
     Reservation

 20.  Kentucky
21'.12 States
    2 Territories
22.  Washington
7/25/88   Final    53 FR 27882 Withdrew portion of proposed rule
      (withdrawal)               which would have established a
                                Statewide ammonia criterion and a
                                site-specific ammonia criterion
                                applicable to lower Indian Creek
                                since State adopted acceptable
                                standards.
7/6/89    Final
54 FR 28622 Established designated uses and
             criteria for all surface waters
             on the Reservation.
4/3/91    Final    56 FR 13592 Withdrew the Federal promulgation
      (withdrawal)               of 3/20/87 after adoption of
                                appropriate WQS by the State.
12/22/92  Final
57 FR 60848  Established numeric water quality
             for toxic pollutants (aquatic life and
             human health).
7/6/93    Final    58 FR 36141  Withdrew, in part, the Federal
      (withdrawal)               Promulgation of 12/22/92 after
                                adoption of appropriate criteria by
                                the State.
* Final federal rule remains in force
          SUMMARY OF FEDERAL PROMULGATION ACTIONS
    Total Number of Proposed or Final Rules

    Final Standards Promulgated

    Withdrawal of Final Standards

    Federal Rules Remaining In Force

    No Action Taken on Proposals or Proposal Withdrawn
                                                   22

                                                   10

                                                   8

                                                   3

                                                   3
B-4
                                                                             (9/15/93)

-------
          APPENDIX C
           Biological Criteria:
       National Program Guidance
           for Surface Waters
I
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
           SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                                                                                                          Ill III  II  111 Illl ill I  HI
                                                                         i	Vt	7KW^^
                                                                                         li;i                             	IJMillH^
if
til!  .
Still
                   '/ K    kiln'i;1!1'  ;i   "!!•
;r:!r!:^l!li;'r
-------
vvEPA
United States       Office of Water          EPA-440/5-90-004
Environmental Protection  Regulations and Standards (WH-585) April 1990
Agency	Washington, DC 20460	




Biological Criteria
                 National Program Guidance

                 For Surface Waters

-------

-------
Biological Criteria
National Program Guidance for
         Surface Waters
          Criteria and Standards Division
        Office of Water Regulations and Standards
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
             401 M Street S.W.
           Washington D.C 20460

-------
                            Contents
Acknowledgments   	iv
Dedication	iv
Definitions	v
Executive Summary	vii
                                                                        *

Fart I: Program Elements
1.   Introduction	3
    Value of Biological Criteria   	4
    Process for Implementation	6
    Independent Application of Biological Criteria	7
    How to Use This Document	7
2.   Legal Authority  	9
    Section303    	9
    Section 304    	10
    Potential Applications Under the Act	•	10
    Potential Applications Under Other Legislation	10
3.   The Conceptual Framework	13
    Premise for Biological Criteria	13
    Biological Integrity	14
    Biological Criteria	 14
       Narrative Criteria %	.15
       Numeric Criteria  	16
    Refining Aquatic Life Use Classifications  	17
    Developing and Implementing Biological Criteria  	18
                                      ii

-------
4.   Integrating Biological Criteria in Surface Water Management	21
    Implementing Biological Criteria	21
    Biological Criteria in State Programs   	22
    Future Directions	24

Part II: The Implementation Process

5.   The Reference Condition	27
    Site-specific Reference Condition	28
        The Upstream-Downstream Reference Condition	28
        The Near Field-Far Field Reference Condition    	28
    The Regional Reference Condition  	29
        Paired Watershed Reference Condition   	29
        Ecoregional Reference Condition  .  .	29

6.   The Biological Survey   	33
    Selecting Aquatic Community Components	34
    Biological Survey Design   	35
        Selecting the Metric	35
        Sampling Design  	36
7.   Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method   	37
     Hypothesis Testing	37
     Diagnosis   	38


References	43
Appendix A: Common Questions and Their Answers	45
 Appendix B: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Technical Reference Guide	  49

 Appendix C: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Development By States	51
 Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers	53
                                           Hi

-------
                               Acknowledgments
   Development of this document required the combined effort of ecologists, biologists, and policy makers from States, EPA
Regions, and EPA Headquarters. Initial efforts relied on the 1988 document Report of the National Workshop on Instream
Bidoyical Monitoring and Criteria that summarizes a 1987 workshop sponsored by the EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards,  EPA Region V, and EPA Environmental  Research Laboratory-Corvallis.-ln December 1988, contributing and
reviewing committees were established (see Appendix D). Members provided reference materials and commented on drafts.
Their assistance was most valuable.
   Special recognition goes to the Steering Committee who helped develop document goals and made a significant contribu-
tion toward the final guidance. Members of the Steering Committee include:
                       Robert Hughes, Ph.D.              Chris Yoder
                       Susan Davies                    Wayne Davis
                       John Maxted                     Jimmie Overton
                       James Plafkin, Ph.D.               Dave Courtemanch
                       PhilLarsen,Ph.D.
   Finally, our thanks go to States that recognized the importance of a biological approach in standards and pushed forward
independently to incorporate biological criteria into their programs. Their guidance made this effort possible. Development of
the program guidance document was sponsored by the U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards and developed, in
part, through U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3533 to Dynamac Corporation. Thanks to Dr. Mark Southerlandfor his technical
assistance.
                                      Suzanne K. Macy Marcy, Ph.D.
                                      Editor
                                       In Memory of

                         James  L.  Plafkin,  Ph.D.
                                                iv

-------
                              Definitions
       To effectively use biological criteria, a clear understanding of how these criteria are developed and ap-
       plied in a water quality standards framework is necessary. This requires, in part, that users of biological
       criteria start from the same frame of reference. To help form this frame of reference, the following defini-
tions are provided. Please consider them carefully to ensure a consistent interpretation of this document.
Definitions
a An AQUATIC COMMUNITY is an association of in-
  teracting populations of aquatic organisms in a given
  waterbody or habitat.

Q A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of
  the biological condition of a waterbody using biologi-
  cal surveys and other direct measurements of resi-
  dent biota in surface waters.

d BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA, or biocriteria, are numeri-
  cal values or narrative expressions that describe the
  reference biological integrity of aquatic communities
  inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life
  use.

Q BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY is functionally defined as
  the condition .of the aquatic community inhabiting
  unimpaired waterbodies of a specified habitat as
  measured by community structure aind function.

Q BIOLOGICAL MONITORING is the use of a biologi-
  cal entity as a detector  and its response as a
  measure  to determine environmental conditions.
  Toxicity tests ..and biological surveys  are common
  biomonitoring methods.

Q A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, or biosurvey, consists of
  collecting, processing and analyzing representative
   portions  of a resident aquatic community to deter-
   mine the community structure and function.

 Q A COMMUNITY COMPONENT is any portion of a
   biological community. The community component
   may  pertain to  the taxomonic group (fish, inver-
   tebrates, algae), the taxonomic  category  (phylum,
   order, family, genus,  species), the feeding strategy
  (herbivore, omnivore,  carnivore) or organizational
  level (individual, population, community association)
  of a biological entity within the aquatic community.

Q REGIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIMILARITY describe
  a relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity
  of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegeta-
  tion, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant vari-
  able. Regions of ecological similarity help define the
  potential  for designated  use  classifications of
  specific waterbodies.

G DESIGNATED USES are those uses specified in
  water quality standards for each waterbody or  seg-
  ment whether or not they are being attained.

a An IMPACT is a change in the chemical, physical or
  biological quality or condition of a waterbody caused
  by external sources.

Q An IMPAIRMENT is  a detrimental  effect on the
  biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an im-
  pact that prevents attainment of the designated .use.
  i A POPULATION is an aggregate of interbreeding in-
   dividuals of a biological species within a specified
   location.
 Q A WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
   of the condition of a waterbody using biological sur-
   veys, chemical-specific analyses of pollutants  in
   waterbodies, and toxicity tests.

 Q An ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
   of the condition of a waterbody using water quality
   and physical habitat assessment methods.

-------
             Executive  Summary
       The Clean Water Act (Act) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
       programs that will evaluate, restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in-
       tegrity of the Nation's waters. In response to this directive, States and EPA implemented
chemically based  water quality programs that successfully addressed significant water pollution
problems. However, these programs alone cannot identify or  address all surface water pollution
problems. To create a more comprehensive program, EPA is setting a new priority for the develop-
ment of biological water quality criteria. The initial phase of this program directs State adoption of
narrative biological criteria as part of State water quality standards. This effort will help States and
EPA achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act set forth in Section 101 and comply with statutory
requirements under Sections 303 and 304. The Water Quality Standards Regulation provides additional
authority for biological criteria development.
   In accordance  with priorities established in the FY 2991 Agency Operating Guidance, States are to
adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 trien-
nium. To support this priority, EPA is developing a Policy on  the  Use of Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program and is providing this program guidance document on biological
criteria.
   This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological
criteria. Future guidance documents will provide  additional technical information  to facilitate
development and implementation of narrative and numeric criteria for each of the surface water
types.
   When implemented, biological criteria will  expand  and improve water quality standards
programs, help identify impairment of beneficial uses, and help set program priorities. Biological
criteria are valuable because they directly measure  the condition of the resource  at risk, detect
problems that other methods may miss or underestimate, and provide a systematic process for
measuring progress resulting from the implementation of water quality programs.
                                         vii

-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

   Biological criteria require direct measurements of the structure and function of resident aquatic
communities to determine biological integrity and ecological function. They supplement, rather than
replace chemical and toxicological methods. It is EPA's policy that biological survey methods be fully
integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment methods and that chemical-specific criteria,
whole-effluent toxicity evaluations and biological criteria be used as independent evaluations of non-
attainment of designated uses.
   Biological criteria are narrative expressions or numerical values that describe the biological in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given aquatic life use. They are developed
under the assumptions that surface waters impacted by antnropogenic activities may contain im-
paired aquatic communities (this greater the impact the greater the expected impairment) and that
surface waters not impacted by anthropogenic activities are generally not impaired. Measures of
aquatic community structure and function in unimpaired surface waters functionally define biologi-
cal integrity and form the basis for establishing the biological criteria.
    Narrative biological criteria are definable statements of condition or attainable goals for a given
use  designation. They establish a positive statement about aquatic community characteristics ex-
pected to occur within a waterbody (e.g., "Aquatic life shall be as it naturally occurs" or "A natural
variety of aquatic life shall be present and all functional groups well represented"). These criteria can
be developed using existing information. Numeric criteria describe the expected attainable com-
 munity attributes and establish values based on measures such as species richness, presence or ab-
 sence of indicator taxa, and distribution of classes of organisms. To implement narrative criteria and
 develop numeric criteria, biota in reference waters must be carefully assessed. These are used as the
 reference values to determine if, and to what extent, an impacted surface waterbody is impaired.
     Biological criteria support designated aquatic life use classifications for application in standards.
 The designated use determines the benefit or purpose to be derived from the waterbody; the criteria
 provide a measure to determine.1 if the use is impaired. Refinement of State water quality standards to
 include more detailed language* about aquatic life is essential to fully implement a biological criteria
 program. Data collected from biosurveys can identify consistently distinct characteristics among
 aquatic communities inhabiting different waters with the same designated use. These biological and
 ecological characteristics  may be used to define separate categories within a designated use, or
 separate one designated use into two or more use classifications.
     To develop values for biological criteria, States should (1) identify unimpaired reference water-
 bodies to establish the reference condition and  (2) characterize the aquatic communities inhabiting
 reference surface waters. Currently, two principal approaches are used to establish reference sites: (1)
 the site-specific approach, which may require upstream-dpwnstream or near field-far field evalua-
 tions, and  (2) the regional approach, which identifies similarities in the physico-chemical charac-
 teristics of watersheds that influence aquatic ecology. The basis for choosing reference sites depends
 on classifying the habitat type and locating unimpaired (minimally impacted) waters.
                                             viii

-------
                                                                              Exacutiv* Summary
    Once reference sites are selected, their biological integrity must be evaluated using quantifiable
 biological surveys. The success of the survey will depend in part on the careful selection of aquatic
 community components (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, algae). These components should serve as ef-
 fective indicators of high biological integrity, represent a range of pollution tolerances, provide pre-
 dictable, repeatable results, and be readily identified by trained State personnel. Well-planned quality
 assurance protocols are required to reduce variability in data collection and to assess the natural
 variability inherent in aquatic communities. A quality survey will include multiple community com-
 ponents and may be measured using a variety of metrics. Since multiple approaches are available,
 factors to  consider  when choosing possible approaches for  assessing biological integrity are
 presented in this document and will be further developed in future technical guidance documents.
    To apply biological criteria in a water  quality standards program,  standardized sampling
 methods and statistical protocols must be used. These procedures must be sensitive enough to iden-
 tify significant differences between established criteria and tested communities. There are three pos-
 sible outcomes from hypothesis testing using these analyses: (1) the use is impaired, (2) the biological
 criteria are met, or (3) the outcome is indeterminate. If the use is impaired, efforts to diagnose the
 cause(s) will help determine appropriate action. If the use is not impaired, no action is required based
 on these analyses. The outcome will be indeterminate if the study design or evaluation was incom-
 plete. In this case, States would need to re-evaluate their protocols.
    If the designated use is impaired, diagnosis is the next step. During diagnostic evaluations three
 main impact categories must be considered: chemical, physical, and biological stress. Two questions
 are posed during initial diagnosis: (1) what are obvious potential causes of impairment, and (2) what
 possible causes do the biological data suggest? Obvious potential causes of impairment are often
 identified during normal field biological assessments. When an impaired use cannot be easily related
 to an obvious cause, the diagnostic process becomes investigative and iterative. Normally the diag-
 noses of biological impairments are relatively straightforward; States can use biological criteria to
 confirm impairment from a known source of impact.
    There is considerable State interest in integrating biological assessments and criteria in water
 quality management programs. A minimum of 20 States now use some form of standardized biologi-
 cal assessments to determine the status of biota in State waters.  Of these, 15 States are developing
biological assessments for future criteria development. Five States use biological criteria to define
 aquatic life use classifications and to enforce water quality standards. Several States have established
narrative biological criteria in their standards. One State has instituted numeric biological criteria.
    Whether a State is just beginning to establish narrative biological criteria or is developing a fully
 integrated biological  approach, the programmatic expansion  from source control  to  resource
management represents a natural progression in water quality programs. Implementation of biologi-
cal criteria will provide new options for expanding the scope and application of ecological perspec-
tives.
                                             IX

-------
           Parti
Program Elements

-------

-------
                         Introduction
       The principal objectives of the Clean Water
       Act are "to restore and maintain the chemi-
       cal, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters" (Section 101). To achieve these ob-
jectives, EPA, States, the regulated community, and
the pubjic need comprehensive information about
the ecological  integrity of  aquatic environments.
Such information will help us identify waters requir-
ing special protection and those that will benefit most
from regulatory efforts.
    To meet the objectives of the Act and to comply
with statutory requirements under Sections 303 and
304, States are to adopt biological criteria in  State
standards. The Water Quality Standards Regulation
provides  additional authority for this effort. In ac-
cordance with the FY 1991  Agency Operating
Guidance, States and qualified  Indian tribes are to
adopt  narrative biological criteria into  State  water
quality standards  during the FY  1991-1993  trien-
nium.  To support  this effort, EPA is developing a
 Policy on the  Use of Biological Assessments and
 Criteria in the Water Quality Program and providing
this program  guidance document on  biological
 criteria.
    Like  other water quality criteria, biological cri-
 teria  identify water quality impairments,  support
 regulatory controls  that  address water  quality
 problems,  and  assess improvements in  water
 quality from regulatory efforts. Biological criteria are
 numerical  values  or narrative  expressions that
 describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
 communities inhabiting  waters of a given  desig-
 nated aquatic life use. They are developed through
Anthropogenic impacts, including point source
discharges, nonpoint runoff, and habitat degradation
continue to impair the nation's surface waters.
the direct measurement of aquatic community com-
ponents inhabiting unimpaired surface waters.
    Biological  criteria complement current pro-
grams. Of the three objectives identified in the Act
(chemical, physical, and biological integrity), current
water quality programs focus on direct measures of

-------
               Nttioml Prognm Guldanc*
 chemical integrity (chemical-specific and whole-ef-
 fluent toxicity) and, to some degree, physical in-
 tegrity through several  conventional criteria  (e.g.,
 pH, turbidity,, dissolved oxygen). Implementation of
 these programs has  significantly improved water
 quality. However, as we learn more about  aquatic
 ecosystems it is apparent that  other sources  of
 watarbody impairment exist. Biological impairments
 from diffuse sources and habitat degradation can be
 greater than those caused by point source dischar-
 ges (Judy et al. 1987; Miller et al. 1989). In Ohio,
 evaluation of Instream biota indicated that  36 per-
 cent of  impaired stream segments could  not be
 detected using chemical  criteria alone (see  Fig. 1).
 Although effective  for  their purpose,  chemical-
 specific  criteria and whole-effluent toxicity  provide
 only indirect evaluations and protection of biological
 integrity (see Table 1).
    To  effectively  address  our  remaining water
 quality  problems we need  to develop more in-
 tegrated and comprehensive evaluations. Chemical
 and physical integrity are necessary, but not  suffi-
 cient conditions to attain  biological integrity,  and
 only when  chemical, physical, and biological in-
 tegrity are achieved, is ecological integrity possible
 (see Fig. 2). Biological criteria provide an essential
 third element  for water  quality management  and
 serve  as   a  natural  progression  in  regulatory
 programs. Incorporating  biological criteria  into a
 fully Integrated program directly protects the  biologi-
 cal integrity of  surface waters and provides  indirect
 protection for chemical and physical integrity (see
 Table 2). Chemical-specific criteria, whole-effluent
 toxicity evaluations, and  biological criteria, when
 used together, complement the relative strengths
 and weaknesses of each approach.
 Figure 1.—Ohio Biosurvey Results Agree with
 Instream Chemistry or Reveal Unknown Problems

             Impairment identification
 Chemical Evaluation Indicate
 No Impairment: Biosurvey
 Show Impairment
Biosurvey Show No
Impairment; Chemical
Evaluation Indicates
Impairment
Chemical Prediction
& Biosurvey Agree
Fig. 1: In an intensive survey, 431 sites in Ohio were assessed
using instream chemistry and biological surveys. In 36% of
the cases, chemical evaluations implied no impairment but
biological survey evaluations showed impairment. In 58% of
the cases the chemical and biological assessments agreed.
Of these, 17% identified waters with no impairment, 41 %
identified waters which were considered impaired. (Modified
from Ohio EPA Water Quality Inventory, 1988.)

    Biological  assessments  have  been  used  in
biomonitoring programs by States for many years.
In this respect, biological  criteria  support earlier
work.  However, implementing biological criteria in
water  quality  standards  provides  a systematic,
structured,  and objective  process  for  making
decisions  about compliance with  water  quality
standards. This distinguishes biological criteria from
earlier use of biological information  and increases
the value of biological data in regulatory programs.
Table 1.—Currant Watw Quality Program Protection of the Three Elements of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF ECOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY
Chemical Integrity
Physical Integrity
Biological Integrity
PROGRAM THAT DIRECTLY
PROTECTS
Chemical Specific Criteria (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (toxics)
Criteria for Conventionals
(pH, DO. turbidity)

PROGRAM THAT INDIRECTLY
PROTECTS


Chemical/Whole Effluent Toxicity
(biotic response in lab)
Table 1: Current programs focus on chemical specific and whole-effluent toxicity evaluations. Both are valuable approaches
tor the direct evaluation and protection of chemical integrity. Physical integrity is also directly protected to a limited degree
through criteria for conventional pollutants. Biological integrity is only indirectly protected under the assumption that by
evaluating toxicity to organisms in laboratory studies, estimates can be made about the toxicity to other organisms inhabiting
ambient waters.

-------
                                                                                   Chapter 1;
Table 2.—Water Quality Programs that Incorporate Biological Criteria to Protect Elements Of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Chemical Integrity
Physical Integrity
Biological Integrity
DIRECTLY PROTECTS
Chemical Specific Criteria (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (toxics)
Criteria for conventionals (pH, temp.,
DO)
Biocriteria (biotic response in surface
water)
INDIRECTLY PROTECTS
Biocriteria (identification of
impairment)
Biocriteria (habitat evaluation)
i
Chemical/Whole Effluent Testing
(biotic response in lab)
Table 2' When biological criteria are incorporated into water quality programs the biological integrity of surface waters may-
be directly evaluated and protected. Biological criteria also provide additional benefits by requiring an evaluation of physical
integrity and providing a monitoring tool to assess the effectiveness of current chemically based criteria.
 Figure 2.—The Elements of Ecological Integrity
 Fig. 2: Ecological Integrity is attainable when  chemical,
 physical, and biological integrity occur simultaneously.
  Value of Biological

  Criteria

      Biological criteria provide an  effective tool for
  addressing  remaining water quality problems by
  directing  regulatory efforts  toward  assessing  the
  biological resources at risk from chemical, physical
  or biological impacts. A primary strength of biologi-
  cal criteria is the detection of waiter quality problems
  that other  methods  may miss or  underestimate.
  Biological criteria can be used to determine to what
  extent current regulations are protecting the use.
    Biological  assessments   provide   integrated
evaluations of water quality. They can  identify im-
pairments from contamination of the water column
and sediments from unknown or unregulated chemi-
cals,  non-chemical impacts, and altered physical
habitat.  Resident  biota  function  as  continual
monitors of  environmental quality, increasing the
likelihood of detecting the effects of episodic events
(e.g., spills, dumping, treatment plant malfunctions,
nutrient enrichment), toxic nonpoint source pollution
(e.g., agricultural pesticides),  cumulative pollution
(i.e.,  multiple impacts over time or continuous low-
level  stress), or other impacts that periodic chemical
sampling is unlikely to detect. Impacts on the physi-
cal habitat such  as sedimentation from stormwater
runoff and  the  effects  of  physical or structural
habitat  alterations  (e.g., dredging, filling,  chan-
nelization) can also be detected.
    Biological criteria require the direct measure of
resident aquatic community structure and function
to determine biological integrity and ecological func-
tion. Using  these measures, impairment  can  be
 detected  and  evaluated without knowing  the im-
 pact^) that may cause tha impairment.
     Biological  criteria provide a regulatory frame-
 work for  addressing water  quality  problems and
 offer additional benefits, including providing:
     • the  basis for characterizing high quality
       waters and identifying habitats and
       community components requiring special
       protection under State anti-degradation
       policies;
      • a framework for deciding 319 actions for best
       control of  nonpoint source pollution;

      • an evaluation of surface water impairments
       predicted  by chemical analyses, toxicity

-------
 BtofogtaJ Critarta: National Program Guidance
      testing, and fate and transport modeling (e.g.,
      wasteload allocation);.
     • improvements In water quality standards
      (Including refinement of use classifications);
     • a process for demonstrating improvements in
      water quality after implementation of pollution
      controls;

     • additional diagnostic tools.

     Tha role of biological criteria as a regulatory tool
 is being realized in some States  (e.g., Arkansas,
 Maine, Ohio, North Carolina,  Vermont). Biological
 assessments and criteria have been useful for
 regulatory, resource protection, and monitoring and
 reporting  programs.  By  incorporating biological
 criteria in programs, States can improve standards
 setting and  enforcement, measure  impairments
 from permit violations, and refine wasteload alloca-
 tion models.  In addition, the location,  extent, and
 type of biological impairments measured in a water-
 body provide valuable information needed for iden-
 tifying  the cause of impairment and  determining
 actions required to improve water quality. Biological
 assessment and criteria programs provide a cost-
 effective method for evaluating water quality when a
 standardized, systematic approach to study design,
 field  methods,  and data  analysis  is  established
 (Ohio EPA 1988a).


 Process for

 Implementation

    The implementation of biological criteria will fol-
low the same process used for  current chemical-
                                  specific and whole-effluent toxicity applications: na-
                                  tional guidance produced by U.S. EPA will support
                                  States working to establish State standards for the
                                  implementation of regulatory programs (see Table
                                  3). Biological criteria differ, however, in the degree
                                  of State involvement  required. Because  surface
                                  waters vary significantly from region to region, EPA
                                  will provide guidance on acceptable approaches for
                                  biological criteria development rather than specific
                                  criteria with numerical limitations. States are to es-
                                  tablish  assessment  procedures,  conduct  field
                                  evaluations, and determine criteria values to imple-
                                  ment biological criteria in State standards and apply
                                  them in regulatory programs.
                                     The degree  of State involvement  required in-
                                  fluences how biological criteria will be implemented.
                                  It is  expected that  States  wiH implement these
                                  criteria in phases.

                                     •  Phase I  includes the development and adop-
                                        tion  of narrative biological criteria into  State
                                        standards  for  all  surface waters (streams,
                                        rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries). Definitions
                                        of terms and expressions in the narratives
                                        must be  included in these standards (see the
                                        Narrative Criteria Section, Chapter 3).  Adop-
                                        tion  of narrative biological criteria in State
                                        standards  provides  the legal and program-
                                        matic basis for using ambient biological sur-
                                       veys and assessments in regulatory actions.

                                     •  Phase II includes the development of an  im-
                                       plementation plan.  The plan should include
                                       program  objectives, study design, research
                                       protocols, criteria for selecting reference con-
                                       ditions and community components,  quality
                                       assurance  and  quality control  procedures,
Table 3.—Process for Implementation of Water Quality Standards.
CRITERIA

EPA GUIDANCE
Pollutant specific numeric criteria
STATE IMPLEMENTATION
State Standards
• use designation
• numeric criteria
• antidegradation
STATE APPLICATION
Permit limits Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteload allocation
Narratlva Free Forms    Whole effluent toxicity guidance
Biological
Biosurvey minimum requirement
guidance
Water Quality Narrative
• no toxic amounts .translator

State Standards
• refined use
• narrative/numeric criteria
• antidegradation
Permit limits Monitoring
Wasteload allocation
Best Management Practices

Permit conditions Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteload allocation
 ^L^LfiT1'3/^,^^1,03!,^.60!1'0 criteria and whole effluent toxicity evaluations. EPA is providing guidance to States for
the adoption of biological criteria into State standards to regulate sources of water quality impairment   '

-------
                                                                               Chapter 1: introduction
     and training for State personnel. In Phase II,
     States are to develop plans necessary to im-
     plement biological  criteria for each  surface
     water type.

   • Phase III requires full implementation and in-
     tegration of biological criteria in water quality
     standards. This requires using biological sur-
     veys to derive biological criteria for classes of
     surface waters and designated uses. These
     criteria  are then used  to  idemtify nonattain-
     ment of designated uses and make regulatory
     decisions.


    Narrative biological criteria cat be developed
for all five surface water classifications with little or
no data collection. Application of narrative criteria in
seriously degraded waters is possible  in the  short
term. However, because of the diversity of surface
waters and the biota that inhabit these waters, sig-
nificant planning, data collection, and evaluation will
be  needed to fully implement the program. Criteria
for each type of surface water are  likely to be
developed  at different rates.  The order and rate of
development will depend, in part, on the  develop-
ment of EPA guidance for specific types of surface
water.  Biological criteria technical guidance for
streams will be produced during Pf 1991. The ten-
tative order for future technical guidance documents
includes guidance for rivers (FY 1992), lakes (FY
 1993), wetlands (FY 1994) and estuaries (FY 1995).
This order and timeline for guidance does not reflect
the relative importance of these surface waters, but
 rather indicates the relative  availability of research
 and   the   anticipated   difficulty  of  developing
 guidance.
 Independent Application

 of Biological Criteria

     Biological  criteria  supplement,  but do not
 replace, chemical and toxicological methods. Water
 chemistry methods are necessary to predict risks
 (particularly to human health and wildlife), and  to
 diagnose,  model, and  regulate important  water
 quality problems. Because  biological criteria are
 able to detect different types of water quality impair-
 ments and, in particular, have different levels of sen-
 sitivity for detecting certain types  of  impairment
compared to toxicological methods, they are not
used in lieu of, or in conflict with, current regulatory
efforts.
    As with all criteria, certain limitations to biologi-
cal criteria make independent application essential.
Study  design and use influences how sensitive
biological criteria are for detecting community im-
pairment. Several factors  influence sensitivity:  (1)
State decisions about what is significantly different
between reference and test communities, (2)  study
design, which may include community components
that are not sensitive to the impact causing impair-
ment,  (3) high natural  variability that makes  it dif-
ficult  to detect real differences, and (4) types  of
impacts that may  be  detectable sooner by  other
methods (e.g., chemical criteria may provide earlier
indications of impairment from a bioaccumulative
chemical because aquatic communities require ex-
 posure over time to incur the full effect).
    Since each  type of criteria (biological criteria,
 chemical-specific criteria, or whole-effluent toxicity
 evaluations)  has  different  sensitivities and pur-
 poses, a criterion may fail to detect real impairments
 when used alone. As a result, these methods should
 be used together in an integrated water quality as-
 sessment, each providing an independent evalua-
 tion of nonattainment  of  a designated use.  If  any
 one type of criteria indicates impairment of the sur-
 face water,  regulatory action  can be taken  to im-
 prove water quality. However, no one type of criteria
 can  be used to  confirm attainment of  a  use if
 another form of  criteria indicates  nonattainment
 (see Hypothesis Testing:  Biological Criteria and the
 Scientific Method, Chapter 7).  When  these three
 methods are used together, they provide a powerful,
 integrated, and effective foundation for waterbody
 management and regulations.
  How to Use  this

  Document

      The purpose of this document is to provide EPA
  Regions, States and  others with the conceptual
  framework  and assistance necessary to develop
  and implement narrative  and numeric  biological
  criteria and to promote national consistency in ap-
  plication. There are two main parts of the document.
  Part One (Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4) includes the es-
  sential concepts about what biological criteria are
                                                  7

-------
 Sfcfcgfca/Crfterfi: Ntltawi Pmgnm Guidanc*


 and how they are used in regulatory programs. Part
 Two (Chapters 5, 6, and 7) provides an overview of
 the process  that is essential for implementing a
 State biological criteria program. Specific chapters
 include the following:

 Parti: PROGRAM ELEMENTS

  Q Chapter 2, Legal Authority, reviews the legal
    basis for biological criteria under the Clean
    Water Act and includes possible applications
    under the Act and other legislation.

  Q Chapters, Conceptual Framework,
    discusses the essential program elements for
    biological criteria, including what they are and
    how they are developed and used within a
    regulatory program. The development of
    narrative biological criteria is discussed in this
    chapter.

  Q Chapter 4, Integration, discusses the use of
    biological criteria in regulatory programs.

Part II: THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

  Q Chapter 5, The  Reference Condition,
    provides a discussion on alternative forms of
    reference conditions that may be developed by
    a State based on circumstances and needs.

  Q Chapter 6, The Biological Survey, provides
    some detail on the elements of a quality
    biological survey.

  Q Chapter 7, Hypothesis Testing: Biological
    Criteria and the Scientific Method, discusses
    how biological surveys are used to make
    regulatory and diagnostic decisions.

  Q Appendix A Includes commonly asked
    questions and their answers about biological
    criteria.
    Two additional  documents are planned in the
 near term to supplement  this  program guidance
 document.

    1. "Biological   Criteria  Technical  Reference
       Guide* will contain a cross reference of tech-
       nical papers on  available  approaches and
       methods  for  developing  biological criteria
       (see tentative table of contents in Appendix
       B),

    2. "Biological Criteria Development by State?
       will  provide a summary of different  mecha-
       nisms several States have used to implement
       and apply biological  criteria in water quality
       programs (see tentative outline in Appendix
       C).

    Both documents are planned for FY 1991. As
previously discussed, over the next triennium tech-
nical guidance for specific systems (e.g., streams,
wetlands) will be developed to provide guidance on
acceptable biological assessment procedures to fur-
ther support State implementation of comprehen-
sive programs.
    This biological criteria program guidance docu-
ment supports development and implementation of
biological criteria by providing guidance to States
working to comply  with requirements under  the
Clean Water Act and the Water  Quality Standards
Regulation. This guidance is not regulatory.

-------
                                Chapter  2
                    Legal  Authority
      The Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution
      Control  Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of
      1977, and the Water Quaility Act of 1987)
mandates State development of criteria based on
biological assessments of natural ecosystems.
   The  general  authority for biological  criteria
comes from Section 101 (a) of the Act which estab-
lishes as the objective of the Act the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the Nation's waters. To meet this ob-
jective, water quality criteria must include criteria to
protect  biological integrity. Section 101 (a) (2) in-
cludes the interim water quality goal for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Propagation includes the full  range of biological
conditions  necessary  to  support  reproducing
populations of all forms of aquatic life and other life
that depend on aquatic systems.  Sections  303 and
304 provide specific directives foir the development
of biological criteria.
 Section 303

    Under Section 303(c) of the Act, States are re-
 quired to adopt protective water quality standards
 that consist of uses, criteria, and antidegradation.
 States are to review these standards every three
 years and to revise them as needed.
    Section 303 (c) (2) (A) requires the adoption of
 water quality standards that"... serve the purposes
 of the Act," as  given  in Section  101.  Section
 303(c)(2)(B), enacted in 1987, requires States to
Balancing the legal authority for biological criteria.


adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants for which
EPA has published 304(a)(1) criteria. The section
further requires that, where numeric 304(a) criteria
are not available, States should adopt criteria based
on biological  assessment and monitoring methods,
consistent with information oublished by EPA under
304(a)(8).
    These specific directives do not serve to restrict
the use of biological criteria in other settings where
they may be helpful. Accordingly, this  guidance
document provides  assistance  in  implementing
various sections of the Act, not just 303 (c) (2) (B).

-------
              Uttioncl Prognm Quidanc*
 Section  304

    Section  304(a)  directs  EPA  to  develop  and
 publish water quafity  criteria  and information on
 methods for measuring  water quality and estab-
 lishing water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on
 bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant, including
 biological monitoring  and  assessment methods
 which assess:

    • the effects of pollutants on aquatic community
      components ("... plankton, fish, shellfish,
      wildlife, plant life...") and community
      attributes ("... biological community diversity,
      productivity, and stability..."); in any body of
      water and;

    * factors necessary"... to restore and
      maintain the chemical, physical, and
      biological integrity of all navigable waters..."
      for"... the protection of shellfish, fish, and
      wildlife for classes and categories of receiving
      waters.. ."
Potential Applications

Under the Act

   Development and use of biological criteria will
help States to meet other requirements of the Act,
including:

  Q setting planning and management priorities for
    waterbodies most in need of controls
    [Sec. 303(d)J;

  Q determining impacts from nonpoint sources
    P.O., Section 304(f) '(1) guidelines for
    identifying and evaluating the nature and
    extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and
    (2) processes, procedures, and methods to
    control pollution..."].

  Q biennial reports on the extent to which waters
   support balanced biological communities
    [Sec. 305(b)J;

  Q assessment of lake trophic status and trends
   [Sec. 314];
   Q lists of waters that cannot attain designated
     uses without nonpoint source controls
     [Sec. 319];

   a development of management plans and
     conducting monitoring in estuaries of national
     significance [Sec. 320];

   Q issuing permits for ocean discharges and
     monitoring ecological effects [Sec. 403(c) and
     301(h)(3)];

   Q determination of acceptable sites for disposal
     of dredge and fill material [Sec. 404];
Potential Applications

Under Other Legislation

    Several legislative acts require an assessment
of risk to the environment (including resident aquatic
communities) to determine the need for regulatory
action. Biological criteria can be used in this context
to support EPA assessments under:

  a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976

  a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    (RCRA),

  a Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
    (CERCLA),

  a Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
    Act Of 1986 (SARA),

  a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
    RodenticideAct (FIFRA);

  a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

  a Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
    (FLPMA).

  a The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980

  a Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
    Act

  a Coastal Zone Management Act
                                             10

-------
                                                                              Chapters: Legal Authority
  3 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

  3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
    Amended in 1965

   A summary of the applicability of these Acts for
assessing ecological impairments may be found in
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund-Environ-
mental Evaluation Manual (Interim Final) 1989.
   Other  federal  and State  agencies  can also
benefit from using biological criteria to evaluate the
biological  integrity of surface waters  within their
jurisdiction and to the effects of specific practices on
surface water quality. Agencies that could benefit in-
clude:

  3  Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and
     Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
     Bureau of Mines, and Bureau of Reclamation,
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
     Management, and National Park Service),

  a Department of Commerce (National Oceanic
     and Atmospheric Administration, National
     Marine Fisheries Service),

  3 Department of Transportation (Federal
     Highway Administration)

   3 Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest
     Service, Soil Conservation Service)

   3 Department of Defense,

   G Department of Energy,

   3 Army Corps of Engineers,

   3 Tennessee Valley Authority.
                                                 11

-------

-------
                              Chapter  3
   The   Conceptual Framework
      Biological integrity and the determination of
      use impairment through assessment of am-
      bient biological communities form the foun-
dation  for biological  criteria development. The
effectiveness  of a biological critefia program will
depend on the development of quality criteria, the
refinement of use  classes  to support narrative
criteria, and careful application of scientific prin-
ciples.
Premise for Biological

Criteria

   Biological criteria are based on the premise that
the structure and function of an aquatic biological
community within a specific habitat provide critical
information about the quality of surface waters. Ex-
isting aquatic communities in pristine environments
not subject  to anthropogenic  impact  exemplify
biological integrity and serve as the best possible
goal  for water quality. Although pristine environ-
ments  are  virtually  non-existent (even  remote
waters are impacted by air pollution), minimally im-
pacted waters exist. Measures of the structure and
function of aquatic communities inhabiting unim-
paired  (minimally impacted)  waters provide the
basis for establishing a reference condition that may
be compared to the condition of impacted surface
waters to determine impairment.
   Based on this premise, biological  criteria are
developed under the assumptions that: (1) surface
waters  subject to anthropogenic disturbance may
contain impaired populations or communities  of
aquatic organisms—the greater the anthropogenic
Aquatic communities assessed in unimpaired
waterbodies (top) provide a reference for evaluating
impairments in the same or similar waterbodies suffering
from increasing anthropogenic impacts (bottom).
                                         13

-------
               Mttiofml Progam Grtfenc*
 disturbance, the greater the  likelihood and mag-
 nitude of impairment; and (2) surface waters not
 subject to anthropogenic disturbance generally con-
 tain unimpaired  (natural) populations  and com-
 munities of aquatic organisms exhibiting biological
 integrity.
the basis for establishing water quality goals for
those  waters. When tied  to  the  development  of
biological criteria,  the  realities of  limitations on
biological integrity  can be considered  and incor-
porated  into a  progressive  program  to improve
water quality.
Biological  Integrity

    The expression "biological integrity" is used in
the Clean Water Act to define the Nation's objec-
tives for water quality. According to Webster's New
World Dictionary (1966), integrity is, "the quality or
state  of being complete; unimpaired." Biological in-
tegrity has been defined as "the ability of an aquatic
ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, in-
tegrated, adaptive community of organisms having
a species composition, diversity, and functional or-
ganization comparable to that of the natural habitats
within a region" (Karr and Dudley 1981). For the pur-
poses of biological criteria, these concepts are com-
bined   to  develop  a   functional  definition  for
evaluating biological integrity  in  water quality
programs. Thus, biological integrity is functionally
defined as:

      the condition of the aquatic community
      inhabiting the unimpaired waterbodies
      of a specified habitat as measured by
      community structure and function.

    It wilt often be difficult to find unimpaired waters
to define biological integrity and establish the refer-
ence condition. However, the structure and function
of aquatic communities of high quality waters can be
approximated in  several ways. One is to charac-
terize  aquatic communities in the most  protected
waters  representative of the regions where such
sites  exist. In areas where few or no unimpaired
sites  are  available," characterization of  least im-
paired systems approximates unimpaired systems.
Concurrent analysis  of historical  records should
supplement descriptions of the condition of least im-
paired systems. For some systems, such as lakes,
evaluating paleoecotogical  information (the record
stored in sediment profiles) can provide a measure
of less disturbed conditions.
    Surface waters, when inhabited by aquatic com-
munities, are exhibiting  a degree  of biological in-
tegrity.  However,  the   best  representation  of
biological integrity for a surface water should form
Biological Criteria

    Biological criteria are narrative expressions or
numerical values that describe the biological in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a
given designated aquatic life use. While biological
integrity  describes  the  ultimate  goal for water
quality, biological criteria are based on aquatic com-
munity structure and function for waters within a
variety of designated uses. Designated aquatic life
uses serve as general statements of attained or at-
tainable uses of State waters. Once established for
a designated use, biological criteria are quantifiable
values used to determine whether a use is impaired,
and if so, the level of impairment. This is done by
specifying what aquatic  community structure  and
function should exist in waters of a given designated
use, and then comparing this condition with the con-
dition of a  site under evaluation. If the existing
aquatic  community  measures  fail  to meet  the
criteria, the use is considered impaired.
    Since biological  surveys  used for  biological
criteria  are capable of  detecting water quality
problems  (use  impairments)   that  may not  be
detected by chemical or toxicity testing, violation of
biological criteria is sufficient cause for States to in-
itiate regulatory action. Corroborating chemical and
toxicity testing data are not required (though they
may be desirable) as  supporting evidence to sustain
a determination of use impairment. However, a find-
ing that biological criteria fail to indicate use impair:
ment  does  not mean  the  use is automatically
attained. Other evidence, such as violation of physi-
cal or chemical criteria, or results from toxicity tests,
can also be  used to identify impairment. Alternative
forms of criteria provide independent assessments
of nonattainment.
    As stated above,  biological criteria may be nar-
rative statements or  numerical  values. States  can
establish general narrative biological criteria early in
program development without conducting biological
assessments. Once established in State standards,
narrative biological  criteria form the  legal   and
                                                 14

-------
                                                                        ChaptorS: Th« Conceptual Framework
programmatic basis for expanding biological as-
sessment and biosurvey programs needed to imple-
ment  narrative  criteria   and  develop  numeric
biological  criteria  Narrative  biological   criteria
should become part of State regulations and stand-
ards.
Narrative Criteria

    Narrative biological  criteria are general state-
ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water quality for a  given  use
designation. Although  similar to the  "free from"
chemical  water quality criteria,  narrative biological
criteria establish a positive  statement about what
should occur within a water body. Narrative criteria
can take  a number of forms but they must contain
several attributes to support the goals of the Clean
Water Act to provide for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Thus, narrative
criteria should  include  specific language about
aquatic community  characteristics that (1)  must
exist in a waterbody to meet a particular designated
aquatic life use, and  (2) are quantifiable. They must
be written to protect the use. Supporting statements
for the criteria  should promote v/ater  quality to
protect the most natural community possible for the
designated use. Mechanisms should be established
 in  the standard to  address potentially  conflicting
 multiple  uses.  Narratives  should  be written to
                                     protect  the most sensitive use and support an-
                                     tidegradation.
                                         Several States currently use narrative criteria.
                                     In Maine, for example, narrative criteria were estab-
                                     lished for four classes of water quality for streams
                                     and rivers (see Table 4). The classifications were
                                     based on the range of goals in the Act from "no dis-
                                     charge"  to  "protection  and  propagation of fish,
                                     shellfish, and wildlife"  (Courtemanch and Davies
                                     1987). Maine separated its "high quality water" into
                                     two categories, one that reflects the highest goal of
                                     the  Act (no discharge, Class  AA)  and one that
                                     reflects high integrity but is minimally impacted  by
                                     human   activity  (Class A).  The  statement "The
                                     aquatic life ... shall be as naturally occurs" is a nar-
                                     rative biological  criterion for both Class AA and A
                                     waters. Waters  in Class B meet the use when the
                                     life stages of all indigenous aquatic species are sup-
                                     ported  and no detrimental changes occur in com-
                                     munity   composition  (Maine DEP  1986).  These
                                     criteria directly  support refined designated aquatic
                                     life uses (see Section D, Refining Aquatic Life Use
                                     Classifications).
                                         These narrative criteria are effective only if, as
                                      Maine  has  done, simple  phrases  such as   "as
                                      naturally occurs" and  "nondetrimental" are clearly
                                      operationally defined.  Rules for  sampling  proce-
                                      dures and data analysis and interpretation should
                                      become  part  of the regulation  or  supporting
                                      documentation.  Maine was able to develop these
                                      criteria and  their supporting statements using avail-.
 Table 4.—Aquatic Life Classification Scheme for Maine's Rivers and Streams.
 RIVERS AND
 STREAMS
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
LEVEL OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
 Class AA       High quality water for preservation of
                recreational and ecological interests. No
                discharges of any kind permitted. No
                impoundment permitted.
 Class A        High quality water with limited human
                interference. Discharges restricted to noncontact
                process water or highly treated wastewater of
                quality equal to or belter than the receiving
                water. Impoundment permitted.
 Class B        Good  quality water. Discharges of well treated
                effluents with ample dilution permitted.
  Class C        Lowest quality water. Requirements consistent
                with interim goals of the federal Water Quality
                Law (fishable and swimmabie).
                                              Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
                                              Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
                                              Ambient water quality sufficient to support life
                                              stages of all indigenous aquatic species. Only
                                              nondetrimental changes in community
                                              composition may occur.
                                              Ambient water quality sufficient to support the
                                              life stages of all indigenous fish species.
                                              Changes in species composition may occur but
                                              structure and function of the aquatic community
                                              must be maintained.	
                                                    15

-------
               Ntttormi Progam Guidance
 able data from water quality programs. To imple-
 ment the criteria, aquatic life inhabiting unimpaired
 waters must be measured to quantify the  criteria
 statement.
     Narrative criteria can take more specific forms
 than illustrated in  the Maine  example. Narrative
 criteria may Include specific classes and species of
 organisms that will occur in waters for a given desig-
 nated use. To develop these narratives, field evalua-
 tions of  reference conditions  are necessary  to
 Identify biological community attributes that differ
 significantly between designated uses. For example
 in the  Arkansas use class Typical Gulf  Coastal
 Ecoreghn (i.e., South Central Plains) the narrative
 criterion reads:

      "Streams supporting diverse
      communities of indigenous or adapted
      species offish and other forms of
      aquatic life. Fish communities are
      characterized by a limited proportion of
      sensitive species; sunfishes are
      distinctly dominant, followed by darters
      and minnows. The community may be
      generally characterized by the following
      fishes: Key Species—Redfin shiner,
      Spotted sucker, Yellow bullhead, Flier,
      Slough darter, Grass pickerel; Indicator
      Species—Pirate perch, Warmouth,
      Spotted sunfish, Dusky darter,  Creek
      chubsucker, Banded pygmy sunfish
      (Arkansas DPCE1988).

    In Connecticut,  current designated uses are
supported  by narratives in the  standard.  For ex-
ample, under Surface Water Classifications,  Inland
Surface Waters Class AA,  the Designated Use is:
"Existing or proposed drinking water supply;  fish
and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, in-
dustrial supply, and other purposes (recreation uses
may be restricted)*"
   The supporting narratives include:

     Benthic invertebrates which inhabit lotic
     waters: A wide variety of
     macrotnvertebrate taxa should normally
     be present and all functional groups
     should normally be well represented...
     Water quality shall be sufficient to
     sustain a diverse macroinvertebrate
     community of indigenous species. Taxa
     within the Orders Plecoptera
      (stoneflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
      Coleoptera (beetles), Tricoptera
      (caddisflies) should be well represented
      (Connecticut DEP 1987).

     For these narratives to be effective in a biologi-
 cal  criteria program expressions such as  "a wide
 variety" and "functional groups should normally be
 well  represented"  require  quantifiable  definitions
 that  become part  of  the  standard or supporting
 docum'  -tion. Many  States may find such narra-
 tives in .. .dir standards already. If so, States should
 evaluate current language to determine  if it meets
 the  requirements of quantifiable narrative criteria
 that support refined aquatic life uses.
    Narrative biological  criteria are similar to  the
 traditional  narrative "free froms" by providing  the
 legal basis for standards applications. A  sixth "free
 from" could be incorporated into standards to help
 support narrative biological criteria such as "free
 from activities that  would impair the aquatic com-
 munity  as  it naturally  occurs."  Narrative biological
 criteria  can be used immediately to address obvious
 existing problems.
Numeric Criteria

    Numerical  indices  that  serve  as  biological
criteria should  describe expected attainable com-
munity attributes for different  designated uses. It is
important to note that full  implementation of narra-
tive criteria will require similar data as that needed
for developing numeric criteria. At this time,  States
may or may not choose to  establish numeric criteria
but may find it an effective  tool for regulatory use.
   To derive a numeric criterion, an aquatic com-
munity's structure and function is  measured at refer-
ence  sites  and  set as  a  reference condition..
Examples of relative measures include similarity in-
dices,  coefficients of community  loss, and  com-
parisons of lists  of dominant taxa. Measures of
existing community structure  such as species rich-
ness, presence or absence of indicator taxa,  and
distribution of trophic feeding  groups are useful for
establishing the normal range of community com-
ponents to be expected in  unimpaired systems. For
example,  Ohio uses criteria for  the  warmwater
habitat use class based on multiple measures in dif-
ferent  reference sites within  the same ecoregion.
Criteria are set as the 25th percentile of all biologi-
cal index scores recorded  at  established reference
                                                16

-------
                                                                     Chapter 3:
sites within the ecoregion. Exceptional warmwater
habitat index criteria are set at the 75th percentile
(Ohio EPA 1988a). Applications such as this require
an extensive data base and multiple reference sites
for each criteria value.
    To develop numeric biological criteria, careful
assessments of biota in  reference!  sites  must be
conducted  (Hughes  et   al.  1986).  There  are
numerous ways to assess community structure and
function  in  surface  waters.  No  single  index  or
measure is universally recognized as free from bias.
It is important to evaluate the strengths and weak-
nesses of different assessment approaches. A multi-
metric approach  that incorporates information on
species richness, trophic composition, abundance
or  biomass,  and organism  condition  is recom-
mended. Evaluations that measure multiple com-
ponents  of  communities  are  also  recommended
because they  tend  to  be  more  reliable  (e.g.,
measures of fish and macroinvertebrates combined
will provide more information than measures of fish
communities  alone). The  weaknesses  of  one
measure or index can often be  compensated  by
combining it with the strengths of other community
measurements.
    The particular indices used to develop numeric
criteria depend  on  the  type of surface  waters
(streams, rivers, lakes, Great Lakes, estuaries, wet-
lands, and nearshore marine) to which they must be
applied.  In general,  community-level indices  such
as the Index of Biotic Integrity developed for mid-
western  streams (Karr et al. 1986) are more easily
interpreted and less variable than fluctuating num-
bers  such as population size. Future EPA technical
guidance documents will include evaluations of the
effectiveness of different biological  survey and as-
sessment approaches for measuring the biological
integrity  of  surface water  types and provide
guidance on acceptable approaches for biological
criteria development.
 Refining  Aquatic Life  Use

 Classifications

     State  standards  consist  of (1) designated
 aquatic life uses, (2) criteria sufficient to protect the
 designated  and  existing use,  and  (3)  an  an-
 tidegradation clause.  Biological  criteria  support
 designated aquatic life use  classifications for ap-
 plication in State standards. Each State develops its
own designated use classification system based on
the generic uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection
and propagation of fish,  shellfish, and  wildlife).
Designated uses are intentionally general.  How-
ever, States may develop subcategories within use
designations  to  refine and clarify the use class.
Clarification of the use class is particularly helpful
when a variety of surface waters with distinct char-
acteristics fit within the same use class, or do not fit
well into  any  category. Determination of nonattain-
ment in these waters may be difficult and open to al-
ternative interpretations. If a  determination is in
dispute,  regulatory actions will be difficult to  ac-
complish. Emphasizing aquatic community structure
within the designated use focuses the evaluation of
attainment/nonattainment on the resource of con-
cern under the Act.
    Flexibility inherent  in the  State  process  for
designating uses allows the development of sub-
categories  of   uses   within   the Act's  general
categories. For example, subcategories of aquatic ,
life uses may be on the basis of attainable habitat
(e.g., cold versus warmwater habitat); innate  dif-
ferences in community structure and function, (e.g.,
high versus low species richness or productivity); or
fundamental  differences in important community
components  (e.g., warmwater fish  communities
dominated by bass versus catfish).  Special uses
may also be  designated to protect particularly  uni-
que,  sensitive, or valuable aquatic species, com-
munities, or habitats.
    Refinement   of  use  classes can   be  ac-
complished within current State use  classification
structures. Data collected from biosurveys as part of
a developing biocriteria program may reveal unique
and consistent  differences among  aquatic com-
munities inhabiting different waters with the same
designated use. Measurable  biological  attributes
could then be used to separate one class into two or
 more  classes.  The result is  a refined aquatic life
 use.  For example, in Arkansas the beneficial use
 Fisheries "provides for the protection and  propaga-
 tion of fish, shellfish, and other forms of aquatic life"
 (Arkansas DPCE 1988). This use is subdivided into
 Trout, Lakes and Reservoirs, and Streams. Recog-
 nizing that stream characteristics across regions of
 the State differed ecologically, the State further sub-
 divided the stream designated uses into eight addi-
 tional uses based on regional characteristics (e.g.
 Springwater-influenced  Gulf  Coastal  Ecoregion,
 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion). Within this clas-
 sification system, it was relatively straightforward for
                                                 17

-------
Oologta! Crmrt*: NMitoatl Prognm Guktonca
Arkansas to establish detailed narrative biological
criteria that list aquatic community components ex-
pected in each  ecoregion (see Narrative  Criteria
section).  These narrative criteria can then be used
to establish whether the use is impaired.
    States can refine very general designated uses
such as  high, medium, and low quality to  specific
categories that Include measurable ecological char-
acteristics. In Maine, for example, Class AA waters
are defined as "the highest classification and shall
be applied to waters which are outstanding natural
resources and which should be preserved because
of their ecological, social, scenic, or recreational im-
portance." The designated use includes "Class AA
waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable
... as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The
habitat shall  be  characterized as free flowing and
natural."  This use supports development of narra-
tive criteria based on  biological characteristics  of
aquatic communities (Maine  DEP  1986; see the
Narrative Criteria section).
    Biological criteria that include lists of dominant
or typical species expected  to live in the  surface
water are particularly effective. Descriptions of im-
paired conditions are more  difficult to interpret.
However, biological criteria may contain statements
concerning which species dominate disturbed sites,
as well as those species expected at minimally im-
pacted sites.
    Most States  collect  biological data  in current
programs. Refining aquatic life use classifications
and Incorporating biological criteria into standards
will enable States to evaluate these data more ef-
fectively.
Developing and

Implementing  Biological

Criteria

    Biological criteria development and implemen-
tation In standards require an understanding of the
selection and evaluation of reference sites, meas-
urement of aquatic community structure and func-
tion, and  hypothesis testing under the  scientific
method. The developmental process is important for
State water quality managers and their staff to un-
derstand to promote effective planning for resource
and staff needs. This major program element deser-
ves careful consideration and has been separated
out in Part II by chapter for each developmental step
as noted below. Additional guidance will be provided
in future technical guidance documents.
   The developmental process is illustrated in Fig-
ure 3. The first step is establishing narrative criteria
in standards.  However, to support these narratives,
standardized  protocols  need  to be developed to
quanitify the  narratives for  criteria implementation.
They should include data collection procedures,
selection of reference sites, quality assurance and
quality control procedures,  hypothesis testing, and
statistical  protocols. Pilot studies should be con-
ducted  using these standard protocols to ensure
they  meet the  needs  of  the program,  test the
hypotheses, and provide effective  measures of the
biological integrity of surface waters in the State.

Figure 3.—Process for the Development and
Implementation of Biological Criteria
            Develop Standard Protocols
             (Test protocol sensitivity)
        Identify and Conduct Biosurveys at
            Unimpaired Reference Sites
            Establish Biological Criteria
       Conduct Biosurveys at Impacted Sites
             (Determine impairment)
                                                        Impaired Condition
                              Not Impaired
    Diagnose Cause of
       Impairment
 No Action Required
Continued Monitoring
   Recommended
    Implement Control
Fig. 3: Implementation of biological criteria requires the in-
itial selection of reference sites and characterization of resi-
dent aquatic communities inhabiting those sites to establish
the reference condition and biological criteria. After criteria
development, impacted sites are evaluated using the same
biosurvey procedures to assess resident biota. If impairment
is found, diagnosis of cause will lead to the implementation
of  a control. Continued monitoring should accompany con-
trol implementation to determine the effectiveness of in-
tervention. Monitoring is also recommended where no im-
pairment is found to ensure that the surface water maintains
or  improves in quality.
                                                 18

-------
                                                                      Chapters: The Conceptual Framework
    The next step is establishing the reference con-
dition for the surface water being tested. This refer-
ence  may be site specific  or regional  but must
establish the unimpaired  baseline for comparison
(see Chapter 5, The  Reference Condition). Once
reference sites are selected, the biological integrity
of the site must be evaluated using carefully chosen
biological surveys. A quality biological survey will in-
clude multiple community  components and may be
measured using a variety of metrics (see Chapter 6,
The Biological Survey). Establishing the reference
condition and conducting  biological surveys at the
reference locations provide the necessary informa-
tion for establishing the biological criteria.
    To apply biological criteria, impacted surface
waters with comparable habitat characteristics are
evaluated using the same  procedures as those used
to establish the criteria. The biological survey must
support standardized  sampling methods and statis-
tical protocols that are sensitive enough to identify
biologically relevant  differences between  estab-
lished criteria and the community under evaluation.
Resulting data are compared through hypothesis
testing to determine impairment (see Chapter 7,
Hypothesis Testing).
    When water quality impairments are detected
using biological criteria, they can only be applied in
a regulatory setting if the  cause for impairment can
 be identified. Diagnosis is iterative and investigative
 (see Chapter 7, Diagnosis). States must then deter-
 mine  appropriate  actions to  implement controls.
 Monitoring  should remain a part of  the  biological
 criteria program  whether  impairments are found or
 not. If an impairment exists, monitoring provides a
 mechanism to determine if the control effort (inter-
 vention)  is resulting in improved water  quality. If
 there is no impairment, monitoring ensures  the
 water quality is maintained and documents any  im-
 provements. When improvements  in water quality
 are detected through monitoring programs two  ac-
 tions are recommended.  When reference condition
 waters improve, biological criteria values should be
 recalculated to reflect this  higher level of integrity.
 When impaired  surface waters  improve,  states
 should  reclassify those waters to  reflect a refined
 designated use  with a higher level of biological in-
 tegrity.  This provides a mechanism for progressive
 water quality improvement.
                                                  19

-------

-------
                           Chapter  4
         Integrating Biological
   Criteria  Into  Surface  Water
                     Management
   Integrating biological criteria into existing water
   quality programs will help to assess use attain-
   ment/nonattainment,  improve problem dis-
covery in specific waterbodies, and  characterize
overall water resource condition  within a region.
Ideally, biological criteria function in atn iterative man-
ner. New biosurvey information can be used to refine
use classes.  Refined use  classes will help support
criteria development and improve the value of data
collected in biosurveys.
Implementing Biological

Criteria

   As biological survey data are collected, these
data  will increasingly  support current use  of
biomonitoring data  to  identify  water  quality
problems, assess their severity, and set planning
and management priorities for remediation. Monitor-
ing data and biological criteria should be used at the
outset to help make regulatory decisions, develop
appropriate controls, and evaluate the effectiveness
of controls once they are implemented.
   The value of incorporating biological survey in-
formation in  regulatory programs is  illustrated  by
evaluations  conducted  by North  Carolina.  In
To integrate biological criteria into water quality
programs, states must carefully determine where and
how data are collected to assess the biological integrity
of surface waters.

response to amendments of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act requiring secondary effluent limits
for all wastewater treatment plants, North Carolina
became embroiled in a debate over whether meet-
ing secondary effluent limits (at considerable cost)
would result in better water quality. North Carolina
chose to test the effectiveness of additional treat-
ment by conducting seven chemical and biological
surveys before  and  after facility upgrades (North
                                    21

-------
              NtHorml Program Gutdam*
Carolina DNRCD1984). Study results indicated that
moderate to substantial in-stream improvements
were observed at six of seven facilities. Biological
surveys were used  as an efficient, cost-effective
monitoring tool for assessing in-stream improve-
ments after facility modification. North Carolina has
also conducted comparative studies of benthic mac-
roinvertebratp surveys  and chemical-specific and
whole-effluent evaluations to assess sensitivities of
these   measures   for  detecting   impairments
(Eagleson etal. 1990).
    Narrative biological criteria provide a scientific
framework for evaluating biosurvey, bioassessment,
and biomonitoring data collected in most States. Ini-
tial application of narrative biological criteria may re-
quire only an evaluation of current work. States can
use available data to define variables for choosing
reference sites, selecting appropriate biological sur-
veys, and assessing the response of local biota to a
variety of impacts. States should also consider the
decision criteria that will be used for determining ap-
propriate State action when  impairment is found.
    Recent efforts by several  States  to  develop
biological criteria for freshwater streams provide ex-
cellent examples for how biological criteria can be
Integrated into water quality programs. Some of this
work Is described in the National Workshop on In-
stream Biological Monitoring and Criteria proceed-
ings which recommended  that  "the  concept of
biological sampling should be integrated into the full
spectrum  of  State  and  Federal  surface  water
programs*  (U.S. EPA  1987b). States are actively
developing  biological  assessment and  criteria
programs; several have programs in place.
Biological Criteria in  State

Programs

    Biological   criteria  are  used  within  water
programs to  refine use designations,  establish
criteria for determining use  attainment/nonattain-
ment,  evaluate  effectiveness  of  current  water
programs, and detect and  characterize previously
unknown impairments. Twenty States are currently
using some form of standardized ambient biological
assessments to determine the status of biota within
State waters: Levels of effort vary from bioassess-
ment studies to fully developed biological criteria
programs.
    Fifteen  States  are  developing  aspects  of
biological assessments  that  will support  future
development Of biological criteria. Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and
Virginia conduct biological monitoring to evaluate
biological conditions, but are not developing biologi-
cal criteria.  Kansas is  considering using a com-
munity  metric  for water  resource assessment.
Arizona is planning to  refine ecoregions  for the
State. Delaware, Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin
are developing sampling and evaluation methods to
apply to future biological criteria  programs. New
York is proposing to use biological criteria for site-
specific evaluations of  water quality impairment.
Nebraska and  Vermont  use informal  biological
criteria to support existing aquatic life narratives in
their water quality standards and other regulations.
Vermont  recently  passed  a  law  requiring that
biological criteria be used to regulate through per-
mitting the indirect discharge of sanitary effluents.
    Florida  incorporated,  a  specific  biological
criterion  into  State  standards  for  invertebrate
species diversity. Species diversity within a water-
body, as measured by a Shannon diversity index,
may not fall below 75 percent of reference values.
This criterion has been used in enforcement cases
to obtain injunctions and monetary settlements.
Florida's approach is very specific and  limits alter-
native applications.
    Four States—Arkansas,  North Carolina, Maine,
and Ohio—are currently using biological criteria to
define aquatic life  use classifications and enforce
water quality standards. These states have made
biological criteria an integral part of comprehensive
water quality programs.

  • Arkansas rewrote its aquatic life use classifica-
tions for each of the State's ecoregions. This has al-
lowed many cities  to design wastewater treatment
plants to meet realistic attainable dissolved oxygen
conditions as determined by the new criteria.

  • North Carolina developed biological criteria to
assess impairment to aquatic life uses written as nar-
ratives in the State water quality standards. Biologi-
cal data and criteria are used extensively to identify
waters of special concern or those with exceptional
water quality. In addition to the High Quality Waters
(HQW) and  Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
designations, Nutrient Sensitive  Waters (NSW) at
risk for eutrophication are assessed using biological
                                                22

-------
criteria. Although specific biologicatl  measures are
not in the regulations, strengthened use of biological
monitoring data to assess  water quality  is  being
proposed for incorporation in North Carolina's water
quality standards.

  •  Maine  has enacted  a revised  Water Quality
Classification Law specifically designed to facilitate
the use of  biological  assessments. Each of four
water classes contains descriptive aquatic life condi-
tions necessary to attain that class. Based on  a
statewide database  of macroinveriebrate samples
collected above and below outfalls, Maine is now
developing a set of dichotomous keys that serve as
the biological  criteria.  Maine's program is not ex-
pected to have a significant roie in permitting, but will
be used to assess the  degree of protection afforded
by effluent limitations.

  • Ohio has instituted the most extensive use of
biological criteria for defining use classifications and
assessing  water  quality. Biological  criteria  were
developed for Ohio rivers  and streams  using an
ecoregional reference site approach. Within each of
the State's five ecoregions, criteria for three biologi-
cal indices  (two for fish communities  and one for
macroinvertebrates) were derived. Ohio successfully
uses biological criteria to demonstrate attainment of
aquatic life uses and discover previously unknown or
unidentified environmental degradation (e.g.,  twice
as  many impaired waters  were discovered using
biological criteria and water chemistry together than
were found using chemistry alone). The  upgraded
use designations  based on biological  criteria were
upheld in Ohio courts and the Ohio EPA successfully
proposed their biological criteria for inclusion in the
State water quality standards regulations.

     States and EPA have learned a great deal about
the  effectiveness of integrated  biological assess-
ments through the development of biological criteria
for  freshwater  streams.  This information  is  par-
ticularly valuable in providing guidance on develop-
ing biological criteria for other surface water types.
As previously discussed, EPA plans to produce sup-
 porting technical guidance for biological  criteria
development  in streams and other surface waters.
 Production  of these  guidance documents will be
 contingent on technical progress made on each sur-
                  Chapter 4: Integrating Biological Criteria


face water type by researchers in EPA, States and
the academic community.
    EPA will also be developing outreach  work-
shops to  provide technical assistance  to Regions
and States working  toward the implementation of
biological criteria programs in State water quality
management  programs.   In  the  interim,  States
should use the technical guidance currently avail-
able in the Technical Support Manualfs): Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
tainability Analysis (U.S. EPA 1983D, 1984a,b).
    During the next triennium, State effort will  be
focused on developing narrative biological criteria.
Full implementation  and  integration of biological
criteria will require several years. Using available
guidance,  States can complement the  adoption of
narrative  criteria  by developing  implementation
plans that include:

    1. Defining program objectives, developing
       research protocols, and setting priorities;

    2. Determining the process for establishing
       reference conditions, which includes
       developing a process to evaluate habitat
       characteristics;

    3. Establishing biological survey protocols that
       include justifications for surface water
       classifications and selected aquatic
       community components to be evaluated;
       and

    4. Developing a formal document describing
       the research design, quality assurance and
       quality control protocols, and required
       training for staff.

    Whether a State begins with narrative biological
 criteria or moves to fully implement numeric criteria,
 the shift of the. water quality program focus from
 source control to resource management represents
 a natural progression in the evolution from the tech-
 nology-based to water quality-based approaches in
 water  quality management.  The  addition  of  a
 biological perspective allows water quality programs
 to more directly address the objectives of the Clean
 Water Act and to place their efforts in a context that
 is more meaningful to the public.
                                                  23

-------
 Bido&etl CtttKix Ntioail Program Guidanca
 Future  Directions

    Biological criteria now focus on resident aquatic
 communities in surface waters.  They  have the
 potential to expand in scope toward greater ecologi-
 cal integration. Ecological criteria may encompass
 the ambient aquatic communities in surface waters,
 wildlife species that use the same aquatic resour-
 ces,  and the  aquatic  community inhabiting the
 gravel and sediments underlying the surface waters
 and adjacent land (hyporheic zone); specific criteria
 may apply to physical habitat. These areas may rep-
 resent only a few possible options for  biological
 criteria in the future.
    Many wildlife species depend on aquatic resour-
 ces. If aquatic population levels decrease or if the
 distribution of species changes, food sources may
 be sufficiently altered to cause problems for wildlife
 species using aquatic resources.  Habitat degrada-
 tion  that impairs aquatic species  will  often impact
 important wildlife habitat as well. These kinds of im-
 pairments are likely to be detected using  biological
 criteria as currently formulated.  In  some cases,
 however, uptake  of  contaminants  by  resident
 aquatic organisms may not result  in altered struc-
 ture and function of the aquatic community. These
 Impacts  may go undetected by biological  criteria,
 but could result in wildlife impairments because of
 bioaccumulation.  Future expansion  of-  biological
 criteria to include  wildlife species  that depend on
 aquatic resources could provide a more integrative
 ecosystem approach.
    Rivers may have a subsurface flood plain ex-
tending as far as two kilometers from the river chan-
 nel. Preliminary mass transport calculations made
 in the Rathead River basin in Montana indicate that
 nutrients discharged from this subsurface  flood
 plain may be crucial to biotic productivity in the river
channel (Stanford and Ward 1988). This is an unex-
plored dimension in the ecology of gravel river beds
and potentially in other surface waters.
    As discussed in Chapter 1, physical integrity is a
necessary condition  for biological  integrity. Estab-
lishing the reference condition for biological criteria
requires evaluation of habitat. The rapid bioassess-
ment protocol provides a good example of the im-
portance  of habitat  for  interpreting   biological
assessments (Plafkin et al.  1989). However, it may
be useful to more fully  integrate  habitat charac-
teristics into the regulatory process by establishing
criteria based on the necessary physical structure of
habitats to support ecological integrity.
                                                24

-------
            Part II
The Implementation
           Process

-------
        N*ttonal Prognm Guidtnca
The implementation of biological criteria requires: (1) selection of unimpaired
(minimal impact) surface waters to use as the reference condition for each desig-
nated use, (2) measurement of the structure and function of aquatic communities in
reference surface waters to establish biological criteria, and (3) establishment of a
protocol to compare the biological criteria to biota in impacted waters to determine
whether impairment has occurred. These elements serve as an interactive network
that  is particularly important during early development of biological  criteria
where rapid accumulation of information is effective for refining both designated
uses and developing biological criteria values. The following chapters describe
these three essential elements.
                                    26

-------
                                 Chapter 5
        The  Reference  Condition
A        key step in developing values for support-
        ing narrative and creating numeric biologi-
        cal  criteria  is  to  establish  reference
conditions; it is an essential feature of environmental
impact evaluations (Green  1979).  Fleference condi-
tions are critical for environmental assessments be-
cause standard experimental controls are  rarely
available. For most surface waters, baseline data
were not collected prior to an impact, thus impair-
ment must be inferred from differences between the
impact site and established references. Reference
conditions describe the characteristics of waterbody
segments least impaired by human activities and are
used to define attainable biological or habitat condi-
tions.
    Wide variability among natural! surface waters
across the country resulting from cliimatic, landform,
and other  geographic differences  prevents the
development of nationwide reference conditions.
Most States are also too heterogeneous for single
reference conditions. Thus, each State, and when
appropriate, groups of States, will be responsible for
selecting and evaluating reference waters within the
State to establish biological criteria for a given sur-
face water type or category of designated use. At
least seven methods for estimating attainable condi-
tions for streams have been identified (Hughes et al.
1986).  Many of these can apply to other surface
waters.  References may be established by defining
models  of attainable conditions based on historical
data or unimpaired habitat (e.g., streams  in old
growth forest). The reference condition established
as before-after comparisons or concurrent  mea-
Referenca conditions should tie established by
measuring resident biota in unimpaired surface waters.
sures of the reference water and impact sites can be
based on empirical data (Hall et al. 1989).
   Currently, two principal approaches are used for
establishing the reference condition. A State may
opt to (1)  identify site-specific reference sites for
each evaluation of impact or (2) select ecologically
similar regional reference sites for comparison with
impacted sites within the same region. Both ap-
proaches depend on evaluations of habitats to en-
sure that waters with similar habitats are compared.
The designation  of discrete habitat types is more
fully developed for streams and rivers. Development
of habitat types for lakes, wetlands, and estuaries is
ongoing.
                                            27

-------
 Sfefcgfca/ Gntete Niitoimt Program Guidance
 Site-Specific Reference

 Condition.

    A site-specific reference condition, frequently
 used to evaluate the impacts from a point discharge,
 is best for surface waters with  a strong directional
 flow such as in streams and rivers (the upstream-
 downstream approach). However,  it  can also  be
 used for other  surface waters  where gradients in
 contaminant  concentration   occur   based   on
 proximity to a source (the  near field-far field ap-
 proach). Establishment of a site-specific reference
 condition requires the availability  of  comparable
 habitat within the same waterbody in both the refer-
 ence location and the impacted  area.
    A site-specific reference condition is difficult to
 establish if (1) diffuse nonpoint source pollution con-
 taminates most  of the water body; (2) modifications
 to the channel,  shoreline, or bottom substrate are
 extensive; (3) point sources occur at multiple loca-
 tions on the waterbody; or (4) habitat characteristics
 differ significantly between possible reference loca-
 tions and the impact site (Hughes et al. 1986; Plaf-
 kin  et al.  1989).  In  these  cases,  site-specific
 reference conditions could result in underestimates
 of impairment. Despite limitations, the use of site-
 specific reference conditions is  often the method of
 choice for  point  source discharges  and  certain
 waterbodies, particularly when  the  relative impair-
 ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
 mined.
The Upstream-Downstream
Reference Condition

    The upstream-downstream reference condition
is  best  applied to streams and  rivers where the
habitat characteristics of the waterbody above the
point of discharge are similar to the habitat charac-
teristics of the stream below the point of discharge.
One standard procedure is to characterize the biotic
condition just above the discharge point (accounting
for possible upstream circulation) to establish the
reference condition. The  condition below the  dis-
charge  is  also  measured at several sites. If  sig-
nificant  differences  are found   between  these
measures,  impairment  of the biota  from the  dis-
charge is indicated. Since measurements of resi-
dent biota taken in any two sites are expected to
differ because of natural variation, more than  one
biological assessment  for  both upstream and
downstream sites is often needed to be confident in
conclusions  drawn from these data (Green, 1979).
However, as more data are collected by a State, and
particularly if regional characteristics of the water-
bodies are incorporated, the basis for determining
impairment from site-specific upstream-downstream
assessments may require fewer individual samples.
The same measures made below the "recovery
zone"  downstream from  the discharge will help
define where recovery occurs.
    The upstream-downstream reference condition
should be used with discretion since the reference
condition may be impaired from impacts upstream
from the point source of interest. In these cases it is
important to discriminate between individual point
source impact versus overall impairment of the sys-
tem. When overall impairment occurs, the resident
biota may be sufficiently impaired to make it impos-
sible to detect the effect of the target point source
discharger.
    The approach can be cost effective when one
biological assessment of the upstream reference
condition adequately reflects the attainable condi-
tion of the impacted site.  However, routine com-
parisons   may require  assessments  of  several
upstream sites to adequately describe the natural
variability of reference biota. Even so, measuring a
series of  site-specific references will likely continue
to be the method of choice for certain point source
discharges,  especially where the relative impair-
ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
mined.
The Near Field-Far Field Reference
Condition

    The near field-far field reference condition is ef-
fective for establishing a reference condition in sur-
face waters other than rivers and streams and is
particularly  applicable for unique waterbodies (e.g.,
estuaries such as Puget Sound may not have com-
parable  estuaries for  comparison). To apply this
method, two  variables are measured (1)  habitat
characteristics, and (2) gradient of impairment. For
reference waters to be identified within the same
waterbody,  sufficient size is necessary to separate
the  reference  from the  impact area so  that a
gradient of  impact exists. At the same time, habitat
characteristics must be comparable.
                                               28

-------
                                                                       ChapttrS: Tht Roffrarica Condition
    Although not fully developed, this approach may
provide an effective way to establish  biological
criteria for estuaries, large lakes, or wetlands. For
example, estuarine habitats could be defined and
possible reference waters identified using physical
and chemical variables like those selected by the
Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. EPA 1987a, e.g.,
substrate type, salinity, pH) to establish comparable
subhabitats in an estuary. To determine those areas
least impaired, a "mussel watch" program like that
used in Narragansett Bay (i.e., captive mussels are
used as indicators of contamination, (Phelps 1988))
could establish impairment gradients. These two
measures, when combined, could form the basis for
selecting specific habitat types in areas of least im-
pairment to establish the reference condition.
Regional Reference

Conditions

    Some of the limitations of site-specific reference
conditions can be overcome by using regional refer-
ence conditions that are based on the assumption
that surface waters integrate the character of the
land they drain. Waterbodies within the same water-
shed in the same region should be more similar to
each other than to those within watersheds  in dif-
ferent regions. Based on these assumptions, a dis-
tribution of aquatic regions can be developed based
on ecological features that directly or indirectly re-
late to water quality and quantity, such as soil type,
vegetation (land cover), land-surface form, climate,
and  land use. Maps  that incorporate  several of
these features will provide a general purpose broad
scale ecoregional framework (Gallant et al. 1989).
     Regions of ecological similarity  are based on
 hydrologic, climatic,  geologic, or  other  relevant
 geographic variables that influence the nature of
 biota in surface waters. To establish a regional refer-
 ence condition, surface waters of similar habitat
 type are identified in definable ecological regions.
 The biological integrity of these reference waters is
 determined to establish the reference condition and
 develop biological criteria. These criteria are then
 used to assess impacted surface)  waters  in the
 same watershed or region. There are two forms of
 regional reference conditions:  (1)  paired  water-
 sheds and (2) ecoregions.
Paired Watershed Reference
Conditions

    Paired watershed,reference conditions are es-
tablished to evaluate impaired waterbodies, often
impacted by multiple sources. When the majority of
a waterbody is impaired, the upstream-downstream
or near field-far field reference condition does not
provide an adequate representation of the unim-
paired condition of  aquatic communities  for  the
waterbody. Paired  watershed reference conditions
are established by identifying unimpaired  surface
waters within the same or very similar local water-
shed  that is of comparable type and habitat. Vari-
ables to consider when selecting the watershed
reference condition include absence of human  dis-
turbance, waterbody size and other physical charac-
teristics, surrounding vegetation,  and others  as
described in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion" feature.
    This method   has been  successfully  applied
(e.g., Hughes 1985) and  is an approach  used in
Rapid Bioassessment  Protocols  (Plafkin et  al.
1989). State use of this approach results  in good
reference conditions that can be used immediately
in current programs. This  approach has the added
benefit of promoting the development of a database
on high quality waters in the State that could form
the foundation for establishing larger regional refer-
ences (e.g., ecoregions.)
 Ecoregional Reference Conditions

     Reference conditions can also be developed on
 a larger scale. For these references, waterbodies of
 similar type are identified in regions of ecological
 similarity. To  establish a regional reference condi-
 tion, a set of  surface waters of similar habitat type
 are. identified  in each ecological region. These sites
 must represent similar habitat type and be repre-
 sentative of the region. As with other reference con-
 ditions, the biological integrity of selected reference
 waters is determined to establish the reference.
 Biological criteria can then be developed and used
 to assess impacted surface  waters in the same
 region. Before reference conditions may be estab-
 lished, regions of  ecological similarity must be
 defined.
                                                 29

-------
BiologicalCrHfrix NtSonti Prognm Guidtnct
       Regional Reference Site

                 Selection

       To determine specific regional reference sites
    for streams, candidate watersheds are selected
    from the  appropriate maps and evaluated to
    determine if they are typical for the region. An
    evaluation of level of human disturbance is made
    and a number of relatively undisturbed reference
    sites are selected from  the  candidate sites.
    Generally, watersheds are chosen as regional ref-
    erence sites when they fall entirely within typical
    areas of the region.  Candidate sites  are  then
    selected by aerial and ground surveys. Identifica-
    tion of candidate sites is based on: (1)  absence
    of human  disturbance, (2) stream size, (3)  type
    of stream channel, (4) location within a natural or
    political refuge,  and (5) historical records of resi-
    dent btota and possible migration barriers.
       Final selection of reference sites depends on
    & determination of minimal disturbance derived
    from habitat evaluation made during site visits.
    For example, indicators of good quality streams in
    forested ecoregions include: (1) extensive,  old,
    natural riparian vegetation; (2) relatively high het-
    erogeneity in channel width and depth; (3) abun-
    dant large woody  debris,  coarse bottom sub-
    strate, or extensive aquatic or overhanging vege-
    tation; (4) relatively high or constant discharge;
    (5) relatively clear waters with natural color and
    odor; (6) abundant diatom, insect, and fish as-
    semblages; and (7) the presence of piscivorous
    birds and mammals.
    One frequently used method is described by
Omernik (1987) who combined maps of land-sur-
face form, soil, potential  natural vegetation,  and
land use within the conterminous United States to
generate  a  map  of aquatic  ecoregions for the
country. He also developed more detailed regional
maps. The ecoregions defined by  Omernik  have
been evaluated for streams and small rivers in
Arkansas (Rohm et al. 1987), Ohio (Larsen et al.
1986; Whittier et al. 1987), Oregon (Whittier et al.
1988), Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989), and Wiscon-
sin (Lyons 1989) and for lakes in Minnesota (Heis-
kary  et  al.  1987).  State ecoregion  maps  were
developed for Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989) and
Oregon (Clarke et al. mss).  Maps for the national
ecoregions  and six mufti-state  maps  of more
detailed ecoregions are  available from the U.S. EPA
Environmental   Research   Laboratory,   Corvallis,
Oregon.
    Ecoregions such as those defined by Omernik
(1987) provide  only a first step  in  establishing
regional reference sites for development of the ref-
erence condition. Reid site evaluation is required to
account  for  the inherent variability  within each
ecoregion. A general method for selecting  reference
sites for streams has been described (Hughes et al.
1986). These are the same variables used for com-
parable   watershed  reference  site  selection.
Regional and on-site evaluations of biological fac-
tors help determine specific sites that best  represent
typical but unimpaired surface water habitats within
the region. Details on this approach for streams is
described in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion" feature. To date,  the regional approach has
been  tested on  streams,  rivers,  and lakes. The
method appears applicable for assessing other in-
land ecosystems. To apply this approach to wet-
lands  and  estuaries  will   require  additional
evaluation based on the relevant ecological features
of these  ecosystems  (e.g.  Brooks and Hughes,
1988).
    Ideally, ecoregional reference sites should be
as little disturbed as possible, yet represent water-
oodies for which they  are  to serve as reference
waters. These sites may serve as references for a
large  number of similar waterbodies (e.g., several
reference streams may  be used to define  the refer-
ence  condition  for numerous physically  separate
streams if the reference streams contain the same
range of stream morphology, substrate, and flow of
the other  streams  within  the  same ecological
region).
    An important benefit of a regional reference sys-
tem is the establishment of a baseline  condition for
the least  impacted  surface  waters  within  the
dominant  land  use pattern of the region. In many
areas a return  to pristine, or presettlement, condi-
tions is impossible, and  goals for waterbodies in ex-
tensively  developed  regions  could  reflect  this.
Regional  reference sites  based on the  least im-
pacted sites within a region will help water quality
programs restore and protect the environment in a
way that is ecologically feasible.
                                                 30

-------
                                                                        Chapter S: The Reference Condition
    This approach must be used with caution for two
reasons. First, in many urban, industrial, or heavily
developed agricultural regions, even the least im-
pacted sites are seriously degraded. Basing stand-
ards or criteria on such sites will set standards too
low if these high levels of environmental degrada-
tion are considered acceptable or adequate. In such
degraded  regions,  alternative  sources  for the
regional reference may be needed (e.g., measures
taken from  the same region  in a less developed
neighboring State or historical records from the
region before serious impact occurred). Second, in
some regions  the minimally-impacted sites are not
typical of most sites in the region and may have
remained unimpaired precisely bejcause they are
unique. These two considerations emphasize the
need to select reference  sites very carefully, based
on solid quantitative data  interpreted by profes-
sionals familiar with the biota of the region.
    Each State, or groups of States, can select a
series of regional reference sites that represent the
attainable conditions  for  each region. Once biologi-
cal criteria are established using this approach, the
cost for evaluating local  impairments is often lower
than a series of measures of site-specific reference
sites. Using paired watershed reference conditions
immediately in regulatory programs will provide the
added  benefit  of  building a  database  for  the
development of regions of ecological similarity.
                                                  31

-------

-------
                                Chapter
            The  Biological  Survey
A        critical element of biological criteria is the
        characterization of biological communities
        inhabiting surface waters. Use of biological
data is not new; biological information has been used
to  assess impacts from pollution  since  the 1890s
(Forbes  1928),  and most States  currently incor-
porate biological information in their decisions about
the quality of surface waters. However, biological in-
formation can be obtained  through a variety  of
methods, some of which are more effective  than
others for characterizing  resident  aquatic biota.
Biological criteria are developed using biological sur-
veys;  these  provide  the  only direct  method for
measuring the structure and  function of an aquatic
community.
 Different subhabitat within the same surface water will
 contain unique aquatic community components. In
 fast-flowing stream segments species such as (1) black
 fly larva; (2) brook trout; (3) water penny; (4) crane fly
 larva; and (5) water moss occur.
                                               However, In slow-flowing stream segments, species
                                               like (1) water strider, (2) smallmouth bass; (3) crayfish;
                                               and (4) fingernail dams are abundant.
   Biological survey study design is of critical im-
portance to criteria development. The design must
be scientifically rigorous to provide the  basis for
legal action, and be biologically relevant to detect
problems of regulatory concern. Since it is not finan-
cially or technically feasible to evaluate  all or-
ganisms in an entire ecosystem at all times, careful
selection of community components, the time and
place chosen for assessments, data  gathering
methods used, and the consistency with which
these variables are applied will determine the suc-
cess of the biological criteria program.  Biological
surveys must therefore be carefully planned to meet
scientific and legal requirements, maximize informa-
tion, and minimize cost.
                                            33

-------
 Btotog&l CrtMi: Nriorml Prognm Guidinc*
    Biological surveys can range  from collecting
samples of  a single species to  comprehensive
evaluations of an entire  ecosystem. The first ap-
proach Is difficult to Interpret for community assess-
ment;  the second  approach is  expensive  and
impractical. A balance between these extremes can
meet program needs. Current approaches range
between detailed ecological surveys, biosurveys of
targeted community components, and biological in-
dicators (e.g., keystone  species).  Each  of these
bfosurveys has advantages and limitations. Addi-
tional  discussion will be  provided  in technical
guidance under development.
    No single type of approach to biological surveys
Is always best Many factors affect the value of the
approach, Including seasonal variation, waterbody
size, physical boundaries, and other natural charac-
teristics. Pilot  testing alternative  approaches in
State waters may be the best way to determine the
sensitivity of specific methods for evaluating biologi-
cal integrity of local waters. Due to the number of al-
ternatives available  and the diversity of ecological
systems,  individuals   responsible for  research
design should be experienced  biologists with exper-
tise in the local and regional ecology of target  sur-
face  waters.  States  should  develop  a  data
management program that includes data analysis
and evaluation and standard operating procedures
as part of a Quality Assurance  Program Plan.
   When  developing  study designs for biological
criteria, two key elements to  consider include (1)
selecting aquatic community components that will
best represent the biological integrity of State sur-
face waters  and  (2)  designing data  collection
protocols to ensure  the best representation of the
aquatic community.  Technical guidance currently
available to aid the development of study design in-
clude:  Water  Quality Standards Handbook (U.S.
EPA1983a), Technical Support Manual: Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
tainability  Analyses  (U.S.  EPA 1983b);  Technical
Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assess-
ments  for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses,
Volume II: Estuarine Systems (U.S. EPA 1984a);
and Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses,  Volume  III:  Lake  Systems (U.S.  EPA
1984b). Future technical  guidance will build on
these documents and provide specific guidance for
biological criteria development.
 Selecting  Aquatic

 Community Components

    Aquatic communities contain  a  variety  of
 species  that  represent  different  trophic levels,
 taxonomic  groups, functional characteristics, and
 tolerance  ranges.  Careful  selection  of  target
 taxonomic groups can provide a balanced assess-
 ment that is sufficiently broad to describe the struc-
 tural  and  functional  condition  of an  aquatic
 ecosystem, yet be sufficiently practical to use on a
 daily basis (Plafkin et at. 1989; Lenat 1988). When
 selecting community components to include in a
 biological assessment, primary emphasis should go
 toward including species or taxa that (1) serve as ef-
 fective indicators  of  high  biological integrity (i.e.,
 those likely to live in unimpaired waters), (2) repre-
 sent a range of pollution tolerances, (3) provide pre-
 dictable,  repeatable results, and (4) can be readily
 identified by trained State personnel.
    Fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and zooplank-
 ton are most commonly used in current bioassess-
 ment programs. The taxonomic groups chosen will
 vary depending on the type of aquatic ecosystem
 being assessed and  the type of expected impair-
 ment. For example, benthic macroinvertebrate and
 fish  communities  are taxonomic  groups  often
 chosen for flowing fresh water.  Macroinvertebrates
 and  fish both provide valuable  ecological  informa-
 tion  while fish  correspond to the regulatory and
 public  perceptions of water quality and reflect
 cumulative environmental stress over longer time
frames. Plants  are  often  used In wetlands, and
 algae are useful in lakes  and estuaries to assess
 eutrophication. In marine systems, benthic macroin-
 vertebrates and submerged aquatic vegetation may
 provide key community components. Amphipods,
for example, dominate many aquatic communities
 and  are  more sensitive than other invertebrates
 such as polychaetes and molluscs to a wide variety
 of pollutants including hydrocarbons and  heavy me-
tals  (Reich and Hart 1979; J.D. Thomas, pers.
comm.).
    It is beneficial to supplement standard groups
with additional  community components to meet
specific goals, objectives,  and resources of the as-
sessment program. Biological surveys that use two
or three taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, macroinver-
tebrates, algae) and, where appropriate, include dif-
ferent  trophic  levels within  each  group  (e.g.,
 primary, secondary, and  tertiary consumers)  will
                                               34

-------
                                                                          Chapter & The Biological Survey
provide a  more realistic  evaluation  of system
biological  integrity.  This  is  analogous  to  using
species from  two or more taxonomic  groups in
bioassays.  Impairments that are difficult to detect
because of the temporal or spatial habits or the pol-
lution tolerances of  one group  may be revealed
through impairments in differenl:  species or as-
semblages (Ohio EPA 1988a).
    Selection  of aquatic  community components
that show  different  sensitivities  and responses to
the same perturbation will aid in identifying the na-
ture of a problem. Available data on the ecological
function, distribution, and abundance of species in a
given  habitat will help determine  the  most ap-
propriate target  species or taxa For  biological sur-
veys in the  habitat.  The selection  of community
components should also depend on the ability of the
organisms  to be accurately identified  by trained
State  personnel.  Attendent  with  the  biological
criteria program  should be the development of iden-
tification keys for the organisms selected for  study
in the biological survey.


Biological Survey  Design

     Biological surveys  that measure the structure
and function of aquatic communities will provide the
information needed  for biological criteria develop-
ment. Elements  of community structure and function
may be evaluated using a series of metrics. Struc-
tural metrics describe  the composition  of a  com-
munity, such as the number of different species,
relative abundance of specific species, and number
and relative abundance of tolerant and intolerant
 species. Functional  metrics describe the ecological
 processes of the community.  These may include
 measures such as community photosynthesis or
 respiration. Function may also be estimated from
 the proportions  of various feeding groups (e.g., om-
 nivores, herbivores, and insectivores, or shredders,
 collectors,  and  grazers). Biological surveys can
 offer variety and flexibility in application. Indices cur-
 rently available  are primarily for freshwater streams.
 However, the approach has been used for lakes and
 can be developed for estuaries and wetlands.
 Selecting the metric

     Several  methods  are currently  available for
 measuring the relative structural and functional well-
 being  of fish assemblages in freshwater streams,
such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI); Karr 1981;
Karr et al. 1986; Miller et al. 1988) and the Index of
Well-being (IWB; Gammon 1976,  Gammon et al.
1981). the IBI  is one of the more widely used  as-
sessment methods. For additional detail, see  the
"Index of Biotic  Integrity" feature.
      Index of Biotic Integrity

       The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is commonly
    used for fish community analysis (Karr 1981). The
    original IBI was comprised of 12 metrics:

     • six metrics evaluate species richness and
       composition

         ' number of species
         • number of darter species
         * number of sucker species
         • number of sunfish species
         • number of intolerant species
         * proportion of green sunfish

     • three metrics quantify trophic composition

         ' proportion ofomnivores
         • proportion of insectivorous cyprinids
         • proportion ofpiscivores

     • three metrics summarize fish abundance and
       condition information

          • number of individuals in sample

          ' proportion of hybrids
          • proportion of individuals with disease

        Each metric is scored 1 (worst). 3, or 5 (best),
     depending on how the field data compare with an
     expected value obtained from reference sites. All
     12 metric values are then summed to provide an
     overall index value that represents relative  in-
     tegrity. The IBI was designed for midwestern
     streams; substitute  metrics  reflecting the same
     structural and functional characteristics  have
     been created to accommodate regional variations
     in fish assemblages (Miller et al. 1988).
                                                  35

-------
 Sfotogfci/Crflfrtr Niton*] Program Gutdm*
    Several Indices that evaluate  more than one
 community characteristic are also available for as-
 sessing  stream  macroinvertebrate  populations.
 Taxa richness, EPT taxa (number of taxa of the in-
 sect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricop-
 tera), and species pollution tolerance values are a
 few of several components of these macroinver-
 tebrate assessments. Example indices include the
 Invertebrate  Community  Index  (ICI;  Ohio  EPA,
 1988) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI; Hilsenhoff,
 1987).
    Within these metrics specific information on the
 pollution tolerances of different species within a sys-
 tem will help define the type of impacts occurring in
 a waterbody. Biological indicator groups (intolerant
 species, tolerant species, percent  of diseased or-
 ganisms) can be used for  evaluating community
 biological integrity if sufficient data have been col-
 lected to support conclusions  drawn  from the in-
 dicator  data.  In  marine systems, for example,
 amphipods have  been used by a number of re-
 searchers  as  environmental  indicators  (McCa'll
 1977; Botton 1979; Meams and Word 1982).
Sampling design

    Sampling design and statistical protocols are re-
quired to reduce sampling error and evaluate the
natural variability of biological responses that are
found  in  both laboratory and  field data.  High
variability reduces the power of a statistical test to
detect real impairments (Sokal and  Rohlf, 1981).
States may reduce  variability by refining sampling
techniques and protocol to decrease variability in-
troduced during data  collection, and increase the
power of the evaluation by  increasing the number of
replications. Sampling techniques  are refined,  in
part, by collecting a representative sample of resi-
dent biota from the same component of the aquatic
community from the same  habitat type in the same
way at sites being  compared. Data  collection
protocols  should  incorporate  (1)  spatial  scales
(where and how samples are collected) and (2) tem-
poral scales (when data  are  collected)  (Green,
1979):

  • Spatial Scales refer to the wide variety of sub-
     habitats  that exist within  any surface  water
     habitat. To account for subhabitats, adequate
     sampling  protocols require  selecting  (1) the
     location within  a  habitat where target groups
     reside and (2) the method for collecting data on
     target groups. For example, if fish are sampled
     only from fast flowing riffles within stream A, but
     are sampled from slow flowing pools in stream
     B, the data will not be comparable.

     Temporal  Scales refer to aquatic community
     changes that occur over time because of diurnal
     and life-cycle changes in organism behavior or
     development, and seasonal or annual changes
     in the environment. Many organisms go through
     seasonal life-cycle  changes that dramatically
     affect  their presence and abundance in  the
     aquatic community. For example, macroinver-
     tebrate data collected from stream A in March
     and stream B in May, would not be comparable
     because the emergence of insect adults after
     March would significantly alter the abundance
     of subadults found in stream B in May.  Similar
     problems would occur if algae were collected in
     lake A during the dry season and lake B during
     the wet season.
    Field sampling protocols that produce  quality
assessments from a limited number of site visits
greatly enhance the utility of the sampling  techni-
que.  Rapid  bioassessment  protocols,  recently
developed for assessing streams, use standardized
techniques to quickly gather physical, chemical, and
biological quantitative data that can assess changes
in biological integrity (Plafkin et al. 1989). Rapid
bioassessment   methods  can  be  cost-effective
biological assessment approaches when they have
been verified with more comprehensive evaluations
for the habitats and region where they are to be ap-
plied.
    Biological survey methods such as the  IBI for
fish and ICI for macroinvertebrates were developed
in streams and rivers and have yet to be applied to
many ecological  regions. In addition,  further re-
search is needed to adapt  the approach to lakes,
wetlands, and estuaries, including the development
of alternative structural  or functional endpoints. For
example,  assessment  methods for algae (e.g.
measures of biomass,  nuisance bloom frequency,
community structure) have been used for lakes. As-
sessment   metrics  appropriate  for  developing
biological criteria for lakes, large rivers, wetlands,
and  estuaries are being developed and tested so
that a multi-metric approach can be effectively used
for all surface waters.
                                                36

-------
                           Chapter 7
            Hypothesis  Testing:
   Biological  Criteria  and  the
              Scientific  Method
     Biological criteria are applied in the standards
     program by testing hypotheses about the
     biological integrity of  impacted surface
waters.  These  hypotheses  include  the  null
  lothesis—the designated use of the waterbody is
   impaired—and alternative hypotheses such as
   designated use of the waterbody is impaired
(more specific hypotheses can also be generated
that predict the type(s) of impairment). Under these
hypotheses specific predictions are generated con-
cerning the kinds and numbers of organisms repre-
senting community structure and function expected
or found in unimpaired habitats. The kinds and num-
bers of organisms surveyed in unimpaired waters
are used to establish the biological criteria. To test
the alternative hypotheses,  data collection and
analysis procedures are used to compare the criteria
to comparable measures of community structure and
function in impacted waters.
Hypothesis Testing

   To detect differences of biological and regula-
tory concern between biological criteria and ambient
biological integrity at a test site, it is important to es-
tablish the sensitivity of the evaluation. A10 percent
difference in condition is more difficult to detect than
  50 percent difference. For the experimental/sur-
  y design to be effective, the level of  detection
should be predetermined to establish sample size
                                        Multiple impacts in the same surface water such as
                                        discharges of effluent from point sources, leachate from
                                        landfills or dumps, and erosion from habitat degradation
                                        each contribute to impairment of the surface water. AH
                                        impacts should be considered during the diagnosis
                                        process.
                                        for data  collection  (Sokal  and  Rohlf  1981).
                                        Knowledge of expected natural variation,  experi-
                                        mental error, and the kinds of detectable differences
                                        that can be expected will help determine  sample
                                     37

-------
               N*fon»l Progam Quid***
 size and location. This forms the basis for defining
 data quality objectives, standardizing data collection
 procedures,  and  developing  quality  assurance/
 quality control standards.
     Once data are collected and analyzed, they are
 used to test the hypotheses to determine if charac-
 teristics of the resident biota at a test site are sig-
 nificantly different from  established criteria values
 for a comparable habitat. There are three possible
 outcomes:

     1. The use is impaired when survey design and
       data analyses are sensitive enough to detect
       differences of regulatory importance, and
       significant differences were detected. The
       next step is to diagnose the cause(s)  and
       source(s)  of impairment.

    2. The biological criteria are met when survey
       design and data analyses are sensitive
       enough  to detect differences of regulatory
       significance, but no differences were found.
       In this case,  no action is required by States
       based on these measures. However, other
       evidence may indicate impairment (e.g.,
       chemical criteria are violated; see below).

    3.  The outcome is indeterminate when survey
       design and data analyses are not sensitive
       enough to detect differences of regulatory
       significance, and no differences were
       detected. If a State or Region determines
       that this is occurring, the development of
       study design and evaluation for biological
       criteria was incomplete. States must then
       determine whether they will accept the
       sensitivity of the survey or conduct
       additional surveys to increase the power of
       their analyses. If the sensitivity of the
       original survey is accepted, the State should
       determine what magnitude of difference the
       survey is capable of detecting. This will aid
       In re-evaluating research design and desired
       detection limits. An indeterminate outcome
       may also occur if the test site and the
       reference conditions were not comparable.
       This variable may also require re-evaluation.

   As with all scientific studies, when implementing
biological criteria, the purpose of hypothesis testing
is to determine if the data support the conclusion
that the null hypothesis is false (i.e., the designated
 use  is not  impaired  in  a particular waterbody).
 Biological criteria cannot prove attainment.  This
 reasoning provides the basis for emphasizing inde-
 pendent   application   of  different   assessment
 methods  (e.g., chemical verses biological criteria).
 No type of criteria can "prove" attainment; each type
 of criteria can disprove attainment.
    Although this discussion is limited to the null
 and one  alternative hypothesis, it is possible  to
 generate   multiple  working  hypotheses  (Popper,
 1968) that promote the diagnosis of  water quality
 problems when they exist. For example, if physical
 habitat limitations are believed to be causing impair-
 ment   (e.g.,  sedimentation)    one   alternative
 hypothesis could specify  the  loss of community
 components  sensitive to this impact. Using multiple
 hypotheses can  maximize the information gained
 from each study. See the Diagnosis section for addi-
 tional discussion.
 Diagnosis
    When  impairment of the  designated use  is
found using biological criteria, a diagnosis of prob-
able cause of impairment is the next step for im-
plementation. Since biological criteria are primarily
designed  to  detect  water  quality impairment,
problems are likely to be identified without a known
cause. Fortunately the  process of evaluating test
sites for biological impairment  provides significant
information to aid in determining cause.
    During diagnostic evaluations, three main im-
pact categories should be  considered:  chemical,
physical, and biological. To begin the  diagnostic
process two questions are posed:

    • What are the obvious causes of impairment?

    • If no obvious causes are apparent, what
     possible causes do the biological data
     suggest?

    Obvious causes such as habitat degradation,
point source discharges, or introduced species are
often identified during the course of a normal field
biological assessment. Biomonitoring programs nor-
mally provide knowledge of potential sources of im-
pact and characteristics of  the habitat.  As  such,
diagnosis is partly incorporated into many existing
State  field-oriented  bioassessment  programs.   If
more than one impact source is obvious,  diagnosis
                                                38

-------
                                                                             Chapter 7: Hypothesis Tasting
will require determining which impact(s) is the cause
of impairment or the extent to which each impact
contributes to impairment. The nature of the biologi-
cal impairment can guide evaluation (e.g., chemical
contamination may  lead  to  the  loss  of sensitive
species, habitat degradation may result in loss of
breeding habitat for certain species).
    Case studies  illustrate  the  effectiveness  of
biological criteria in identifying  impairments and
possible sources. For  example,  in  Kansas  three
sites on Little Mill Creek were assessed using Rapid
Bioassessment  Protocols (Plafkin et al.  1989; see
Fig. 4). Based  on  the results of a  comparative
analysis,  habitats at the three  sites were  com-
parable and of high quality. Biological impairment,
however, was identified at two of the three sites and
directly related to proximity to a point source dis-
charge from a sewage treatment plant. The severely
impaired  Site (STA 2)  was located  approximately
100 meters downstream from the plant. The slightly
impaired Site (STA 3) was located between one and
two miles downstream from the plant. However, the
unimpaired Site (STA 1(R)) was approximately 150
meters upstream from the plant (Plafkin et al. 1989).
This simple example illustrates the basic principles
of  diagnosis. In  this case the treatment plant ap-
pears responsible for  impairment of  the resident
biota  and the discharge needs  to  be  evaluated.
Based on the biological survey the results are clear.
However, impairment  in  resident populations of
macrpinvertebrates probably would not have been
recognized using more traditional methods.
    In Maine, a more complex problem arose when
effluents from a textile plant met chemical-specific
and effluent toxicity criteria, yet a biological survey
of downstream biota revealed up to 80 percent
reduction in invertebrate richness below  plant out-
falls. Although the source of impairment seemed
clear, the cause of impairment was more  difficult to
determine.  By engaging in a diagnostic evaluation,
Maine was able to determine that the discharge con-
tained  chemicals   not  regulated  under  current
programs and that  part of the toxicity effect was due
to the  sequential   discharge of unique  effluents
(tested  individually these effluents were  not toxic;
when exposure was  in a  particular  sequence,
toxicity occurred). Use'of biological criteria resulted
in the detection and diagnosis of this toxicity prob-
lem, which allowed Maine to develop workable alter-
native operating procedures for the textile industry
to correct  the problem  (Courtemanch  1989, and
pers. comm.).
    During  diagnosis it is important to consider and
discriminate among multiple sources of impairment.
In a North Carolina stream (see Figure 5) four sites
were evaluated using rapid bioasseissment techni-
Figure 4.—Kansas: Benthic Bioassossment of Little Mill Creek (Little Mill Creek
Relationship of Habitat and Bioassessment
                     Site-Specific Reference)
    100
                                                                                              100
                                     Habitat Quality (% of Reference)
Fig. 4: Three stream segments sampled in a stream in Kansas using Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al 1989) reveaied
significant impairments at sites below a: sewage treatment plant.
                                                  39

-------
 Stofcfffca/CWfrrfr Naitorml Program Guidance
 Figure 5—The Relationship Between Habitat Quality and Benthic Community Condition at the North Carolina
 Pilot Study Site.
                                     Habitat Quality (% of Reference)
Fig. 5: Distinguishing between point and nonpoint sources of impairment requires an evaluation of the nature and magnitude
of different sites in a surface water. (Plafkin, et al. 1989)
ques. An ecoregional reference site (R) established
the  highest  level of  biological  integrity for that
stream  type. Site (1), well upstream from a local
town, was used as the upstream reference condi-
tion. Degraded conditions at Site (2) suggested non-
point source  problems  and  habitat degradation
because of proximity  to residential  areas on the
upstream edge of town.  At Site (3)  habitat altera-
tions, nonpoint runoff, and point source discharges
combined to severely degrade resident biota. At this
site, sedimentation  and  toxicity  from  municipal
sewage treatment effluent appeared responsible for
a  major portion of this degradation. Site (4),  al-
though several mites downstream from  town, was
still  Impaired  despite significant improvement  in
habitat  quality.  Thfc  suggests that toxicity from
upstream discharges may still be occurring (Bar-
fa our, 1990 pers. comm.). Using these kinds of com-
parisons, through a diagnostic procedure and by
using available chemical and biological assessment
tools, the relative effects of impacts  can be deter-
mined so that solutions can  be formulated to im-
prove water quality.
   When point and nonpoint impact and physical
habitat degradation occur simultaneously, diagnosis
may require the combined use of biological, physi-
cal, and chemical evaluations to discriminate be-
tween these impacts. For example, sedimentation of
a stream caused by  logging practices is likely  to
result in a decrease in species that require loose
gravel for spawning but increase species naturally
adapted to fine sediments. This shift in community
components correlates well with the observed im-
pact.  However, if the  impact is a point source dis-
charge or nonpoint runoff of toxicants, both species
types are likely to be impaired whether sedimenta-
tion occurs or not (although gravel breeding species
can  be  expected to  show greater  impairment if
sedimentation  occurs).  Part  of  the  diagnostic
process  is derived from an understanding  of or-
ganism sensitivities to djfferent kinds of impacts and
their habitat requirements. When habitat is good but
water  quality  is  poor,  aquatic community com-
ponents sensitive to toxicity will  be impaired. How-
ever, if both habitat and water quality degrade, the
resident  community is  likely to be  composed  of
tolerant and opportunistic species.
   When an impaired use cannot be easily related
to  an obvious cause, the  diagnostic process be-
comes investigative and iterative. The iterative diag-
nostic process as shown in Figure 6 may require
additional time and resources to verify cause  and
source.  Initially,  potential sources  of impact are
identified and mapped to determine location relative
                                                40

-------
                                                                             Chapter 7: Hypothesis Tasting
Figure 6.—Diagnostic Process


           Establish Biological Criteria
Conduct Field Assessment to Determine Impairment

                  X    V
               Yes            No «^> No Further
                                        Action
     Evaluate Data to Determine
          Probable Cause
   Generate Testable Hypotheses
         for Probable Cause
          Collect Data and
          Evaluate Results
                 *
No Apparent Cause
                               Obvious Cause
  ( Propose New Alternative
  ' Hypotheses and Collect
          New Data
                       Formulate Remedial m
                             Action
 Fig. 6: The diagnostic process is a stepwise process for
 determining the cause of impaired biological integrity in sur-
 face waters. It may require multiple hypotheses testing and
 more than one remedial plan.
                                               to the area suffering from biological impairment. An
                                               analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological
                                               characteristics of the study area will help identify the
                                               most likely sources and determine which data will
                                               be most valuable. Hypotheses that distinguish be-
                                               tween  possible causes of impairment should be
                                               generated. Study design and appropriate data col-
                                               lection procedures need to be developed to test the
                                               hypotheses. The severity of the impairment, the dif-
                                               ficulty  of  diagnosis,  and the  costs  involved will
                                               determine  how many iterative loops will be  com-
                                               pleted in the diagnostic process.
                                                   Normally,  diagnoses  of  biological  impairment
                                               are  relatively  straightforward. States  may  use
                                               biological criteria as a method to confirm impairment
                                               from a known source of impact. However, the diag-
                                               nostic process provides an effective way to identify
                                               unknown  impacts and diagnose their cause so that
                                               corrective action can  be devised and implemented.
                                                   41

-------

-------
                                      References
Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr. (1986). Applying an Index of Biotlc
    Integrity Based on Stream-Fish Communities: Considera-
    tions In Sampling and Interpretation. Ani; J. Fish. Manage. 6:
    418-429.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. (1988).
    Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface
    Waters of the State of Arkansas. Regulation No. 2.
Barbour, ?.?. (1990). Personal communication. EA Engineering,
    Science and Technology, Inc., Sparks, MD.
Botton, M.L. (1979). Effects of sewage sludge on the benthic in-
    vertebrate community on the inshore New  York Bight. Es-
    tuar. Coast. Shelf. Sd. 8:169-180
Brooks, R.P. and  R.M. Hughes. (1988). Guidelines for assessing
    the biotlc communities of freshwater wetlands. Pages 276-
    82 in JA Kusler. M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, eds. Proc.
    National  Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts  and.
    Losses. Ass. State Wetland Managers, Berne, NY.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (1989). Federal Water Pollu-
    tion Control Act as Amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.
    Washington, D.C.
Cairns, J. Jr. (1975). Quantification of biological integrity. Pages
     171-85 in R.K. Ballentine and LJ.  Ciuarrie, eds.. The In-
     tegrity of Water, A Symposium. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
     Washington, D.C.
 Clarke, S., D.  White, and A. Schaedel. Mas. Oregon ecological
     regions and subregions for water management. Connecticut
     1987.
 Connecticut Department of  Environmental Protection. (1987).
     Water Quality Standards.
 Courtemanch, D.L. (1989).  Implementation of biocriteria in the
     water quality  standards program. Water Quality Standards
     for the 21st Century: Proc. Nat). Cent. Office of Drinking
     Water. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
 Courtemanch, D.L. and S.P. Davies. (1987). Implementation of
     biological standards and criteria In Maine's water classifica-
     tion  law. In Proc.  Instream  Blomonitoring and Biological
     Criteria Workshop. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Lincolnwood.
     IL.
 Courtemanch, D.L., S.P. Davies, and E.B. Laverty. (1989). Incor-
     poration  of biological information In water quality planning.
     Environ. Manage. 13:35-41.
 Courtemanch, D.L. and S.P. Davies. (1989).  Why Maine has
     Chosen to  Integrate Biological Impact Standards Into State
     Water Quality Law. Maine Dep. Environ. Prot., Augusta.
 Eagleson, K.W., D.L. Lenat, L.W. Rusley  and R.B. Winborne.
      Comparison  of Measured Instream Biological Responses
      with  Responses Predicted Using the Ceriodaphnia dubia
      Chronic Toxlcity Test. Environ. Tox. and Chemistry 9:1019-
      1028.
Forbes, S. (1928). Foreword. In R.E. Richardson, The bottom
    fauna of the middle Illinois River, 1913-1925. BuH. III. Nat.
    Hist Surv. Vol. 17, Article 7,387-472.
Gakstatter, J., J.R. Gammon, R.M. Hughes, L.S. Ischinger, M.
    Johnson, J. Karr, T. Murphy, T.M.  Murray, and T.  Stuart.
    (1981). A recommended approach for determining biological
    integrity In flowing waters. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Cor-
    vallis, OR.
Gallant, A.L.. T.R. Whittier, D.P. La/sen, J.M. Omemik, and R.M.
    Hughes. (1989). Regionalization as a Tool for Managing En-
    vironmental Resources.  EPA/600/3-89/060. U.S. Environ.
    Res. Lab. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Gammon, J.R. (1976). The fish populations of the middle 340 km
    of the Wabash  River. Tech. Rep. 86.  Purdue Univ. Water
    Resour. Res. Center, West Lafayette, IN.
Gammon, J.R., A. Spacie,  J.L Hamelink, and R.L.  Kaesler.
    (1981).  Role of electrofishing in assessing environmental
    quality of the Wabash River. Pages 307-24 in J.M. Bates and
    C.I.  Weber, eds., Ecological Assessments  of Effluents Im-
    pacts on Communities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms.
    STP 703. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.
Green, R.H.  (1979). Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for
     Environmental Biologists. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hall,  J.D., M.L Murphy, and R.S.  Aho.  (1989). An improved
     design  for assessing  impacts  of watershed practices on
     small streams. Proc. Int. Ass. Theoret Appl. LJmnoi. 20:
     1359-65.
Hieskary. SA, C.B. Wilson, and D.P. Larson. (1987). Analysis of
     regional patterns in lake water quality, using ecoregions for
     lake management in Minnesota. Lake Reserv. Manage. 3:
     337-344.
 Hilsenhoff, W.L. (1987). An improved biotic index of organic
     stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomol. 20(1): 31 -39.
 Hughes. R.M.  (1989a). What can biological monitoring tell  us
     about the environmental health of aquatic ecosystems? In
     R.C. Ward, J.C. Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds., Proc. Int.
     Symp.  on the Design of Water Quality Information Systems.
     Inf. Ser. No. 61. Colo. Water Resour. Res. Inst Colorado
      State Univ., R. Collins.
 Hughes. R.M.  (1989b). Ecoregional biological criteria. In Water
      Quality Standards for the 21st Century. Proc. Nati. Conf. Off.
     Water. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
 Hughes. R.M., E. Rexstad. and C.E. Bond. (1987). The relation-
      ship of aquatic ecoregions, river basins, and physiographic
      provinces to the Ichthyogeographic regions  of  Oregon.
      Copela: 423-432.
 Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larson, and J.M. Omernik. (1986). Regional
      reference sites: a method for assessing stream pollution. En-
      viron. Manage. 10(5): 629-625.
 Hughes. R.M.  (1985). Use of watershed characteristics to select
     • control stream for estimating effects of metal mining wastes
                                                           43

-------
 Bbtogtetl Ctttfrtx  NtSwa/ Program Guidanct
     on extensively disturbed streams. Environ. Manage. 9: 253-
     262.
 Judy. R.D. Jr., P.N. Seeiy, T.M. Murray. S.C. Svfrsky. M.R. Whit-
     worth, and US. Ischlnger. (1987). 1982 National Fisheries
     Survey. Vol. 1 FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
 Ktrr, J.R. (1981). Assessment of Wotic Integrity using fish com-
     munities. Fisheries 6(6): 21 -27.
 Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. (1981). Ecological Perspectives on
     Water Quality Goals. Environ. Manage. 5:55-68.
 	. (1987). Biological monitoring and environmental assess-
     ment  a  conceptual  framework.  Environ. Manage. 11(2):
     249-256.
 Karr, J.R.,  K.D. Fausch.  P.L. Angermier, P.R. Yant, and I.J.
     Schtosser.  (1988). Assessing biological Integrity in running
     waters: a method and Its rationale. Spec. Publ. 5. ID. Nat.
     HlttSurv.
 Lanwm, D.P., J.M. Omemlk. R.M. Hughes. C.M. Rohm. T.R. Whit-
     tier, AJ. Wnney, A.L. Gallant, and D.R. Dudley. (1986). The
     correspondence  between  spatial  patterns  in  fish  as-
     semblages  In Ohio streams  and aquatic  ecoreglons.  En-
     viron. Manage. 10:815-828.
 Lertat, D.R. (1988). Water quality assessment of streams using a
     qualitative collection method for benthlc macroinvertebrates,
     J. N. Am. Bentholog. Soc. 7:222-33.
 Lyons, J. (1989). Correspondence between the distribution of fish
     assemblages   In  Wisconsin  streams  and  Omernik's
     ecoreglons. Am. Midland Nat 122(1): 163-182.
 Maine Water  Quality  Classification  Program. (1986).  Maine
     Revised Status Annotation. Title 38 Article 4-A Section 465.
 McCaS, P.L. (1977). Community patterns and adaptive strategies
     of the tnfaunai benthos of Long Island Sound. J. Mar. Res.
     35:221-266.
 Meams. AJ.  and  J.Q. Word. (1982). Forecasting effects  of
     sewage solids on marine benthlc communities. Pages 495-
     512 In G.F.  Mayer, ed.. Ecological Stress and the New York
     Bight: Science and Management Estuar. Res. Fed., Colum-
     bia, SC.
 Miller, D.L et  a). (1988). Regional applications of an Index of
     btotte  Integrity for use in  water resource  management.
     Fisheries  13(5): 12.
 Miner, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. (1989). Extinctions
     of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries
     14:22-38.
 North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
     Development  (1984). The Before and After Studies. Report
     No. 84-15.
 OWo Environmental Protection Agency. (19S8a). The Role  of
     Biological Data In Water Quality Assessment Vol. I. Biologi-
     cal Criteria  for th» Protection of Aquatic Life. Div. Water
     Qua!. Monitor. ASMS*. Surf. Water Section, Columbus.
	, (1988b). Water Quality Inventory 305(b). Report Vd 1.
     Div. Water Qua). Monitor. Asses*. Columbus.
	. (1990).  Onto Water Quality Standards.  Oh'to Admin.
     Cod« 3745-1. Adopted Feb. 2.
 OmemJk, J.M.  (1987). Ecoreglons  of the Conterminous United
     States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geog. 77(1): 118-125.
 Pheips, D. K. (1988). Marlne/Estuarlne Blomonltorlng: A Concep-
     tual Approach and Future Applications. Permits  Div.  Off.
     Water,  EPA 600VX-88/244. U.S.  Environ. Prot  Agency.
     Washington, D.C.
Plafton, J.L (1988). Water quality based controls  & ecosystem
     recovery.  In J. Calms, Jr., ed., Rehabilitating Damaged
     Ecosystems. Vol. II. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
 Plafkln, J.L, M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S. K. Gross,  and R.M.
     Hughes. (1989). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use In
     Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates  and Fish.
     EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington,
     D.C.
 Popper. K.R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper
     and Row, New York.
 Reich and Hart.  (1979). Pollution  Ecology of Estuarine  Inver-
     tebrates. Academic Press.
 Rohm, C.M., J.W. Giese, and C.C. Bennett (1987). Evaluation of
     an aquatic ecoregion classification of streams in Arkansas.
     J. Freshw. Ecol. 4:127-40.
 Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. (1981). Biometry: The Principles and
     Practice of Statistics in Biological Research.  2nd  Ed. W.H.
     Freeman, San Francisco.
 Stanford, J.A. and J.B. Ward. (1988). The hyporheic habitat of
     river ecosystems. Nature 335:64-66.
 Thomas J.D. (1990). Personal communication. Reef Foundation.
     Big Pine Key, FL.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983a). Water Quality
     Standards Handbook. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
     D.C.
 	. (1983b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
     and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
     Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington D.C.
 	. (1984a). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
     and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
     Vot   II.  Estuarine  Systems.   Off.  Water  Reg.  Stand.
     Washington D.C.
 	. (1984b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
     and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
     Vol III. Lake Systems. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
     D.C.
 	. (1989a). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund—En-
     vironmental Evaluation  Manual. Inter. Final. Off. Emerg.
     Remed. Response. Washington, D.C.
 	. (1989b).  Report of a Workshop on Biological Criteria:
     Diagnosis Strategies for Impaired Waterbody Uses. Sub-
     mitted by Battelle. Sept 30,1989. Unpubl.
 	. (1987a).  Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
     Change. Off. Water. Off. Policy Plann. Eval. Washington,
     D.C.
 	. (1987b). Report of the National Workshop on  Instream
     Biological Monitoring and Criteria. Off. Water Reg. Stand. In-
     stream Blolog. Criteria Comm. Region V. Environ. Res. Lab.
     U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Corvallls
 Water Quality Act of 1987. (1989). In The Environment Reporter.
     Bur. Natl. Affairs. Washington, D.C.
 Whlttler, T.R., D.P. Larson, R.M. Hughes. C.M.  Rohm, A.L Gal-
     lant, and J.M. Omernik. (1987). Ohio Stream Reglonalization
     Project: A Compendium of Results. Environ. Res. Lab. U.S.
     Environ. Prot Agency, Corvallls, OR.
Whittier. T.R., R.M. Hughes, and D.P. Larson.. (1988). Correspon-
     dence between ecoreglons and spatial patterns In stream
     ecosystems in Oregon.  Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sd. 45: 1264-
     78.
Yoder. C.O. (1989). The development and use biological criteria
     for Ohio  surface waters. Water Quality Standards for the
     21st Century.  Proc. Natl. Conf. Off. Water.  U.S.  Environ.
     Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C.
Code of Federal Regulations. (1989). Vol. 40, Part 131.10, U.S.
     Gov. Print. Off. Washington, D.C.
                                                          44

-------
                             Appendix  A
            Common  Questions  and
                        Their  Answers
   Q. How will implementing biological criteria
benefit State water quality programs?

   A. State water quality programs will benefit from
biological criteria because they:
   a) directly assess impairments in ambient
      biota from adverse impacts on the
      environment;

   b) are defensible and quantifiable;

   c) document improvements in water quality
      resulting from agency action;

   d) reduce the likelihood of false positives (i.e.,
      a conclusion that attainment is achieved
      when it is not);

   e) provide information on the integrity of
      biological systems that is compelling to the
      public.


   Q. How will biological criteria be used in a
 permit program?

   A. When permits are renewed, records from
 chemical analyses and biological assessments are
 used to determine if the permit  has  effectively
 prevented degradation and led to improvement. The
 purpose for this evaluation is to determine whether
 applicable water quality standards were achieved
 under the expiring permit and to decide if changes
 are needed. Biological surveys and criteria are par-
 ticularly effective for determining the quality  of
 waters  subject to permitted  discharges.  Since
 biosurveys provide ongoing integrative evaluations
 of the biological integrity of resident biota, permit
writers can make informed decisions on whether to
maintain or restrict permit limits.

   Q. What expertise and staff will be needed to
implement a biological criteria program?

   A. Staff with sound knowledge of State aquatic
biology and scientific protocol are needed to coor-
dinate a  biological criteria program.  Actual  field
monitoring could be accomplished by summer-hire
biologists led by permanent staff aquatic biologists.
Most States employ aquatic biologists for monitor-
ing trends or issuing site-specific permits.

    Q. Which management personnel should be
involved in a biologically-based approach?

    A. Management  personnel  from each  area
within  the  standards  and monitoring  programs
should be involved in this approach, including per-
mit engineers, resource managers, and field per-
sonnel.

    Q. How much will this approach cost?

    A. The cost of developing biological criteria is a
 State-specific question depending upon many vari-
 ables. However, States thai have  implemented a
 biological criteria program have found it to be cost
 effective (e.g., Ohio). Biological criteria provide an
 integrative assessment over time. Biota reflect mul-
 tiple  impacts. Testing for impairment of resident
 aquatic  communities  can actually  require less
 monitoring than would be required to detect many
 impacts using  more traditional  methods  (e.g.,
 chemical testing for episodic events).
                                           45

-------
Btotogictl CrHarit: National Prognm Guidance
    Q. What are some concerns of dischargers?

    A. Dischargers are concerned that  biological
criteria will  identity impairments that may be er-
roneously attributed to a  discharger who is  not
responsible. This is a legitimate concern that the
discharger and  State  must  address with careful
evaluations and diagnosis of cause of impairment.
However, it is particularly important to ensure that
waters used for the reference condition are not al-
ready  impaired as  may occur  when conducting
site-specific upstream-downstream evaluations. Al-
though a discharger may be contributing to surface
water degradation, it may be hard to detect using
biosurvey methods if the waterbody is also impaired
from other sources. This can be evaluated by test-
ing the possible toxicity of  effluent-free  reference
waters on sensitive organisms.
    Dischargers are also concerned that  current
permit limits may become  more stringent if  it is
determined that meeting chemical and  whole-ef-
fluent permit  limits  are not sufficient to  protect
aquatic life  from discharger activities. Alternative
forms of regulation  may be  needed; these are not
necessarily financially  burdensome but  could in-
volve additional expense.
    Burdensome monitoring requirements are addi-
tional concerns. With  new  rapid bioassessment
protocols available for streams, and under develop-
ment for other surface waters, monitoring resident
biota is becoming more straightforward. Since resi-
dent biota provide an integrative measure of en-
vironmental  impacts  over   time, the  need   for
continual  biomonitoring  is  actually  lower  than
chemical analyses and  generally less expensive.
Guidance is being developed to establish accept-
able research protocols, quality assurance/quality
control programs and training opportunities to en-
sure that adequate guidance is available.


    Q. What are the concerns of
environmentalists?

    A. Environmentalists are concerned that biologi-
cal criteria could be used to alter restrictions on dis-
chargers if biosurvey data indicate attainment  of a
designated  use  even  though  chemical  criteria
and/or whole-effluent toxicity evaluations predict im-
pairment. Evidence suggests that this occurs infre-
quently  (e.g.,  in Ohio,  6   percent of 431 sites
evaluated using  chemical-specific  criteria   and
bfosurveys resulted in this disagreement). In those
cases where evidence suggests more than one con-
clusion, independent application applies. If biologi-
cal  criteria  suggest  impairment  but  chemical-
specific and/or whole-effluent toxicity implies attain-
ment of the use, the cause for impairment of the
biota is to be evaluated  and,  where appropriate,
regulated. If whole effluent and/or chemical-specific
criteria imply impairment but no impairment is found
in resident biota, the whole-effluent and/or chemi-
cal-specific criteria provide the basis for regulation.


    Q. Do biological criteria have to be codified
in State regulations?

    A. State water quality standards require  three
components:  (1) designated uses, (2)  protective
criteria, and  (3) an antidegradation  clause. For
criteria to be enforceable  they must be codified  in
regulations.  Codification could involve general nar-
rative  statements of biological  criteria,  numeric
criteria, and/or criteria accompanied by specific test-
ing  procedures.  Codifying   general  narratives
provides the most flexibility—specific methods for
data collection the least flexibility—for incorporating
new data and  improving data gathering methods as
the  biological criteria  program develops. States
should  carefully consider how  to  codify  these
criteria.
    Q. How will biocriteria fit into the agency's
method of implementing standards?

    A. Resident biota integrate multiple impacts
over time and can detect impairment from known
and unknown causes. Biocriteria can be used to
verify improvement in water quality in response to
regulatory efforts and detect continuing degradation
of waters. They provide a framework for developing
improved best management practices for nonpoint
source impacts. Numeric criteria can provide effec-"
live monitoring criteria for inclusion in permits.


    Q. Who determines the values for biological
criteria and decides whether a waterbody meets
the criteria?

    The process of developing biological criteria, in-
cluding refined use classes, narrative criteria,  and
numeric criteria, must include agency managers,
staff biologists, and the public through public hear-
ings and comment.  Once criteria are established,
determining attainment\nonattainment of a use re-
                                                46

-------
                                                            Appendix A Common Questions and Their Answers
quires biological and statistical evaluation based on
established protocol. Changes in the criteria would
require the same steps as the initial criteria: techni-
cal modifications by biologists, goal clarification by
agency managers, and public hearings. The key to
criteria development and revision is  a clear state-
ment of measurable objectives.
    Q. What additional information Is available
on developing and using biological criteria?

    A. This program guidance  document will be
supplemented by the document Biological Criteria
Development by States that includes case histories
of State implementation of biological criteria as nar-
ratives, numerics, and some data procedures. The
purpose for the document is to expand on material
presented in Part I. The document will be available
in October 1990.
    A general Biological Criteria Technical Refer-
ence  Guide will also  be available for  distribution
during FY 1991. This document outlines basic ap-
proaches for developing biological criteria in all sur-
face   waters  (streams,  rivers,  lakes,  wetlands,
estuaries). The primary focus of the document is to
provide a reference guide to scientific literature that
describes approaches and methods used to deter-
mine  biological  integrity of specific surface  water
types.
    Over the next triennium more detailed guidance
will be produced that focuses on each surface water
type  (e.g.,  technical guidance for streams will be
 produced during FY 91). Comparisons of different
 biosurvey approaches will be included for accuracy,
 efficacy, and cost effectiveness.
                                                  47

-------

-------
                      Appendix B
    Biological Criteria  Technical
                Reference  Guide
Table of Contents (tentative)

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
   o Purpose of the Technical Support Document
   a Organization of the Support Document

SECTION 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
   Q Definitions
   a Biocriteria and the Scientific Method
   Q Hypothesis Formulation and Testing
   a Predictions
   a Data Collection and Evaluation

SECTION 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
   a Data Quality Objectives
   a Quality Assurance Program Plans and Project Plans
   a Importance of QA/QC for Bioassessment
   a Training
   a Standard Procedures
   a Documentation
   a Calibration of Instruments

 SECTION 4. PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOCRITERIA
    a Designated Uses
    a Reference Site or Condition
    a Biosurvey
    Q Biological Criteria
                                49

-------
           : National Program Guidance
SECTION 5. BIOASSESSMENT STRATEGIES TO DETERMINE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
    o Detailed Ecological Reconnaissance
    a Blosurveys of Targeted Community Segments
    Q Rapid Bloassessment Protocols
    o Bloindicators

SECTION 6. ESTABLISHING THE REFERENCE CONDITION
    a Reference Conditions Based on Site-Specific Comparisons
    a Reference Conditions Based on Regions of Ecological Similarity
    o Reference Conditions Based on Habitat Assessment

SECTION 7. THE REFERENCE CATALOG

SECTION 8. THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT ON BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
    a Habitat Assessment for Streams and Rivers
    Q Habitat Assessment for Lakes and Reservoirs
    Q Habitat Assessment for Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
    Q Habitat Assessment for Wetlands

SECTION 9. BIOSURVEY METHODS TO ASSESS BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
    a Biotic Assessment in Freshwater
    Q Biotic Assessment hi Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
    o Biotic Assessment in Wetlands

SECTION 1 0. DATA ANALYSIS
    a Sampling Strategy and Statistical Approaches
    a Diversity Indices
    a Biological Indices
    D Composite Community Indices

APPENDIX A. Freshwater Environments
APPENDIX B. Estuarine and Near-Coastal Environments
APPENDIX C. Wetlands Environments
APPENDIX D. Alphabetical Author/Reference Cross Number Index for the Reference Catalog
APPENDIX E. Reference Catalog Entries
LIST OF FIGURES
    Q Figure 1 Bioassessment decision matrix
    a Figure 2 Specimen of a reference citation in the Reference Catalog
                                          50

-------
                             Appendix C
                 Biological  Criteria
            Development  by  States
Table of Contents (tentative)

I.   Introduction

II.   Key Concepts
III.  Biological Criteria Across the 50 States

IV.  Case Study of Ohio
    A. Introduction
       1.  Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2.  Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
       1.  Development of Biological Criteria
       2.  Current Status of Biological Criteria
    C. Discussion
       1.  Program Resources
       2.  Comparative Cost Calculations
       3.  Program Evaluation

V.   Case Study of Maine
    A. Introduction
       1.  Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2. Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
       1. Development of BiologicaJ Criteria
       2. Program Rationale
    C. Discussion
       1. Program Resources
       2. Program Evaluation

VI.  Case Study of North Carolina
    A. Introduction
       1. Derivation of  Biological Criteria
       2. Application of Biological.Griteria
    B. History
       1.  Development of Biological Criteria
       2.  Current Status of Biological Criteria
    C. Discussion
       1.  Program Resources
       2.  Program Evaluation

VII.  Case Study of Arkansas
    A. Introduction
       1.  Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2.  Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
       1.  Development of Biological Criteria
       2.  Current Status of Biological Criteria
    C. Discussion
       1.  Program Resources
       2.  Program Evaluation

VIII. Case Study of Florida
    A. Introduction
       1.  Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2.  Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
    C. Discussion

IX.  Case Summaries of Six States
    A. Connecticut
    B. Delaware
    C. Minnesota
    D. Nebraska
    E. New York
    F. Vermont
                                         51

-------

-------
                              Appendix  D
      Contributors  and Reviewers
Contributors
Gerald Ankley
USEPA Environmental Research
  Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Ouluth, MN 55804

John Arthur
USEPA
ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth. MN 55804

Patricia Bailey
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155

Joe Ball
Wisconsin DNR
Water Resource Management
  (WR/2)
P.O. Box 7291
Madison, Wl 53707

Michael Barbour
EA Engineering, Science, and
  Technology Inc.
Hunt Valley/Loveton Center
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152

Raymond Beaumler
Ohio EPA
Water Quality Laboratory
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
John Bender
Nebraska Department of
  Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 69509

Mark Blosser
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources - Water Quality Mgmt.
  Branch
P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Way
Dover, DE 19903

Robert Bode
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
Albany, NY 12201

Lee Bridges
Indiana Department of Environment
  Management
5500 W.Bradbury
Indianapolis, IN 46241

Claire Buchanan
Interstate Commission on Potomac
  River Basin
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20852-3903

David Courtemanch
Maine Department of
  Environmental Protection
Director, Division of Environmental
Evaluation and Lake Studies
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Norm Crisp
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115

Susan Davies
Maine Department of
  Environmental Protection
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333

Wayne Davis
Environmental Scientist
Ambient Monitoring Section
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA)
Chicago, IL 60605

Kenneth Duke
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693

Gary Pandrel
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Division of Water Quality
520 La Fayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155

Steve Fiske
Vermont Department of
  Environmental Conservation
6 Baldwin St
Montpelier, VT 05602
                                           53

-------
               Nattontl Program Guidance
John GI*M
Arkansas Department Of Pollution
 , Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209

St»v«n Glomb
Office of Marine and Estuarine
  Protection
USEPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460

Sttv* Goodbrcd
Division of Ecological Services
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1825 B. Virginia Street
Annapolis, MD 21401

Jim Hirrlaon
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St. (4WM-MEB)
Allan ta.G A 30365

Margaret* H«b»r
Office of Water Enforcements and
  Permits
USEPA (EN-336)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460

Slav* Hedtka
US EPA Environmental Research
  Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804

RobertHitt
Illinois EPA
2209 West Main
Marion, IL 62959

Linda Hoist
USEPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Evan Hornig
USEPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank at Fountain
  Place
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
William B. Horning II
Aquatic Biologist. Project
  Management Branch
USEPA/ORD Env. Monitoring
  Systems
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH 45244

Robert Hughes
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333

Jim Hulbert
Rorida Department of
  Environmental Regulation
Suite 232
3319Maguire Blvd.
Orlando, FL 32803

James Kennedy
Institute of Applied Sciences
North Texas State University
Denton, TX 76203

Richard Langdon
Vermont Department of
  Environmental
  Conservation—10 North
10SS. Main Street
Waterbury. VT 05676

John Lyons
Special Projects  Leader
Wisconsin Fish Research Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural
  Resources
3911 Rsh Hatchery Rd.
Fitchburg, Wl 53711

Anthony Maclorowskl
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693

Suzanne Marcy
Office of Water Regulations and
  Standards
USEPA (WH 585)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460

Scott Mattee
Geological Survey of Alabama
PO Drawer O
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
John Maxted
Delaware Department of Natural
  Resources and Environmental
  Control
39 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903

Jlmmie Overton
NC Dept of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P.O. BOX27687
512 N.Salisbury
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687

Steva Paulsen
Enviromental Research Center
University of Nevada - Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkey
Las Vegas, NV 89154

Loys Parrlsh
USEPA Region 8
P.O. Box25366
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225

David Penros*
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Department of
  Natural Resources and
Community Development
512 N.Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611

Don Phelps
USEPA
Environmental Research Lab
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882

Ernest Plzzuto
Connecticut Department
  Environmental Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06115

James Plafkin
Office of Water Regulations and
  Standards
USEPA (WH 553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington. DC 20460

Ronald Preston
Biological Science Coordinator
USEPA Region 3
Wheeling Office (3ES12)
303 Methodist Building
Wheeling, WV 26003
                                                  54

-------
                                                                      Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers
Ronald Raschke
Ecological Support Branch
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 4
Athens, GA 30613

Mark Southerland
Dynamac Corporation
The Dynamac Building
11140RickvillePike
Rockviile, MD 20852

James Thomas
Newfound .Harbor Marine Institute
Rt. 3.BOX170
Big Pine Key, FL 33043

Nelson Thomas
USEPA, ERL-Duluth
Senior Advisor for National Program
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Randall Waite
USEPA Region 3
Program Support Branch (3WMIO)
841 Chesnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107

JohnWegrzyn
Manager, Water Quality Standards
  Unit
Arizona Department of
  Environmental Quality
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 95004

Thorn Whittier
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333

BUI Wuerthele
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 8 (WM-SP)
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Chris Yoder
Asst. Manager, Surface Water
  Section
Water Quality Monitoring and
  Assessment
Ohio EPA-Water Quality Lab
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212

David Yount
US EPA Environmental Research
  Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804

Lee Zeni
Interstate Commission on Potomac
   River Basin
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300
Rockviile, MD 20852-3903
Reviewers
 Paul Adamus
 Wetlands Program
 NSI Technology Services
 200 S.W. 35th Street
 Corvailis, OR 97333

 Rick Albright
 USEPA Region 10 (WD-139)
 1200 6th Avenue NW
 Seattle, WA 98101

 Max Anderson
 USEPA Region 5
 536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
 Chicago, IL 60605

 Michael D. Bilgtr
 USEPA Region 1.
 John F. Kennedy Building
 Boston, MA 02203

 Susan Boldt
 University of Wisconsin Extension
 Madison, Wl

 Paul Campanella
 Office of Policy, Planning and
   Evaluation
 USEPA (PM 222-A)
 401 M St. S.W.
 Washington, DC 20460
Cindy Carusone
New York Department of
   Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
Albany. NY 12201

Brian Choy
Hawaii Department of Health
645 Halekauwila St.
Honolulu, HI 96813

Bill Creal
Michigan DNR
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909

Phil Crocker
Water Quality Management Branch
USEPA Region 6 /1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

 Kenneth Cummins
Appalachian Environmental Lab
 University of Maryland
 Frostburg,MD21532

 Jeff DeShon
 Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section
 1030 King Ave.
 Columbus, OH 43212
 Peter Farrington
 Biomonitoring Assessments Officer
 Water Quality Branch
 Inland Waters Directorate
 Environment Canada
 Ottawa, Ontario K1AOH3

 Kenneth Fenner
 USEPA Region 5
 Water Quality Branch
 230 S. Dearborn
 Chicago. IL 60604

 Jack Freda
 Ohio EPA
 Surface Water Section
 1030 King Avenue
 Columbus. OH 43212

 Toby Frevert
 Illinois EPA
 Division of Water Pollution Control
 2200 Churchill Road
 Springfield. IL 62706

 Cynthia Fuller
 USEPA QLNPO
 230 S. Dearborn
 Chicago. IL 60604
                                                  55

-------
               Nitiontl Program Guidanco
Jiff Gagler
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604

Miry Jo Garrel*
Maryland Department of the
  Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Building 30
Baltimore, MD 21224

Jim Glattlna
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604

Jim Green
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 3
303 Methodist Bldg.
11th and Chapline
Wheeling, WV 26003

Larindo Gronner
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365

Martin Gurtz
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
P.O. Box 2857
Raleigh, NO 27602-2857

Rick Hafele
Oregon Department Environmental
  Quality
1712 S.W.  11th Street
Portland, OR 97201

Stevt Helskary
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
SLPaul. MN55155

Rollle Hemmett
USEPA Region 2
Environmental Services
Woodridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837

Charles Hocutt
Horn Point Environmental
  Laboratory
Box 775 University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD 21613
Hoke Howard
USEPA Region 4
College Station Road
Athens, G A 30605

Peter Husby
USEPA Region 9
215 FreemontSt
San Francisco, CA94105

Gerald JacobI
Environmental Sciences
School of Science and Technology
New Mexico Highlands University
Las Vegas, NM 87701

James Karr
Department of Biology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
  State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406

Roy Kleinsasser
Texas Parks and Wildlife
P.O. Box 947
San Marcos, TX 78667

Don Klemm
USEPA Environmental Monitoring
  and Systems Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Robin Knox
Louisiana Department of
  Environment Quality
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70726

Robert Koroncai
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 3
847 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Jim Kurztenbach
USEPA Region 2
WoodbridgeAve.
Rariton Depot Bldg. 10
Edison, NJ 08837

Roy Kwlatkowski
Water Quality Objectives Division
Water Quality Branch
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
K1AOH3
Jim Lajorchak
EMSL-Cincinnati
U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency
Cincinnati, OH

David Lenat
NC Dept of Natural Resources and
Community Development
512 N.Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611

James Luey
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604

Terry Maret
Nebraska Department of
  Environmental Control
Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 69509

Wally Matsunaga
Illinois EPA
1701 First Ave., #600
Maywood, IL60153

Robert Mosher
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd. #15
P.O. Box19276
Springfield, IL 62794

Phillip Oshlda
USEPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA94105

Bill Painter
USEPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW (W435B)
Washington, DC 20460

Rob Pepln
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604

Wayne Poppe
Tennessee Valley Authority
270 Haney Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN 37401

Walter Redmon
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
                                                 56

-------
                                                                       Appendix O: Contributors and Reviewers
LandonRoss
Florida Department of
  Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399

Jean Roberts
Arizona Department of
  Environmental Quality
2655 East Magnolia
Phoenix, AZ 85034

Charles Saylor
Tennessee Valley Authority
Reid Operations Eastern Area
Division of Services and Field
Operations
Norn's, TN 37828

Robert Schacht
Illinois EPA
1701 First Avenue
Maywood,IL60153

Duane Schuettpelz
Chief, Surface Water Standards and
Monitoring Section-Wisconsin
  Department of Natural
  Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Bruce Shackleford
Arkansas Department of Pollution
  Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209

Larry Shepard
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604

Jerry Shulte
Ohio River Sanitation Commission
49 E. 4th St., Suite 851
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Thomas Simon
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605

J. Singh
USEPA Region 5
536 Clark St. (5SCDO)
Chicago, IL 60605
Marc Smith
Biomonitoring Section
Ohio EPA
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212

Denise Steurer
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604

William Tucker
Supervisor, Water Quality
  Monitoring
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
4500 S. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62706

Stephen Twldwell
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087

Barbara Williams
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
                                                   57

-------

-------
         APPENDIX D
          National Guidance:
         Water Quality Standards
             for Wetlands
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                              Ili'lll IW
ill
                                    llllllllllllllllllll   llllllllll  lllllll IIIIII llllllllllllllllllll  IIIII  111 II 111  IIIII  11 III II IIIIII llllllllllllllllllll III 111 11 111 111 111II 111 III llllllllllllllllllll
                                    llllllllll  llllllllllllllllllll  111   I IIP  llllllllll  llllllllll  111   111111II11II11IIII lllllll llllllllll   II1111 Illlllll llllllllll lllllll III llllllllll
                                    Illllllllllll   llllllllll   III 111  III  III Illlllll III llllllllll Illlllll  IIIIII  I IIIIII llllllllll III llllllllll Illlllll Illllllllllll III Illllllllllll llllllllll II llllllllllllllllllll
liiliii   illllIB
III   lllllll  I Illllllllllll II11II 111 I 111 111 lllllll 11 III Illllllllllllllll Illllllllllll III ll  II 111 III II111IIIIIIIH^      III lllllll lllllll Illllllllllll
                          HI III' 1 "I i|i llllllllllllllllllll1  I iiH!	HI1'111111 Illllllllllll III	1 111 • 11  (1111111<11IB                          illllililll
                                            ..... Illljii!! ..... I ..... IKIIH                        ..... (I ..... !•
                                            lllllllli|l,l"ll	I'll'III IllilillililiiillillIi!'i'lli'lll'li||'|ll||il'|i,IP  liilliljlW
                                           'iii i   i if i   n1 n   i  i
                             't ...... \m\m ..... Ill1 'Iliilillllil .......... 11 ....... 11 ...... KMl ..... mimm ...... IIH^
                          Ill ........ iiilillliiil ....... llil ..... li'llINlH           ....... lillill ...... lilIIIB    ..... ilillll'Ilil
III	Ill'K I'
                          1	   llllllllll   n |i    in  i  1111 111 (i i  lllllll   IIIII 111111  I   III i IPIII IIIIII lllllll Illllii1|iilll|i|i||lllli|i|illl I illlill IIII III 111 llllllllllllllllllll
                                 11!!"!!	Ill  I'I1  IIII'I I'll	II	I	(•Illli'i
                                              i'lii'lilltllB

-------
&EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
              Office of Water
              Regulations and Standards (WH-585)
              Washinton, DC 20460
EPA44Q/S-9Q-Q1t
July 1990
Water  Quality  Standards
for Wetlands

National Guidance

-------

-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
                 WETLANDS
                National Guidance
                      July 1990
                     Prepared by:

          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Office of Water Regulations and Standards
              Office of Wetlands Protection

-------

-------
  This document is designated as Appendix B to Chapter 2 - General Program Guidance of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, December 1983.
             Table   of  Contents
 Transmittal Memo	•	 v

 Executive Summary	•	vii

 1.0 INTRODUCTION	-	1

    1.1 Objectives	2

    1.2 Organization	2

    1.3 Legal Authority	•	-.	3

 2.0 INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE WATERS	5

 3.0 USE CLASSIFICATION	7

    3.1 Wetland Types	8

    3.2 Wetland Functions and Values	10

    3.3 Designating Wetland Uses	11

 4.0 CRITERIA	15

    4.1 Narrative Criteria	15

       4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria	16

       4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria	•	16

    4.2 Numeric Criteria	•	17

       4.2.1 Numeric Criteria - Human Health	17

       4.2.2 Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life	17

 5.0 ANTIDEGRADATION	,	19

    5.1 Protection of Existing Uses	19
                                      in

-------
     5.2  Protection of High-Quality Wetlands	20
     5.3  Protection of Outstanding Wetlands	20
 6.0  IMPLEMENTATION	23
     6.1  Section 401 Certification	23
     6.2  Discharges to Wetlands	„	24
        6.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment	24
        6.2.2 Stormwater Treatment	24
        6.2.3 Fills	25
        6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control	25
     6.3 Monitoring	   25
     6.4 Mixing Zones and Variances	26
7.0  FUTURE DIRECTIONS	29
     7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria for Wetlands	29
     7.2 Wildlife Criteria	30
     7.3 Wetlands Monitoring	30
References	31
Appendices
    A -Glossary	A_-l
    B - Definition of "Waters of the U.S."	B-1
    C - Information on the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Values	C-1
    D - Regional Wetlands Coordinators
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	D-1
    E - Example of State Certification Action Involving Wetlands under CWA Section 401	E-1
                                              IV

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                                        OFFICE OF

                               ML 30 1990

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Final Document: National Guidance on Water Quality
          Standards for Wetlands
FROM:     Martha G. Prothro, Director
          Office of Water Regul
                                   ' \
          David G. Davis, Dirlacttar 1.1
          Office of Wetlands Protectr6ri

TO:       Regional Water Division Directors
          Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
          Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy
           and Management, Region VII
          OW Office; Directors
          State Water Quality Program Managers
          State Wetland Program Managers


     The following document entitled "National Guidance: Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands" provides guidance for meeting the
priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to
develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-
1993 triennium.  This document was  developed jointly by the
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and the Office
of Wetlands Protection  (OWP), and reflects the comments we
received on the February 1990 draft from EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices, EPA laboratories, and the States.

     By the end of FY 1993, the minimum requirements for States
are to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters",
establish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative
and numeric criteria for wetlands,  adopt narrative biological
criteria for wetlands, and apply antidegradation policies to
wetlands.  Information in this document related to the
development of biological criteria  has been coordinated with
recent guidance issued by OWRS; "Biological Criteria: National
Program Guidance for Surface Waters", dated April 1990.

     We are focusing on water quality standards for wetlands to
ensure that provisions of the Clean Water Act currently applied
to other surface waters are also being applied to wetlands.  The
document focuses on those elements  of water quality standards

-------
that can be developed now using the overall structure of the
water quality standards program and existing information and data
sources related to wetlands.  Periodically, our offices will
provide additional information and support to the Regions and
States through workshops and additional documents.  We encourage
you to let us know your needs as you begin developing wetlands
standards.  If you have any questions concerning this document,
please contact us or have your staff contact Bob Shippen in OWRS
(FTS-475-7329) or Doreen Robb in OWP (FTS-245-3906).


Attachment


cc:  LaJuana Wilcher
     Robert Wayland
                                VI

-------
     EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
 Background
  This document provides program guidance to States on how to ensure effective application of water
quality standards (WQS) to wetlands. This guidance reflects the level of achievement EPA expects the States
to accomplish by the end of FY1993, as defined in the Agency Operating Guidance, FY1991, Office of Water.
The basic requirements for applying State water quality standards to wetlands include the following:


   • Include wetlands in the definition of "State waters."
   • Designate uses for all wetlands.
   • Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free froms") and appropriate numeric criteria for wetlands.
   • Adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands.
   • Apply the State's antidegradatton policy and implementation methods to wetlands.


  Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) applied to other  surface waters  are also applied to wetlands.   Although Federal regulations im-
plementing the CWA include wetlands in the definition of "waters of the U.S." and therefore require water
quality standards, a number of States have not developed WQS for wetlands and have not included wetlands
in their definitions of "State waters." Applying water quality standards to wetlands is part of an overall effort
to protect and enhance the Nation's wetland  resources and  provides  a regulatory basis for a variety  of
programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation for a broad range of water quality manage-
ment activities including, but not limited to,  monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402
and 404, water quality certification under Section 401, and the control of NPS pollution under Section 319.

  With the issuance of this guidance, EPA proposes a two- phased approach for the development of WQS
for wetlands.  Phase 1 activities  presented in  this guidance include the development of WQS elements for
wetlands based  upon existing  information and science to be implemented within the next triennium. Phase
2 involves the further refinement of these basic elements using new science and program developments. The
development of WQS for all surface waters is an iterative process.

  Definition
  The first and most important step in applying water quality standards to wetlands is ensuring that wetlands
are legally included in the scope of States' water quality standards programs. States may accomplish this  by
adopting a regulatory definition  of "State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of "waters of
the U.S." and by adopting an appropriate definition for "wetlands." States may also need to remove or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority of water quality standards over wetlands.

  Use  Designation
  At a minimum, all wetlands must have uses designated that meet the goals of Section 101 (a) (2) of the CWA
by providing for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water, unless the results of a use  attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA Section  101 (a) (2) goals
cannot be achieved. When designating  uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing general
                                             va

-------
  and water-specific classification systems, or they may set up an entirely different system for wetlands
  reflecting their unique functions. Two basic pieces of information are useful in classifying wetland uses: (1)
  the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values associated with such types of wetlands.
  Generally, wetland functions directly relate to the physical, chemical,  and biological integrity of wetlands.
  The protection of these functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses of
  waters adjacent to, or downstream of, wetlands.

   Criteria
   The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR I31.l1(a)(1)) requires States to adopt criteria sufficient
  to protect designated uses that may include general statements (narrative) and specific numerical values
  (I.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics). Most State water quality standards
  already contain many criteria for various water types and designated use classes that may be applicable to
  wetlands.

   Narrative criteria are particularly important in  wetlands, since many wetland impacts cannot be fully
  addressed by numeric criteria. Such impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals for which there are
  no numeric criteria in State standards, nonpoint sources, and activities that may affect the physical  and/or
  biological, rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality (e.g.,  discharge of dredged and fill material).
  Narratives should be written to protect the most sensitive designated use and to support existing uses under
  State  antldegradatlon policies.  In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria provide a
 further basis for managing a broad range of activities that impact the  biological integrity of wetlands and
 other  surface waters, particularly physical and hydrologic modifications.   Narrative biological  criteria are
 general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use
 designation.  EPA has published national guidance on developing biological criteria for all surface waters.

   Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents, physical parameters, or biological
 conditions that are adopted in State standards. Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity
 of a contaminant and the amount of the contaminant consumed through  ingestion  of water and fish
 regardless of the type of water.  Therefore, EPA's chemical-specific human  health criteria  are directly
 applicable to wetlands.   EPA also develops chemical-specific numeric criteria recommendations for the
 protection of freshwater and  saltwater aquatic life. The numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
 specifically for wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable to most
 wetland types. An exception to this are  pH-dependent criteria, such as ammonia and pentachlorophenol,
 since wetland pH  may be outside the normal  range of 6.5-9.0. As in  other waters, natural water quality
 characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range established  for uses designated in State stand-
 ards.  These water quality characteristics may require the development of criteria that  reflect the natural
 background conditions in a specific wetland or wetland type.  Examples  of some of the wetland charac-
 teristics that may fall into this category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color, and hydrogen sulfide.

  Antidegradation
   The antldegradation policies contained in all State standards provide a powerful tool for the protection of
 wetlands and can  be used by States to regulate point and  nonpoint source discharges to wetlands  in the
 same way as other surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses and narrative criteria, antidegradation
 can be used to address  impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed by chemical criteria, such as
 physical and  hydroiogic modifications.  With  the inclusion of wetlands  as "waters of the  State,"  State
 antidegradation policies and their implementation  methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as other
 surface waters. State antidegradation policies should provide for the protection of existing uses in wetlands
 and the level of water quality necessary to  protect those uses  in the same manner as provided for other
 surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regulation.  In the case of fills, EPA interprets protection
 of existing uses to be met if there is no significant degradation as defined according to the Section 404(b)(1)
 guidelines.  State antidegradation policies also provide special protection for outstanding natural resource
waters.
                                                Vtll

-------
 Implementation
  Implementing water quality standards for wetlands will require a coordinated effort between related
Federal and State agencies and programs.  Many States have begun to make more use of CWA Section 401
certification to manage certain activities that impact their wetland resources on a physical and/or biological
basis rather than just chemical impacts.   Section 401 gives the States the authority to grant, deny,- or
condition certification of Federal permits or licenses that may result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S."
Such action is taken by the State to ensure compliance with various provisions of the CWA, including the
State's water quality standards.  Violation of water quality standards  is often the basis for  denials or
conditioning through Section 401 certification.

  Natural wetlands are nearly alv/ays "waters of the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protection as
other surface waters with regard to standards and  minimum wastewater treatment requirements.  Water
quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through
adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies.  The Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt waste transport or waste
assimilation as a designated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'."  Certain activities involving the discharge of
pollutants to wetlands may be permitted;  however,  as with other surface waters, the State must ensure,
through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect wetland functions
and values as defined in State v/ater quality standards.  For municipal  discharges to natural wetlands, a
minimum of secondary treatment  is required, and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and
adjacent waters must be met.  EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater discharges to wetlands will
have some similarities to the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to wetlands.

   Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, also serve an important
water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of,
the wetlands.  Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to complete assessments of nonpoint  source
(NP'S) impacts to State waters,  including wetlands, and to prepare management programs to control NFS
impacts. Water quality standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management
programs for wetlands.

   In addition,  States can address physical  and hydrological impacts on wetland quality through the applica-
tion of narrative criteria to protect existing uses and through application of their antidegradation policies.
The States should  provide a linkage in their water quality standards to the determination of  "significant
degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws affecting
the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands.

   Finally,  water  quality  management  activities,  including the  permitting of wastewater and  stormwater
discharges, the assessment and! control  of NFS pollution, and  waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
CERCLA, RCRA)  require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the  designated and existing uses of "waters of
the U.S." are maintained and protected. The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
 basis for conducting both wetland-specific and  status and trend monitoring of State wetland resources.
 Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may  include several approaches, including biological
 measurements (i.e., plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish), that have shown promise for monitoring stream
 quality. The States are encouraged to develop and test the use of biological indicators.

  Future Directions
    Development of narrative biological  criteria are included in the first phase of the development of water
 quality standards for wetlands. The second phase involves the implementation of numeric biological criteria.
 This effort requires the detailed evaluation of the components  of wetland communities to determine the
 structure and function of unimpaired wetlands.  Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife species. It  is
 therefore also important to consider wildlife in developing criteria that protect the functions and values of

-------
wetlands. During the next 3 years, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
water quality criteria to determine whether adjustments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of criteria (e.g.,
tissue concentration criteria) are  needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources.'
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards is also developing guidance for EPA and State surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the end of FY1990. Other technical guidance and support
for the development of State water quality standards will be forthcoming from EPA in the next triennium.

-------
                       Introduction
        Our understanding of the many benefits that
        wetlands provide has evolved rapidly over
        the last 20 to 30  years.  Recently,
programs  have been developed to restore and
protect wetland resources at the local, State, and
Federal levels of government.  At the Federal level,
the President of the United States  established the
goal of "no net loss" of wetlands, adapted from the
National Wetlands Policy Forum recommendations
(The Conservation  Foundation 1988).  Applying
water quality standards  to wetiands is part of an
overall effort to protect the Naition's wetland resour-
ces and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
programs for managing wetlands to meet this goal.

  As the link between land and water, wetlands play
a vital role in water quality management programs.
Wetlands provide a wide  array of functions including
shoreline stabilization, nonpoint source runoff filtra-
tion, and erosion control, which directly benefit ad-
jacent and downstream  waters. In addition, wet-
lands provide important biological habitat, including
nursery areas for aquatic life  and wildlife, and other
benefits such as grbundwater recharge and recrea-
tion.  Wetlands comprise a wide variety of aquatic
vegetated  systems including, but not limited to,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, bogs, fens,
vernal pools, and marshes.  The basic elements of
water quality standards (WQS),  including desig-
nated uses, criteria, and an antidegradation policy,
provide a sound legal basis for protecting wetland
resources through State water quality management
programs.

  Water quality standards traditionally have been
applied to waters such as rivers, lakes, estuaries,
and oceans, and have been applied tangentially, if at
all, to wetlands  by applying  the same uses  and
criteria to wetlands as to adjacent perennial waters.
Isolated wetlands not directly associated with peren-
nial waters generally  have not been addressed in
State water quality standards.  A recent  review of
State water quality standards (USEPA 1989d) shows
that only half of the States specifically refer to  wet-
lands, or  use similar terminology, in their water
quality standards.  Even where wetlands  are refer-

-------
 enced, standards may not be tailored to reflect the
 unique characteristics of wetlands.

   Water quality standards  specifically tailored to
 wetlands provide a consistent basis for the develop-
 ment  of policies and  technical procedures for
 managing  activities that  impact wetlands.  Such
 water quality standards provide the goals for
 Federal and State programs that regulate dischar-
 ges to wetlands, particularly those under CWA Sec-
 tions 402  and 404 as well as other regulatory
 programs (e.g., Sections  307, 318, and  405)  and
 nonregulatory programs (e.g., Sections 314, 319,
 and 320). In addition, standards play a critical  role
 In the  State 401 certification process  by  providing
 the basis for  approving, conditioning, or denying
 Federal permits and licenses, as appropriate.  Final-
 ly, standards provide a benchmark against which to
 assess the many activities that impact wetlands.

 1.1  Objectives

  The objective of this document is to assist States
 in applying their water quality standards regulations
to wetlands In  accordance with the Agency Operat-
ing Guidance (USEPA 1990a), which states:

   By September 30, 1993, States and qualified
   Indian Tribes must  adopt narrative  water
   quality standards  that apply directly to wet-
   lands. Those Standards shall be established
  in accordance  with  either the National
   Guidance. Water n,f?Htv Standards for Wet-
  land£f..or some  other scientifically  valid
  method.  In  adopting  water quality standards
  for wetlands, States and qualified Indian
  Tribes, at a  minimum, shall:  (1) define wet-
  lands as "State waters"; (2) designate uses
  that protect  the structure and function of wet-
  lands; (3) adopt  aesthetic narrative criteria
  (the  "free froms")  and appropriate  numeric
  criteria in the standards to protect the desig-
  nated uses; (4) adopt narrative  biological
  criteria In the standards; and (5)  extend the
  antldegradation policy  and implementation
  methods to wetlands.  Unless results of a use
  attainability  analysis show that the section
  101(a) goals cannot be achieved,  States and
  qualified  Indian Tribes shall designate  uses
  for wetlands that provide for the protection of
  fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation.  When
  extending the antldegradation policy and im-
    plementation methods  to wetlands, con-
    sideration should be given to designating
    critical wetlands as  Outstanding National
    Resource Waters.  As  necessary, the an-
    tidegradation policy  should be revised to
    reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands.

   This level of achievement is based upon existing
 science and information, and therefore can be com-
 pleted within the FY 91-93 triennial review cycle.

   Initial development of water quality standards for
 wetlands over the next 3 years will provide the foun-
 dation for the development of more detailed water
 quality standards for wetlands in the future based on
 further research and policy development (see Chap-
 ter 7.O.).  Activities defined in  this guidance are
 referred to as "Phase 1 activities," while those to be
 developed over the longer term are referred to as
 "Phase 2 activities." Developing water quality stand-
 ards is an iterative process.

   This guidance is not regulatory, nor is it designed
 to dictate specific approaches needed in State water
 quality standards.   The document addresses the
 minimum requirements set out in the  Operating
 Guidance, and should be used as a guide to the
 modifications that may  be needed in State stand-
 ards. EPA recognizes that State water quality stand-
 ards regulations vary greatly from State to State, as
 do wetland resources.  This guidance suggests ap-
 proaches that States may wish to use and allows for
 State flexibility and innovation.

 1.2  Organization

   Each chapter of this document provides guidance
 on a particular element of Phase 1  wetland water
 quality standards that EPA expects States to under-
 take during the next triennial review period (i.e., by
 September 30, 1993). For each chapter, a discus-
 sion of what EPA considers to be minimally accept-
 able is followed by subsections providing informa-
 tion that may be used to meet, and go beyond, the
 minimum requirements during Phase 1. Documents
 referenced in this guidance provide further informa-
tion on specific topics and may be obtained from the
sources listed in the "References" section.  The fol-
lowing paragraphs introduce each of the chapters of
this guidance.

  Most wetlands fall within the definition of "waters
of  the U.S."  and thus require water quality stand-

-------
ards.  EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993 to
include wetlands in their definition of "State waters"
consistent with the Federal definition of "waters of
the U.S." Guidance on the inclusion of wetlands in
the definition of "State waters" is contained in Chap-
ter 2.0.

  The application of water quality standards to wet-
lands requires that States designate appropriate
uses consistent with Sections 101(a)(2) and
303(c)(2) of the Clean  Water Act  (CWA).  EPA ex-
pects States by the end of FY 1993 to  establish
designated  uses for all wetlands.  Discussion of
designated uses is contained in Chapter 3.0.

  The WQS regulation (40 CFR 131) requires States
to adopt water quality criteria sufficient to  protect
designated uses. EPA expects the States, by the
end of FY 1993, to adopt aesthetic narrative criteria
(the "free froms"), appropriate numeric criteria, and
narrative biological criteria for wetlands.  Narrative
criteria are particularly important for wetlands, since
many activities may impact  upon the  physical and
biological,  as well as chemical, components of
water quality.  Chapter 4.0 discusses the application
of narrative and numeric criteria to wetlands.

   EPA  also expects States to  fully apply an-
tidegradation policies and implementation methods
to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. Antidegradation
can provide a powerful tool for  the  protection of
wetlands, especially through the requirement for full
protection of existing  uses  as well as the States'
option of designating wetlands as outstanding na-
tional resource waters. Guidance on the application
of State antidegradation policies to wetlands is con-
tained in Chapter 5.0.

   Many State water quality standards contain
policies affecting the application and implementa-
tion  of water  quality standards (e.g., variances,
 mixing zones).  Unless otherwise specified, such
 policies are presumed to apply to wetlands in the
 same manner as to other waters of the State. States
 should consider whether such policies should be
 modified to reflect the characteristics of wetlands.
 Guidance  on the implementation of  water quality
 standards for wetlands is contained in Chapter 6.0.

   Application  of standards  to wetlands will be an
 iterative process; both EPA and the States will refine
 their approach based  on new scientific information
as well as experience  developed through  State
programs.  Chapter 7.0 outlines Phase 2 wetland
standards activities for which EPA is planning addi-
tional research and program development.

1.3  Legal Authority
  The Clean Water Act  requires  States to develop
water quality standards, which include designated
uses and criteria to support those uses, for
"navigable waters."  CWA Section 502(7) defines
"navigable waters" as "waters of the U.S." "Waters of
the U.S." are, in turn, defined in Federal regulations
developed for the National  Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (40 CFR 122.2) and permits for
the discharge of dredged or fill material (40 CFR
230.3  and 232.2).  "Waters  of  the  U.S." include
waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; inter-
state waters (including interstate wetlands) and  in-
trastate waters (including wetlands), the use,
destruction, or degradation  of which could  affect
interstate commerce; tributaries  of the above; and
wetlands adjacent  to the above waters (other than
waters which are themselves waters).  See Appendix
B for a complete definition.

   The term "wetlands" is defined  in 40 CFR
   232.2(r) as:

   Those areas  that are inundated or saturated
   by surface or ground water  at a frequency
   and duration sufficient to support, and that
   under normal circumstances do support, a
   prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
   life in saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands
   generally include  swamps, marshes, bogs,
   and similar areas.

   This definition of "waters  of .the U.S.," which in-
 cludes., most wetlands,  has  been debated in Con-
 gress and upheld by the courts. In 1977, a proposal
 to delete CWA  jurisdiction over most wetlands for
 the  purpose of the Section 404 permit program was
 defeated in the  Senate. The debate on the amend-
 ment shows a strong  congressional awareness of
 the  value of wetlands and the importance of retain-
 ing them under the statutory  scheme.  Various
 courts have also upheld the application of the CWA
 to wetlands.  See, e.g., United States v. Riverside
 Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121  (1985); United States
 v. Byrd,  609  F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1979);  Avoyelles
 Sportsmen's League v. Mars/7,  715 F.2d  897 (5th

-------
 C!r. 1983); United  States  v.  Les//e Salt  [1990
 decision].  The practical effect Is to make nearly all
 wetlands "waters of the U.S."

   Created wastewater treatment wetlands1
 designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater
 treatment systems are generally not considered to
 be waters of the U.S. Water quality standards that
 apply to natural wetlands generally do not apply to
 such created wastewater treatment wetlands.  Many
 created wetlands, however, are designed, built, and
 operated to provide, In addition to wastewater treat-
 ment, functions and values similar to those provided
 by natural wetlands.  Under certain circumstances,
 such created multiple  use wetlands may be con-
 sidered waters of the U.S. and as such would require
water quality standards. This determination must be
 made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetlands and other appropriate factors.
   Different offices within EPA use different terminology (e.g., "create" or "constructed") to describe
   wastewater treatment wetlands.  This terminology is evolving; for purposes of this guidance
   document, the terms are interchangeable in meaning.

-------
   Inclusion  of Wetlands in
      the Definition  of State
                          Waters
      The first, and most important, step in apply-
      ing water quality standards to wetlands is
      ensuring that wetlands are legally included
in the scope of States' water quality standards
programs. EPA expects States' water quality stand-
ards to include wetlands in the definition of "State
waters" by the end of FY 1993.  States may ac-
complish this by adopting a regulatory definition of
"State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal
definition of "waters of the U.S." and by adopting an
appropriate definition for "wetlands." For example,
one State includes the following definitions in their
water quality standards:

  "Surface waters of the State"... means all
  streams,... lakes..., ponds, marshes, wet-
  lands or other waterways...

  "Wetlands" means areas of land where the
  water table is at, near or above the land sur-
  face long enough each year to result in the
  formation of characteristically wet (hydric)
  soil types, and support the growth of water
  dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation. Wet-
  lands include, but are not limited to, marshes,
  swamps, bogs, and other such low-lying
  areas.

  States may also need to  remove  or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits
the authority of water quality standards over wet-
lands. Ifi certain instances, such as when water

-------
 quality standards are statutory or where a statute
 defines or limits regulatory authority over wetlands,
 statutory changes may be needed.

   The CWA does not preclude States from adopt-
 ing, under State law, a more expansive definition of
 "waters of the State" to meet the goals of the act.
 Additional  areas  that could  be covered include
 riparian areas, fioodpiains, vegetated buffer areas,
 or any other critical areas identified  by the State.
 Riparian areas and floodplains are important  and
 severely threatened ecosystems, particularly in the
 arid and semiarid  West.  Often it is technically dif-
 ficult to separate,  jurisdictionally, wetlands subject
 to the provisions of the CWA from other areas within
 the riparian or floodplain complex.

   States may choose to include riparian or
 floodplain ecosystems as a whole in the definition of
 "waters of  the State"  or designate these areas for
 special protection in their water quality standards
through several mechanisms,  including definitions,
 use  classifications, and antidegradation.   For ex-
ample, the  regulatory definition of "waters of  the
 State" in one State includes:

   ...The flood plain of free flowing waters deter-
   mined by the Department...on the basis of the
   100-year flood frequency.

   In another State, the definition of a use classifica-
tion states:

   This beneficial use is a combination of the
   characteristics of the watershed expressed in
   the water quality and the riparian area.

  And in a third State, the antidegradation  protec-
tion for high-quality waters provides that:

   These waters  shall not be lowered  in
   quality...unless it is determined by the com-
   mission that such lowering will not do any of
   the following:

      ...[bjecome injurious to the  value or
      utility of riparian lands...

-------
                               Chapter 3.1
              Use    Classification
       At a minimum, EPA expects States by the
       end of FY 1993 to designate uses for all
       wetlands, and to meet the same minimum
requirements of the WQS regulation (40  CFR
131.10) that are applied to other waters. Uses for
wetlands must meet the goals of Section 101 (a) (2)
of the CWA by  providing for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for
recreation in and on the water, unless the results of
a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA
Section I01(a)(2) goals cannot be achieved.  The
Water  Quality Standards Regulation (40  CFR
131.10(c))  allows for the designation of  sub-
categories of  a  use, an  activity that  may be ap-
propriate for wetlands.  Pursuant to the WQS
Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(i)), States must desig-
nate any uses that are presently  being attained in
the wetland.  A technical  support  document is cur-
rently being developed by the  Office of Water
Regulations and Standards for conducting use  at-
tainability analyses for wetlands.

   The propagation of aquatic life and wildlife is an
attainable use in virtually all wetlands.  Aquatic life
protection need not refer only to year-round fish and
aquatic  life.   Wetlands  often provide valuable
seasonal habitat for fish and other aquatic life, am-
phibians, and migratory bird reproduction and
migration.  States should ensure that aquatic life
and wildlife uses are designated for wetlands even if
a limited habitat is available or the use is attained
only seasonally.

  Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand,
may not be attainable in certain wetlands that do not
have sufficient water, at least seasonally. However,
States are also encouraged to recognize and
protect recreational uses that do not directly involve
contact  with water,  e.g., hiking, camping, bird
watching.

  The WQS regulation requires a UAA wherever a
State designates a use that does not  include the
uses specified in Section  101(a)(2) of the CWA; see
40 CFR Part 131.10(j). This need not be an onerous
task for States when deciding whether certain
recreational uses  are attainable.  States may con-
duct generic UAAs for entire classes or types of

-------
  wetlands based on the demonstrations in  40  CFR
  Part 131.10(g)(2).  States must, however, designate
  CWA goal uses wherever these are attainable, even
  where attainment may be seasonal.

    When designating uses for wetlands, States  may
  choose  to use their existing general and water-
  specific  classification systems, or they may set up
  an entirely different system for wetlands.  Each of
  these approaches  has advantages  and disad-
  vantages, as discussed below.

    Some States stipulate that  wetlands are desig-
  nated for the  same  uses as the adjacent  waters.
  States may also apply their existing general clas-
  sification system to designate uses for specific wet-
  lands or groups of wetlands.  The  advantage of
  these approaches Is that they do not require States
 to expend additional effort to develop specific wet-
 land uses, or determine specific functions and
 values, and can be generally used to  designate the
 CWA goal uses for wetlands. However, since wet-
 land attributes may be significantly different than
 those of  other waters, States with general wetland
 use designations will  need  to  review the uses for
 Individual wetlands in more detail when assessing
 activities that may impair the specific "existing uses"
 (e.g., functions and values).  In addition, the "ad-
 jacent" approach does not  produce uses for "iso-
 lated" wetlands.

   Owing  to these differences in attributes,  States
 should strongly consider  adopting a  separate use
 classification system for wetlands based  on wetland
 type and/or beneficial use  (function and value). This
 approach initially requires more effort in developing
 use categories (and specific criteria  that may  be
 needed for them), as well as in determining what
 uses to assign to specific wetlands or groups of
 wetlands. The greater the specificity in designating
 uses, however, the  easier it is for States to justify
 regulatory controls  to  protect those uses.   States
 may wish to designate beneficial uses for individual-
 ly named  wetlands,  including outstanding wetlands
 (see Section 6.3), although this approach may  be
 practical only for a limited  number of wetlands. For
the majority of  their wetlands, States  may wish to
designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands
based on region or wetland type.

  Two basic  pieces of information are  useful  in
classifying wetland uses:  (1) the structural types of
  wetlands; and (2) the functions and values as-
  sociated with such types of wetlands. The functions
  and values of wetlands are often defined  based
  upon  structural  type and location within the
  landscape or watershed. The understanding of the
  various wetland types  within the State and their
  functions and  values provides the basis for a com-
  prehensive classification system applicable to  all
  wetlands and all wetland uses. As with other waters,
  both general and waterbody-specific classifications
  may be needed to ensure that uses are appropriate-
  ly assigned to  all wetlands in the State. Appropriate
  and definitive  use designations  allow water quality
  standards to more accurately reflect both the  "exist-
  ing" uses and the States' goals for their  wetland
  resources, and to allow standards to  be  a more
  powerful tool in protecting State wetlands.  Sections
 3.1  through 3.3 provide further information on wet-
 land types, functions, and values,  and how  these
 can be used to designate uses for wetlands.

 3.1 Wetland Types

   A detailed understanding of the various wetland
 types within the State provides the basis for a com-
 prehensive classification system.  The classification
 system most often  cited and  used  by Federal and
 State wetland  permit programs was developed by
 Cowardin et al. (1979) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
 Service (FWS); see Figure 1.  This system provides
 the  basis  for wetland-related activities within the
 FWS. The Cowardin system is hierarchical and thus
 can provide several levels of detail in  classifying
 wetlands.  The  "System"  and  "Subsystem" levels of
 detail appear to be the  most promising for water
 quality standards.  The "Class" level may be useful
 for designating  uses for specific wetlands or wetland
 types.   Section 3.3 gives an  example of how one
 State uses the Cowardin  system to generate desig-
 nated uses for wetlands.

   Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
 1986, the FWS is required to complete the mapping
 of wetlands within  the lower 48 States by  1998
through the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and
to assess the status of the nation's wetland resour-
ces every 10 years. The maps and status and trend
reports may help States  understand the extent of
their wetlands and wetland types and ensure that all
wetlands are assigned appropriate uses.  To date,
over 30,000 detailed 1:24,000 scale maps have been
completed, covering approximately  60 percent of

-------
                                                  Subsystem
             i—Marine -
              —Estuarine-

        a
         Q

         <
         CO
         Q
         Z
         H
                                                 -Subtidal-
                                                 -Intertidal •
                                                 -Subtidal-
                                                  -Intertidal-
               — Riverine -
                                                  - Tidal -
                                                  -Lower Perennial •
                                                  -Upper Perennial -
               —Lacustrine-
                                                  - Intermittent -


                                                  -Limnetic	
                                                  -Littoral-
               — Palustrine-
 Class

-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef

-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
-Rocky Shore
-Unconsolidated Shore

-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef

- Aquatic Bed
-Reef
—Streambed
— Rocky Shore
—Unconsolidated Shore
—Emergent Wetland
—Scrub-Shrub Wetland
- Forested Wetland

— Rock Bottom
— Unconsolidated Bottom
— Aquatic Bed
— Rocky Shore
— Unconsolidated Shore
— Emergent Wetland

 -Rock Bottom
 -Unconsolidated Bottom
 -Aquatic Bed
 -Rocky Shore
 - Unconsolidated Shore
 - Emergent Wetland

 - Rock Bottom
 -Unconsolidated Bottom
 -Aquatic Bed
 -Rocky Shore
 -Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                                    -Streambed
  ERock Bottom,
  Unconsolidated Bottom
  Aquatic Bed
 —Rock Bottom
 —Unconsolidated Bottom
 —Aquatic Bed
 —Rocky Shore
 — Unconsolidated Shore
 —Emergent Wetland

 —Rock Bottom
 —Unconsolidated Bottom
 —Aquatic Bed
 —Unconsolidated Shore
 —Moss-Lichen Wetland
 —Emergent Wetland
 —Scrub-Shrub Wetland
 — Forested Wetland
                                  Figure I. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and
deepwater habitats, showing Systems, Subsystems, and Classes. The Palustrine System does not include deepwater
                                         habitats (from Cowardin et al., 1979).

-------
 the coterminous United  States and  16 percent of
 Alaska2.

   In some States, wetland maps developed under
 the NWI program have been digitized and are avail-
 able for use with geographic information systems
 (GIS). To date, more than 5,700 wetland maps rep-
 resenting 10.5 percent of the coterminous United
 States have  been digitized.  Statewide digital
 databases  have been  developed for New Jersey,
 Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, and  Washington, and
 are In progress in Indiana and Virginia. NWI digital
 data files also are available for portions of 20 other
 States. NWI data files are sold at cost in 7.5-minute
 quadrangle units.  The data are provided on mag-
 netic tape in MOSS  export, DLG3 optional, ELAS,
 and IGES formats3.  Digital wetlands data may ex-
 pedite assigning uses to  wetlands for both general
 and wetland-specific FIG classifications.

  The classification of wetlands may benefit from
 the use of salinity concentrations.  The Cowardin
 classification system  uses a salinity criterion of 0.5
 ppt ocean-derived  salinity to differentiate between
 estuarine and freshwater wetlands.  Differences in
 salinity are reflected  in the species composition of
 plants and animals.  The  use of salinity in the clas-
 sification of wetlands may  be useful in restricting
 activities that would alter the salinity of a wetland to
 such a degree that the wetland type would change.
These activities include, for example,  the construc-
tion of dikes to convert a saltwater marsh to a fresh-
water marsh or the dredging of channels that would
deliver saltwater to freshwater wetlands.
 3.2  Wetland Functions and
 Values

   Many approaches have been developed for iden-
 tifying wetland  functions  and values.  Wetland-
 evaluation techniques developed  prior to 1983 have
 been  summarized by  Lonard and Clairain (1985),
 and   EPA  has  summarized  assessment
 methodologies developed since 1983 (see Appendix
 C). EPA has also developed guidance on the selec-
 tion of a methodology for activities under the Sec-
 tion 404 program entitled Draft  Guidance to  EPA
 Regional Offices on the Use of Advance Identifica-
 tion Authorities  Under Section 404 of the Clean
 Water Act (USEPA 1989a). States may develop their
 own techniques for assessing  the functions  and
values of their wetlands.

  General wetland functions that directly relate to
the physical,  chemical, and biological integrity of
wetlands are listed below.  The protection of these
functions through water quality standards also may
be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to,
or downstream of, wetlands.
     Groundwater Recharge/Discharge
     Flood Flow Alteration
     Sediment Stabilization
     Sediment/Toxic Retention
     Nutrient Removal/Transformation
     Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
     Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
     Recreation
                                                    Methodologies that are flexible with regard to
                                                  data requirements and  include several  levels of
                                                  detail have the greatest potential for application to
                                                  standards.  One such methodology is the Wetland
                                                  Evaluation Technique developed by Adamus, et al.
                                                  (1987) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
    Information on the availability of draft and final maps may be obtained for the coterminous United
    States by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS or 703-860-6045 in Virginia.  In Alaska, the number is
    907-271-4159, and In Hawaii the number is 808-548-2861.  Further information on the FWS National
    Wetlands Inventory (NWI) may be obtained from the FWS  Regional Coordinators listed in Appendix D.

    For additional information on digital wetland data contact: USFWS; National Wetlands Inventory
    Program, 9720 Executive Center Drive, Monroe Building, Suite 101, St. Petersburg, FL 33702;
    813-893-3624, FTS 826-3624.
                                               10

-------
Department of Transportation. The Wetland Evalua-
tion Technique was designed for conducting an ini-
tial rapid assessment of wetland functions and
values in terms of social significance, effectiveness,
and opportunity.  Social significance assesses the
value of a wetland to society in terms of its special
designation, potential economic value, and strategic
location. Effectiveness assesses the capability of a
wetland to perform a function because of its physi-
cal, chemical, or biological characteristics. Oppor-
tunity assesses the [opportunity] of a wetland to
perform a  function to its  level of capability.  This
assessment results in "high," "moderate," or  "low"
ratings for 11 wetland functions In the  context of
social significance, effectiveness,  and opportunity.
This technique also may be useful  in identifying out-
standing wetlands for protection under State an-
tidegradation policies; see Section 5.3.

   The FWS maintains a Wetlands Values Database
that also may be  useful in identifying wetland  func-
tions and in designating wetland uses.  The data are
keyed to the Cowardin-based wetland codes  iden-
tified on the National Wetland Inventory maps. The
database contains scientific literature on wetland
functions and values.  It  is computerized and con-
tains over 18,000  citations, of which 8,000 are an-
notated.  For further  information, contact the NWI
Program (see Section 3.1) or the FWS National Ecol-
ogy Research Center4.  In addition,  State wetland
programs, EPA Regional wetland coordinators, and
FWS Regional wetland coordinators can provide in-
formation  on wetland functions  and values  on a
State or regional basis; see Appendix D.
3.3  Designating Wetland  Uses
  The functions and values of specifically identified
and  named wetlands, including  those identified
within the State's water-specific classification sys-
tem  and  outstanding  national  resource water
(ONRW) category, may be defined using the Wet-
land Evaluation Technique or similar methodology.
For the general classification of wetlands, however,
States may choose to evaluate wetland function and
values for all the wetlands within the State based on
wetland type (using Cowardin (1979); see Figure 1).
One State applies its general use  classifications to
different wetland types based on Cowardin's system
level of detail as illustrated in Figure 2. Note that the
State's uses are based on function, and the designa-
tion approach links specific wetland functions to a
given wetland type.  The State evaluates wetlands
on a case-by-case basis  as individual permit
decisions arise to ensure that designated uses are
being protected and have reflected existing uses.
 4   USFWS; Wetlands Values Database, National Ecology Research Center, 4512 McMurray, Ft. Collins,
     CO 80522; 303-226-9407.
                                                11

-------
                                               WETLAND TYPE  fCowardin)
BENEFICIAL USE MARINE
Municipal and Domestic Supply
Agricultural Supply
Industrial Process Supply
Groundwater Recharge x
Freshwater Replenishment
Navigation x
Water Contact Recreation x
Non-Contact Water Recreation x
Ocean Commercial and Sport Fishing x
Warm Fresh Water Habitat
Cold Fresh Water Habitat
Preservation of Areas of Special
Biological Significance
Wildlife Habitat x
Preservation of Rare and Endangered x
Species
Marine Habitat x
Fish Migration x
Shellfish Harvesting x
Estuarine Habitat
ESTUARINE RIVERINE
x
X X
X 0
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
-
X X
X X
X
. X X
X .X
X
LACUSTRINE PALUSTRINE
X X
X X
o
X X
X X
X X
X. X
X X
-
X X.
X X
-
X X
X X
_
X
-
-
x - existing beneficial use
o » potential beneficial use
                           Figure 2. Example Existing and Potential Uses of Wetlands
                                                  12

-------
  Alternatively, a third method may use the location
of wetlands within the landscape as the  basis for
establishing general functions and values applicable
to all the wetlands within a defined region.  EPA has
developed a guidance entitled Regionalization as a
Tool  for Managing  Environmental Resources
(USEPA 1989c).  The  guidance illustrates how
various regionalization techniques have been used
in water quality management, including the use of
the ecoregions developed by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development, to direct State  water
quality standards and monitoring programs.  These
approaches also may be useful in the classification
of wetlands.

   EPA's Office of Research and Development  is cur-
rently  refining a draft document tthat will provide
useful information to States related to use classifica-
tion methodologies (Adamus and Brandt -  Draft).
There are likely many other  approaches for  desig-
nating uses for .wetlands, and the  States are en-
couraged to develop comprehensive classification
systems tailored to their wetland resources. As with
other surface waters, many wetlands are currently
degraded by natural and anthropogenic  activities.
The classification of wetlands should reflect the
potential uses attainable for a particular wetland,
wetland type, or class of wetland.
                                                13

-------

-------
                                 Criteria
        The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
        CFR 131.11(a)(1)) requires States to adopt
        criteria  sufficient to protect designated
uses.  These criteria may include general statements
(narrative) and specific numerical values (i.e., con-
centrations of contaminants and water quality char-
acteristics).  At a minimum, EPA expects States to
apply aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free froms")
and appropriate numeric criteria to wetlands and to
adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands  by
the end of FY 1993.  Most State water quality stand-
ards already contain many criteria for various water
types and designated use classes, including narra-
tive criteria and  numeric criteria to  protect human
health and freshwater and saltwater aquatic life, that
may be applicable to wetlands.

  In many cases, it may be necessary to use a com-
bination of numeric and narrative criteria to ensure
that wetland functions and values are adequately
protected. Section 4.1 describes the application of
narrative criteria to wetlands and Section 4.2 discus-
ses application of numeric criteria for protection of
human health and aquatic life.
4.1   Narrative Criteria
  Narrative criteria are general statements designed
to protect a specific designated use or set of uses.
They can be statements prohibiting certain actions
or conditions (e.g., "free from  substances that
produce  undesirable or nuisance aquatic life") or
positive statements about what is expected to occur
in the water (e.g., "water quality and aquatic life shall
be as it  naturally occurs").  Narrative criteria are
used to identify impacts on designated uses and as
a regulatory basis for controlling a variety of impacts
to State waters.   Narrative criteria are particularly
important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts
cannot be fully addressed by numeric criteria. Such
impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals
for which there  are no  numeric criteria in State
standards,  from  nonpoint sources,  and from ac-
tivities that may affect the physical and/or biological,
rather than the chemical, aspects of  water quality
(e.g.,  discharge of dredged and fill material).   The
Water Quality Standards Regulation  (40  CFR
131.11 (b)) states that "States should...include narra-
                                               15

-------
 tive criteria in their standards where numeric criteria
 cannot be established or to supplement  numeric
 criteria."

   4.1.1  General Narrative Criteria
   Narrative criteria within the water quality stand-
 ards program date back to at least 1968 when five
 "free froms" were included in Water Quality Criteria
 (the Green Book),  (FWPCA 1968).   These  "free
 froms" have been included as "aesthetic criteria" in
 EPA's most recent Section 304(a) criteria summary
 document, Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA
 1987a). The narrative criteria from these documents
 state:

   All waters [shall be] free from substances at-
   tributable to wastewater or other discharge
   that:

   (1)  settle to form objectionable deposits;

   (2)  float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to
       form nuisances;

   (3)  produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or
       turbidity;

   (4)  injure or are  toxic or produce  adverse
       physiological responses  in humans,
       animals or plants; and

   (5)  produce undesirable or nuisance  aquatic
       life.

   The Water Quality Standards Handbook  (USEPA
 1983b) recommends that States  apply narrative
 criteria to all waters of the United States. If these or
 similar criteria are already applied to all State waters
 in a State's standards, the inclusion of wetlands in
the definition of "waters of the State" will apply these
 criteria to wetlands.

   4.1.2  Narrative Biological Criteria
   Narrative biological criteria are general state-
ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water quality for a given use desig-
nation.  Narrative biological criteria can take a num-
ber of forms.   As a sixth "free from," the criteria
could read "free from activities that would substan-
tially impair the biological community as it naturally
occurs due to  physical,  chemical, and hydrologic
changes," or the criteria may contain positive state-
 ments about the biological community existing or
 attainable in wetlands.

   Narrative biological,  criteria should contain at-
 tributes that support the goals of the Clean Water
 Act, which provide for the  protection and propaga-
 tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Therefore, narra-
 tive criteria should include specific language about
 community characteristics that (1) must exist in a
 wetland  to meet a  particular designated  aquatic
 life/wildlife use, and (2) are quantifiable. Supporting
 statements for the criteria should  promote water
 quality to protect the most natural  community as-
 sociated with the designated  use.   Mechanisms
 should be established in  the standard to address
 potentially conflicting  multiple uses.   Narratives
 should  be written  to protect the most sensitive
 designated use and to support existing uses under
 State antidegradation policies.

   In addition  to other  narrative  criteria, narrative
 biological criteria provide a further basis for manag-
 ing  a broad range  of  activities that impact  the
 biological integrity  of wetlands and other  surface
 waters,  particularly physical  and hydrologic
 modifications.  For instance, hydrologic criteria are
 one particularly important but often  overlooked
 component to include in water quality standards to
 help maintain  wetlands  quality.   Hydrology is  the
 primary factor influencing the type and location of
 wetlands.  Maintaining appropriate hydrologic con-
 ditions in wetlands is critical to the maintenance of
 wetland functions and values. Hydrologic manipula-
 tions to wetlands have occurred  nationwide in  the
 form of flow alterations  and diversions, disposal of
 dredged  or fill  material, dredging of canals through
 wetlands,  and construction of  levees or dikes.
 Changes in base flow or flow regime can severely
 alter the plant and animal species composition of a
 wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the
 change is great enough.  States should consider the
 establishment  of criteria to regulate hydrologic al-
terations to wetlands. One State has adopted  the
following language and criteria  to maintain  and
 protect the natural hydrologic conditions and values
 of wetlands:

   Natural hydrological conditions necessary to
   support the biological and physical charac-
   teristics naturally present in wetlands shall be
   protected to prevent significant adverse im-
   pacts on:
                                                16

-------
  (1)   Water currents, erosion or sedimentation
       patterns;

  (2)   Natural water temperature variations;

  (3)   The  chemical, nutrient  and dissolved
       oxygen regime of the wetland;

  (4)   The normal movement of aquatic fauna;

  (5)   The pH of the wetland; and

  (6)   Normal water levels or elevations.

  One source of information  for developing more
quantifiable hydrologic criteria is the Instream Flow
Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
can provide technical guidance on the minimum
flows necessary to attain various water uses.

  Narrative criteria, in conjunction with antidegrada-
tion policies, can provide  the basis for determining
the impacts of activities (such as hydrologic
modifications) on  designated and existing uses.
EPA has published  national guidance on developing
biological criteria  for all surface waters (USEPA
1990b). EPA's Office of Research and Development
also has produced  a literature synthesis of wetland
biomonitoring data on  a State-by-State basis, which
is intended to support the development of narrative
biological  criteria (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).

4.2  Numeric  Criteria
  Numeric criteria  are specific numeric values for
chemical  constituents, physical  parameters, or
biological conditions that are adopted  in State
standards. These may  be values not to be exceeded
(e.g., toxics), values that  must be exceeded (e.g.,
dissolved  oxygen), or a  combination of the two
(e.g., pH).  As with all criteria, numeric criteria are
adopted to protect one or more designated uses.
Under  Section 304(a)  of the Clean Water Act, EPA
publishes  numeric national criteria recommenda-
tions designed  to  protect aquatic  organisms and
human  health.  These criteria are summarized  in
Quality Criteria for Water  - 1986 (USEPA 1987a).
THese criteria serve as guidelines from which States
can develop their own numeric criteria, taking into
account the particular uses designated by the State.
  4.2.1  Numeric Criteria - Human
  Health
  Human health water quality criteria are based on
the toxicity of a contaminant and the amount of the
contaminant consumed through ingestion of water
and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore,
EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are
directly applicable to wetlands. A summary of EPA
human health criteria recommendations  is con-
tained in Quality Criteria for Water - 1986.

  Few wetlands are used directly for drinking water
supplies. Where drinking water is a designated or
existing use for a  wetland  or for  adjacent waters
affected by the wetland, however, States must pro-
vide criteria sufficient to protect human health based
on water consumption (as well as  aquatic life con-
sumption if appropriate).  When assessing the
potential for water consumption, States should also
evaluate the wetland's groundwater recharge func-
tion to assure protection of drinking water supplies
from that source as well.

  The application of human health criteria, based on
consumption of aquatic life, to wetlands is a function
of the level of detail in the States' designated  uses.
If all wetlands are  designated  under the State's
general "aquatic life/wildlife" designation, consump-
tion of that aquatic life is assumed to be an included
use and the State's  human health criteria based on
consumption of aquatic life will apply throughout.
However,  States that adopt  a more detailed use
classification system for wetlands (or wish to derive
site-specific human health criteria for wetlands) may
wish to selectively apply human health criteria to
those wetlands where consumption of aquatic life is
designated or likely to occur (note that a UAA will be
required where CWA goal uses are not designated).
States may also wish to adjust the exposure as-
sumptions used in deriving human health criteria.
Where it is known that exposure to individuals at a
certain site, or within a certain category of wetland,
is likely to be different from the assumed exposure
underlying the States' criteria, States may wish to
consider  a reasonable estimate of the actual ex-
posure and take this estimate into account when
calculating the criteria for the site.

  4.2.2  Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life
  EPA develops chemical-specific numeric criteria
recommendations for the protection of freshwater
                                               17

-------
and  saltwater aquatic life.  These criteria may be
divided into two  basic categories:   (1) chemicals
that  cause toxicity to aquatic life such as metals,
ammonia,  chlorine,  and organics; and (2) other
water  quality characteristics such as dissolved
oxygen, alkalinity, salinity, pH,  and temperature.
These  criteria are currently  applied directly to a
broad  range  of surface waters in State standards,
including  lakes,  impoundments, ephemeral  and
perennial rivers and streams,  estuaries, the oceans,
and  in some instances, wetlands.  A summary of
EPA's aquatic life criteria recommendations is pub-
lished  in  Quality Criteria for Water -  1986.  The
numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
specifically for wetlands, were designed to be
protective of aquatic life  and are generally  ap-
plicable to most wetland types.

  EPA's aquatic life criteria are  most often based
upon lexicological testing under controlled  condi-
tions In the laboratory. The EPA guidelines for the
development of such criteria  (Stephan et al., 1985)
require the testing of plant,  invertebrate,  and fish
species.  Generally, these criteria are supported by
toxicity tests on Invertebrate and early life stage fish
commonly found in  many wetlands.  Adjustments
based  on  natural conditions,  water  chemistry, and
biological community  conditions may  be ap-
propriate  for certain criteria  as  discussed below.
EPA's  Office  of Research and Development is cur-
rently finalizing a draft document that provides addi-
tional technical  guidance on this topic, including
site-specific  adjustments of  criteria (Hagley and
Taylor  - Draft).

  As in other waters, natural  water  quality charac-
teristics in some wetlands may be outside the range
established for uses designated in State standards.
These water quality characteristics may require the
development of criteria that reflect the natural back-
ground conditions in a specific wetland or wetland
type. States routinely set criteria for specific waters
based  on  natural conditions.  Examples of some of
the wetland characteristics that may fall  into this
category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color,
andjiydrogen sulfide.

  Many of EPA's aquatic life  criteria are based on
equations that take into account salinity,  pH,
temperature and/or hardness.  These  may be directly
applied to wetlands in the same way as other water
types with adjustments in the criteria to reflect these
water quality characteristics. However, two national
criteria that  are pH dependent, ammonia and pen-
tachlorophenol, present a different  situation.  The
pH  in some  wetlands may be outside the pH range
of 6.5-9.0 units for which these criteria were derived.
It is recommended that States conduct additional
toxicity testing if they wish to derive criteria for am-
monia and  pentachlorophenol  outside the 6.5-9.0
pH  range, unless data are already available.

  States may also develop scientifically defensible
site-specific criteria for parameters whose State-
wide values  may be inappropriate. Site-specific ad-
justments may be made based on the water quality
and biological conditions in a specific water,  or in
waters within a particular region or ecoregion.  EPA
has developed guidance on the site-specific adjust-
ment of the national criteria (USEPA 1983b). These
methods are applicable to wetlands and should  be
used  in the  same  manner as States use them for
other waters.  As  defined in the Handbook, three
procedures  may be used to develop site-specific
criteria:   (1) the recalculation procedures, (2) the
indicator species procedures, and (3) the resident
species procedures.   These procedures may  be
used  to develop site-specific numeric criteria for
specific wetlands or wetland types.  The recalcula-
tion procedure is used  to make adjustments based
upon  differences between the  toxicity to resident
organisms and those used to derive national criteria.
The indicator species procedure is used to account
for differences in the bioavailability and/or toxicity of
a contaminant based upon the physical and chemi-
cal  characteristics of site  water.   The resident
species procedure accounts for differences in both
species sensitivity and water quality characteristics.
                                                18

-------
                                Chapter 5 J
                 Antidegradation
       The antidegradation policies contained in all
       State standards provide a powerful tool for
       the protection of wetlands and can be used
by States to  regulate point and nonpoint source
discharges to wetlands in the same way as other
surface waters.  In conjunction with beneficial uses
and narrative  criteria, antidegradation can be used
to address.impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully
addressed  by chemical criteria,  such as physical
and hydrologic modifications.  The implications of
antidegradation to the disposal of dredged and fill
material are discussed in Section 55.1 below.  At a
minimum, EPA expects States to fully apply their
antidegradation  policies and  implementation
methods to wetlands by the end of FY 1993.  No
changes to State policies are required if they are
fully consistent with the Federal  policy.  With the
inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State," State
antidegradation  policies and  their implementation
methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as
other surface  waters.  The WQS regulation
describes the requirements for State antidegrada-
tion policies, which include full protection of existing
uses (functions and values), maintenance of water
quality in high-quality waters, and a prohibition
against lowering water quality in outstanding nation-
al resource waters. EPA guidance on the implemen-
tation of antidegradation policies is contained in the
Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b)
and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation
(USEPA 1985a).

5.1  Protection  of  Existing Uses
  State antidegradation policies should provide for
the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the
level of water  quality necessary to protect ..those
uses in the same manner as for other surface
waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regula-
tion.  The existing  use  can be determined by
demonstrating  that the use or uses have actually
occurred since November 28,1975, or that the water
quality  is suitable to  allow the use to be attained.
This is the basis of EPA's antidegradation policy and
is important in the wetland protection effort. States,
especially those that adopt less detailed use clas-
sifications for wetlands, will need to use the existing
use protection in their antidegradation policies to
ensure protection of wetland values and functions.
                                          19

-------
  Determination  of an  existing aquatic life and
wildlife  use may  require physical, chemical, and
biological evaluations through a waterbody survey
and  assessment.   Waterbody survey and assess-
ment guidance may be found in three volumes en-
titled Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses  (USEPA I983b, I984a,
1984b).  A technical support manual for conducting
use  attainability analyses for wetlands is currently
under development by the Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards.

  In the case of wetland fills, EPA allows a slightly
different interpretation of existing uses under the
antidegradation policy. This interpretation has been
addressed In the answer to question no. 13 in Ques-
tions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA
1985a),  and is presented below:

   Since a literal Interpretation of the an-
   tidegradation policy could result In prevent-
   ing the Issuance of any wetland fill permit
   under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
   It Is logical to assume that Congress intended
   some such permits to be granted within the
   framework of the Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR
   131.12(a)(l) of  the antidegradation policy to
   be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if
   the discharge  did not result in "significant
   degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem as
   defined under  Section 230.10(c) of the Sec-
   tion  404(b)(l)  guidelines.   If any wetlands
   were found to  have better water quality than
   "flshable/swimmable," the State would be al-
   lowed to lower water quality to the no  sig-
   nificant degradation level as long as the re-
   quirements of Section 131.12(a)(2) were fol-
   lowed.  As for the ONRW provision  of an-
   tidegradation (131.12(a)(3)), there  is no dif-
   ference In the way it applies to wetlands and
   other waterbodles.

  The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the
following effects contribute to significant degrada-
tion, either individually or collectively:

   ...significant adverse effects on (1) human
   health or welfare, including effects  on
   municipal water supplies, plankton, fish,
   shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites
   (e.g., wetlands); (2) on the life stages  of
   aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
   aquatic  ecosystems,  including the transfer,
   concentration or spread of pollutants or their
   byproducts beyond the site through biologi-
   cal, physical, or chemical  process; (3) on
   ecosystem diversity,  productivity and
   stability, including loss of  fish and wildlife
   habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to
   assimilate nutrients, purify  water or reduce
   wave  energy; or (4) on  recreational, aes-
   thetic, and economic values.

  These Guidelines may be used by States to deter-
mine "significant degradation" for wetland fills.  Of
course, the States are free to adopt stricter require-
ments for wetland fills in their own antidegradation
policies, just as they may adopt any other'require-
ments more stringent than Federal law requires.  For
additional information on the linkage between water
quality standards and the Section 404 program, see
Section 6.2 of this guidance.

5.2  Protection of High-Quality
Wetlands

  State antidegradation policies should provide for
water quality in "high quality wetlands" to be main-
tained and protected,  as prescribed in  Section
131.12(a)(2)  of the WQS regulation.  State  im-
plementation  methods requiring alternatives
analyses, social and economic justifications, point
and nonpoint source control, and public participa-
tion are to be applied to wetlands in the same man-
ner they are applied to other surface waters.

5.3  Protection of Outstanding
Wetlands
  Outstanding  national  resource waters  (ONRW)
designations  offer special protection (i.e., no
degradation) for designated waters, including wet-
lands.  These are areas of exceptional water quality
or recreational/ecological significance.  State  an-
tidegradation  policies  should provide  special
protection to wetlands designated as  outstanding
national resource waters in the same manner as
other surface waters; see Section I3l.l2(a)(3) of the
WQS  regulation  and  EPA guidance  Water Quality
Standards Handbook (USEPA  1983b), and Ques-
tions and Answers on:  Antidegradation  (USEPA
1985a). Activities that might trigger a State analysis
of a wetland for possible designation as an ONRW
are no different for wetlands than for other waters.
                                               20

-------
  The following list provides general information on
wetlands that are likely candidates for protection as
ONRWs.  It also may be used to identify specific
wetlands for use designation under the State's wet-
land classification system; see Chapter 4.0.  Some
of these  information sources  are discussed in
greater detail  in EPA's guidance entitled  Wetlands
and Section 401  Certification: Opportunities and
Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes
(USEPA 1989f); see Section 6.1.

   • Parks, wildlife management areas, refuges, wild
     and scenic rivers, and estuarine sanctuaries;

   • Wetlands adjacentto ONRWs or other high-quality
     waters (e.g., lakes, estuaries shellfish beds);

   • Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency
     Wetlands  Resources Act  of  1986 through
     Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and
     Wetland Priority Conservation Plans;

   • Sites within joint venture project areas under the
     North American Waterfowl Management Plan;
   • Sites under the Ramsar (Iran) Treaty on Wetlands
     of International Importance;

   • Biosphere reserve sites identified as part of the
     "Man and the Biosphere" Program sponsored by
     the United Nations;

   • Natural heritage areas and other similar designa-
     tions established by the State or private organiza-
     tions (e.g., Nature Conservancy); and

   • Priority wetlands identified as part of comprehen-
     sive planning efforts conducted at the local, State,
     Regional, or Federal levels of government; e.g.,
     Advance Identification (ADID) program under Sec-
     tion 404 and Special Area Management Plans
     (SAMPs) under the 1980 Coastal Zone Manage-
     ment Act.

  The  Wetland Evaluation Technique;  Volume II:
Methodology (Adamus et al., 1987) provides addi-
tional guidance oh the identification of wetlands with
high ecological and social value; see Section 3.2.
                                                 21

-------

-------
                                Chapter  6 j
                  Implementation
     Implementing water quality standards for wet-
     lands will require a coordinated effort between
     related Federal and State agencies and
programs.  In addition to the Section 401 certifica-
tion for Federal  permits and licenses, standards
have other potential applications for State
programs, including landfill siting, fish  and wildlife
management and aquisition decisions,  and best
management practices to control  non point source
pollution.  Many coastal States have wetland permit
programs, coastal zone management programs,
and National Estuary  Programs; and the develop-
ment of water quality standards should  utilize data,
information and expertise from these programs. For
all States, information and expertise  is available
nationwide from EPA and the Corps of Engineers as
part of the Federal 404 permit program.   State
wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide
data, advice, and expertise related to wetlands.
Finally,  the FWS  can  provide information on wet-
lands as part  of  the National Wetlands Inventory
program, the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Pro-
gram, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conser-
vation Program, the  North  American Waterfowl
Management Program and the National  Wildlife
Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program
contacts are included in Appendix D.

  This section provides information on certain ele-
ments of standards (e.g., mixing zones) and the
relationship between wetland standards and  other
water-related activities and programs (e.g., monitor-
ing and CWA Sections 401, 402, 404, and 319).  As
information is developed by  EPA and the States,
EPA will periodically transfer  it nationwide through
workshops and program summaries.  EPA's Office
of Water Regulations and Standards has developed
an outreach program for providing this information.

6.1  Section 401 Certification

  Many States have begun to make  more use of
CWA Section 401 certification to manage certain
activities that impact their wetland resources.  Sec-
tion 401 gives the  States the authority to grant,
deny, or condition certification of Federal permits or
licenses (e.g., CWA Section 404 permits issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy
                                           23

-------
Regulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and
Harbors Act Sections 9 and 10 permits, and CWA
Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may
result In a discharge to "waters of the U.S."  Such
action is taken by the State to ensure compliance
with various provisions of the CWA.  Violation  of
water quality standards is often the basis for denials
or conditioning through Section 401 certification.  In
the absence of wetland-specific standards,  States
have based decisions on their general  narrative
criteria and antidegradation policies.  The Office  of
Wetlands Protection has developed a handbook for
States entitled Wetlands and 401 Certification: Op-
portunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian Tribes (USEPA 1989g) on the use of Section
401  certification to protect wetlands. This docu-
ment provides several examples wherein  States
have applied  their water quality standards to wet-
lands; one example is included in Appendix E.

  The  development of  explicit water quality stand-
ards for wetlands,  including  wetlands in the defini-
tion of "State waters," uses, criteria,  and an-
tidegradation  policies, can  provide a strong and
consistent basis for State 401 certifications.

6.2  Discharges to Wetlands
  The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt
waste transport or waste assimilation as a  desig-
nated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'." This prohibi-
tion extends to wetlands, since they are included  in
the definition of "waters of the U.S."  Certain ac-
tivities Involving the discharge of pollutants to wet-
lands may be permitted, as with other water types,
providing a determination is made that the  desig-
nated  and existing uses of the wetlands and
downstream  waters will  be maintained  and
protected.  As with other surface waters, the State
must ensure, through ambient monitoring, that per-
mitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect
wetland functions  and  values as defined in State
water quality standards; see Section 6.4.

  Created wastewater treatment wetlands that are
not Impounded from waters of the United States and
are designed,  built, and operated  solely as was-
tewater treatment systems, are a special case, and
are not generally considered "waters of the U.S."
Some such created wetlands, however, also pfqvide
other functions and values similar to those provided
by natural wetlands.  Under certain circumstances,
such  created,  multiple  use wetlands may be con-
sidered "waters of the U.S.," and as such, would be
subject to the  same protection and restrictions on
use as natural  wetlands (see Report on the Use'of
Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal (USEPA 1987b)).  This determination must'
be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetland.

  6.2.1  Municipal Wastewater Treat-
  ment
  State standards should be consistent with the
document developed  by the Office of Municipal Pol-
lution Control  entitled Report on the  Use of Wet-
lands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
posal (USEPA  1987b),  on  the use of  wetlands for
municipal wastewater treatment.  This document
outlines minimum treatment and other requirements
under the CWA for discharges to natural wetlands
and those specifically created and used for the pur-
pose of wastewater treatment.

  The following is a brief summary of the above-ref-
erenced document.  For municipal discharges to
natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treat-
ment is required, and applicable water quality stand-
ards for the wetland and adjacent waters must be
met. Natural wetlands are  nearly always "waters of
the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protec-
tion as other surface waters with regard to stand-
ards and minimum treatment requirements. There
are no minimum treatment requirements for wet-
lands created solely for the purpose of wastewater
treatment that do not  qualify as "waters of the U.S."
The discharge from the created wetlands that do not
qualify as "waters of the U.S." must meet applicable
standards for the receiving water. EPA encourages
the expansion of wetland resources  through the
creation of engineered wetlands while allowing the
use of natural  wetlands for  wastewater treatment
only under limited conditions. Water quality stand-
ards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and over-
use of natural wetlands for treatment through adop-
tion of proper  uses and criteria and application of
State antidegradation  policies.

  6.2.2  Stormwater Treatment
  Stormwater discharges to  wetlands can provide
an important component of the freshwater supply to
wetlands.  However,  Stormwater discharges  from
                                              . 24

-------
various land use activities can also contain a sig-
nificant amount of pollutants.  Section 402(p)(2) of
the Clean Water Act requires that EPA, or States
with authorized  National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) programs, issue
NPDES permits for certain types of stormwater dis-
charges.  EPA is in the process of developing
regulations defining the scope of this program as
well  as developing permits for these discharges.
Stormwater permits can be used to require controls
that reduce the pollutants discharged to wetlands as
well as other waters of the United States.  In addi-
tion, some of the stormwater management controls
anticipated in permits will require creation of wet-
lands or  structures with some of the attributes of
wetlands for the single purpose of water treatment.

  EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands will have some similarities to
the policies for municipal wastewaiter discharges to
wetlands,   Natural wetlands are "waters of the
United States" and are afforded a level of protection
with  regard to water quality standards and technol-
ogy-based treatment requirements}.  The discharge
from created wetlands must meet applicable water
quality standards for the receiving waters. EPA will
issue technical  guidance on permitting stormwater
discharges,  including permitting stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands, over the next few years.

  6.2.3   Fills
  Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of
dredged  and fill material into "waters of the U.S."
The Corps of Engineers' regulations for the 404 pro-
gram are contained in 33 CFR Parts 320-330, while
EPA's regulations for the 404 program are contained
in 40 CFR Part 230-33.

  One State uses the following guidelines for fills in
their internal Section 401 review guidelines:

  (a)  if the project is not water dependent, cer-
       tification is denied;

  (b)  if the project is water dependent, certifica-
       tion is denied if there is a viable alternative
       (e.g., available upland nearby is a viable
       alternative);

  (c)  if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to
       wetland cannot be made  acceptable
       through conditions on certification  (e.g.,
       fish movement  criteria,  creation of flood-
       ways  to  bypass oxbows, flow through
       criteria), certification is denied.

  Some modification of this may  be incorporated
into States' water quality standards. The States.are
encouraged to provide a linkage in their water
quality standards to the  determination of "significant
degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40
OFR 230.10(c)) and  other applicable State laws af-
fecting the  disposal of  dredged or fill materials in
wetlands; see Section 5.1.

  6.2.4  Nonpoint Source Assessment
  and Control
  Wetlands, as with other waters, are impacted by
nonpoint sources  of pollution.  Many wetlands,
through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and
sediment, also can serve an important water quality
control function  for nonpoint source pollution ef-
fects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, the
wetlands.   Water quality standards  play a pivotal
role in both of the above. First, Section 319 of the
CWA requires the States to complete assessments
of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts to State waters,
including wetlands, and to prepare  management
programs to control NPS impacts.  Water quality
standards for wetlands can form the basis for these
assessments and management  programs for wet-
lands.  Second, water quality standards require-
ments for other surface waters such as rivers, lakes,
and estuaries can provide an impetus for States to
protect, enhance,  and  restore wetlands to help
achieve nonpoint source control and water quality
standards objectives for adjacent and downstream
waters. The Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
ards and the Office of Wetlands  Protection have
developed guidance on the coordination of wetland
and NPS  control  programs entitled  National
Guidance - Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control
Programs'(\JSEP A 1990c).

(3.3  Monitoring
  Water quality  management activities,  including
the permitting of wastewater and stormwater dis-
charges, the assessment and control of NPS pollu-
tion, and waste disposal activities  (sewage sludge,
CERCLA, RCRA)  require sufficient monitoring to en-
«ure that the designated  and existing  uses of
"waters of the U.S." are maintained and protected.
In addition, Section 305(b)  of  the CWA  requires
                                               25

-------
States to report on the overall status of their waters
In attaining water quality standards. The inclusion
of wetlands In water quality standards  provides the
basis for conducting both wetland-specific and
status and trend monitoring of State wetland resour-
ces.  Information  gathered from the 305(b) reports
may also be  used to  update and refine  the desig-
nated wetland uses. The monitoring of wetlands is
made difficult by limitations in State resources.
Where regulated activities impact wetlands or other
surface waters, States should provide regulatory in-
centives and negotiate monitoring responsibilities of
the party conducting the regulated activity.

   Monitoring of activities impacting specific wet-
lands may include several approaches. Monitoring
methods Involving biological measurements, such
as plant, macrolnvertebrate, and fish (e.g., biomass
and diversity indices),  have shown  promise for
monitoring stream quality (Plafkin et al., 1989).
These types  of Indicators have not  been .widely
tested for wetlands; see  Section 7.1. However, the
State of Florida has developed biological criteria as
part of their regulations governing the  discharge of
municipal wastewater  to wetlands5. The  States are
encouraged to develop and test the use of biological
Indicators.  Other more traditional methods current-
ly applied to other surface waters, including but not
limited to the use  of water quality criteria, sediment
quality criteria, and whole effluent toxicity, are also
available for conducting  monitoring of  specific wet-
lands.

  Discharges Involving persistent or bioaccumula-
tlve contaminants  may necessitate the monitoring of
the fate of such contaminants through wetlands and
their Impacts on aquatic life and wildlife.  The ex-
posure of birds and mammals to these contaminants
Is accentuated by the frequent use of  wetlands by
wildlife and the concentration of contaminants in
wetlands through  sedimentation and other proces-
ses.  States  should conduct monitoring of these
contaminants in  wetlands,  and  may require such
monitoring as part of regulatory activities involving
these contaminants.
  Status  and trend monitoring of the wetland
resources overall may require additional ap-
proaches; see Section 3.1.  Given current gaps in
scientific knowledge concerning  indicators of wet-
land quality, monitoring  of wetlands over the next
few years may focus on the spatial extent (i.e., quan-
tity) and physical structure (e.g.,  plant types, diver-
sity, and distribution) of wetland resources.  The
tracking of wetland acreage and plant communities
using aerial  photography can  provide information
that can augment the data collected on specific ac-
tivities impacting wetlands, as discussed above.

  EPA has developed guidance on the reporting of
wetland conditions for the Section 305(b) program
entitled Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990
State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report
(USEPA I989b). When assessing individual specific
wetlands, assessment information should  be
managed in an automated data system compatible
with the Section 305(b) Waterbody System. In addi-
tion, the NWI  program  provides technical  proce-
dures and protocols for tracking the spatial extent of
wetlands for the United States and subregions of the
United States.  These sources provide the
framework for reporting on the  status and trends of
State wetland resources.

6.4  Mixing Zones and  Variances

  The guidance on mixing zones  in the  Water
Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b) and
the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control  (TSD) (USEPA 1985b) apply
to all surface waters, including wetlands. This in-
cludes the point of application of acute and chronic
criteria.  As with other surface waters, mixing zones
may be granted only when water is present, and
may be developed  specifically for different  water
types.  Just  as mixing zone procedures are often
different for different water types and flow regimes
(e.g., free flowing  streams versus lakes and es-
tuaries),  separate procedures also  may  be
developed specifically for wetlands.  Such  proce-
dures should meet  the requirements contained  in
the TSD.
    Florida Department of Environmental Regulations; State Regulations Part I, "Domestic Wastewater
    Facilities," Subpart C, "Design/Performance Considerations," 17-6.055, "Wetlands Applications."
                                               26

-------
  As in other State waters, variances  may  be
granted to discharges to wetlands, Variances must
meet one  or more of the six requirements for the
removal of a designated use (40 CF:R Part 131.10(g))
and must fully protect any existing uses of the wet-
land.
                                               27

-------

-------
               Future Directions
                              W///M/W/////W""
                                                        aiiim^                      '
       EPA's Office  of Water Flegulations and
       Standards'  planning document  Wafer
       Quality Standards Framework  (USEPA -
Draft 1989e), identifies the major objectives for the
program and the activities necessary to meet these
objectives. Activities related to the development of
water quality standards for wetlands are separated
into  two  phases:  (1) Phase 1  activities  to be
developed by the States by  the end of FY  1993,
discussed above; and  (2) Phase 2 activities that will
require additional  research and program develop-
ment, which are discussed below.

7.1  Numeric Biological Criteria
for  Wetlands
  Development of narrative biological criteria is in-
cluded in the first phase of the development of water
quality  standards  for  wetlands; see Section  5.1.2.
The second phase Involves the implementation of
numeric biological criteria. This effort requires the
detailed evaluation of the components  of wetland
communities to determine the structure and function
of unimpaired wetlands. These measures serve as
reference conditions for evaluating the integrity of
other wetlands.  Regulatory activities involving dis-
charges to wetlands (e.g., CWA Sections 402 and
404) can provide monitoring data to augment data
collected  by the States for the development of
numeric biological criteria; see Section 7.4.  The
development of numeric biological  criteria for wet-
lands will require additional research and field test-
ing over the next several years.

  Biological criteria are based on local and regional
biotic "characteristics. This is in contrast to the na-
tionally based chemical-specific aquatic life criteria
developed by EPA under controlled laboratory con-
ditions. The States will have primary responsibility
for developing and implementing biological criteria
for their surface waters, including wetlands, to
reflect local and regional differences in resident
biological communities.  EPA will work closely with
the  States and the  EPA Office of Research and
Development to develop and test numeric biological
criteria for wetlands.  Updates on this work will be
provided through the Office of Water  Regulations
                                           29

-------
 and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division's
 regular newsletter.

 7.2 Wildlife Criteria

   Wetlands are Important habitats for wildlife
 species. It is therefore important to consider wildlife
 in developing criteria that protect the functions and
 values  of wetlands.  Existing  chemical-specific
 aquatic life criteria  are derived by testing selected
 aquatic organisms by exposing them to con-
 taminants In water.  Although  considered to be
 protective of aquatic life, these criteria often do not
 account for the bioaccumulation of these con-
 taminants, which may  cause a  major impact on
 wildlife using wetland resources.  Except for criteria
 for PCB, DDT, selenium, and mercury, wildlife have
 not  been Included  during the development  of the
 national aquatic life  criteria.

   During the next  3 years, the Office of  Water
 Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
 water quality criteria to determine whether adjust-
 ments In the criteria and/or alternative forms of
 criteria  (e.g., tissue concentration  criteria) are
 needed to adequately protect wildlife species using
 wetland  resources.   Since wetlands may not have
 open surface waters during all or parts of the year,
 alternative  tissue based criteria based on con-
 taminant concentrations in wildlife species and their
 food sources may  become important criteria for
 evaluating contaminant impacts in wetlands,  par-
 ticularly those  that bioaccumulate.   Based on
 evaluations of current criteria and wildlife at risk in
 wetlands, national criteria may be developed.

 7.3  Wetlands  Monitoring
   EPA's  Office of Water Regulations and Standards
 Is developing guidance for EPA  and State surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the
 end  of FY 1990. This guidance will (1) encourage
States to use monitoring data in a variety of program
areas  to support  water quality management
decisions; and  (2) provide examples of innovative
 monitoring  techniques  through the  use  of  case
studies.  The uses of data pertinent to wetlands that
will be discussed Include the following:

   • refining use classification systems by developing
     physical, chemical, and  biological  water quality
     criteria, goals,  and  standards that account for
     regional variation in attainable conditions;
   • identifying high-quality waters deserving special
     protection;

   • using remote-sensing data;

   • using integrated assessments to detect subtle.
     ecological impacts; and

   • identifying significant nonpoint sources of pollu-
     tion that will prevent attainment of uses.

  One or more case studies will address efforts to
quantify the extent of a State's wetlands and to iden-
tify sensitive wetlands through their advance iden-
tification (USEPA 1989a).
                                               30

-------
  References
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E.
      Young.  1987.  Wetland  Evaluation Techni-
      que (WET); Volume II: Methodology. Opera-
      tional Draft Technical Report Y-87; U.S. Army
      Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
      Vicksburg, MS. (Source #11)

Adamus,  P.R. and K. Brandt.   Draft.  Impacts on
      Quality of Inland Wetlands  of the United
      States:  A Survey of Techniques, Indicators,
      and Applications of Community-level
      Biomonitoring Data.  USEPA Environmental
      Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. (Source
      #8)

The Conservation Foundation.   11988.  Protecting
      America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The
      Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy
      Forum. Washington, DC.  (Source #10)

Cowardin,  L.M., V.  Carter, F.C. Golet,  and E.T.
      LaRoe. 1979.  Classification of Wetlands and
      Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S.
      Fish and Wildlife Service,  Washington, DC.
      FWS/OBS-79/31. (Source #6a)

Federal Water Pollution  Control Administration.
      1968.   Water Quality Criteria (the  Green
      Book), Report of the  National Technical Ad-
      visory Committee to the Secretary of the Inte-
      rior.   U.S. Department  of the  Interior,
      Washington, DC. (out of print).

Hagley, C.A. and D.L Taylor.  Draft. An Approach
      for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria
      for Wetlands Protection.  USEPA Environ-
      mental  Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
      (Source #12)

Lonard, R.I. and E.J. Clairain.   1986. Identification
      of Methodologies for the Assessment of Wet-
      land Functions and Values, Proceeding of the
      National Wetland Assessment Symposium,
      Association of Wetland Managers,  Berne,
      NY. pp. 66-72. (Source #1)

 Plafkin, J.L,  M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross,
      and R.M.  Hughes.  1989.  Rapid Bioassess-
      ment Protocols for Use in Streams and
      Rivers,  USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
      and Standards. EPA/444/4-89/001. (Source
      #2)

Stephen, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile,
      G.A. Chapman, and  W.A. Brings.  1985.
      Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
      Water Quality Criteria for the  Protection of
      Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. USEPA,
      Office of Research and Development, Duluth,
      MN. NTIS# PB-85-227049. (Source #3)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1983a.
      Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
      veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
      Attainability Analyses.   Office  of Water
      Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
      (Source #4)

  	.  I983b.  Water Quality Standards Hand-
book. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. (Source #4)

  	.  19843.  Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
ing Use Attainability Analyses. Vol II. Estuarine Sys-
tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. (Source #4)

  	.  1984b.  Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
ing Use Attainability Analyses.   Vol III.  Lake Sys-
tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC.  (Source #4)

  	.  1985a.  Questions and Answers on: An-
tidegradation.  Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC.  (Source #4)

  	.   I985b.  Technical  Support  Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.   Office of
Water Enforcement and  Permits, Washington, DC.
(Source #5)

  	. 1987a.  Quality Criteria for Water -1986.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. (Source #6b)

  	. I987b.  Report on the Use of Wetlands
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal.
Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington,
DC. (with Attachment D, September  20,  1988).
EPA 430/09-88-005. (Source  #9)
                                              31

-------
   	.  1989a. Guidance to EPA Regional Of-
 fices  on the Use of Advanced Identification
 Authorities Under  Section 404 of the Clean Water
 Act  Office of Wetlands  Protection, Washington,
 DC. (Source #1)

   	.  1989b. Guidelines for the Preparation
 of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
 Report).  Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
 ards, Washington,  DC. (Source #2)

   	.  1989c.  Regionalization as a Tool for
 Managing Environmental Resources.  Office of Re-
 search and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-
 89/060. (Source #8)

   	.  1989d. Survey of State Water Quality
 Standards for Wetlands.  Office of Wetlands Protec-
 tion, Washington, D.C. (Source #1)

   	.  1989e.  Water Quality Standards
 Framework (draft). Office of Water Regulations and
 Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #4)

   	. 1989f. Wetland Creation and Restora-
 tion: The Status of the Science. Office of Research
 and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-89/038a
 and EPA 600/3-89/0385. (Source #8)

   	. 1989g. Wetlands and 401 Certification:
 Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
 Indian Tribes.  Office of Wetlands Protection,
 Washington, DC. (Source #1)

   	.  1990a. Agency Operating  Guidance,
 FY 1991: Office  of Water.  Office of  the  Ad-
 ministrator, Washington, DC. (Source #7)

   	. 1990b.  Biological Criteria, National Pro-
 gram Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water
 Regulations and  Standards, Washington,  DC.
 EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #4)
  	.   1990c.  National Guidance, Wetlands
and Nonpoint Source Control Programs.  Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
(Source #2)
Sources of Documents
     1    USEPA, Office of Wetlands Protection
         Wetlands Strategies and State
         Programs Division
         401 MSt., S.W. (A-104F)
         Washington, DC 20460
         (202) 382-5048

     2    USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
         and Standards
         Assessment and Watershed Protec-
         tion Division
         401 M St., S.W. (WH-553)
         Washington, DC 20460
         (202) 382-7040

     3    National Technical Information Ser-
         vice (NTIS)
         5285 Front Royal Road
         Springfield,  VA 22116
         (703) 487-4650

     4    USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
         and Standards
         Criteria and Standards Division
         401 M St., S.W. (WH-585)
         Washington, DC 20460
         (202) 475-7315

    5    Out of print. A revised Technical Sup-
         port Document for Water Quality-
         based Toxics Control will be available
         October 1990 from:
          Office of Water Enforcement and
          Permits
          Permits Division
          401 M St., S.W. (EN-336)
          Washington, DC 20460

    6    U.S. Government Printing Office
         North Capitol St., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20401
         (202) 783-3238
         a Order No. 024-010-00524-6
         b Order No. 955-002-0000-8
                                              32

-------
USEPA, Water Policy Office
401 M St., S.W. (WH-556)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5818

USEPA, Office of Research and
Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 420-4666

USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution
Control
401 M St., S.W. (WH-546)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5850
10  The Conservation Foundation
    1250 Twenty-Fourth St., N.W.
    Washington, DC 20037
    (202) 293-4800

11  U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
    Wetlands Research Program
    (601) 634-3774

12  USEPA, Office of Research and
    Development
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    Duluth, MN 55804
     (218) 780-5549
                                   33

-------

-------
                                AppeBftii  "&
                                &•&*  *^,f:f    •.&> .    " f     A-.-.%%%
                                 — ivv^fr    ' ^ ^ '«^*  W^   •*
                               Glossary
  Ambient Monitoring - Monitoring within natural
systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to
determine existing conditions.

  Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did
not formerly occur.  Created wetlands are designed
to meet a variety of human benefits including, but
not limited to, the treatment of water pollution dis-
charges (e.g.,  municipal wastewater, stormwater)
and the mitigation of wetland losses permitted under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  This term en-
compasses the term "constructed wetland" as used
in other EPA guidance and documents.

  Enhancement -  An activity increasing one or
more natural or artificial wetland functions. For ex-
ample, the removal of a point  source discharge im-
pacting a wetland.

  Functions - The  roles that wetlands serve, which
are of value to society or the environment.

  Habitat - The environment occupied  by in-
dividuals of a particular species, population, or com-
munity.

   Hydrology - The science dealing with the proper-
ties, distribution, and circulation of water both on
the surface and under the earth.
  Restoration - An activity returning a wetland from
a disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage
or functions  to a previous  condition with greater
wetland acreage or functions. For example, restora-
tion might involve the plugging of a drainage ditch to
restore the hydrology to an area that was a wetland
before the installation of the  drainage ditch.

  Riparian - Areas next to or substantially in-
fluenced by  water.  These  may include areas ad-
jacent to rivers, lakes, or estuaries. These areas
often include wetlands.

  Upland - Any area that does not qualify as wet-
land because the associated hydrologic regime is
not sufficiently wet to  elicit development of vegeta-
tion, soils and/or  hydrologic characteristics as-
sociated with wetlands, or  is defined as open
waters.

  Waters of the U.S.  - See Appendix B for Federal
definition; 40 CFR Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2.

  Wetlands  - Those  areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and  that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions.  Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and  similar  areas.  See Federal
definition contained in Federal regulations: 40 CFR
Parts 122.2,  230.3, and 232.2.
                                             A-l

-------

-------
  The Federal definition of "waters of the United
States" (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)i) is:

  (1)   All waters which are currently  used, were
       used in the past, or may be susceptible to
       use in interstate or foreign commerce,  in*
       eluding all waters which are subject to the
       ebb and flow of the tide;

  (2)   All interstate waters including interstate wet-
       lands;

  (3)   All other waters such as intrastate lakes,
       rivers,  streams (including intermittent
       streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
       sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
       playa  lakes, or natural  ponds, the  use,
       degradation or destruction of which would
       or could affect interstate or foreign com-
       merce including any such waters:

       (i)   Which are or could be used by inter-
            state or foreign travelers for recrea-
            tional or other purposes; or
       (ii)   From which fish or shellfish could be
            taken and  sold in interstate or
            foreign commerce;
       (iii)  Which are  used or could be used for
            industrial purposes by industries in in-
            terstate commerce;*

   (4)  All impoundments of waters otherwise
       defined as waters of the United States under
       this definition;
(5)   Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs
     1-4;

(6)   The territorial sea; and

(7)   Wetlands  adjacent to  waters (other than
     waters that are themselves wetlands) iden-
     tified  in 1-6; waste treatment systems, in-
     cluding treatment ponds  or lagoons
     designed to meet the requirements of CWA
     (other than cooling ponds as  defined in 40
     CFR  423.11(m) which  also meet criteria in
     this definition) are not waters of the United
     States.

     (*Note: EPA has  clarified that waters of the
     U.S. under the commerce  connection in (3)
     above also include, for  example, waters:
          Which are or would be used as
          habitat by birds protected by
          Migratory Bird Treaties or migratory
          birds which cross State lines;
          Which are or would be used as
          habitat for endangered species;
          Used to irrigate crops sold in inter-
          state commerce.)
                                               B-l

-------

-------
                           Appendix   C
                            *• Mr ^» hj_  _ -a *• w . >•••••••-.>
           information  on  the
              tessment  of Wetland
        Functions  and  Values
 Summary of Methodologies Prior to 1983
(Lonard and Clairain 1986)

 Introduction
 Since 1972, a wide variety of wetlands evaluation
methodologies have been developed by Federal or
State agencies, private consulting firms, and the
academic community. These evaluation methods
have been developed to ascertain all or selected
wetland functions  and values that include habitat;
hydrology, including water  quality recreation;
agriculture/silviculture; and heritage functions.

  Publications by the U.S. Water Resources Council
(Lonard et al., 1981) and the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard et al., 1984)
documented and summarized pre-1981 wetland
evaluation methods.  The two documents include a
critical review of the literature, identification of re-
search needs, and recommendations for the im-
provement of wetlands evaluation methodologies.
Methodology analyses include an examination of
wetlands functions; geographic features; personnel
requirements for implementation, data require-
ments, and products; field testing; flexibility; and
administrative uses. Recently, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, with technical assistance
from WAPORA, Inc. (1984) summarized freshwater
wetland  evaluation methodologies related to
primary and cumulative impacts published prior to
1981. The specific objective of this paper is to
present a summary of wetlands evaluation
methodologies identified  from the pre-1981 litera-
ture, and to present an  update of methodologies
published since 1981.

  Methods
  In 1981, a U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station (WES) study team evaluated 40 wet-
lands evaluation methodologies according to
several screening criteria, and examined 20 of the
methodologies in detail using a series of descriptive
parameters (Lonard et al., 1981). The criteria and
parameters were developed to ensure consistency
during review and analysis of methodologies.  Five
additional methodologies proposed since 1981 have
been analyzed and summarized for this paper using
the same criteria. This does not suggest, however,
that only five methodologies have been developed
since 1981.

  Available Wetlands Evaluation Methodologies

  Abstracts  of  25   wetlands evaluation
methodologies  that met the WES study team's
criteria include the following:

  1.   Adamus, P.R., and Stockwell, L.T. 1983. "A
      Method for Wetland Functional Assessment.
      Volume I.  Critical Review and  Evaluation
      Concepts," U.S. Department of Transporta-
                                     C-l

-------
        tlon.  Federal Highway Administration.  Of-
        fice of  Research,  Environmental Division.
        Washington, D.C. 20590; and Adamus, P.R.
        1983. "A Method for Wetland Functional As-
        sessment  Volume II.   The Method," U.S.
        Department of Transportation.  Federal
        Highway  Administration.   Office of  Re-
        search,   Environmental    Division.
        Washington, D.C.  20590.

   Volume I of the method provides a detailed litera-
 ture review and discussion of the rationale of  the
 method.   The wetland functional assessment or
 evaluation methodology presented in Volume II con-
 sists of three separate procedures.   Procedure I,
 referred to as a 'Threshold  Analysis," provides a
 methodology for estimating the probability that a
 single wetland Is of high, moderate, or low value for
 each of 11 wetland functions discussed in detail in
 Volume I.  This  procedure is based on assessment
 of 75 bio-physical wetland features obtained from
 office, field, and quantitative studies.  It also incor-
 porates consideration of the social  significance of
 the  wetland as indicated by public priorities.  The
 priorities are determined based on results of a series
 of questions that the evaluator must consider.  Pro-
 cedure II,  designed as a "Comparative Analysis,"
 provides  parameters  for estimating whether one
 wetland Is likely to be more important than another
 for each wetland function, and Procedure II, referred
 to as "Mitigation Analysis," provides  an outline for
 comparing  mitigation alternatives and their
 reasonableness."  The evaluation methodology is
 qualitative in Its approach.

   2.    Brown, A., Kittle, P.,  Dale, E.E.,  and  Huf-
        fman, R.T.  1974.   "Rare and Endangered
        Species, Unique Ecosystems, and Wet-
        lands," Department of Zoology and Depart-
        ment of Botany and Bacteriology.  The
        University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkan-
       sas.

   The Arkansas Wetlands Classification  System
contains a  two-part, multivariate approach for
evaluating freshwater wetlands for maximum wildlife
production and diversity.   Initially, Arkansas wet-
lands were qualitatively classified as prime or non-
prime wetlands habitats according to use by man. A
numerical value for a wetland was determined by
calculating  a subscore, which was based on the
multiplication of a significance coefficient by a
  determined weighted  value.  The values  for each
  variable were summed, and a total wetland qualita-
  tive value was obtained for use by decision makers.

   3.   Dee, N., Baker, J.,  Drobney, N., Duke, K.,
        Whitman, I., and Fahringer, D.  1973.  "En-
        vironmental Evaluation  System for Water
        Resources Planning," Water Resources Re-
        search, Vol 9, No. 3, pp 523-534.

   The Environmental Evaluation  System (EES) is a
  methodology for conducting environmental impact
  analysis.  It was developed by an interdisciplinary
  research team, and is based on a hierarchical arran-
  gement of environmental quality indicators,  an ar-
  rangement that classifies the major areas of environ-
  mental concern into major categories, components,
 and ultimately into parameters and measurements
 of environmental quality. The EES provides for en-
 vironmental  impact evaluation in four major
 categories:  ecology, environmental pollution, aes-
 thetics, and human interest. These four categories
 are further broken down into 18 components, and
 finally into 78 parameters.   The EES  provides a
 means for measuring or estimating selected en-
 vironmental impacts of .large-scale water resource
 development projects  in  commensurate units
 termed environmental impact units (EIU). Results of
 using the EES include a total score in EIU "with" and
 "without" the proposed project; the difference be-
 tween the two scores  in one measure  of environ-
 mental impact.  Environmental impact scores
 developed in the EES are based on the magnitude of
 specific environmental impacts and their relative im-
 portance.  Another major output from the EES is an
 indication of major adverse impacts called  "red
 flags," which are of concern of and by themselves.
 These red flags indicate "fragile"  elements of the
 environment that must be studied  in more detail.
 (Authors' abstract.)

   4.    Euler, D.L, Carreiro, F.T., McCullough, G.B.,
       Snell, E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H.
       1983.   "An Evaluation System for Wetlands
       of Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield,"
       First Edition.  Ontario Ministry  of  Natural
       Resources and Canadian Wildlife Service,
       Ontario Region. Variously paged.

  The methodology was developed  to evaluate a
wide variety  of  wetland functions that include
biological, social, hydrological, and special fea-
                                              C-2

-------
tures. The procedures includes a rationale of scien-
tific and technical literature for wetlands values, the
evaluation methodology, a step-by-step procedure
manual,  a  wetland data record, and a wetland
evaluation record. The procedure was developed to
evaluate and rank a wide variety of inland wetlands
located in  Ontario,  Canada,  south of the
Precambrian Shield.

  5.   Fried, E. 1974.  "Priority Rating of Wetlands
       for  Acquisition," Transaction of the North-
       east Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31,
       pp 15-30.

  New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act
of 1972 provides $5 million for inland wetland ac-
quisition, $18 million for tidal wetlands acquisition,
and $4 million  for wetlands restoration.  A priority
rating  system,  with particular emphasis on inland
wetlands, was developed to guide these programs.
The governing equation was:  priority rating =  (P +
V + A) x  5, where the priority  rating is per acre
desirability for  acquisition,  P is biological produc-
tivity, V is vulnerability, and A is additional factors.
Both actual and potential conditions could be rated.
The rating system was successfully applied to some
130 .inland wetlands.   Using a separate equation,
wetland values were related  to  costs.  (Authors's
abstract.)

   6.   Galloway, G.E.  1978. "Assessing Man's Im-
        pact on Wetlands," Sea Grant Publications
        Nos.  UNC-SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136,
        University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North
        Carolina.

   The Wetland Evaluation System (WES) proposed
 by  Galloway emphasizes  a system  approach to
 evaluate man's impact on a wetland ecosystem.  Im-
 pacts  are determined and compared for "with" and
 "without" project conditions. The advice of an inter-
 disciplinary team, as well as the input of local
 elected officials and laymen, are included as part of
 the WES model. Parameters that make up a wetland
 are assessed at the macro-level, and  the results of
 the evaluation are displayed numerically and graphi-
 cally with computer assisted techniques.

   7.   Golet, F.C. 1973.  "Classification Evaluation
        of Freshwater Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in
        the Glaciated  Northeast," Transactions of
       the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference,
       Vol 30, pp 257-279.

  A detailed classification system for freshwater
wetlands is presented along with 10 criteria for the
evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat.  The
results are based on a 2-year field study of over 150
wetlands located  throughout the state of Mas-
sachusetts.   The major components  of the clas-
sification system include wetland classes and sub-
classes, based on the dominant life form of vegeta-
tion and surface water depth and permanence; size
categories;  topographic and hydrologic  location;
surrounding  habitat  types; proportions and inter-
spersion of  cover and water; and vegetative inter-
spersion.  These components are combined with
wetland juxtaposition and water chemistry to
produce criteria for a wetland evaluation.  Using  a
system of specification and ranks, wetlands can be
arranged according to their wildlife value for
decision-making.  (Author's abstract.)  "At this point,
the system  has been used in numerous states on
thousands  of wetlands; recent  revisions have
resulted in such use." (F.C. Golet)

   8.   Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973.  "Valua-
       tion  of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Fresh-
       water Wetlands in Massachusetts," Journal
       of the Northeastern Agricultural Council, Vol
       2, No 1,pp 262-273.

   The authors suggested an alternative to the "will-
ingness to pay" approaches for measuring the social
values of natural  open space and  recreational
resources.  The method combines an  identification
and measurement of the  physical qualities  of the
resource by landscape architects.  Measurement
values were expressed in the context of the political
system and current public views.  The procedure is
demonstrated by its application  to freshwater wet-
lands  in Massachusetts.

   9.    Kibby, H.V.  1978.  "Effects of Wetlands on
        Water Quality," Proceedings of the Sym-
        posium on Strategies for Protection and
        Management of Floodplain Wetlands and
        other Riparian Ecosystems, General Techni-
        cal  Report No. GTR-WO-12,  U.S.  Depart-
        ment of Agriculture,  Forest  Service,
        Washington, D.C.
                                                C-3

-------
   Wetlands  potentially have significant  effects on
 water quality.  Significant amounts of nitrogen are
 assimilated  during the growing season and then
 released in the fall and early spring.   Phosphorus,
 while assimilated by wetlands, is also released
 throughout the year.  Some potential management
 tools for evaluating the effect of wetlands on water
 quality are discussed.  (Author's abstract.)

   10.   Larson, J.S. (ed.)   1976.  "Models for As-
        sessment of Freshwater Wetlands," Publica-
        tion  No. 32.  Water Resources Research
        Center, University of Massachusetts, Am-
        herst, Massachusetts.

   Four submodels for relative and economic evalua-
 tion of freshwater wetlands are presented within a
 single, 3-phase elimination model.  The submodels
 treat wildlife,  visual-cultural,  groundwater, and
 economic values.

   The wildlife and visual-cultural models are based
 on physical characteristics that, for the most part,
 can be  measured on  existing maps and  aerial
 photographs. Each characteristic is given values by
 rank and coefficient.  A relative numerical score is
 calculated for the  total wetland characteristics and
 used to compare  it with  a  broad range of  north-
 eastern wetlands or with wetlands selected by the
 user.  The groundwater model  places wetlands in
 classes of probable groundwater yield, based  on
 surflcial geologic deposits under the wetland.

   The economic  submodel suggests values for
 wildlife, visual-cultural aspects, groundwater, and
 flood control. Wildlife values are derived from the
 records of state agency purchases of wetlands with
 sportsmen's  dollars for wildlife management pur-
 poses.  Visual-cultural economic values are based
 on the record of wetland purposes for open space
 values by municipal  conservation commissions.
 Groundwater values stem from  savings realized  by
 selection of a drilled public water supply over a sur-
face water source. Flood control values are based
on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data on flood con-
trol values of the Charles River, Massachusetts,
mainstream wetlands.

  The  submodels are presented  within the
framework of an overall 3-phase eliminative model.
Phase I identifies outstanding wetlands that should
be protected at all costs.  Phase  II  applies the
 wildlife, visual-cultural, and groundwater submodels
 to those wetlands that do not meet criteria for out-
 standing wetlands.  Phase  III develops the
 economic values of the wetlands evaluated in Phase
 II.

   The  models are intended to  be used by  local,
 regional, and state resource planners and wetlands'
 regulation agencies. (Author's abstract.)

   11.  Marble, A.D.,  and  Gross, M.  1984.  "A
        Method for Assessing  Wetland Charac-
        teristics and Values," Landscape Planning,
        Vol 11, pp 1-17.

   The  method presented for assessing wetland
 values identified the relative  importance of wetlands
 in providing  wildlife habitat, flood control, and im-
 provement of surface water  quality. All wetlands in
 the study area were categorized on the basis of their
 landscape position  of hilltop, hillside, or valley.
 Each of the wetland values measured were then re-
 lated to the corresponding landscape position
 categories. Valley wetlands  were found to be most
 valuable in all instances. The method provides infor-
 mation on wetland values that can be  simply
 gathered and easily assessed, requiring only  avail-
 able data and a minimum of resources. Implemen-
 tation of this  method on a regional or municipality-
 wide basis can provide decision makers with readily
 accessible and comparative  information on wetland
 values.  (Authors' abstract.)

   12.   Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
        1980.   "Manual for Wetland Evaluation Tech-
        niques:  Operation Draft," Division of  Land
        Resource Programs,  Lansing,  Michigan. 29
        pp.

  The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
 (MDNR) Wetland Evaluation Technique is designed
to assist decision makers on  permit applications in-
volving  projects where significant impacts are an-
ticipated.  The manual  describes the  criteria to be
used in evaluating any particular wetland. The tech-
nique provides a means of evaluating the status of
existing wetlands as well as potential project-related
impacts on  wetland structure  and aerial extent.  One
part of  the technique requires examination of six
basic features of wetlands, including: (1) hydrologic
functions;  (2) soil characteristics;  (3) wildlife
habitat/use  evaluation; (4) fisheries habitat/use; (5)
                                              C-4

-------
nutrient removal/recycling functions; (6) removal of
suspended sediments.   A second  part of the
analysis includes consideration of public  interest
concerns.  This method  also  includes brief con-
sideration of cumulative, cultural/historic,  and
economic impacts.

  13.  Reppert,  R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv,  E.,
       Messman, L, and Meyers, C.  1979. "Wet-
       land Values:  Concepts and Methods for
       Wetlands Evaluation," IWR  Research Report
       79-R-1, U.S. Army Engineer  Institute for
       Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

  The evaluation of wetlands is  based on  the
analysis of their physical, biological, and human use
characteristics.  The report discusses these func-
tional characteristics and identifies specific criteria
for determining the efficiency with which the respec-
tive functions are performed.

  Two potential wetlands evaluation methods are
described.  One is a  non-quantitative method in
which individual wetland areas are evaluated based
on the deductive analysis of their individual function-
al characteristics.  The other is a  semi-quantitative
method in which the relative values  of two or more
site alternatives are established through the mathe-
matical rating and summation of their functional
relationships.

  The specific functions and values of wetlands that
are covered in this report are (1)  natural biological
functions, including food  chain  productivity  and
habitat;  (2) their use  as  sanctuaries, refuges, or
scientific  study areas;  (3) shoreline protection;  (4)
groundwater recharge; (5) storage for flood  and
stormwater; (6)  water quality improvement;  (7)
hydrologic support; and (8) various cultural values.
(Authors' abstract.)

   14.  Shuldiner,  P.W., Cope, D.F., and  Newton,
        R.B.  1979.  "Ecological Effects on Highway
        Fills of Wetlands," Research Report. Nation-
        al Cooperative Highway Research Program
        Report No. 218A,  Transportation Research
        Board,  National  Research Council,
        Washington,  D.C.; and  Shuldiner,  P.W.,
        Cope, D.F., and Newton,  R.B.  1979.
        "Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on Wet-
        lands," User's  Manual.  National Coopera-
        tive Highway Research Program Report No.
       218B, Transportation Research Board, Na-
       tional Research Council, Washington, D.C.

  The two reports include a Research Report and a
User's Manual to  provide,  in  concise format,
guidelines and  information needed for the deter-
mination  of  the ecological  effects that may result
from the placement of highway fills on wetlands and
associated floodplains, and to suggest procedures
by which deleterious impacts can be minimized  or
avoided.  The practices that can be used to enhance
the positive benefits are also discussed.  Both
reports cover the most common physical, chemical,
and biological effects that the highway engineer is
likely to  encounter when placing fills in wetlands,
and displays the effects and their interactions in a
series of flowcharts and matrices.

  15.  SCS Engineers. 1979. "Analysis of Selected
       Functional Characteristics of Wetlands,"
       Contract No. DACW73-78-R-0017,  Reston,
       Virginia.

  The investigation focused on  identifying factors
and  criteria  for assessing  the wetland functions of
water quality improvement, groundwater recharge,
storm and floodwater storage, and shoreline protec-
tion.  Factors and criteria were identified that could
be used to develop procedures to assist Corps per-
sonnel in wetlands assessing the values of general
wetland types and of specific wetlands in performing
the functions indicated. To the extent possible, pro-
cedures  were then outlined that  allow the applica-
tion of these criteria in specific sites.

  16.  Smardon, R.D.  1972.  "Assessing Visual-
       Cultural Values on Inland Wetlands in Mas-
       sachusetts,"  Master of Science Thesis.
       University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Mas-
       sachusetts.

  This study deals with the incorporation of visual-
cultural values of inland wetlands into the decision
making process of land use allocation of inland wet-
lands in Massachusetts.  Visual-cultural values of in-
land wetlands may be defined as visual, recreation-
al,  and  educational values of inland wetlands to
society.  The multivariate  model is  an  eliminative
and comparative  model  that has three levels of
evaluation.  The first level identifies those wetlands
that are outstanding natural areas,  have  regional
landscape  value,  or are large  wetland systems.
                                               C-5

-------
 These wetlands have top priority for preservation.
 The second level Is a rating and ranking system. At
 this stage, the combined natural resource values of
 the wetland are evaluated.  Wetlands with high
 ratings or rank from this level are eliminated and
 have the next highest  priority for preservation or
 some sort of protection. The third level evaluation
 considers the cultural  values (e.g.,  accessibility,
 location near schools)  of wetlands.  The model is
 designed to be utilized at many different levels of
 decision making.  For example, it can be used by
 state agencies, town  conservation  commissions,
 and conceivably could  be used by other states in
 northeastern United States.  (Author's abstract.)

   17.   Solomon, R.D., Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
        Richardson, S.E., Ganter, L.W., and Vlachos,
        E.C.  1977. "Water Resources Assessment
        Methodology (WRAM)--Impact Assessment
        and Alternative Evaluation," Technical
        Report  Y-77-1, Environmental  Effects
        Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
        Experiment Station,  CE, Vicksburg,  Missis-
        sippi.

   This study presented a review of 54 impact as-
 sessment methodologies and found that none en-
 tirely satisfied the needs  or requirements for the
 Corps'  water resources  project and programs.
 However, salient features contained in several of the
 methodologies were considered pertinent and were
 utilized  to  develop a water  resources assessment
 methodology  (WRAM).  One of the  features con-
 sisted of weighting impacted variables and scaling
 the Impacts of alternatives. The weighted rankings
 technique is the basic weighting and scaling tool
 used in this methodology.  Principal components of
 WRAM Include assembling an interdisciplinary team;
 selecting and ensuring assessment variables; iden-
 tifying, predicting, and evaluating impacts and alter-
 natives; and documenting the analysis.  Although
 developed  primarily for  use by the Corps in  water
 resources  management, WRAM is applicable  to
 other resources agencies.

   18.  State  of Maryland Department of  Natural
       Resources.  Undated.  "Environmental
       Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands  (Draft),"
      Tidal Wetlands Study, pp 181-208.

  The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of  coas-
tal wetlands is based on the recognition of 32 dis-
 tinct types of vegetation in the marshes and swamps
 of tidewater areas of the state.  Rankings of vegeta-
 tion types were developed and parameters for the
 evaluation of specific areas of wetlands were
 described.  The application of the scheme is ex-
 plained and demonstrated.  Guidance is provided'
 for the interpretation of results.  The application of
 the Maryland scheme requires a detailed inventory
 of the types of vegetation in the area selected for
 evaluation.

   19.   U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island.
        1983.  "Wetland Evaluation Methodology,"
        Wisconsin Department  of Natural Resour-
        ces, Bureau of Water  Regulation and
        Zoning.

   The Wetland Evaluation Methodology is a shor-
 tened and revised version of a technique developed
 for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (see
 Adamus,  1983; Number 1).  The FHWA technique
 was designed to assess all wetland types whereas
 the Wetland Evaluation  Methodology assesses
 those wetlands in Wisconsin (e.g., assessment pro-
 cedures in the FHWA technique for estuarine mar-
 shes have been omitted from the Wetland Evaluation
 Methodology).  Other changes  have also been in-
 corporated  into  the Wetland Evaluation Methodol-
 ogy to  more closely  reflect other regional condi-
 tions.

   20.  U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Missis-
       sippi Valley.  1980.  "A Habitat Evaluation
       System for Water Resources Planning," U.S.
       Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi
       Valley Division, Vicksburg,  Mississippi.

   A methodology is presented for determining the
 quality of  major habitat types based on the descrip-
 tion and quantification  of habitat characteristics.
 Values are compared for  existing baseline condi-
 tions, future conditions without the project, and with
 alternative project conditions.   Curves, parameter
 characteristics, and descriptive  information are in-
 cluded in  the appendices.  The Habitat Evaluation
 System (HES) procedure includes the following
 steps for  evaluating impacts of a water resource
 development project. The steps include:  (1) obtain-
 ing habitat type  or land  use acreage; (2) deriving
 Habitat  Quality Index  scores; (3)  deriving  Habitat
 Unit Values; (4) projecting Habitat Unit Values for
the future "with" and "without" project conditions; (5)
                                              C-6

-------
using Habitat Unit Values to assess  impacts of
project conditions; and (6) determining mitigation
requirements.

  21.  U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.
       1972.  "Charles River: Mam Report and At-
       tachments," Waltham, Massachusetts.

  The study was a long-term project directed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the resour-
ces of the Charles  River Watershed in eastern Mas-
sachusetts.  It had an emphasis on how to control
flood damage in the urbanized lower watershed, and
how to prevent any significant flood damage in the
middle and upper watershed.  Seventeen  crucial
wetlands were identified for acquisition to maintain
flood storage capacity in the watershed as a non-
structural alternative for flood protection in the lower
Charles River basin.  Various aspects of the water-
shed were studied  in an interdisciplinary fashion.

  22.  U.S. Department of Agriculture.  1978. "Wet-
       lands Evaluation Criteria-Water and Related
       Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Mas-
       sachusetts," Soil Conservation Service, Am-
       herst, Massachusetts.

  A portion of the document contains criteria used
to evaluate major wetlands in the coastal region of
Massachusetts.  Each of the 85 v/etlands evaluated
was subjected to map study and field examination.
Ratings were assigned based on point values ob-
tained  for various attributes. A rationale for each
evaluation item was developed to explain the
development of the criteria.

  23.  U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  Service.   1980.
       "Habitat Evaluation  Procedures (HEP)
       Manual (102ESM),"  Washington, D.C.

  HEP is a method that can be used to document
the  quality and quantity of available  habitat for
selected wildlife species. HEP provides information
for two general  types of wildlife  habitat  com-
parisons: (1) the relative value of different areas at
the same point in time; and (2)  the relative value of
the same area at future points in time. By combin-
ing the two types of comparisons, the  impact of
proposed or anticipated land and water changes on
wildlife habitat can  be quantified.  This  document
described HEP, discusses some probable applica-
tions, and provides guidance in applying  HEP in-the
field.

  24.  Virginia Institute  of  Marine Science.   Un-
       dated.  "Evaluation  of Virginia Wetlands,"
       (mimeographed).  Glouchester  Point, Vir-
       ginia.

  The authors presented a  procedure to evaluate
the wetlands of Virginia.  The objective of the wet-
land evaluation program was to recognize wetlands
that possess great ecological significance as well as
those of lesser significance.  Two broad  categories
of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological
significance of wetlands:  (1) the interaction of wet-
lands with the marine environment; and (2) the inter-
action of  the wetland with the terrestrial environ-
ment.   A formula was developed to incorporate
various factors into "relative  ecological significance
values."

  25.  Winchester, B.H., and  Harris, LD.   1979.
       "An Approach to Valuation of Florida Fresh-
       water Wetlands,"  Proceedings of the  Sixth
       Annual Conference on the Restoration and
       Creation of Wetlands, Tampa, Florida.

  A procedure was presented for estimating the
relative ecological and functional value of  Florida
freshwater wetlands.  Wetland  functions evaluated
by this procedure  include water quality enhance-
ment, water detention,  vegetation  diversity and
productivity, and wildlife  habitat value.   The field
parameters used in the assessment were wetland
size,  contiguity, structural vegetative diversity, and
an edge-to-area  ration.  The procedure was field
tested and was time- and cost-effective. Allowing
flexibility in both the evaluative criteria used  and the
relative weight assigned to each  criterion, the
methodology is applicable in any Florida region for
which basic ecological data are available.
                                               C-7

-------
   Literature Cited
 Adamus, P. and Stockwell, LR.  1983. A method for
       wetland functional assessment.  Volume 1.
       Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S.
       Department of Transportation.  Federal High-
       way Administration.  Office Research,  En-
       vironmental Division.   Washington, D.C.
       20590 (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).

 Adamus, P.R.  1983. A method for wetland function-
       al assessment. Volume II.  The method.  U.S.
       Department of Transportation, Federal High-
       way Administration.  Office of Research,  En-
       vironmental Division.   Washington, D.C.
       20590. (No. FHWA-IP-82-24).

 Brown, A., Kittle, P., Dale, E.E., and Huffman, R.T.
       1974.  Rare and endangered species, unique
       ecosystems, and wetlands.  Department of
       Zoology and Department of Botany and Bac-
       teriology.   University of Arkansas, Fayet-
       teville, Arkansas.

 Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N.,  Duke, K., Whitman,
       I.  and Fahringer, D.  1973. Environmental
       evaluation system for water resources plan-
       ning. Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No.
       3, pp 523-534.

 Euler,  D.L., Carrelro, F.T., McCullough, G.B., Snell,
       E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H. 1983.
       An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario
       south of the Precambrian Shield.  First Edi-
       tion.  Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
       and Canadian Wildlife  Service,  Ontario
       Region. Variously paged.

Fried, E.  1974.  Priority rating of wetlands for ac-
       quisition. Transaction  of the Northeast Fish
       and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31, pp 15-30.

Galloway, G.E.  1978.  Assessing man's impact on
      wetlands, Sea Grant Publication Nos. UNC-
       SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136, University of
       North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Golet, F.C.  1973.  Classification and evaluation of
      freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the
      glaciated Northeast.  Transactions  of the
       Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol
       30, pp 257-279.

 Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H.  1973.  Evaluation of
       visual-cultural benefits from freshwater wet-
       lands in Massachusetts, Journal of the North-
       eastern Agricultural Council, Vol 2, No. 2, pp
       262-273.

 Kibby, H.V.  1978.   Effects of wetlands on  water
       quality.  Proceedings of the symposium on
       strategies for protection and management of
       floodplain wetlands and  other riparian
       ecosystems,  General Technical Report No.
       GRW-WO-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
       Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

 Larson, U.S. (ed.)  1976. Models for assessment of
      freshwater wetlands.  Publication No. 32,
      Water Resources Center, University of Mas-
      sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.

 Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy,
      J.W., Brown,  L.D., Ballard, P.E., and Watts,
      J.W.  1981. Analysis of methodologies used
      for the assessment of wetlands values.  U.S.
      Water Resources Council, Washington,  D.C.

 Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy,
      J.W., Brown,  L.D., Ballard, P.E., and Watts,
      J.W.  1984.  Wetlands function and values
      study plan;   Appendix A:  Analysis of
      methodologies for  assessing wetlands
      values.  Technical Report Y-83-2, U.S. Army
      Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
      Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Marble,  A.D., and Gross, M. 1984.  A method for
      assessing wetland  characteristics and
      values. Landscape Planning II, pp 1-17.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.  1980.
      Manual for wetland evaluation techniques:
      operation draft.  Division of Land Resources
      Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 22 pp.

Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E., Messman, L,
      and Meyer, C.  1979.  Wetlands values:  con-
      cepts and methods for wetlands evaluation.
      IWR Research  Report 79-R-1, U.S.  Army En-
      gineer Institute for  Water  Resources,  Fort
      Belvoir, Virginia.
                                              C-8

-------
Shuldiner,  P.W.,  Cope, D.F., and Newton,  R.B.
      1979a. Ecological effects of highway fills on
      wetlands.   Research Report  No. 218B,
      Transportation Research Board, National Re-
      search Council. Washington, D.C.

Smardon, R.C.   1972.  Assessing visual-cultural
      values on inland wetlands in Massachusetts.
      Master of Science Thesis, University of  Mas-
      sachusetts, Amherst,  Massachusetts.
      Solomon, R.D., Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
      Richardson, S.E., Canter, L.W., and Vlachos,
      E.G.  1977.  Water resources assessment
      methodology (WRAM)--impact assessment
      and alternative evaluation.  Technical Report
      Y-77-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-
      periment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
      Undated. Environmental evaluation of coas-
      tal wetlands (Draft).  Tidal Wetlands Study,
      pp 181-208.

Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers,
      Inc.   1979. Analysis of selected functional
      characteristics of wetlands.  Contract No.
      DACW72-78-0017, Draft Report, prepared for
      U.S. Army Engineers Research Center by the
      authors, Reston, Virginia.

U.S. Army Engineer Division,  Lower Mississippi Val-
      ley.   1980.  A habitat evaluation system
      (HES) for water resources planning.  U.S.
      Army Engineer Division,  Lower Mississippi
      Valley. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.  1972.
      Charles River; main report and attachments.
      U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.
      Waltham, Massachusetts.

U.S.  Department of Agriculture.  1978.  Wetland
      evaluation criteria-water and related land
      resources of the coastal region of Mas-
      sachusetts.  Soil Conservation Service, Am-
      herst, Massachusetts.

U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1984.
      Technical report: literature review of wetland
      evaluation methodologies. U.S. Environmen-
      tal Protection Agency, Region 5,  Chicago, Il-
      linois.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.   1980.  Habitat
      evaluation procedures (HEP)  manual.   102
      ESM, Washington, D.C.

Virginia Institute of  Marine Science.  Undated.
      Evaluation   of   Virginia   wetlands.
      Mimeographed Paper, Glouchester  Point,
      Virginia.

Winchester,  B.H., and Harris, L.D.  1979.  An ap-
      proach to valuation of Florida freshwater wet-
      lands.  Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Con-
      ference on the  Restoration and  Creation of
      Wetlands, Hillsborough Community College,
      Tampa, Florida.
                                              C-9

-------
Wetland Assessment Techniques
Developed Since 1983 (USEPA 1989a)
 • Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus,  et al.
   1987).  This nationally applicable procedure has
   been used in at least six ADIDs to date, mostly in
   Its original form (known popularly as the "FHWA"
   or "Adamus" method). It has since been extensive-
   ly revised and is available at no cost (with simple
   software) from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
   Research Program (contact: Buddy Clairain, 601-
   634-3774). Future revisions are anticipated.

 • Bottomland Hardwoods WET (Adamus 1987).
   This Is a simplified, regionalized version of WET,
   applicable to EPA Regions 4 and 6. It is available
   from OWP (contact: Joe DaVia at 202-475-8795).
   Supporting software is being developed, and fu-
   ture revisions are anticipated.

 • Southeastern Alaska WET (Adamus Resource As-
   sessment 1987). This is also a simplified, regional-
   ized version of WET.

 • Minnesota Method (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-
   St'Paul, 1988). This was a joint State-Federal effort
   that involved considerable adaptation of WET.  A
   similar effort is underway in Wisconsin.
• Onondaga County  Method  (SUNY-Syracuse
  1987).  This was adapted from WET by Smardon
  and others at the State University of New York.

• Hollands-Magee Method. This is a scoring techni-
  que developed by two consultants and has been
  applied to hundreds of wetlands in New England
  and part of Wisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at
  603-472-5191). Supporting software is available.

• Ontario Method (Euler et al. 1983). This is also a
  scoring technique, and was extensively peer-
  reviewed in Canada. (Contact: Valanne Gloos-
  chenko, 416-965-7641).

• Connecticut Method (Amman et al. 1986). This is
  a scoring technique developed for inland
  municipal wetland agencies.

• Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1984).
  This was developed for a local application in Con-
  necticut.

• Habitat Evaluation System (HES)  (Tennessee
  Dept. of Conservation 1987).  This  is a revised
  version of a Corps-sponsored  method used to
  evaluate Lower Mississippi wildlife  habitat.
                                            C-10

-------
  References
Adamus, P.R. (ed.)  1987. Atlas of breeding birds in
      Maine  1978-1983. Maine  Department of In-
      land Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 366 pp.

Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.  1987. Juneau
      wetlands:  functions  and  values.  City and
      Borough of Juneau  Department of Com-
      munity Development, Juneau, Alaska. 3 vols.
      Amman, A.P.,  R.W. Franzen, and J.L.
      Johnson. 1986.

Method for the evaluation of inland wetlands in Con-
      necticut.  Bull.  No.  9. Connecticut Dept.
      Envir. Prot. and USDA Soil Conservation Ser-
      vice, Hartford,  Connecticut.

Euler, D.L,  F.T. Carreiro, G.B.  IMcCullough, G.B.
      Snell, V.

Glooschenko, and R.H.  Spurr.  1983. An evaluation
      system for wetlands of Ontario south of the
      Precambrian  Shield.  Ontario  Ministry  of
      Natural  Resources and Canadian Wildlife
      Service, Ontario Region.

Marble, A.D. and M. Gross.   1984.  A method for
      assessing wetland  characteristics  and
      values.  Landscape Planning 2:1-17.

State University of New York at Syracuse (SUNY).
      1987. Wetlands evaluation system for Onon-
      daga County, New York State. Draft. 93 pp.
Tennessee Dept. of Conservation.
      Evaluation
1987.  Habitat
System:  Bottomland Forest Community Model.
      Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Ecological
      Services Division, Nashville.  92 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St. Paul.  1988.  The
      Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology
      for the North  Central United  States.   Min-
      nesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology
      Task Force and Corps of Engineers-St.  Paul
      District.  97 pp. + appendices.
                                             C-ll

-------

-------
                            Appendix   D
           REGIONAL COORDINATORS
          Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators
          U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA)
Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 1
Water Management Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(FTS) 835-3533
(617)565-3533

Rick Balla, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 2
Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(FTS) 264-1559
(2-12) 264-1559

Linda Hoist, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 3
Water Management Division
841  Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA  19107
(FTS) 597-0133
(215) 597-3425

Fritz Wagener, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(FTS) 257-2126
(404) 347-2126

Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 5 (TUD-8)
Water Management Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(FTS) 886-0135
(312) 886-0135
David Neleigh, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 6
Water Management Division
1445 Ross Avenue
First Interstate Bank Tower
Dallas, TX 75202
(FTS) 255-7145
(214) 655-7145

John Houlihan, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 7
Water Compliance Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(FTS) 276-7432
(913)551-7432

Bill Wuerthele, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 8 (8WM-SP)
Water Management Division
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(FTS) 330-1586
(303) 293-1586

Phil Woods, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 9
Water Management Division (W-3-1)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA  94105
(FTS) 484-1994
(415) 744-1994

Sally Marquis, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 10
Water Management Division (WD-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(FTS) 399-2116
(206) 442-2116
                                      D-l

-------
                 Regional Wetland  Program  Coordinators
            U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
 Doug Thompson, Wetlands Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 1
 Water Management Division
 Water Quality Branch
 John F. Kennedy Federal Building
 Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211
 (FTS) 835-4422
 (617) 565-4422

 Dan Montella, Wetlands Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 2
 Water Management Division
 Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch
 26 Federal Plaza
 New York, New York  10278
 (FTS) 264-5170
 (212) 264-5170

 Barbara D'Angelo, Wetlands Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 3
 Environmental Service Division
 Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
 841 Chestnut Street
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107
 (FTS) 597-9301
 (215) 597-9301

 Tom Welborn, Wetlands Coordinator
  (Regulatory Unit)
 Gail Vanderhoogt, Wetlands Coordinator
  (Planning Unit)
 USEPA, Region 4
 Water Management Division
 Water Quality Branch
 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
 Atlanta, Georgia 30365
 (FTS) 257-2126
 (404) 347-2126

 Doug Ehorn, Wetland Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 5
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
 (FTS) 886-0243
 (312) 886-0243
 Jerry Saunders, Wetlands Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 6
 Environmental Services Division
 Federal Activities Branch
 12th Floor, Suite 1200
 1445 Ross Avenue
 Dallas, Texas 75202
 (FTS) 255-2263
 (214) 655-2263

 Diane Hershberger, Wetlands Coordinator
 Assistant Regional Administrator for
  Policy and Management
 USEPA, Region 7
 Environmental Review Branch
 726 Minnesota Avenue
 Kansas City, Kansas 66101
 (FTS) 276-7573
 (913)551-7573

 Gene Reetz, Wetlands Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 8
 Water Management Division
 State Program Management Branch
 One  Denver Place, Suite 500
 999 18th Street
 Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
 (FTS) 330-1565
 (303) 293-1565

 Phil Oshida, Wetlands Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 9
 Water Management Division
 Wetlands, Oceans and Estuarine Branch
 1235 Mission Street
 San Francisco, California 94103
 (FTS) 464-2187
 (415) 744-2180

 Bill Riley, Wetlands Coordinator
 USEPA, Region 10
Water Management Division
Environmental Evaluation Branch
 1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
 (FTS) 399-1412
(206) 422-1412
                                         D-2

-------
            Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
             U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  Service (USFWS)
Region 1        California, Hawaii,
               Idaho, Nevada,
               Oregon, Washington

               RWC: Dennis Peters
               ASST: Howard B rowers
Region 2       Arizona, New Mexico
               Oklahoma, Texas
               RWC: Warren Hagenbuck
               ASST: Curtis Carley
Region 3       Illinois, Indiana,
               Iowa, Michigan,
               Minnesota, Missouri,
               Ohio, Wisconsin

               RWC: Ron Erickson
               ASST: John Anderson

Region 4       Alabama, Arkansas,
               Florida, Georgia,
               Kentucky, Louisiana,
               Mississippi,
               North Carolina,
               Puerto Rico,
               South Carolina,
               Tennessee,
               Virgin Islands

               RWC: John  Hefner
               ASST: Charlie Storrs
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 1
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
1002 N.E. Holladay Street
Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
  COM: 503/231-6154
  FTS: 429-6154

 Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 2
Room 4012
500 Gold Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
  COM: 505/766-2914
  FTS: 474-2914

Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 3
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Federal Building, Ft Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
  COM: 612/725-3536
  FTS: 725-3536

Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 4
R.B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Suite 1276
Atlanta, Georgia  30303
  COM: 404/331-6343
  FTS: 841-6343
                                     D-3

-------
Region 5       Connecticut,
               Delaware, Maine,
               Maryland,
               Massachusetts, New
               Hampshire, New York,
               New Jersey,
               Pennsylvania, Rhode
               Island, Vermont, Virginia,
               West Virginia

               RWC: Ralph Tiner
               ASST: Glenn Smith

Region 6       Colorado, Kansas,
               Montana, Nebraska,
               North Dakota,
               South Dakota,
               Utah, Wyoming

               RWC: Chuck Elliott
               ASST: Bill Pearson

Region 7       Alaska
               RWC: Jon Hall
               ASST: David Dall
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 5
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Corner, MA 02158
  COM: 617/965-5100
  FTS: 829-9379
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 6
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
  COM:.303/236-8180
  FTS: 776-8180

Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 7
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
  COM: 907/786-3403 or 3471
  FTS: (8) 907/786-3403
                                      D-4

-------
                                                         E
      EXAMPLE  OF  STATE  CERTIFICATION ACTION  INVOLVING
                  WETLANDS UNDER CWA  SECTION  401
  The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was
to be 3,000 feet long and 17 feet high. The dam was
to consist of 32 bottom-hinged flap gates. The dam
would have created an impoundment with a surface
area of 3,800 acres,  a total  storage  capacity of
35,000 acre-feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet.
The backwater would have extended  approximately
8 miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
approximately 3 miles  upstream  on the  Con-
odoguinet Creek.

  The  project was to  be  a  run-of-the-river facility,
using the head difference created by  the dam to
create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have
been 10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12.5), and minimum
flow would  have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal con-
ditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed
through the turbines.

  The public notice denying 401 certification for this
project stated as follows:

  1.   The construction and operation of the
       project will result  in the significant loss of
       wetlands and  related  aquatic  habitat and
       acreage.  More specifically:

       a.   The destruction of the wetlands will
            have an adverse impact  on the local
            river ecosystem because of the in-
            tegral role wetlands play in maintain-
            ing that ecosystem.
The destruction of the wetlands will
cause the loss of beds of emergent
aquatic vegetation that serve as
habitat for juvenile fish.  Loss of this
habitat will adversely affect the rela-
tive abundance of juvenile and adult
fish (especially smallmouth bass).

The wetlands which will be lost are
critical habitat for, among other
species, the yellow crowned night
heron, black crowned night heron,
marsh wren and great egret. In addi-
tion, the yellow crowned night heron
is a proposed State threatened
species, and the marsh wren and
great egret are candidate species of
special concern.

All affected wetlands areas are impor-
tant and, to the extent that the loss of
these  wetlands can be mitigated, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the mitigation proposed is ade-
quate. To the extent that adequate
mitigation is possible, mitigation must
include replacement in the river sys-
tem.

Proposed riprapping of the shoreline
could  further reduce wetland
acreage. The applicant has failed to
demonstrate that there will not be an
                                              E-l

-------
     adverse water quality and related
     habitat impact resulting from riprap-
     ping.

f.    Based upon information received by
     the Department, the applicant has un-
     derestimated the total wetland
     acreage affected.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will be no adverse water quality im-
pacts from increased  groundwater levels
resulting from the project.  The  ground
water model  used  by the applicant is  not
acceptable due to erroneous assumptions
and the lack of a sensitivity analysis.  The
applicant has  not provided sufficient infor-
mation concerning the  impact of increased
groundwater levels on existing sites of sub-
surface contamination, adequacy of subsur-
face sewage system replacement areas and
the Impact of potential increased  surface
flooding. Additionally,  information was  not
provided to adequately assess the effect of
raised  groundwater  on sewer system
laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation
measures and potential for increased flows
at the Harrisburg wastewater plant.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be a dissolved oxygen problem
as a result of the impoundment.  Present in-
formation indicates the existing river system
in the area  is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved
oxygen fluctuation.  Sufficient information
was not provided to allow the Department to
conclude that dissolved oxygen standards
will be met in the pool area. Additionally, the
applicant failed to  adequately address  the
Issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels
below the dam.

The proposed impoundment  will create a
backwater on  the lower three miles of  the
Conodoguinet Creek.  Water quality in  the
Creek is currently adversely  affected by
nutrient problems.  The applicant has failed
to demonstrate that there will not be water
quality degradation as a result of the  im-
poundment.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact resulting from combined sewer over-
flows.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact to the 150-acre area downstream of
the proposed dam and upstream from  the
existing Dock Street dam.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
the construction  and  operation  of the
proposed dam will  not have an adverse im-
pact on the aquatic  resources  upstream
from the proposed impoundment.  For ex-
ample, the suitability of the impoundment for
smallmouth  bass spawning relative to  the
frequency  of  turbid conditions during
spawning was  not adequately addressed
and construction of the dam and impound-
ment will result  in a decrease in the diversity
and density of  the  macroinvertebrate com-
munity in the impoundment area.

Construction of the dam will have  an  ad-
.verse impact on upstream and downstream
migration of migratory fish (especially shad).
Even with  the construction of  fish pas-
sageways for  upstream and downstream
migration, significant declines in  the num-
bers of fish successfully negotiating the
obstruction are  anticipated.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there  will not be an  adverse water quality
impact related  to sedimentation within the
pool area.
                                       E-2

-------
        APPENDIX E
  An Approach for Evaluating
Numeric Water Quality Criteria     §
    for Wetlands Protection
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

         SECOND EDITION

-------
  1 iiiiiii I in I    in  in  iiiiiii iiiiiii   in i ill   iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
                                                                                                      111  llllllllllM   II Illlllllllllllllllll IIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII
111 IIIIIII  II     111 II IIIIIII  IIIIIII 111    I IIIIIII III  I  IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   I  IIIIIII I III I  Illlllllllllllllllll  IIIIIIIB   IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII^                                         IIIIIII
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	
 •I  IIIIIII   111 11       111 11     IIIIIII I    II   I III   I  I  IIIIIII 11111111  111 111 111 II III III Illllllllll  I  111 111 llllllH   I 111 111 111 11111 111 111 Illlllllllllllllllll 11 Illlllllllllllllllllll  IIIIIII 111 II111IIIIllH^                      11111 IIIIIII 111

-------
AN APPROACH FOR EVALUATING NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
                  FOR WETLANDS PROTECTION
                            by

           Cynthia A. Hagley and Debra L. Taylor
                     Asci Corporation
                  Duluth, Minnesota   55804
                      Project Officer

                    William D. Sanville
                       Project Leader
             Environmental Research Laboratory
                  Duluth,  Minnesota  55804
                         DU:  BIOL
                         ISSUE:  A
                          PPA:   16
                        PROJECT:   39
                     DELIVERABLE:   8234
                        July 8, 1991

-------
                             ABSTRACT


     Extension of the national numeric aquatic life criteria to
wetlands has been recommended as part of a program to develop
standards and criteria for wetlands.  This report provides an
overview of the need for standards and criteria for wetlands and
a description of the numeric aquatic life criteria.  The numeric
aquatic life criteria are designed to be protective of aquatic
life and their uses for surface waters, and are probably
applicable to most wetland types.  This report provides a
possible approach, based on the site-specific guidelines, for
detecting wetland types that might not be protected by direct
application of national numeric criteria.  The evaluation can be
simple and inexpensive for those wetland types for which
sufficient water chemistry and species assemblage data are
available, but will be less useful for wetland types for which
these data are not readily available.   The site-specific approach
is described and recommended for wetlands for which modifications
to the numeric criteria are considered necessary.  The results of
this type of evaluation, combined with information on local or
regional environmental threats, can be used to prioritize wetland
types (and individual criteria) for further site-specific
evaluations and/or additional data collection.  Close
coordination among regulatory agencies, wetland scientists, and
criteria experts will be required.

-------
             UNfTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                             t9 1991                   ones OF
                                                       WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Numeric Water Quality  Criteria  for  Wetlands   ^

FROM:     William R.  Diamond,  Director    kj QjJUMY\ /f^ ^
          Standards and Applied  Science Division
          Office of Science  and  Technology          ,  .  '

TO:       Water Management Division  Directors (Regions  I-X)
          Environmental Services Division Directors (Regions I-X)

          state Water Pollution  Control Agency Directors


     The purpose of this memorandum  is to provide  you with a copy
of a report entitled  "An Approach for Evaluation of Numeric  Water
Quality Criteria for  Wetlands  Protection", prepared by  EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,  Minnesota.  This
report was requested  in the  early stages  of planning for wetland
water quality standards to assess the applicability of  EPA's
existing numeric aquatic life  criteria methodology for  wetlands.
This report was prepared by  the  Wetlands  Research  Program and is
part of the Agency's  activities  to assist States with developing
water quality standards for  wetlands.

     The report evaluates EPA's  numeric aquatic life criteria to
determine how they can be applied to wetlands.   Numeric aquatic
life criteria are designed to  be protective of aquatic  life  for a
wide range of surface water  types.   The report suggests that most
numeric aquatic life  criteria  are applicable  to most wetland
types.

     However, there are some wetland types where EPA's  criteria
are not appropriate.  This report presents an approach  that
States may use as a screening  tool to detect  those wetland types
that may be under- or overprotected  by EPA's  criteria.   The
proposed approach relies on  data readily  available from EPA's
304(a) criteria documents, as  well as species  assemblages and
water quality data from individual wetland types.   The  results of
this type of simple evaluation can be used to  prioritize wetland
types where further evaluation may be needed prior to setting
criteria.   Two example analyses  of the approach are included in
the report.   EPA's site-specific criteria development guidelines
can then be used to modify criteria  if appropriate*

-------
     This report compiles existing information from EPA's 304(a)
criteria guidance documents and site-specific criteria
methodologies and does not contain new guidance or policy.  The
report has been peer reviewed by ERL/Duluth scientists who
develop EPA's 304 criteria.  The report also has been reviewed by
the Standards and Applied Science Division and the Wetlands
Division.

     If you have additional questions on the information
contained in this report or its applications, contact the
following persons: David Sabock, Water Quality Standards Branch,
at 202-475-7315 regarding designated uses and water quality
standards policies; Bob April, Ecological Risk Assessment Branch,
at 202-475-7315, regarding EPA's aquatic life criteria; or Bill
Sanville, Environmental Research Laboratory/Duluth, at 218-720-
5500, regarding the research for this report.


Attachment

cc:  Water Quality Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
     Water Quality Standards Coordinators (Regions I-X)
     Wetlands Coordinators (Regions I-X)
     David Sabock
     Bob April
     Bill Sanville

-------
                             CONTENTS
Abstract                                                        i
Tables                                                        ill
Acknowledgements                                               iv

     1.  Introduction                                           1
               Need for standards for wetlands                  1
               Proposied approach to development of wetland
                    standards                                   3
               Purpose of this document                         4
     2.  Current Surface Water Standards and Criteria           6
               Description of standards and criteria            6
               Development of national aquatic life numeric
                    criteria                                    7
               Site-sspecific guidelines                         8
     3.  The Need for Evaluating Numeric Water
          Quality Criteria:  Use of the Site-Specific
          Guidelines                                            9
               Overall relevance of criteria to wetlands        9
               Wetland variability                             10
               Use of the site-specific guidelines for
                    wetlands                                   10
               Aquatic plants                                  14
     4.  Evaluation Program                                    16
               Classification                                  16
               Evaluating the appropriateness of direct
                    explication of criteria                    17
               Developing site-specific criteria               18
     5.  Example Analyses                                      19
               Example 1                                       19
               Example 2                                       21
               Summary of the example analyses                 24
     6.  Conclusions                                           26

References                                                     28
Appendices

     A.  Sources used in species habitat identification
               for Minnesota marshes                           31
     B.  Sources used in species habitat identification
               for prairie potholes                            32

-------
                            TABLES
Number                                                      page

  1  Freshwater numeric aquatic life criteria                33

  2  Suitability of wetland species to fill minimum
     family requirements for six criterion chemicals         34

  3  Some conditions recommended for dilution water
     for water quality criteria testing                      35

  4  Effects of cofactors on criterion chemical toxicity     36

  5  Water chemistry for selected Minnesota marshes          37

  6  Comparison of test species with Minnesota marsh
     biota for six criterion chemicals                       38

  7  Number of species tested for acute criteria and
     percentage of test species that are not found in
     Minnesota marshes or oligosaline prairie potholes       40

  8  Water quality characteristics for oligosaline
     prairie potholes                                        41

  9  Comparison of test species with prairie pothole
     biota for six criterion chemicals                       42
                               iii

-------
                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


     Preparation of this document has been funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  This document has been prepared
at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,
Minnesota, through Contract # 68033544 to AScI Corporation.  This
document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review.  Excellent reviews and assistance were
received from C. Stephan, R. Spehar, C. Johnston, E. Hunt, D.
Robb, and J. Minter.
                                 IV

-------

-------
                            SECTION 1

                           INTRODUCTION
NEED FOR STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS

     Wetlands have been studied and appreciated for a relatively
short time in relation to other types of aquatic systems.  The
extent of their value in the landscape has only recently been
recognized; in fact, a few decades ago government policies
encouraged wetland drainage and conversion.  Wetlands
traditionally have been recognized as important fish and wildlife
habitats, and it is estimated that over one-third of U.S.
endangered species require wetland habitat for their continued
existence.  Some of their many other values, however, have become
apparent only recently.  These include attenuation of flood ,
flows, groundwater recharge, shoreline and stream bank
stabilization, filtering of pollutants from point and nonpoint
sources, unique habitats for both flora and fauna, and
recreational and educational opportunities.1

Impacts to Wetlands

     Despite new appreciation of the valuable functions that
wetlands perform , in the landscape, they continue to be destroyed
and altered at a rapid pace.  Since pre-settlement times over
half of the wetlands in the continental U.S. have been destroyed,
and losses over the last few decades have remained high.   These
figures only represent actual loss of acreage and do not account
for alterations to or contamination of still-extant wetlands.
The causes of wetland destruction and degradation include:3

     *    Urbanization - Resulting in drainage and filling,
          contamination, and ecological isolation of wetlands.

     *    Agriculture Conversion - Drainage, cropping, and
          grazing which change or destroy wetland structure and
          ecological function.

     *    Water Resource Development - Water flow alterations to
          wetlands  from diking, irrigation  diversions,
          alterations to rivers for navigation, diversions  for

-------
          water  supply,  and groundwater pumping.   These  result in
          changes  in  the hydrology that sustains  the  wetland
          system.

      *    Chemical Pollution -  From point and nonpoint sources,
          hazardous waste sites, mining, and other activities.
          These  can overwhelm the assimilative capacity  of
          wetlands or be toxic  to wetland organisms.

      *    Biological  Disturbances - Introduction  or elimination
          of plant and animal species that affect ecosystem
          processes.

Saps  in Federal  Regulatory Programs

      Existing Federal regulatory programs intended to reduce some
of the impacts described above  leave major gaps in the protection
of wetlands.  Section 404  of the Clean Water Act  (CWA) requires a
permit to be obtained from the  Army Corps of Engineers,  in
cooperation with the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
before dredged material  or fill can be discharged into waters of
the United States.  Alterations such as drainage,  water
diversion, and chemical  contamination are not covered by Section
404 unless material will  be discharged into the wetland  in
association with such alterations.  The Resource  Conservation and
Recovery Act, which regulates the disposal of hazardous  wastes,
and the CWA, which regulates contamination from waste-water
discharges and nonpoint-source  pollution, could provide
protection from  certain  impacts, but they have not been  used
consistently to  regulate  impacts to wetlands.  Programs  designed
to protect endangered species,  migratory birds, and marine
mammals have also  been used to  reduce impacts to  wetlands, but
"the  application of these  programs also has been  uneven."*

Gaps  in State Regulatory  Programs

     Wetland regulations vary greatly among States.   Some States
are now developing narrative standards for wetlands (e.g.
Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and others).   On the other hand,
although wetlands  are included  in the Federal definition of
"waters of the United States" and are protected by Section 101(a)
of the CWA,  not all States  include them as "waters  of the State"
in their definitions.   A review conducted in 1989  by  the EPA
Office of Wetlands Protection and the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards found that only 27 of 50 States mentioned wetlands
in definitions of State waters.   The review verified  that there
generally is a lack of consideration given to water quality
standards for wetlands.5

-------
Effective Use of Existing Regulatory Options

     Although some impacts (e.g. excavation, most drainage, and
destruction of vegetation) are not addressed by the current
implementation of existing regulations and programs, much of the
chemical contamination of wetlands could be controlled through
existing Federal and State water pollution control laws.4  The
National Wetlands Policy Forum recommended that EPA and State
water pollution control agencies review the implementation of
their water quality programs to ensure that the chemical
integrity of wetlands; is adequately protected.  The Forum
stressed the need to develop water quality standards designed to
protect sensitive wetlands.

     Under Section 401 of the CWA, States have authority to
authorize, condition,, or deny all Federal permits or licenses in
order to comply with State water quality standards, including,
but not limited to, Sections 402 and 404 of the CWA, Sections 9
and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission licenses.  States with water quality
standards that apply to or are specifically designed for wetlands
can use 401 certification much more effectively as a regulatory
tool.

     As wetlands receive more recognition as important components
of State water resources, the need for testing the applicability
of some existing guidelines and standards to wetlands regulation
becomes more apparent.


PROPOSED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND STANDARDS

     The EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards and Office
of Wetlands Protection recently completed a document entitled,
"National Guidance:  Water Quality Standards for Wetlands."6  It
recommends a two-phased approach  for the development of water
quality standards for wetlands.   In the first 3-year phase of
this program, standards for wetlands would be developed using
existing  information in order to  provide protection to wetlands
consistent with the protection  afforded other State waters.
Technical support for this initial phase will be provided  through
documents such as this one, which focuses on the application of
existing numeric criteria to wetlands.  These criteria are widely
used.  Applying them to wetlands  requires a small  amount of
effort and can be accomplished  quickly.

     The  development of narrative biocriteria is also required  in
the  initial phase of standards  development.  The long-term goal
 (3-10 years) of this program  is to develop  numeric biocriteria
for wetlands.  It  is anticipated  that  both  narrative and numeric

-------
 biocriteria can provide a more integrative estimate of whole-
 wetland health and better identification of impacts and trends
 than can be attained by traditional numeric chemical criteria.
 Field-based, community-level biosurveys can be implemented to
 complement, and help validate,  laboratory-based conclusions.
 Results of such surveys can be used to monitor wetlands for
 degradation and establish narrative or numeric biocriteria or
 guidance which take into account "real world"  biological
 interactions and the interactions of multiple  stressors.

      More information on the development of numeric biocriteria
 will be available in a guidance document in coming  years.
 Technical guidance to support the development  of biological
 criteria for wetlands has also  been prepared.7  This guidance
 provides a synthesis of technical information  on field studies of
 inland wetland biological communities.


 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

      A number of steps are needed to develop wetland standards.
 The  document,  "National Guidance:   Water Quality Standards for
 Wetlands," mentioned above,  provides general guidelines  to the
 States for each of the following steps:   the inclusion of
 wetlands in definitions of State waters,  the relationship  between
 wetland standards and other water-related programs,  use
 classification systems for wetlands,  the definition of wetland
 functions and values,  the applicability  of existing narrative  and
 numeric water quality criteria  to wetlands,  and  the application
 of antidegradation policies to  wetlands.

      The technical document for biological criteria7 and this
 report are companions to the guidance document described above.
 This  report is directed primarily toward wetland  scientists
 unfamiliar with water quality regulation and is  intended to
 provide a basis for dialogue between wetland scientists and
 criteria experts regarding adapting numeric  aquatic  life criteria
 to wetlands.   More specifically:

      1)  It provides background  information and an overview of
 water quality  standards and  numeric chemical criteria, including
 application to wetlands.

      2)  The need for evaluating  numeric  water quality criteria is
 discussed.   The site-specific guidelines  are introduced and
 discussed in two contexts:   a) as  an  initial screening tool to
 ensure  that water quality  in  extreme wetland types  is adequately
protected by criteria,  and b) in terms of  using the site-specific
guidelines  to  modify criteria for  wetlands where criteria might
be over  or underprotective.

-------
     3)  An approach is described that uses information available
from criteria documents and is designed to: a) detect wetland
types where water quality is not clearly protected by existing
criteria, and b)  help prioritize further evaluations and research
efforts.

     4)   A simple test of the approach is presented with two
examples.  Results are not considered conclusive and are
presented only as an example of the procedure.

     Most of the data and examples are based on the freshwater
acute criteria.  A similar approach should be equally applicable
to the saltwater acute criteria and to both saltwater and
freshwater chronic criteria.

-------
                             SECTION 2

           CURRENT SURFACE WATER STANDARDS AND CRITERIA


     This  section describes  how criteria  are used  in  State
 standards, how national  numeric criteria  are derived,  and what
 options are currently available for modifying  national aquatic
 life criteria.
DESCRIPTION OF STANDARDS AND  CRITERIA

     Surface waters are protected by Section  101(a) of the CWA
with the goal:  "to restore and maintain the  chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters."  State water
quality standards are developed to meet this  goal.

State Standards

     There are two main components to establishing a standard:
1) The level of water quality attainable for  a particular
waterbody, or the designated  use of that waterbody (e.g.
recreational, fishery, etc.)  is determined;   2) Water quality
criteria (usually a combination of narrative  and numeric) are
established to protect that designated use.   Water quality
standards also contain an antidegradation policy "to maintain and
protect existing uses and water quality, to provide protection
for higher quality waters, and to provide protection for
outstanding national resource waters."8  state standards for a
particular waterbody must be  met when discharging wastewaters.
The "National Guidance:  Water Quality Standards for Wetlands"6
outlines a basic program to achieve these goals for wetlands.

Aquatic Criteria

Narrative Criteria—
     Narrative criteria are statements, usually expressed in a
"free from —" format.  For  example, all States have a narrative
statement in their water quality standards which requires that
their waters not contain "toxic substances in toxic amounts."
Narrative criteria are typically applied at the State level when
combinations of pollutants must be controlled or when pollutants
are present which are not listed in State water quality

-------
standards.8  States must document the process  by which they
propose to implement these narrative criteria in their standards.

Numeric Criteria—
     Pollutant-specific numeric criteria are used by the States
when it is necessary to control individual pollutants in order to
protect the designated use of a waterbody.  Fate and transport.
models commonly are used to translate these criteria into permit
limits for individual dischargers.  Some criteria apply State-
wide and others are specific to particular designated uses or
waterbodies.

     National numeric criteria are developed by EPA based on best
available scientific information.  They serve as recommendations
to assist States in developing their own criteria and to assist
in interpreting narrative criteria.9  These include human health
and aquatic life pollutant-specific criteria and whole effluent
toxicity criteria.  Sediment criteria are now being developed.
States can adopt national numeric criteria directly.
Alternatively, site-specific criteria may be developed using EPA-
specified guidelines, and State-specific criteria can be derived
using procedures developed by the State.8


DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL AQUATIC LIFE NUMERIC CRITERIA

     National aquatic life criteria are usually derived using
single-species laboratory toxicity tests.  Tests are repeated
with a wide variety of aquatic organisms for each chemical.  The
criteria are designed to protect against unacceptable effects to
aquatic organisms  or their uses caused by exposures to high
concentrations for short periods of time  (acute effects), to
lower concentrations for longer periods of time  (chronic
effects), and to combinations of both.9  EPA criteria are
composed of  1) magnitude (what concentration of a pollutant is
allowable);  2) duration of exposure  (the period of time over
which the  in-stream concentration is averaged for comparison with
criteria concentrations); and 3)  frequency  (how often the
criterion can be exceeded without unacceptably affecting the
community).10 Separate  criteria  are determined  for  fresh water
and salt water.  Field data are used when appropriate.

     All acceptable data regarding  toxicity to  fish and
invertebrates are  evaluated for  inclusion  in the criteria.  Data
on toxicity  to aquatic plants are evaluated to determine whether
concentrations of  the chemical that do not cause unacceptable
effects to aquatic animals will  cause unacceptable effects to
-plants.  Bioaccumulation data are examined to determine if
residues in  the organisms might  exceed FDA action levels or cause
known effects on the wildlife that  consume them.  For  a complete

-------
 description  of  the  procedures  for deriving  ambient  criteria,
 consult the  "National Guidelines"  (1985).'

     Numeric water  quality criteria are  designed to protect most
 of the species  inhabiting a site.9  A wide variety of taxa with a
 range of  sensitivities are required for  deriving criteria.
 Guidelines are  followed to determine the availability of
 sufficient experimental data from enough appropriate taxa to
 derive a  criterion.  For example, to derive a  freshwater Final
 Acute Value  for a chemical, results of acute tests  with at least
 one species  of  freshwater animal in at least eight  different
 families  are required.  Acute  and chronic values can be made to
 be a function of a  water quality characteristic such as Ph,
 salinity, or hardness, when it is determined that these
 characteristics impact toxicity, and enough data exist to
 establish the relationship.  Table 1 lists  the chemicals for
 which freshwater aquatic life  criteria have been developed and
 indicates which of  those criteria are pH, hardness, or
 temperature  dependent.


 SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

     An option  for  modifying national aquatic  life  water quality
 criteria  to  reflect local conditions is  presented in the site-
 specific  guidelines.  States may develop site-specific criteria
 by modifying the national criteria for sites where  1) water
 quality characteristics, such  as pH, hardness, temperature, etc.,
 that might impact toxicity of  the pollutants of concern differ
 from the  laboratory water used in developing the criterion; or 2)
 the types of organisms at the  site differ from, and may be more
 or less sensitive than, those  used to calculate the criterion; or
 3) both may  be  true.  Site-specific criteria take local
 conditions into account to provide an appropriate level of
 protection.  They can also be used to set seasonal  criteria when
 there is high temporal variability.8

     Attesting  program can be used to determine whether site-
 specific modifications to criteria are necessary.   This program
may include water quality sampling and analysis, a  biological
 survey,  and  acute and chronic toxicity tests.11 If  site-specific
modifications are deemed necessary, 3 separate procedures are
 available for using site-specific guidelines to modify criteria
values,  including the recalculation procedure, the  indicator
 species procedure,  and the resident species procedure.   These
will be discussed more fully in the next section.
                                8

-------
                            SECTION 3

     THE NEED FOR EVALUATING NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA:
               USE OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
OVERALL RELEVANCE OF CRITERIA TO WETLANDS

     The national aquatic life criteria have been developed to
provide guidance to the States for the protection of aquatic life
and their uses in a variety of surface waters.  They are designed
to be conservative and "... have been developed on the theory
that effects which occur on a species in appropriate laboratory
tests will generally occur on the same species in comparable
field situations.  All North American bodies of water and
resident aquatic species and their uses are meant to be taken
into account,  except for a few that may be too atypical ... "9  A
wide variety of taxonomic groups sensitive to many materials are
used in testing, including many taxa common to both wetlands and
other surface waters.  In order to ensure that criteria are
appropriately protective, water used for testing is low in
particulate matter and organic matter, because these substances
can reduce availability and toxicity of some chemicals.  For
these reasons, the "National Guidance: Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands" states that, in most cases, criteria should be
protective of wetland biota.6

     Although the water quality criteria are probably generally
protective of wetlands and provide the best currently available
tool for regulating contamination from specific pollutants, there
are many different types of wetlands with widely variable
conditions.  There might be some wetland types where the resident
biota or chemical and physical conditions are substantially
different from what the criteria were designed to protect.  These
differences could result in underprotection or overprotection of
the wetland resource.  This section discusses the use of site-
specific guidelines for wetland types for which certain criteria
might be over or underprotective, but its primary focus is to
provide a mechanism to identify wetland types that might be
underprotected by certain criteria and that might require further
research.

-------
WETLAND VARIABILITY


     Wetlands are usually located at the interface between
terrestrial systems and truly aquatic systems, and so combine
attributes of both.12  They are intermediate between terrestrial
and aquatic systems in the amount of water they store and process
and are very sensitive to changes in hydrology.12  Their chemical
and physical properties, such as nutrient availability, degree of
substrate anoxia, soil salinity,  sediment properties, and pH are
influenced greatly by hydrologic conditions.  Attendees at a
Wetlands Water Quality Workshop (held in Easton, Maryland in
August, 1988) listed the most common ways in which wetlands
differ from "typical" surface waters:  higher concentrations of
organic carbon and particulate matter, more variable and
generally lower pH, more variable and generally lower dissolved
oxygen, more variable temperatures, and more transient
availability of water.13

     There is also high variability among wetland types.
Wetlands, by definition, share hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and a water table at or near the surface at some time
during the growing season.  Beyond these shared features,
however, there is tremendous hydrological, physical, chemical,
and biological variability.   For example, an early
classification system for wetlands. "Circular 39", listed 20
distinctly different wetland types'4, and the present "Cowardin"
system lists 56 classes of wetlands.15  This variability makes it
important to evaluate different wetland types individually.


USE OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR WETLANDS

     The site-specific guidelines outlined in Section 2 are
designed to address the chemical and biological variability
described above.  Determining the need for site-specific
modifications to criteria requires a comparison of the aquatic
biota and chemical conditions at the site to those used for
establishing the criterion.  This comparison is useful for
identifying wetland types that might require additional
evaluation.  The three site-specific options are discussed in the
context of their general relevance to wetlands and are used in
this discussion to provide a framework for evaluating the
protectiveness of criteria for wetlands.

     In most cases, because of the conservative approach used in
the derivation of the criteria, use of the site-specific
guidelines to modify criteria results in no change or in their
relaxation, provided that an adequate number of species are used
in the calculations.  However, criteria can also become more


                               10

-------
restrictive.  Newly tested species could be especially sensitive
to certain pollutants, or extreme water conditions found in some
surface waters or wetland types might not reduce the toxicity of
a chemical.  Disease, parasites, predators, other pollutants,
contaminated or insufficient food, and fluctuating and extreme
conditions might all affect the ability of organisms to withstand
toxic pollutants.9

Appropriateness of Testing Organisms;  Recalculation Procedure

     The first option given in the site-specific guidelines is
the recalculation procedure.8'11  This approach  is designed  to
take into account differences between the sensitivity of resident
species and those used to calculate a criterion for the material
of concern.  It involves eliminating data from the criterion
database for species that are not resident at that site.  It
could require additional resident species testing in laboratory
water if the number of species remaining for recalculating the
criterion drops below the minimum data requirements.  "Resident"
species include those that seasonally or intermittently exist at
a site.11-16

     Use of the recalculation procedure will not necessarily
result in a higher acute criterion value (less restrictive), even
if sensitive species are eliminated from the dataset and minimum
family requirements are met.  The number of families used to
calculate Final Acute Values is important.  If a number of non-
wetland species are dropped out of the calculation without adding
a sufficient number of new species, a lower (more restrictive)
Final Acute Value can result, because data are available for
fewer species.11

Similarity of Required Taxa and Typical Wetland Species—
     The variety of test species required to establish the
national numeric criteria was chosen to represent a wide range of
taxa having a wide range of habitat requirements and sensitivity
to toxicants.  Establishment of a freshwater Final Acute Value
for a chemical requires a minimum of 8 different types of
families to be tested.  These include:  1) the family Salmonidae;
2) a second family of fish, preferably a warmwater species; 3) a
third family in the phylum Chordata  (fish, amphibian, etc.); 4) a
planktonic crustacean; 5) a benthic crustacean; 6) an insect; 7)
a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata; and 8) a
family in any order of insect or phylum not already represented.9

     When a required type of family does not exist at a site, the
guidelines for the recalculation procedure specify that
substitutes from a sensitive family, resident in the site, should
be added to meet the minimum family data requirement.  Should it
happen that all resident families have been tested and the


                                11

-------
minimum data  requirements still have not been met, the acute
toxicity value  from the most sensitive resident family that has
been tested should be used as the site-specific value.

     Most  of  the  required families are probably well-represented
in most wetland types.  Some types of wetlands, however, seldom
or never contain  fish, and most wetland types do not support
salmonids  or  aquatic insects requiring flowing water.

General Evaluation of Species Suitability—
     Table 2  presents six criterion chemicals chosen as examples
and the eight taxonomic groups required to establish criteria.
The chemicals include two organochlorines:  polychlorinated
biphenyls  (PCBs - used in industrial applications,
environmentally-persistent, bioaccumulate) and pentachlorophenol
(widely used  fungicide and bactericide); one organophosphate:
parathion  (insecticide); two metals:  zinc and chromium(VI); and
cyanide.

     The species  used for acute toxicity testing for each of the
six chemicals have been broken down by taxonomic group and
evaluated  based on the likelihood that those species can be found
in wetlands.  Except for the unsuitability of the Salmonidae to
most wetland  types,  most of the taxonomic groups are well-
represented for the six chemicals used as examples.  Wetland
species were  not  present in the list of species used to calculate
the Final  Acute Value for the "non-arthropod/non-chordate" and
"another insect or new phylum" groups for a few of the criteria.
This is not because these groups are not represented in wetlands.
These are  very  general .classifications.  For example, the "non-
arthropod/non-chordate" group can include rotifers, annelids, and
mollusks among  other phyla, all of which should have many
representatives in most types of wetlands.  There is a large
degree of  variation in the total number of species tested for the
six chemicals used as examples, ranging from 10 fish and
invertebrates for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to 45 for zinc
(Table 7).  Criteria based on smaller numbers of species are less
likely to  include a sufficient number of wetland species to
fulfill the minimum family requirements.  Additional toxicity
testing, using  laboratory water and wetland species from the
missing families,  can be done to fill these gaps.

     While the  general taxonomic groups required for toxicity
testing are fairly well represented in wetlands, the similarity
between the genera and species inhabiting individual wetland
types and  those used for criteria testing varies widely among
criteria and  wetland types.  Species chosen for toxicity testing
were seldom or  never chosen with wetlands in mind.  In addition,
relatively little is known about species assemblages in some
types of wetlands (particularly in those lacking surface waters,


                                12

-------
such as wet meadows or bogs) .   Defining typical wetland taxa is
difficult.  For example, while most types of wetlands do not
support salmonids, Coho salmon are highly dependent on wetlands
in Alaska, where there is a higher percentage and acreage of
wetlands than in any other State.  Part of the utility of the
evaluation proposed here is in identifying where significant gaps
in data exist.

Influence of Cofactors;  Indicator Species Procedure  j

     The second of the three site-specific procedures, the
indicator species procedure, accounts for differences in
biological availability and/or toxicity of a material caused by
physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site water, or
cofactors.  For the acute test, the effect of site water is
compared to the effect of laboratory water, using at least two
resident species or acceptable non-resident species (one fish and
one invertebrate) as indicators.  A ratio is determined, which is
used to modify the Final Acute Value.  See Carlson et al.  (1984)
for information and guidelines for determination of site-specific
chronic values.11

Suitability of Standard Testing Conditions—
     Standard aquatic toxicity tests are performed using natural
or reconstituted dilution water that should not of itself affect
the results of toxicity tests.  For example, organic carbon and
particulate matter are required to be low to avoid sorption or
complexation of toxicants, which might lower the toxicity or
availability of some criterion chemicals.  Recommended acute test
conditions for certain water quality characteristics of fresh and
salt water are listed in Table 3.  Wetlands, as well as some
types of surface waters, can have values far outside the ranges
used for standard testing for some of these characteristics  (most
notably total organic carbon, particulate matter, pH, and
dissolved oxygen).  Wetland types can be evaluated to identify
these extremes.

Wetland Cofactors—
     Many water quality characteristics can 1) act as cofactors
to affect the toxicity of pollutants (e.g. alkalinity/acidity,
hardness, ionic strength, organic matter, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids);  2) can be directly toxic to organisms
(e.g. un-ionized ammonia, high or low pH, hydrogen sulfide,  low
dissolved oxygen); or 3) can interfere mechanically with feeding
and reproduction  (e.g. suspended solids). The criteria for some
of these water quality characteristics can be naturally exceeded
in many wetland types, as well as in some lakes and streams.

     Hardness, pH, and temperature adjustments built  into  a  few
of the criteria account for effects from these cofactors in  a few


                                13

-------
cases, but no other cofactors are now included in the criteria,
despite some known effects.  For example, alkalinity, salinity,
and suspended solids, in addition to pH and hardness, are known
to affect the toxicities of heavy metals and ammonia.  These
cofactors are not included in the criteria primarily because
there are insufficient data.9  For example,  most toxicity tests
have been performed under conditions of low or high salinity, so
that estuaries, where salinity values can vary greatly, may
require salinity-dependent site-specific criteria for some
metals.11  An initial evaluation of the adequacy of protection
provided to a wetland type by a criterion should take possible
cofactor effects into account.

Combination;  Resident Species Procedure

     The resident species procedure accounts for differences in
both species sensitivity and water quality characteristics.11
This procedure is costly, because it requires that a complete
minimum dataset be developed using site water and resident
species.  It is designed to compensate concurrently for
differences in the sensitivity range of species represented in
the dataset used to derive the criterion and for site water
differences which may markedly affect the biological availability
and/or toxicity of the chemical.11


AQUATIC PLANTS

     One of the most notable differences between wetlands and
other types of surface waters is the dominance (and importance)
of aquatic macrophytes and other hydrophytic vegetation in
wetlands.  Aquatic plants probably constitute the majority of the
biomass in most wetland types.

     Few data concerning toxicity to aquatic plants are currently
required for deriving aquatic life criteria.  Traditionally,
procedures for aquatic toxicity tests on plants have not been as
well developed as for animals.  Although national numeric
criteria development guidelines state that results of a test with
a freshwater alga or vascular plant "should be available" for
establishing a criterion, they do not require that information.9
The Final Plant Value is the lowest (most sensitive) result from
tests with important aquatic plant species (vascular plant or
alga), in which the concentrations of test material were measured
and the endpoint was biologically important.  Plant values are
compared to animal values to determine the relative sensitivities
of aquatic plants and animals.  If plants are "among the aquatic
organisms that are most sensitive to the material," results of a
second test with a plant from another phylum are included.9
                                14

-------
     Results of tests; with plants usually indicate that criteria
which protect aquatic animals and their uses also protect aquatic
plants and their uses.9  As criteria are evaluated for their
suitability for wetlands, however, plant values should be
examined carefully.  Additional plant testing may be advisable in
some cases.  If site-specific adjustments are made to some
criteria, they could result in less restrictive acute and chronic
values for animals.  Some plant values could then be as sensitive
or more sensitive than the animal values.  Chemicals with fairly
sensitive plant values include:  aluminum, arsenic(III), cadmium,
chloride, chromium(VI), cyanide, and selenium(VI).  For example,
fish are generally much more sensitive to cyanide than
invertebrates.  If the recalculation procedure was used to
develop a site-specific cyanide criterion for a wetland type
containing no fish, values for these sensitive species would be
replaced in the calculation, possibly by less sensitive species.
A less restrictive criterion could result, possibly making the
plant value more sensitive than the animal value.  Therefore,
additional consideration should be given to plant toxicity data
for wetland systems.
                                15

-------
                            SECTION 4

                        EVALUATION PROGRAM


     The direct application of existing aquatic life criteria to
wetlands is assumed to be reasonable in most cases.  It provides
a practical approach towards protecting the biological integrity
of wetlands.  The following evaluation program offers a possible
strategy to identify extreme wetland types that might be
underprotected by some criteria, to prioritize wetland types and
criterion chemicals for further testing or research, and to
identify gaps in available data.  The approach can be helpful for
identifying those instances where modifications to existing
criteria might be advisable.  The proposed evaluation program
offers a screening tool to begin to answer the following
questions:  1) Are there some wetland types for which certain
criteria are underprotective?  2) For criteria in wetland types
that cannot be applied directly, can site-specific guidelines be
used to modify the criteria to protect the wetland?  3) Will
additional toxicity testing under wetland conditions and with
wetland species be necessary in some cases in order to establish
site-specific criteria?

     The proposed approach relates species and water quality
characteristics of individual wetland types to species and water
quality characteristics important in deriving each criterion.  It
involves identifying wetland types of concern, identifying
cofactors possibly affecting toxicity for the criteria of
interest, gathering data on the biota and water quality
characteristics of the wetland type, and comparing to data used
to derive the criterion.


CLASSIFICATION

     The proposed program for the evaluation of the suitability
of aquatic life criteria discussed in this section can be done
separately for individual wetland types.  These can be defined in
the classification process,  which is the first step in developing
standards for wetlands.  The classification process requires the
identification of the various structural types of wetlands and
identification of their functions and values.6  The
classification should provide groups of wetlands that are similar
                                16

-------
enough structurally and functionally so that they can reasonably
be expected to respond in kind to inputs of toxic chemicals.


EVALUATING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF DIRECT APPLICATION OF CRITERIA

Information Needed

     1.  Identification of cofactors.  Cofactors potentially
affecting mobility and biological availability for each criterion
chemical should be identified.  Cofactors known to affect each
criterion chemical are listed in individual national criteria
documents and are summarized in Table 4.  The absence of a
relationship between a cofactor and a chemical on Table 4 does
not ensure that no relationship exists, merely that none was
discussed in the criteria document.  The chemistry of the effects
of the cofactors on the chemicals is often very complicated, and
limited data are available regarding some of the relationships.
The approach presented here is simplistic and is geared toward
directing further efforts.  Other sources of information, in
addition to the criteria documents, should be consulted when
actually applying this approach.  Criteria that include hardness-
or pH-dependent correction factors  (Table 1) should apply
directly to wetlands unless the wetland type has extremes of pH
or hardness well outside the ranges used in toxicity testing.
For example, the pH of acid bogs can be as low as 3.5, well below
the 6.5 lower limit for toxicity testing (Table 3).

     2.  Comparison to wetland water chemistry.  Natural levels
and variability of those cofactors  should be identified as well
as possible for each major wetland  type of interest.  Wetlands-
related information can be accumulated through consultation with
wetland researchers, through literature searches, and from
monitoring agencies.

     3.  Comparison of .species lists.  Species lists of fish,
invertebrates, and plants should be compiled for each wetland
type and compared to lists of species used for testing each
criterion.  Lists should be evaluated on two levels:  a) Species
level  - Are the species used for toxicity testing representative
 (the same species or genera, or "similar" in terms of sensitivity
to toxicants) of the species found  in the wetland type?
b) Family level - Does the wetland  contain suitable
representatives for each of the families listed  in the minimum
family requirements?8'11  Consultation with fish and invertebrate
specialists, plant ecologists, and  wetlands expe-~s will be
necessary to do this comparison.
                                17

-------
Adoption of Existing Water Quality Criterion

     The existing water quality criterion should be suitable for
that wetland type if the following are true:

     1.  Important cofactor levels are not naturally exceeded in
the wetland to a degree that might seriously affect toxicity or
availability of the chemical.  Would toxicity likely be higher,
lower, or not influenced by typical levels or extremes of a
particular cofactor in a particular wetland type?

     2.  Sufficient species or genera used for aquatic toxicity
testing are found in the wetland type so that the minimum family
requirements can be met by resident wetland species.
Consultation between wetland scientists and criteria experts will
be necessary in many cases to make judgements on how well-
represented some wetland types are.

     3.  The criterion itself is not naturally exceeded in the
wetland.


DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA

     When one or more of these stipulations is not true or when
insufficient data are available, more evaluation is advisable.
Again, consultation between wetland scientists and criteria
experts might be helpful in prioritizing those wetland types for
which additional protection, or additional research, might be
needed for some chemicals.   Once a priority list for further
evaluation is established,  an approach to obtaining the
additional required data can be determined.  It might be possible
to group wetlands by type,  and possibly by designated use, and
then develop site-specific criteria for all wetlands of that type
in the State.
                                18

-------
                            SECTION 5

                        EXAMPLE ANALYSES
     Evaluations of the applicability of the six criteria listed
in Table 2 will be made for two sets of wetland data, including
shallow marshes and prairie potholes.  The analyses in these
examples were made with limited data for each wetland type and
are preliminary.  They have been compiled to be used only as
illustrations of the usefulness of this approach.


EXAMPLE 1

     The first example is based on a wetland study taking place
in southcentral Minnesota.  The wetlands are being studied to
evaluate the effects of disturbance on water quality, as well as
the effects of pesticides on wetland communities.  Therefore
chemical and biological data have been collected.18

Classification

     The wetland study sites are primarily shallow marshes
(freshwater palustrine, persistent emergent, semi-permanently or
seasonally-flooded, according to Cowardin15) , dominated by
Phalaris  (reed canary grass) and Tvoha  (cattails), but also
include a small number of wet meadow/seasonally-flooded wetlands,
deep marsh, shrub/scrub + woody wetlands, and ponds.

Steps 1 and 2;  Identification of Cofactors and  Comparison to
Wetland Water Chemistry

     Cofactors are  identified for criteria chemicals  in Table 4.
Some water quality  characteristics averaged for  5 seasons for the
Minnesota wetlands  are summarized in Table 5.

     Although some  water  chemistry conditions  in the  shallow
marshes were within the ranges of the aquatic  toxicity testing
conditions, others  were exceeded  (Table 3).  Wetland  values for
pH were well within the 6.5-9.0 range allowed  for testing, so
criteria  having pH  as a possible cofactor affecting  toxicity
and/or biological availability should not be underprotective
because of pH effects.  As  Table 4 shows,  PCP,  chromium(VI),
zinc, and cyanide can be  more toxic  at  low pH  values, so a very


                                19

-------
 acidic wetland might require  additional  evaluation  in  regard to
 pH.   The POP criterion has  an adjustment factor for pH, which
 indicates that enough suitable data  are  available to allow this
 relationship to be incorporated into the criterion.

      Hardness values were not available  for  these marshes, but
 were  probably fairly low since alkalinity was  low.  Table 4 lists
 hardness as a cofactor for  zinc and  chromium(VI).   Table 1
 reveals that the zinc criterion has  an adjustment factor for
 hardness,  so any effect of  hardness  on zinc  toxicity and/or
 biological availability is  already included  in the  criterion and
 does  not have to be considered further.   Chromium(VI)  is more
 toxic at low alkalinity and hardness, but the  criterion was
 derived using soft water and  should  be protective for  the
 wetlands.

      Total organic carbon (TOG)  was  highly variable in the
 wetlands and generally well above the 5  mg/L limit  for toxicity
 testing.   However parathion and zinc, the two  criteria with TOG
 cofactor effects,  have reduced toxicity  and/or biological
 availability at high levels of organic matter  (Table 4), so
 criteria should be protective.

      Dissolved oxygen (DO)  was highly variable in the  wetlands
 and reached very low levels in late  summer.  The shallow waters
 of the  marshes were extremely  warm on hot summer days.  Toxicity
 and/or  biological  availability is increased  by low DO  and high
 temperatures for PCBs,  PGP,  and cyanide.  These relationships
 will  require further evaluation.

 Step  3:  Comparisons of Species  Lists

      In Step 3,  fish,  invertebrates, and plants inhabiting the
 wetlands are compared to  species used in testing each  criterion.
 For these  examples,  only  the acute toxicity  lists have been
 consulted.   A list of genera common  to both  the marshes and to
 the toxicity tests was  compiled  for  each criterion.   When
 identical  species  were  not  found, species from the same genus
were compared to determine  whether habitat requirements are
 suitable enough to include  them as representative species for
these wetlands.  The shortened  list  of marsh species the same as,
 or similar  to,  species  used for toxicity testing was examined to
determine whether  the minimum  family requirements for acute
toxicity tests  could be met for each criterion.  Table 6 contains
a list  of marsh genera  that could be used to fulfill minimum
 family  requirements  for each criterion.   Appendix A contains a
list of the  sources  that have been consulted in making this
comparison.
                                20

-------
     The aquatic species found in the Minnesota wetlands were
fairly well-represented by the acute toxicity test species for
the six chemicals used in this example.  The percentages of total
species tested that have not been found in these wetlands were
below 50% for all six criteria (Table 7).  Except for PCBs,-for
which no plant value is available, plant species tested
overlapped with species occurring in the wetlands.  The absence
of salmonids in wetlands was the only consistent omission.

     Of all the species tested, the salmonids are the most
sensitive to PCP and cyanide and are much more sensitive than
most invertebrate species.  The inclusion of highly sensitive
salmonid data in the criteria calculations probably ensures that
these two criteria are adequately protective when applied to
wetlands not containing this sensitive family (not considering
cofactor effects).  It would perhaps be more important to
consider the effects of the absence of salmonids in Minnesota
marshes for criteria, where salmonids are among the least
sensitive species, including parathion and chromium(VI).  In this
case, the presence of salmonid toxicity data in the criterion
calculation, despite their absence from the wetlands, could
possibly cause the criterion to be less restrictive than  is
appropriate for the wetland.

     Salmonids do not occur in the wetlands included  in this
example.  Three criteria were missing  an additional required
taxonomic group  (from Table 6:  PCBs,  chromium(VI), and cyanide).
There are certainly representatives of this taxonomic group
 (nonarthropod/nonchordate) inhabiting  the wetlands, but the
genera used for toxicity tests did not correspond  to  the  wetland
genera.  These three criteria have the least species  on the acute
toxicity list, so there are less  species to compare to, in
relation to the other criteria  (Table  7).  Toxicity experts and
wetland biologists might be able  to fill some of these  data gaps
by reaching conclusions on the suitability of wetland species to
 fulfill the minimum family requirements.


EXAMPLE 2

     This  example  is based on  data  for a number of oligosaline
prairie pothole  wetlands  in southcentral North  Dakota.  •
 Oligosaline  is defined  as ranging from 0.5-5 g/kg salinity,  or
 specific conductance of 800-8,000 /AS/cm  at  25°C.15
 The  chemical  types of the majority of  wetlands  used in  this
 example  include  magnesium bicarbonate, magnesium sulfate, and
 sodium sulfate.20
                                21

-------
 Classification

      Wetlands  included in this example are  semipermanent (cover
 type 4  of the  classification system developed by Stewart and
 Kantrud for the  glaciated prairie region)2f, containing wet _
 meadow,  shallow  marsh,  and deep marsh.   Classification of these
 wetlands based on the Cowardin system can be found in Kantrud  et
 al.20

 Steps 1  and 2:   Identification of Cofactors and  Comparison to
 Wetland  Water  Chemistry

      Cofactors are identified for criteria  chemicals  in Table  4.
 Water quality  data for the prairie pothole  wetlands are
 summarized in  Table 8.   A comparison of water chemistry
 conditions for the prairie potholes with standard toxicological
 testing  conditions (Table 3)  reveals a  number of differences.

      These wetlands are extremely alkaline  and saline compared to
 water used for freshwater toxicity testing.   Salinity (reported
 as specific conductance)  can vary greatly over the year and  is
 concentrated by  the high rates of evaporation and transpiration
 that  take  place  in the  summer.   A number of the  wetlands have  pH
 values above the 6.5-9.0 range that the criteria are  designed  to
 protect.   No data  were  available for total  organic carbon (TOG),
 but dissolved  organic carbon values from other prairie pothole
 systems  were generally  well  above the TOG limit  of 5  mg/L used
 for toxicity testing.22  As in Example 1, hardness can be
 eliminated from  consideration as a cofactor,  because  toxicity
 and/or biological  availability is decreased as hardness
 increases.   Similarly,  the probable high TOG levels would
 decrease toxicity  and/or biological availability for  zinc and
 chromium(VI).  The high pH values should cause decreased toxicity
 and/or biological  availability.   Bioavailability of zinc is
 reduced  in high  ionic strength waters such  as  these.

      Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels drop  in the  winter  and in
 middle to  late summer,  allowing anoxic  conditions  to  develop.
Although no  aquatic temperature data  were available,  the Dakotas
have moderately hot summers  (mean July  temperature of 22.3°C).20
 The shallow waters  of the  prairie potholes  probably become very
warm  in  late summer,  corresponding with low DO levels.   Toxicity
 and/or biological  availability is increased by low DO and high
temperatures for PCBs,  PGP,  and cyanide.  These  relationships
will require further  evaluation.
Step 3;  Comparisons of Species Lists
     Semi-permanent prairie pothole wetlands are generally
shallow and eutrophic.  Water levels fluctuate greatly, as does
                                22

-------
salinity.  The cold winters can cause some of the wetlands to
freeze to the bottom.  Both winterkill and summerkill, caused by
the effects of lack of oxygen, can occur.  Fish can survive only
in semipermanent wetlands that have connections to deeper water
habitat.  The only native fishes known to occur in semi-permanent
prairie potholes are fathead minnow fPimephales promelas) and
brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) T2"

     The invertebrate taxa of prairie potholes are typical of
other eutrophic, alkaline systems in the United States.
Macroinvertebrate species assemblages are highly influenced by
hydroperiod and salinity in these systems, and species diversity
drops as salinity increases.20  Care must be taken in  aggregating
large salinity ranges into one wetland type (i.e. "oligosaline"
may be too broad a class in terms of species representativeness).
Comparisons of species typical of the wetlands with the criteria
species lists reveals some major differences.  For example, a
large proportion of the aquatic insects tested for each criterion
are found in flowing water, and therefore might not be
characteristic of prairie pothole aquatic insects.  Although many
species of aquatic insects are found in these wetlands  ,  there
are not many suitable aquatic insects on the criteria species
lists to compare to resident wetland species.  Prairie pothole
wetlands do not harbor Decapods (crayfish and shrimp), another
common group for testing.  Eubranchiopods (fairy/ tadpole, and
clam shrimp) are commonly found in prairie pothole wetlands2 ,
but only one representative of this group has been used to
establish criteria, and that species was not on the list  for any
of the criteria used as examples here.  Except for PCBs,  for
which no plant value is available, plant species tested do
overlap with species occurring in the wetlands.  Appendix B
contains sources used in making comparisons.

     The above discussion has obvious implications for
determining applicability of criteria based on suitability of
species.  As Table 7 shows, the percentages of species tested for
each criterion that have not been found  in prairie potholes are
rather high  (up to 67%).  There are more gaps in the  minimum
family requirements  for fish  and chordates  (Table 9)  than were
found for the Minnesota marsh example.   The lack of  fish  in these
wetlands dictates that amphibians or other chordates  be used to
fill these  family requirements.  The paucity of  fish  in these
wetlands again has relevance  to the protectiveness of the
criteria.   Fish are  the most  sensitive group tested  for  PCP and
cyanide, so these criteria may have an added "buffer" of
protection  (in  relation to the other criteria used as examples)
when applied with no modifications to this wetland type.
                                23

-------
 SUMMARY OF THE EXAMPLE ANALYSES

      The conclusions discussed below should be considered as
 examples only.  They should not be considered final for these
 wetland types.

 Cofactor Effects

      Based on this simple analysis,  the only cofactors that
 potentially could cause criteria to be underprotective were DO
 and temperature.  The low DO and high temperatures common in both
 wetland types in mid to late summer could cause increased
 toxicity and/or biological availability for PCBs,  PGP,  and
 cyanide.   Cofactor effects for chromium(VI),  zinc, and parathion
 were either not important under the chemical conditions
 encountered in these wetlands or should result in  criteria being
 more,  rather than less,  protective for the wetland biota.   Based
 on  water quality characteristics,  it can be concluded that
 chromium(VI),  zinc,  and parathion criteria are probably
 adequately protective of these wetland types with  no  acute
 modification.

     The  importance  of the DO and temperature relationship
 requires  further evaluation for PCBs,  PCP,  and cyanide.   Chemists
 and wetlands  experts should be consulted and further  literature
 reviews should be completed to evaluate the need for  additional
 toxicity  tests.   If  it is determined that a modification  to a
 criterion is warranted,  seasonal  site-specific criteria might  be
 appropriate in this  case.   The indicator species procedure could
 be  used,  requiring toxicity tests  using site  water on one  fish
 and one invertebrate.  The tests  could be done at  the high
 temperatures and low DO  found in  late  summer  in the wetlands.

 Species Comparisons

     The  Salmonidae  are  a required family group for establishing
 a Final Acute  Value  and  yet are not  present  in either of the
 wetland types  used as  examples.  This  evaluation is most
 concerned with ensuring  that  criteria  are adequately  protective,
 so  the absence of this family in the wetlands  should  only  be
 considered  a problem if  the unmodified criterion (which includes
 the Salmonidae)  might be  underprotective.  This would most  likely
 be true for parathion and chromium(VI).

     For  several  criteria,  some family requirements are not
 fulfilled because the available toxicity  data  for  that taxonomic
group do not include wetland  species or genera  ("NT"  in Tables 6
and 9).  While this document made  comparisons  at the  genus  level,
others have made  comparisons  at the  family level to determine  if
the species listed in the criteria document is  a member of a


                                24

-------
family that exists at the site.16  Issues related to species
comparisons should be addressed through discussion with criteria
experts and wetlands ecologists and through further literature
review.

     The absence of fish in prairie potholes to fill the "other
chorda .as" category for cyanide, zinc, chromium(VI), and PCBs may
warrant additional toxicity tests and site-specific
modifications.  The only other fish likely to be present in these
wetlands is the brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans)20 which was
not tested for any of the six criteria.  No non-fish chordates
were tested either, so no evaluation of the probable sensitivity
of other chordates to these criteria can be made based on the
criteria documents.

     If it is decided upon more rigorous evaluation that these
differences in taxonomic groups warrant additional efforts and
development of site-specific criteria, the recalculation
procedure can be used.  A suitable family, resident in the
wetlands, can be added to the list to replace the Salmonidae
and/or other missing groups, either through additional toxicity
tests or by including additional available data.

Further Evaluation

     This approach helps to prioritize wetland types and criteria
for further evaluation.  It was concluded that zinc,
chromium(VI), and parathion criteria require no modification with
regard to cofactor effects.  PCBs, PCP, and cyanide, however,
should be evaluated further in regard to the effects of high
temperatures and low DO on toxicity, for both wetland types.  The
absence of salmonids may be most important for parathion and
chromium(VI) in both wetland types.  Further consideration should
be given to the need for additional tests with chordates from
prairie pothole wetlands for cyanide,  zinc, chromium(VI) and
PCBs,  although there is no evidence to suggest that the absence
of representative wetland chordates from the test species will
result in underprotective criteria.

     This type of evaluation, done for a number of wetland types
and criteria, can be combined with information on the types of
pollutants that threaten particular wetland types.  In this way
wetland types requiring additional evaluation and perhaps
eventually some additional toxicity testing for particular
pollutants can be prioritized based on adequacy of  existing
criteria, potential threats to  the system, and resources
available for testing.  These examples illustrate the need for
wetland  scientists to work closely with criteria experts.  Expert
judgement is  needed to evaluate the significance of the gaps  in
the available data.

                                25

-------
                             SECTION 6

                            CONCLUSIONS


      The efficient use of limited resources  dictates that
 criteria and standards for wetlands be developed by making good
 use of the wealth of data that has been accumulated for other
 surface waters.   This report focused on the  application of
 numeric aquatic  life criteria to wetlands.   The numeric aquatic
 life criteria are designed to protect aquatic  life and their
 uses.   The criteria are conservative,  and  for  most wetland types
 are probably protective or overprotective.

      A simple, inexpensive evaluation technique has been proposed
 in this document for detecting wetland types that might be
 underprotected for some chemicals by existing  criteria.   The
 approach relies  on information contained in  criteria documents,
 data regarding species composition and water quality
 characteristics  for the wetland types of interest,  and
 consultation with experts.   It is intended to  be used as a
 screening tool for prioritizing those wetland  types that require
 additional evaluations and research.

     Two tests of the  approach demonstrated  that it can be used
 to identify cases in which criteria might be underprotective, but
 further evaluation and close  coordination among regulatory
 agencies,  wetland scientists,  and criteria experts  are needed to
 determine when actual  modifications to the criteria are
 necessary.

     Site-specific guidelines  for modifying  the numeric  criteria
 should  be appropriate  for  use  on wetlands in cases  where
 additional  evaluations  reveal  that modifications  are  needed.  The
 approach described in  this  document can be used to  compile  lists
 of the  most  commonly under-represented species  and  the most
 frequently  encountered  chemicals.   Aquatic toxicity tests can
 then be conducted  which would  apply to a number of  wetland types.

     Information obtained with this  approach can  be used to
prioritize  further evaluations and research,  identify  gaps  in
data, and make further testing more  efficient,   but  has  some
 limitations.  It does not adequately address the  importance of
plants  in wetland  systems and applies only to the aquatic
component of wetlands.  It relies  on species assemblage  and water


                                26

-------
quality data that are not available for some wetland types.  For
these reasons, a meeting of wetland scientists and criteria
experts is recommended to discuss the need for this type of
evaluation, the utility of this approach, and possible
alternative approaches.

     The application of numeric criteria to wetlands is just one
part of a large effort to develop wetland standards and criteria,
The development of biocriteria, sediment criteria, and wildlife
criteria will help to ensure that all components of the wetland
resource are adequately protected.
                                 27

-------
                            REFERENCES
3.

4.



5.
7.
8.
9.
      U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service.
      Wetland Functions and Values.
                                       1984.  An  Overview of Major
      Tiner,  R.W. ,  Jr.   1984.   Wetlands  of the United  States:
      Current Status and Recent Trends.   U.S.  Fish  and Wildlife
      Service.

      U.S.  EPA,  Office  of Water.   1989.   The Water  Planet.

      The Conservation  Foundation.   1988.   Protecting  America's
      Wetlands:  An Action Agenda:   The  Final  Report of the
      National Wetlands Policy  Forum.

      U.S.  EPA,  Office  of Water Regulations and Standards, Office
      of Wetlands Protection.   1989.  Survey of State  Water
      Quality Standards for Wetlands.  Internal report.

      U.S.  EPA,  Office  of Water Regulations and Standards, Office
      of Wetlands Protection.   In Review.   Draft National
      Guidance:  Water  Quality  Standards  for Wetlands.

      Adamus, P.R.,  K.  Brandt,  and M. Brown.   1990.  Use of
      Biological Community Measurements  for Determining Ecological
      Condition  of,  and Criteria for, Inland Wetlands  of the
      United  States  - A Survey  of Techniques,  Indicators,
      Locations, and Applications.  U.S. EPA,  Corvallis,  Oregon.

     U.S. EPA, Office  of  Water Regulations and Standards.  1986.
      Quality Criteria  for Water.  EPA-440/5-86-001.  U.S. EPA,
     Washington , D . C .
     Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A.
     Chapman, and W.A. Brungs.  1985.  Guidelines for Deriving
     Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
     of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.  PB85-227049.  National
     Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

10.   U.S. EPA, Office of Water.  1985.  Technical Support
     Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.  EPA-440/4-
     85-032.
                               28

-------
11.  Carlson,  A.R.,  W.A. Brungs, G.A. Chapman, and p.J. Hansen.
     1984.   Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
     Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National
     Criteria.  EPA-600/3-84-099.  U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota.

12.  Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink.  1986.  Wetlands.  New
     York:   Van Nostrand Reinhold.

13.  Phillip,  K.  1989.  Review of Regulated Substances and
     Potential Cofactors in Wetland Environments.  Draft internal
     report submitted to U.S. EPA.

14.  Shaw,  S.P., and C.G. Fredine.  1956.  Wetlands of the United
     States, Their Extent, and Their Value for Waterfowl and
     Other Wildlife.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular
     39.  Washington, D.C., 67p.

15.  Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
     1979.   Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
     the United States.  FWS/OBS-79/31.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service.

16.  Hansen, D.J., J. Cardin, L.R. Goodman, and G.M. Gripe.
     1985.   Applicability of Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria
     Obtained Using the Resident  Species Recalculation Option.
     Internal report, U.S. EPA, Narragansett, Rhode  Island and
     Gulf Breeze, Florida.

17.  American Society  for Testing Materials.  1988.  Standard
     Guide  for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with  Fishes,
     Macroinvertebrettes, and Amphibians.  Standard E 729-88a,
     ASTM,  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

18.  Detenbeck,  N.E.   1990.  Effects of Disturbance  on Water-
     Quality  Functions  of Wetlands:  Interim Progress  Report:
     January  1990.  Natural Resources  Research  Institute.
     Internal report  submitted  to U.S. EPA,  Duluth,  Minnesota.

19.  Swanson, G.A., T.C. Winter,  V.A.  Adomaitis,  and J.W.
     LaBaugh.   1988,.   Chemical  Characteristics  of Prairie  Lakes
     in South-central  North  Dakota  - Their  Potential for
     Influencing Use  by Fish an Wildlife.   U.S.  Fish and Wildlife
     Service  Technical Report  18.

20.  Kantrud, H.A.,  G.L.  Krapu, and G.A.  Swanson.   1989.   Prairie
     Basin  Wetlands of the Dakotas:  A Community Profile.   U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28).
                                29

-------
21.  Stewart, R.E., and H.A. Kantrud.  1971.  Classification of
     Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region.
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 92.
     57p.

22.  LaBaugh, J.W.  1989.  Chemical Characteristics of Water in
     Northern Prairie Wetlands.  Pages 56-90 In. A.G. van der
     Valk, ed.,  Northern Prairie Wetlands.  Iowa State University
     Press.
                               30

-------
                           APPENDIX A

          SOURCES USED  IN SPECIES HABITAT  IDENTIFICATION
                      FOR MINNESOTA MARSHES
Fishes:
     Eddy, S., and J.C. Underbill.  1974.  Northern Fishes.  3rd
     edition.  University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

     Nelson, J.S.  1984.  Fishes of the World.  2nd edition.  New
     York:  John Wiley and Sons.

     Niering, W.A.  1987.  Wetlands.  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf.

     Personal Communications:
          P. DeVore and C. Richards of the Natural Resources
          Research Institute, Duluth, Minnesota.
          G. Montz, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources.

Macroinvertebrates:

     Niering, W.A.  1987.  Wetlands.  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf.

     Pennak, R.W.  1978.  Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United
     States.  2nd  edition.  New York:  John Wiley and Sons.

     Williams, W.D.   1976.  Freshwater Isopods  (Asellidae) of
     North  America.   U.S. EPA, Cincinnati.

     Personal Communications:
          P.  DeVore and A. Hershey of the Natural Resources
          Research Institute, Duluth, Minnesota.
          P.  Mickelson of the University of Minnesota, Duluth.
                                31

-------
                           APPENDIX B

          SOURCES USED IN SPECIES HABITAT IDENTIFICATION
                       FOR PRAIRIE POTHOLES
Fishes:

     Kantrud, H.A., G.L. Krapu, and G.A. Swanson.  1989.  Prairie
     Basin Wetlands of the Dakotas:  A Community Profile.  U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28).

     Swanson, G.A., T.C. Winter, V.A. Adomaitis, and J.W.
     LaBaugh.  1988.  Chemical Characteristics of Prairie Lakes
     in South-central North Dakota - Their Potential for
     Influencing Use by Fish an Wildlife.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service Technical Report 18.

Macroinvertebrates:

     Broschart, M.R. and R.L Linder.  1986.  Aquatic
     invertebrates in level ditches and adjacent emergent marsh
     in a South Dakota wetland.  Prairie Nat. 18(3):167-178.

     Eddy, S. and A.C. Hodson.  1961.  Taxonomic Keys to the
     Common Animals of the Northcentral States.  Minneapolis:
     Burgess Publishing Co.

     Krapu, G.L.   1974.  Feeding ecology of pintail hens during
     reproduction.  The Auk 91:278-290.

     Pennak,  R.W.  1978.  Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United
     States.   2nd edition.   New York:  John Wiley and Sons.

     Swanson, G.A.  1984.   Invertebrates consumed by dabbling
     ducks (Anatinae)  on the breeding grounds.  Journal of the
     Minnesota Academy of Science 50:37-45.

     van der Valk, A., ed.   1989.  Northern Prairie Marshes.
     Ames:  Iowa State University Press.
                               32

-------
       TABLE 1.  FRESHWATER NUMERIC AQUATIC LIFE  CRITERIA*
  Chemical
H, T, or pH
 Dependent
   Chemical
H, T, or pH
 Dependent
Organochlorines:
  Aldrin
  Chlordane
  DDT
  Dieldrin
  Endosulfan
  Endrin
  Heptachlor
  Lindane
  PCBs
  Pentachlorophenol

Organophosphates:
  Chlorpyrifos
  Parathion
      pH
 Metals:
   Aluminum
   Arsenic(III)
   Cadmium             H
   Chromium(III)       H
   Chromium(VI)
   Copper              H
   Lead                H
   Mercury
   Nickel              H
   Selenium
   Silver              H
   Z inc                H

Others:
   Ammonia           pH, T
   Chloride
   Chlorine
   Cyanide
   Dissolved oxygen    T
*    Summarized from  individual  criteria documents.   Chemicals
     that have adjustment  factors built into  the criteria are
     indicated.
**   H = Hardness, T  =  Temperature.
                                 33

-------
 TABLE 2.  SUITABILITY OF WETLAND SPECIES TO FILL MINIMUM FAMILY
             REQUIREMENTS FOR SIX CRITERION CHEMICALS
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish
Other
Chordate
PCBs
NP*
Y**

Y
Para-
thion PCP
NP NP
Y Y

Y Y
Cyanide
',-• . '"*&' ,"-,-
'-"NP*
Y

Y
Zinc
NP
Y

Y
Chrom-
ium (VI)
NP
Y

Y
Planktonic
Crustacean        Y       Y       Y       Y       Y       Y

Benthic
Crustacean        Y       Y       Y       Y       Y       Y

Insect            Y       Y       Y       Y       Y       Y

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate       NT***    Y       Y       Y       Y       Y

Another
Insect            Y       Y       Y       NT      Y       Y
or New Phylum

*NP    Not present:  Taxonomic group not present in most wetland
       types.
**Y    Wetland genera represented adequately.
***NT  Not tested:  Available toxicity data does not include
       sufficient wetland species.
                               34

-------
    TABLE 3.  SOME CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DILUTION WATER
               FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TESTING17
Characteristic
Total organic carbon
Particulate matter
PH
Freshwater
<5 mg/L
<5 mg/L
6.5-9.0
Saltwater
<20 mg/La
<20 mg/La
Stenohaline

8.0
                                            Euryhaline  7.7
                                              Range <0.2
 Hardness
 (mg/L as CaCO3)

 Salinity
                     Soft water 40-48
                      Range <5 mg/Lb
                                          Stenohaline 34 g/kg
                                          Euryhaline  17 g/kg
                                            Range <2 g/kgc

Dissolved oxygen    60-100% saturation*1   60-100% saturation51
 Temperature
                     +/- 5 °C of water6
                        of origin
a <5  mg/L for tests? other than saltwater bivalve molluscs,
b Or  10% of average,  whichever is higher.
c Or  20% of average,  whichever is higher.
d For flow-through tests (40-100% for static tests).
e For invertebrates only.
                                35

-------
         TABLE 4.  EFFECTS OF COFACTORS ON CRITERION CHEMICAL TOXICITY
                        PH
                             _ COFACTORS:   Effect of Greater Value 	

                              TOC   TURB TEMP DO   H    IONIC S   NUTR/ORG
 organochlorines:
 Aldrin
 Chlordane
 DDT
 Dieldrin
 Endrin
 Heptachlor
 Lindane
 Endosulfan
 PCBs
 Pentachlorophenol
 Toxaphene

 Organophosphates:
 Parathion
 Chlorpyrifos

 Metals:
 Arsenic (III)
 '   ium
 « "* nium (VI)
 C. -,mium (III)
 Copper
 Lead
 Mercury
 Nickel
 Selenium
 Silver
 Zinc
Aluminum

Other:
 Chlorine
 Cyanide
Ammonia
Chloride
DO
                                                         +    +
                                                         ~>
                                                         0
                                         +?
                                                   -
•H  increased toxicity/mobility
O:  no effect on toxicity/mobility
-i  decreased toxicity/mobility
TOC: total organic carbon
TURB: turbidity
    C: ionic strength/cations
                                     ?:  tested and found inconclusive
                                      :  not discussed in criteria document
                                     ±:  short-term increase/long-term decrease
                                     DO: dissolved oxygen H: hardness
                                     NUTR/ORG: nutrients/organic acids
                                     S: salinity
                                      36

-------
    TABLE 5.  WATER CHEMISTRY  FOR SELECTED MINNESOTA MARSHES*
Water Quality
Characteristic
Mean Value
Range
Comparison with
Standard Testing
   Conditions
  pH (pH units)       7.1

  Total organic
     carbon (mg/L)     20

  Dissolved
     oxygen (mg/L)    8.2

  Hardness          No data
(mg/L as CaCO3)

  Alkalinity           8
(mg/L as CaCO3)

  Temperature  (°C)   11.9

  Turbidity (NTU)      33
               6.1 - 7.6
                 5-60
               0.4 - 15.4
           Within range


              High


           Seasonally  low
                 4-14


               0.3 - 31.0   Seasonal extremes

                 1 - 412
* Data taken from Detenbeck (1990),  n=42  wetlands.
                                                   18
                                 37

-------
            TABLE  6.   COMPARISON OF  TEST  SPECIES  WITH
              MINNESOTA MARSH BIOTA FOR SIX CRITERIA
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish8
Other
Chordate
PCBs
NP*
Micropterus

Pimephales
Parathion
NP
Lepomis

Pimer>hales
PCP
NP
Micropterus

Rana
Planktonic
Crustacean

Benthic
Crustacean

Insect

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
Another
Insect
or New Phylum

Aquatic
Plant
Daphnia

unknown
amphipod

Ishnurab
NTe
Tanytarsus
NT
Daphnia


Orconectes

Chironomus

unknown0
nematodes/
annelids


Ishnura



alga
Daphnia


Orconectes

Tanytarsus

unknown6
nematodes/
annelids

unknown
amphipod/
isopod


Lemna
                                             continued
                                38

-------
                       TABLE  6, CONTINUED
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish8
Cyanide
NP
Perca
Zinc
NP
Lepomis
Chromium (VI)
NP
Lepomis
Other
Chordate

Planktonic
Crustacean

Benthic
Crustacean
Insect

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate

Another
Insect
or New Phylum

Aquatic
Plant
Lepomis
Daphnia

unknown6
amphipod/
isopod;
Physa
NT
Lemna-
Pimephales
Daphnia

unknown0
amphipod/
isopod

Argiab
 Physa

 unknown*
 annelid/
 nematode
 Lemna
Pimephales


Daphnia


Orconectes


Chironomus


Physa


NT



alga
a    Fish were sampled  in water bodies associated with some of
     the wetlands, not  in the wetlands themselves.
b    Probable or  seen as an adult.
c    Unknown species from these taxa  found  in wetlands.  May  or
     may not be similar' in terms of habitat requirements, etc. to
     species used in toxicity tests.
d    Not present:  Taxonomic group not present  in wetland type.
e    Not tested:   Available toxicity  data does  not  include
     sufficient wetland species.
                                39

-------
    TABLE 7.   NUMBER OF SPECIES TESTED FOR ACUTE CRITERIA AND
        PERCENTAGE OF TEST SPECIES THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN
	MINNESOTA MARSHES OR OLIGOSALINE PRAIRIE POTHOLES*

           Species Used to     Not Present    Not Present in
Chemical   Establish FAV**      in Marshes    Prairie Potholes
           (Total Number)       (Per cent)       (Per cent)
PCBS
Parathion
PCP
Cyanide
Zinc
Chromium (VI)
10
37
37
17
45
33
30%
43%
22%
29%
45%
27%
40%
64%
43%
65%
67%
64%
* Remainder Of n&rci&Tnl-acit* -i nr;l iirios hrrf-Vi -Hir»«=e» cr-ior-ioc •Hia-h ave
     known to occur in these wetlands and those species that may
     occur in the wetlands, but insufficient data are available.
**   Final Acute Value.
                                40

-------
          TABLE  8.   WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS FOR
                  OLIGOSALINE PRAIRIE POTHOLES*
Water Quality
Characteristic
Mean Value
           Comparison with
          Standard Testing
Range        Conditions
  pH (pH units)        8.9

  Total organic
     carbon (mg/L)    No datac

  Dissolved
     oxygen (ppm)     No datad

  Hardness            No data*
(mg/L as CaCO3)

  Alkalinity            650
(mg/L as CaCO3)

  Temperature  (°C)    No dataf

  Specific conductance  3568
(MS/cm at 25°C)
               7.4 - 10.3'
                High
               230 - 1300
                High
               750 - 8000
a    Data summarized  from Swanson et al.  (1988).19
b    N=27 wetlands.
c    Dissolved organic carbon data  for Manitoba  prairie potholes
     ranged from 0.4-102 mg/L,  and  for Nebraska,  from 20-60 mg/L
     in one study and 139-440 mg/L  in another  study.22
d    Winterkill, caused by  low  dissolved  oxygen  under ice,  occurs
     in many of these lakes.
e    An estimate of hardness based  on alkalinity values gives a
     mean of 760 mg/L as CaCO,.
f    Region is characterized by very cold winters and warm
     summers.
                                41

-------
            TABLE 9.  COMPARISON OF TEST SPECIES WITH
              PRAIRIE POTHOLE BIOTA FOR SIX CRITERIA
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish
Other
Chordate
PCBs
NP
Pimephales
NT
Parathion
NP
Pimephales
Pseudacris8
PCP
NP
Pimephales
Ranaa
Planktonic
Crustacean

Benthic
Crustacean

Insect

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate

Another
Insect
or New Phylum

Aquatic
Plant
Daphnia


Gammarus8

damselflyb


NT


Tanytarsusb



NT
Daphnia


Gammarus3

Peltodytes

tubificid
wormb


Chironomus
Daphnia


Hyalella

Tanytarsus*

tubificid
wormb


Physa
Microcystis    Lemna
                                42

-------
                        TABLE 9,  CONTINUED
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish
Other
Chordate
Cyanide
NP
Pimephales

NT
Zinc
NP
Pimephales

NT
Chromium (VI)
NP
Pimephales

NT
Planktonic
Crustacean

Benthic
Crustacean

Insect

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate

Another
Insect
or New Phylum

Aquatic
Plant
Daphnia


Gammarus8

Tanytarsus6


Physa8


NT



Lemna
Daphnia


Gammarus8

Argia6


Physaa


tubificid
wormb


Lemna
Daphnia


Hyalella

Chironomus8


Physa8


damselflyb



Nitzschia
a    Genus is present in the wetlands; may not be same species.
b    Species representative of that taxonomic group from criteria
     testing lists probably present in prairie potholes, but no
     actual data available.
                                43

-------

-------
                    APPENDIX F
                  COORDINATION BETWEEN THE
               ENVIORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
            PISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND  NATIONAL
              MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING
          DEVELOPMENT OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND
                WATER QUALITY STANDARDS UNDER
                     THE CLEAN WATER ACT
                        July 27,  1992
Signed by:

Ralph Morgenweck,  Assistant Director
Fish and Wildlife  Enhancement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dr.  Tudor Davies,  Director
Office of Science  and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dr.  Nancy Foster,  Director
Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
             WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
                        SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             1	11!""  I	"I1	!,	I""1
I 111 111111111   II 111   IIIII Illllll Illllllllllllll 111 111 III 111 IIIH^^^        III IIIIIIHI Illlllll
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   liillihiililiilli'lllPilliilililill'iiili	lllllil	I'lil	lill'll

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
    Coordination  Between the Environmental Protection Agency,
 the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine  Fisheries
 Service Regarding the Development of Water Quality  Criteria and
        Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act

PURPOSE

     This memorandum sets forth the procedures to  be followed by
Fish and Wildlife Scsrvice (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  to
insure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA in the development of
water quality criteria published pursuant to Section 304(a)  of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the adoption of water  quality
standards under Section 303(c) of the CWA.  Consultation will be
conducted pursuant to 50 C.F.R. Part 402.  Regional  Offices  of
EPA and the Services; may establish agreements, consistent  with
these procedures, specifying how they will implement this
Memorandum.

I.    BACKGROUND

A.  Guiding Principles

     The agencies recognize that EPA's water quality criteria and
standards program has the express goal of ensuring the  protection
of the biological integrity of U.S. waterbodies and  associated
aquatic life.  The agencies also recognize that implementation of
the CWA in general, and the water quality standards  program  in
particular, is prinuirily the responsibility of states.  EPA's
role in this program is primarily to provide scientific guidance
to states to aid in their development of water quality  standards
and to oversee state adoption and revision of standards to insure
that they meet the requirements of the CWA.

     In view of the decentralized nature of EPA's  water quality
standards program responsibilities, and the agencies' desire to
carry out their respective  statutory obligations in  the most
efficient manner possible,  the agencies believe that consultation
should occur, to the maximum extent possible, at the national
level.  Should additional coordination be necessary  on  the
regional level, the procedures outlined below are  designed to
insure that the Services are integrated early into EPA's
oversight of the states' standards adoption process  so  that
threatened and endangered species concerns can be  addressed  in
the most efficient manner possible.
(9/14/93)                                                         F-l

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
B.. Legal Authorities

     1. Sect ion > 7 of the ESA    ?

     Section -7~of the ESA contains several provifsipns which
require federal agencies to take steps to conserve endangered and
threatened species, and which impose the responsibility  on
agencies to insure, in consultation with the appropriate Service,
that certain actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered or threatened species or result  in the
destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.
Section 7 also requires agencies to confer with the appropriate
Service regarding actions affecting species or critical  habitat
that have been proposed for listing or designation under section
4, but for which no final rule has been issued.

     In particular, section 7(a)(l) provides that federal
agencies shall "utilize their authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of [the ESA] by carrying out programs for the
conservation of endangered species and threatened species ..."
Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to insure, in
consultation with the appropriate Service, that actions  which
they authorize, fund or carry out are "not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
habitat of such species which is determined . ... to be
critical." Section 7(a)(4) requires a conference for actions that
are "likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of species
proposed for listing or that are likely to "result in the
destruction or adverse modification" of proposed critical
habitat.

     The procedures for consultation between federal agencies and
the Services under section 7 of the ESA are contained in 50
C.F.R. Part 402. Section 402.14 of these regulations requires
that agencies engage in formal consultation with the appropriate
Service where any action of that agency may affect listed species
or critical habitat.  Formal consultation is not required if the
action agency prepares a biological assessment or consults
informally with the appropriate Service and obtains the  written
concurrence of the Service that the action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. Formal
consultation culminates.in the issuance of a biological  opinion
by the Service which concludes whether the agency action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of  critical
F-2                                                          (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
habitat.1   If the Service makes a jeopardy finding, the opinion
shall include reasonable and prudent alternatives,  if  any, to
avoid jeopardy.  If the Service anticipates that an action would
result in an incidental take of a listed  species  (defined in 50
C.F.R. 402.02), the Service shall include an  incidental take
statement and reasonable and prudent measures that the Director
considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact.  Such
measures cannot alter the basic design, location,  scope, duration
or timing of the action and may involve only  minor changes.

     Evaluation of the potential effects  of an agency  action on
listed species or their habitat is to be  based upon the best
scientific and commercial data available  or which  can  be obtained
prior to or during the consultation. 50 C.F.R. 402.14(d).

     2. Water Quality Standards Development Under  the  CWA

     Section 303 of the Clean Water Act provides for the
development by states of water quality standards which are
designed to protect the public health or  welfare,  enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of the CWA. Such
standards consist of designated uses of waterways  (e.g.,
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife) and
criteria which will insure the protection of  designated uses.

     Under the CWA, the development of water  quality standards is
primarily the responsibility of States.   However,  pursuant to
section 304(a) of the CWA, EPA from time  to time publishes water
quality criteria which serve as scientific guidance to be used by
states in establishing and revising water quality  standards.
These EPA criteria are not enforceable requirements, but are
recommended criteria levels which states  may  adopt as  part of
their legally enforceable water quality standards;  states may
adopt other scientifically defensible criteria in  lieu of EPA's
recommended criteria. See 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b).

     Standards adopted by states constitute enforceable
requirements with which permits issued by States or EPA under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act must assure compliance. CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C).  Under section 303(c) of the CWA, EPA must
review water quality standards adopted by states and either
approve them if the standards meet the requirements of the CWA or
disapprove them  if the standards fail to  do so.  However, EPA's
disapproval of state water quality standards  does  not  alter the
enforceable requirements with which CWA section 402 permits must
comply, because the state standards remain in full force and
     1 Any reference in this document to "jeopardy" for purposes
of section 7 of the  ESA  is  intended also to include the concept
of destruction or  adverse modification of critical habitat.
(9/14/93)                                                         F-3

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
effect under  state law.   The state-adopted standards remain
effective  for all purposes of the CWA until they are revised by
the state  or  EPA promulgates federal water quality standards
applicable to the state.
II. PROCEDURES

A. Development  of  Water Quality Criteria Guidance Under Section
304 fa) of the CWA

     EPA will integrate the Services into its criteria
development process  by consulting with the Services regarding the
effect EPA's existing aquatic  life criteria (and any new or
revised criteria)  may have on  listed endangered or threatened
species.  References below to  endangered or threatened species
include species proposed to be listed by the Services.   In
addition, EPA will include the Service(s)  on the aquatic life
criteria guidelines  revision committee which is currently
revising the methodological guidelines that will form the
technical basis for  future criteria adopted by EPA.

     1. Consultation on Existing Criteria

     EPA has developed and published aquatic life criteria
documents explaining the scientific basis for aquatic life
criteria that EPA  has published.   EPA will consult with the
appropriate Service  regarding  the aquatic life criteria as
described below.

Step 1;  Services' Identification of Species that May Be Affected
By Water Quality Degradation

     The Services  and EPA will request their regional offices to
identify the endangered and threatened species within their
jurisdictions that may be affected by degraded water quality.
Each Service will  provide EPA  with a consolidated list of these
species.  To facilitate this process,  the initial species list
will include information identifying the areas where such species
are located, a  description of  the pollutants causing the water
quality problems affecting the species (if known)  and any other
relevant information provided  by the Services7  regional offices.
In future consultations,  the Services will provide a species
list, as required  in 50 C.F.R.  Part 402,  and access  to any
relevant data concerning identified species.
F-4
(9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
Step 2;  EPA Initiation of Informal Consultation and  Performance
of Biological Assessment

     Based upon a review of information provided by the  Services
under Step 1^ above, and any other information  available to  EPA
(as described by 50 C.F.R. 402.12(f)(1)-(5)), EPA  will determine
what species may be affected by the aquatic life criteria and
will request informal consultation with the appropriate  Service
regarding such species.  EPA will submit to the appropriate
Service a biological assessment that evaluates  the potential
effects of the criteria levels on those species.   The biological
assessment will be developed in an iterative process  between EPA
and the Service (initially involving submission of a  "pilot"
assessment addressing 2 or 3 chemicals), and is expected to
contain the information listed in the Appendix  of  this
Memorandum.


Step 3;  Further steps Based on Results of  Biological Assessment

     Based upon the findings made by EPA in the Biological
Assessment, the consultation will proceed as follows  (see 50
C.F.R. 402.12(k)):

     -  For those criteria/species where EPA determines  that
there  is no effect, EPA will not  initiate formal consultation.

     -  For those criteria/species where there  is  a  "may affect"
situation, and EPA determines that the species  is  not likely to
be adversely affected, the appropriate Service  will  either concur
or nonconcur with this finding under Step 4, below.

     -  Where EPA finds that a species is  likely to  be  adversely
affected, formal consultation will occur between the agencies
under  Step 5, below.


Step 4;  Service Reviews  Biological Assessment  and Responds to
      Within 30  days after EPA submits a complete biological
 assessment to the Service,  the Service will provide EPA with a
 written response that concurs or does not concur with any
 findings by EPA that species are not likely to be adversely
 affected by EPA's criteria.  For those species/criteria where the
 Service concurs in EPA's finding, consultation is concluded and
 no formal consultation will be necessary.  For any
 species/criteria where the Service does not concur in EPA's
 finding, formal consultation on the criteria/species will occur
 under step 5, below (see 50 C.F.R. 402.14).
 (9/14/93)                                                          F-5

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Step 5:  Formal Consultation

     Formal consultation will occur between the agencies
(coordinated by the agencies' headquarters' offices) beginning on
the date the Service receives a written consultation request from
EPA regarding, those species where EPA or the Service believe
there is likely to be an adverse affect, as determined under
steps 3 and 4, above.  The consultation will be based on the
information supplied by EPA in the biological assessment and
other relevant information that is available or which can
feasibly be collected during the consultation period (see 50
C.F.R 402.14(d)).  The Service will issue a biological opinion
regarding whether any of the species are likely to be jeopardized
by the pollutant concentrations contained in EPA's criteria.  Any
jeopardy conclusion will specify the specific pollutant(s),
specie(s) and geographic area(s) which the Service believes is
covered by such conclusion.  If the Service makes a jeopardy
finding, it will identify any available reasonable and prudent
alternatives, which may include, but are not limited to, those
specified below.  EPA will notify the Service of its action
regarding acceptance and implementation of all reasonable and
prudent alternatives.

     1.  EPA works with the relevant State during its pending
triennial review period to insure adoption (or revision) of water
quality standards for the specific pollutants and water bodies
that will avoid jeopardy.  Such adoption or revision may include
adoption of site-specific criteria in accordance with EPA's site-
specific criteria guidance, or other basis for establishing more
stringent criteria.

     2.  EPA disapproves relevant portions of state water quality
standards (see 40 C.F.R. 131.21) and initiates promulgation of
federal standards for the relevant water body (see 40 C.F.R.
131.22) that will avoid jeopardy.  Where appropriate, EPA will
promulgate such standards on an expedited basis.

     2.  Service Participation in Committee Revising Criteria's
     Methodological Guidelines

     An EPA committee is currently charged with revising and
updating the methodological guidelines which will in the future
be followed by EPA when it issues new 304(a) water quality
criteria.  The Service(s) will become a member of the workgroup
as an observer/advisor to insure that the methodological
guidelines take into account the need to protect endangered and
threatened species.  The guidelines will be subject to peer
review and public notice and comment prior to being finalized.
During the public comment period, the Services will provide the
agencies' official position on the guidelines.
                                                           (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
     3   Consultation with the Services on New or Revised Aquatic.
     T.-if«> criteria and New wildlife and Sediment Criteria

     When EPA develops and publishes new or revised aquatic  life
criteria and new wildlife and sediment criteria under section
304(a), EPA will request consultation with the Services on such
criteria, which will proceed in accordance with the procedures
outlined in section II.A.I of this Memorandum.


B.  EPA P^view of State Water Quality Standards Under Section 303
of the CWA

     In order to insure timely resolution of  issues related  to
protection of endangered or threatened species, EPA and the
Services will coordinate in the following manner with regard to
state water quality standards that  are subject to  EPA review and
approval under section 303(c) of  the CWA.

      i .  Participation of  the Services  in EPA/State Planning
     Meetings

     Unless other procedures ensuring  adequate  coordination are
agreed to  by the regional  offices of EPA and the  Service(s), EPA
regional offices will request  in  writing that the Services attend
EPA/state  meetings  where the state's plan for reviewing and
possibly revising water  quality standards is discussed.  The
invitation will  include  any preliminary plans submitted by the
state and  any  suggestions  offered by EPA to the state that will
be discussed  at  the planning meeting,  as well as  a request for
the Services  to  suggest  any additional topics of  concern to them.

      Service  staff  will  attend the planning session and be
prepared to identify areas where threatened and endangered
 species that may be affected by the proposed action may be
present in the state and to provide access to any data available
to the Services in the event additional discussions will need to
 occur.  If the Service does not intend to attend the planning
 meeting, it will notify the EPA regional office in writing.  If
 threatened and endangered species may be present in the waters
 subject to the standards,  such notice will include a species
 list.

      2.  consultation on EPA Review of State Water Quality
      Standards Where Federally Listed Species Are Present

      Except in those cases where the Service's Director, at the
 Washington Office level, requests  consultation, EPA may complete
 its review and approval of state water quality standards without
 requesting consultation where  (1)  the state's criteria are  as
 stringent as EPA's section 304(a)  aquatic  life criteria and
 consultation between  EPA  and the appropriate Service on EPA's
  (9/14/93)                                                         F"7

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 criteria has resulted  in a Service concurrence with an EPA
 finding of "not likely to adversely affect,"  a "no jeopardy"
 biological opinion  (or EPA's implementation of a  reasonable and
 prudent alternative contained in the Service's "jeopardy"
 biological opinion), and EPA's adherence to the terms and
 conditions of any incidental take statement and  (2) the state has
 designated use classifications for the protection and propagation
 of fish and shellfish.

      However, if a State adopts water quality standards
 consistent with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, but
 the Service believes that consultation may be necessary in either
 of the circumstances described below, only the Service's
 Director,  at the Washington Office level, may request
 consultation with EPA.  Such consultation may be  necessary (l)
 where review of a state water quality standard identifies factors
 not considered during the relevant water quality  criterion review
 under this Memorandum which indicate that the standard may affect
 an endangered or threatened species,  or (2) where new scientific
 information not available during the earlier  consultation
 indicates  that the criterion,  as implemented through the state
 water quality standard, may affect endangered or threatened
 species in a manner or to an extent not considered in the earlier
 consultation.

      If a  state submits water quality standards containing
 aquatic life criteria that are less stringent than EPA's section
 304(a)  aquatic life criteria,  or use  designations that do not
 provide for the protection and propagation of fish and shellfish,
 EPA will consult with the appropriate Service regarding the
 state's standards.   EPA's request for formal or informal
 consultation  (as appropriate)  shall be made as early  as possible
 in the  standards development process  (e.g.,  when  standards
 regulation are under development by the state).   The  EPA region
 should  not wait until standards  are formally submitted by the
 state to request such consultation.

      If a  state water quality  standard under review by EPA
 relates to specie(s),  pollutant(s)  and geographic  area(s)  that
 were  the subject of  a jeopardy opinion issued  by the  Service
 under section  II.A.  of  this Memorandum,  EPA will consider  the
 opinion (and any reasonable and  prudent alternatives  specified  by
 the Service) and take action that,  in  EPA's  judgment, will  insure
 that  water  quality standards applicable to  the state are not
 likely  to  jeopardize  the continued  existence of endangered or
 threatened  species or result in  the destruction or adverse
 modification of  species' critical habitat.   EPA will notify the
 Service that issued the biological opinion of  its  action,  in
 accordance with  50 C.F.R. 402.15.

      Except in those cases where the Service's Director, at the
Washington Office level, requests consultation, EPA may take
                                8
F"8                                                          (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
action pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(4) to promulgate  federal
standards applicable to a water of the state without requesting
consultation where (1) the aquatic life criteria promulgated by
EPA are no less stringent than EPA's  section 304(a) criteria
guidance and consultation between EPA and the Service on  EPA's
criteria has resulted in a Service concurrence with an  EPA
finding of "not likely to adversely affect," a "no jeopardy"
biological opinion (or EPA's implementation of a reasonable and
prudent alternative contained in the  Service's "jeopardy"
biological opinion), and EPA's adherence to the terms and
conditions of any incidental take statement and  (2) the
applicable use classifications provide for the protection and
propagation of fish and shellfish.

     However, if EPA promulgates water quality standards
consistent with the provisions of the previous paragraph, but the
Service believes that consultation may be necessary in  either of
the circumstances described below, only the Service's Director,
at the Washington Office level, may request consultation  with
EPA.  Such consultation may be necessary  (1) where review of the
water quality standard identifies  factors not considered  during
the relevant water quality criterion  review under this  Memorandum
which indicate that the standard may  affect an endangered or
threatened species, or  (2) where new  scientific  information not
available during the earlier consultation indicates that  the
criterion, as implemented through  the water quality standard, may
affect endangered or threatened species in a manner or  to an
extent not considered in the earlier  consultation.

III.  Revisions to Agreement

     EPA and the Services may jointly revise the procedures
agreed to in this document based upon the experience gained in
the pilot consultation on EPA's aquatic life criteria or  other
experience in the  implementation of the above procedures.

IV.  Third Party Enforcement

     The terms of this Memorandum  are not intended to be
enforceable by any party other than the signatories hereto.

V.   Reservation of Agency Positions

     No party to this Memorandum waives any  administrative
claims, positions  or  interpretations  it may  have with respect to
the applicability  or  the enforceability of the  ESA.

VI.  Effective Date;  Termination

     This Memorandum  will become effective upon signature by each
of the parties hereto.  Any  of the parties may  withdraw from this
Memorandum upon 60 days' written notice to the  other parties;
 (9/14/93)                                                         F-9

-------
   Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  provided that  any Section 7 consultation  covered by the terms of
  this Memorandum that is pending at the  time  notice of withdrawal
  is received  by the parties, and those activities covered by this
  Memorandum that begin the consultation  process  with the 60-day
  notice period, jvill continue to be governed  by  the procedures in
  this Memorandum.
     A
      „ .                      _          ,
  Ralpn Morgenweck1, "Assistant- Director          '
  Fish and Wildlife Enhancement                J
  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                      _
  Dr. Tudor T. Davies,  Director                ''  Da4e
  Office of Science and Technology
  U.S Environmental Protection Agency


'     ('  '   V  -     -  "  ^                        \
•     v-   '• \ o,^..  v-<.^.^ _           -Wd-i-
*  Dr. Nancy Foster, Director                   /'  Date
i  Office oi  Protected Resources
  National Marine Fisheries  'Service
                                  10
  F-10                                                         (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F • Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
                             APPENDIX
         Expected Contents of EPA's Biological Assessment

I.  Introduction/Overview

     A.  Benefits of pollution reduction relative to endangered
and threatened species/description of  the ESA

     B.  Role of Water Quality standards under the CWA

     C.  Overview of water quality criteria (philosophy,
objectives, methodology)

     D.  Discussion of comparative sensitivity of listed species
(and surrogates) with criteria database

     E.  Description of Fact Sheet contents

             data included
           -  description  of  how  specific criteria derived
           -  description  of  logic/thought processes supporting
               findings of effect on listed species

II.  Fact  Sheets

     Pollutant-specific fact sheets will be compiled which
evaluate the available data  and  reach conclusions regarding the
findings of effect of the criteria on endangered and threatened
species.   The fact sheets will be presented largely in tabular,
graph  form.

     A.    Summary of toxicological relationships (from water
quality  criteria documents)

           1.   acute  (acute  lethality)
           2.   chronic  (life processes at risk)
           3.   plants
           4.   residues
           5.   other key  data
           6.   updated  information through review of ACQUIRE
               database and  other key data

     B.    Taxa  at risk vis-a-vis listed species  (through use of
surrogates, where appropriate)

     C.    Impact of  other water quality factors — describe
effects  such  as environmental variability, ph, hardness,
temperature,  etc.
                                 11
 (9/14/93)                                                         F-ll

-------
 Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
 D.   Assessment of  impact on listed species


            Findings  to be made regarding whether each criteria (1)
 "may affect" and/or (2)  is likely  to adversely  affect, listed
 species.
                                  12
F"12                                                             (9/14/93)

-------
         APPENDIX G
        Questions and Answers on:
            Antidegradation
                                      W
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
                     'is . I'-'-,';  v1';"::











                        '' '; :' ':';ll''l:'lii'
• :' '  ('•: i  ;" ' ;

 • '''   ,"i!i,l '! '3'1' 'i"1'1' ' 'f  ' '
. ; •,"  "';i:. ; ^.if;,-;!"-

 ..,   ........ : ..........  ....... ..... ^ ......... :
!. ii^i'SiSslljte^
j!:-rr':i1i ^ It'^ijf :fe|||:
;	;,:	-;,:	=:;	:	;	U	..=,:,:.^14	4	I-	toioia	it
                   iii^^
                   r-''t^"'!"V;"li'i";:i':f!;.^^]|l^;PW.'!™A*
                   ;i;. ';. fj	i ,)••'• .!	i'iii,^yf'ii'm."-rLi.> •rtj^'
   ^fe
                         ^^r^liiil^

-------
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Office of Water
            Regulations and Standards
            Washington, DC 20460
                                    August 1985
>vEPA
            Water
Questions & Answers on:
Antidegradation

-------

-------
             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON ANTIDEGRADATION

 INTRODUCTION

      This  document provides guidance on  the antidegradation
 policy component of water quality standards and its application.
 The document begins with the  text of the policy as stated  in the
 water quality standards regulation, 40 CFR 131,12 (40 FR 51400,
 November 8, 1983), the portion of the Preamble discussing
 the antidegradation policy, and the response to comments
 generated  durfng the public comment period on the regulation.

      The document then uses a question and answer format
 to present information about  the origin of the policy, the
 meaning of various terms, and its application in both general
 terms and  in specific examples.  A number of the questions
 and answers are closely related; the reader is advised to
 consider the document in its entirety, for a maximum under-
 standing of the policy, rather than to focus on particular
 answers in isolation.  While this document obviously does
 not^address every question which could arise concerning the
 policy, we hope that the principles it sets out will aid the
 reader in  applying the policy in other situations.  Additional
 guidance will be developed concerning the application of the
 antidegradation policy as it affects pollution from nonpoint
 sources.   Since Congress is actively considering amending  the
 Clean Water Act to provide additional programs for the control
 of nonpoint sources, EPA will await the outcome of congressional
 action before proceeding further.

      EPA also has available, for public information, a summary
of each State's antidegradation policy.  For historical
 interest,  limited copies are available of a Compendium of
 Department of the Interior Statements on Non-Degradation of
 Interstate Waters, August, 1968.  Information on any aspect
of the water quality standards program and copies of these
documents may be obtained from:

               David Sabock, Chief
               Standards Branch (WH-585)
               Office of Water Regulations and Standards
               Environmental Protection Agency
               401 M. Street,  S.W.
               Washington, D.C.  20460


     This document is designated as Appendix A to Chapter 2 -
General Program Guidance (antidegradation)'of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook,  December 1.983.                 	—	
                             yjames M. Conlon, Acting Director
                            / Office of Water Regulations
                                and Standards

-------

-------
                                   REGULATION
Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  217 / Tuesday. November 8, 1983 / Rules  and  Regulations    51407
                            §131.12 Antidegradation policy.
                              (a) The State shall develop and adopt
                            a statewide antidegradation policy and
                            identify the methods for implementing
                            such policy pursuant to this subpart. The
                            antidegradation policy and
                            implementation methods shall, at a
                            minimum, be consistent with the
                            following:
                              (1) Existing instream water uses and
                            the level of water quality necessary to
                            protect the existing uses shall be
                            maintained and protected.

                              (2) Where  the quality of the waters
                            exceed levels necessary to support
                            propagation  of fish, shellfish, and
                            wildlife and  recreation in and on the
                            water, that quality shall be maintained
                            and protected unless the State finds,
                            after full satisfaction of the
                            intergovernmental coordination and
                            public participation piovisions of the
                            State's continuing planning process, that
                            allowing lower water quality is
                            necessary to accommodate important
                            economic or  social development in the
                            area in which the waters are located. In
                            allowing such degradation or lower
                            water quality, the State shall  assure
                            water quality adequate to protect
                            existing uses fully. Further, the State
                            shall assure that there shall be achieved
                            the highest statutory and regulatory
                            requirements for all new and  existing
                            point sources and all cost-effective and
                            reasonable best management practices
                            for nonpoint  source control.
                              (3) Where high quality waters
                            constitute an outstanding National
                            resource, such as waters of National and
                            State parks and wildlife refuges and
                            waters of exceptional recreational or
                            ecological significance, that water
                            quality shall  be maintained and
                            protected.
                              (4) In those cases where potential
                            water quality impairment associated
                            with a thermal discharge is involved, the
                            antidegradation policy and
                            implementing method shall be
                            consistent with section 316 of the Act.

-------
                                                   PREAMBLE


       51402    Federal Register /  Vol. 48,  No. 217  /  Tuesday, November 8. 1983  / Rules  and Regulations
Antidegradation Policy
  The preamble to the proposed rule
discussed three options for changing the
existing antidegradation policy. Option
1, the proposed option, provided simply
that uses attained would be maintained.
Option 2 stated that not only would uses
attained be maintained but that high
quality waters, i.e. waters with quality
better than that needed to protect fish
and wildlife, would be maintained (that
is, the existing antidegradation policy
minus the "outstanding natural resource
waters" provision). Option 3 would have
allowed changes in an existing use if
maintaining that use would effectively
prevent any future growth in the
community or if the benefits of
maintaining the use do not bear a
reasonable relationship to the costs.
  Although there was support for
Option 2, there was greater support for
retaining the full existing policy,
including the provision on outstanding
National resource waters. Therefore,
EPA has retained the existing
antidegradalfon policy (Section 131.12)
because it more accurately reflects the
degree of water quality protection
desired by the public, and is consistent
with the goals and purposes of the Act.
  In retaining the policy EPA made four
changes. First, the provisions on
maintaining and protecting existing
instrenm uses and high quality waters
were retained, but the sentences  stating
that no further water quality
degradation which would interfere with
or becon  Injurious to existing instream
uses Jr  jowed were deleted. The
delet   «s were made because the terms
"in!   .ere" and "injurious" were subject
to  ^interpretation as precluding any
r .ivity which might even momentarily
add pollutants to the water. Moreover.
ws believe the deleted sentence was
intended merely as a restatement of the
basic policy. Since-the rewritten
provision, with the addition of a phrase
on water quality described in the next
sentence, stands alone as expressing the
basic thrust and intent of the
antidegradation policy, we deleted the
confusing phrases. Second, in
§ 131.12(a)(l) a phrase was added
requiring that the level of water quality
necessary to protect an existing use be
maintained and protected. The previous
policy required only that an existing use
be maintained. In §  131.12(a)(2) a phrase
was added that "In  allowing such
degradation or lower water quality, the
State shall assure water quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully".
This means that the full use must
continue to exist even if some change in
water quality may be permitted. Third,
in the first sentence of § 131.12(a)(2) the
wording was changed from ". . .
significant economic or social
development. . ." to ". . . important
economic or social development. .  . ."
In the context of tt,  antidegradation
policy the word 'important" strengthens
the intent of protecting higher quality
waters. Although common usage of the
words may imply otherwise, the correct
definitions of the two terms indicate that
the greater degree of environmental
protection is afforded by the word
"important."
   Fourth, § 131.12(a)(3) dealing with the
designation of outstanding National
resource waters (ONRW) was changed
to provide a limited exception to the
absolute "no degradation" requirement.
EPA was concerned that waters which
properly could have been designated as
ONRW were not being so designated
 because of the fiat  no degradation
provision, and therefore were not being
given special protection. The no
degradation provision was sometimes
 interpreted as prohibiting any activity
 (including temporary or short-term) from
 being conducted. States may allow some
 limited activities which result in
 temporary and short-term changes in
 water quality. Such activities are
 considered to be consistent with the
 intent and purpose of an ONRW.
 Therefore, EPA has rewritten the
 provision to read ". . . that water
 quality shall be maintained and
 protected," and removed the phrase  "No
 degradation shall be allowed. .  .  ."
  In its entirety, the antidegradation
policy represents a three-tiered
approach to maintaining and protecting
various levels of water quality and uses.
At its base (Section 131.12(a)(l)), all
existing uses and the level of water

 quality necessary to protect  those usos
 must be maintained and protected.  This
 provision establishes the absolute floor
 of water quality in all waters of the
 United States. The second level (Section
 131.12(a)(2)) provides protection of
 actual water quality  in areas where the
 quality of the waters exceed levels
 necessary to support propagation of fish,
 shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in
 and on the water ("fishable/
 swimmable"). There are provisions
 contained in this subsection to allow
 some limited water quality degradation
 after extensive public involvement, as
 long as the water quality remains
 adequate to be "fishable/swimmable."
 Finally § 131.23(a)(3) provides special
 protection of waters for which the
 ordinary use classifications  and water
 quality criteria do not suffice, denoted
 "outstanding National resource water.'}
 Ordinarily most people view this
 subsection as protecting and
 maintaining the highest quality waters
 of the United States: that is  clearly the
 thrust of the provision. It does, however,
 also offer special protection for waters
 of "ecological significance." These are
 water bodies which  are important,
 unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
 whose water quality as measured by the
 traditional parameters (dissolved
 oxygen, pH, etc.) may not be particularly
 high or whose character cannot be
 adequately described by these
 parameters.

-------
                            RESPONSE TO PUBUC  COMMENTS
Federal  Register / Vol. 49.  No. 217  /  Tuesday. November 8. 1983 / Rules and Regulations    51409
       Antidegradation Policy
         EPA's proposal, which would have
       limited the antidegradation policy to the
       maintenance of existing uses, plus three
       alternative policy statements described
       in the preamble to the proposal notice,
       generated extensive public comment,
       EPA's response is described in the
       Preamble to this final rule and  includes
       a response to both the substantive and
       philosophical comments offered. Public
       comments overwhelmingly supported
       retention of the existing policy and EPA
       did so. in the final rule.
         EPA's response to several comments
       dealing with the antidegradation policy,
       which were not discussed in the
       Preamble are discussed below.
         Option three contained in the
       •Agency's proposal would have allowed
        the possibility of exceptions to
       maintaining existing uses. This option
        was cither criticized for being  illegal or
       .Was supported because it provided
        additional flexibility for economic
        growth. The latter oommenters believed
        that allowances should be made for
        carefully defined exceptions to the
        absolute requirement that uses attained
        must be maintained. EPA rejects this
        contention as being totally inconsistent
        with the spirit and intent of both the
        Clean Water Act and the underlying
        philosophy of the antidegradation
        policy. Moreover, although the Agency
        specifically asked for examples of
        where the existing antidegradation
        policy had precluded growth, no
        examples were provided. Therefore,
        wholly apart from technical legal
        concerns, there appears to be  no
        justification for adopting Option 3.
  Most critics ot the proposed
antidegradation policy objected to
removing the public's ability to affect
decisions on high quality waters and
outstanding national resource waters. In
attempting to explain how the proposed
antidegradation policy would be
implemented, the Preamble to the
proposed rule stated that no public
participation would be necessary in
certain instances because no change

was being made in a State's water
quality standard. Although that
statement was technically accurate, it
left the mistaken impression that all
public participation was removed from
the discussions on high quality waters
and that  is  not correct. A NPDES permit
would have to be issued or a 208 plan
amended for any deterioration in water
quality to be "allowed". Both actions
require notice and an opportunity for
public comment. However, EPA retained
the existing policy so this.issue is moot.
Other changes in the policy affecting
ONRW are discussed in the Preamble.
                                       iii

-------

-------
             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON ANTIDEGRADATION
1. WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?

     The basic policy was established on February 8, 1968, by
     the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior.  It
     was included in EPA's first water quality standards regula-
     tion 40 CFR 130.17, 40 FR 55340-41, November 28, 1975.  It
     was slightly refined and repromulgated as part of the current
     program regulation published on November 8, 1983 (48 FR
     51400, 40 CFR §131.12).  An antidegradation policy is one
     of the minimum elements required to be included in a State's
     water quality standards.

2. WHERE IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR AN
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY OR SUCH A POLICY EXPRESSED?

     There is no explicit requirement for such a policy in the
     Act.  However, the policy is consistent with the spirit,
     intent, and goals of the Act, especially the clause  "...
     restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
     integrity of the Nation's waters"  (§101(a)> and arguably  is
     covered by the provision of 303(a) which made water  quality
     standard requirements under prior  law  the  "starting  point"
     for CWA water quality requirements.

3. CAN A STATE JUSTIFY NOT HAVING AN ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY  IN
ITS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS?

     EPA's water quality  standards regulation requires  each
     State to adopt an antidegradation  policy and  specifies  the
     minimum  requirements  for a policy.   If not  included  in  the
     standards regulation of  a State, the policy must  be  specifi-
     cally referenced  in  the  water quality  standards  so that the
     functional relationship  between  the policy  and the standards
     is clear.  Regardless of the location  of the  policy, it must
     meet all applicable  requirements.

4. WHAT HAPPENS IF  A STATE'S  ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY DOES NOT
MEET THE  REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS?

     If  this  occurs either through State  action to revise its
     policy or through revised  Federal  requirements,  the State
     would be given an opportunity  to make  its  policy consistent
     with the regulation.   If this  is not done,  EPA has the  auth-
     ority to promulgate  the  policy  for the State  pursuant to
     Section  303(c)(4)  of the Clean  Water Act.
                                — l —

-------
 5.  WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF A STATE-FAILED TO IMPLEMENT  ITS  ANTI-
 DEGRADATION POLICY PROPERLY?

      If a State issues an NPDES permit which violates  the  re-
      quired antidegradation policy,  it would be  subject  to a
      discretionary EPA veto under Section 402(d)  or  to a
      citizen challenge.   In addition to actions  on permits, any
      wasteload allocations and  total maximum daily loads violating
      the antidegradation policy are  subject  to EPA disapproval and
      EPA promulgation  of a new  wasteload allocation/total  maximum
      daily load under  Section 303(d)  of the  Act.  If a significant
      pattern of violation was evident, EPA could constrain the
      award of grants or  possibly  revoke any  Federal  permitting
      capability that had been delegated to the State.  If  the
      State issues  a  §401 certification (for  an EPA-issued  NPDES
      permit)  which fails to reflect  the requirements of  the
      antidegradation policy, EPA  will, on its own initiative,
      add any additional  or more stringent effluent limitations
      required to ensure  compliance with Section  301(b)(1)(C).
      If the faulty §401  certification related to permits issued
      by other Federal  agencies  (e.g.  a Corp  of Engineers Section
      404 permit),  EPA  could comment  unfavorably  upon permit
      issuance.   The  public, of  course,  could bring pressure
      upon the permit issuing agency.

6. WILL THE APPLICATION  OF THE  ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY  ADVERSELY
IMPACT  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

      This  concern  has  been raised since  the  inception  of the
      antidegradation policy.  The answer  remains  the same. The
      policy has  been carefully  structured to minimize  adverse
      effects  on  economic  development  while protecting  the  water
      quality  goals of  the  Act.  As Secretary Udall put it  in 1968,
      the policy  serves "...the  dual purpose of carrying  out the
      letter and  spirit of  the Act without interfering  unduly
     with  further economic  development"  (Secretary Udall,  February
      8,  1968).   Application of  the policy could affect the levels
      and/or kinds of waste  treatment  necessary or result in the
      use of alternate sites where the  environmental  impact would
     be less  damaging.  These effects  could have economic  implica-
      tions  as do all other  environmental  controls.

7. WHAT  IS  THE PROPER INTERPRETATION  OF THE TERM  "AN EXISTING
USE11?

     An existing use can be established by demonstrating that
     fishing, swimming, or other  uses  have actually occurred
     since November  28, 1975,  or  that  the water quality  is suit-
     able to allow such uses to occur  (unless there are physical
     problems which prevent the use regardless of water  quality).
     An example of the latter  is an area where shellfish are
     propagating and surviving  in a biologically suitable
     habitat and are available and suitable for harvesting.
     Such facts clearly establish that shellfish harvesting is
     an "existing" use, not .one dependent oh improvements  in
     water quality.  To argue  otherwise would be to say that

                               — 2 —

-------
     the only time an aquatic protection use "exists" is if someone
     succeeds in catching fish.

ft  THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION STATES THAT "EXISTING
USES AND THE LEVEL OF WATER QUALITY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
LISTING USES SHALL  BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED,"  HOW FULLY AND
AT WHAT LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS AN EXISTING USE TO BE PROTECTED
IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE! ABOVE REQUIREMENT?

     No activity is allowable under the antidegradation policy
     which would partially or completely eliminate any existing
     use whether or not that use is designated in a State's water
     duality standards. The aquatic protection use is a broad category
     reauiring  further explanation.  Species that are in the water
     body and which are consistent with the designated use  (i.e.,
     not aberrational) must be protected, even if not prevalent in
     number or  importance.  Nor can activity be allowed which would
     render the species unfit for maintaining the use.  Water
     Quality should be such that it results in no mortality and
     no significant growth or reproductive  impairment of resident
     species.  (See Question.16 for situation where an aberrant sen-
     sitive species may exist.) Any lowering of water quality below
     this full  level of protection is  not allowed.   A State may
     develop subcategories of aquatic  protection  uses but  cannot
     choose different  levels of protection  for  like  uses.   The fact
     that sport or commercial fish are not  present does  not mean
     that the  water may  not be supporting an aquatic life  protection
     function.  An existing aquatic community composed  entirely of
     invertebrates and plants, such as may  be found  in  a pristine
     alpine  tributary  stream, should  still  be protected  whether or
     not  such  a stream supports a  fishery.   Even  though the shorthand
     expression "fishable/swimmable"  is often used,  the  actual objec-
     tive of the  act  is  to  "restore and maintain  the chemical,
     physical,  and biological  integrity of  our  Nation's waters
      (section  101(a)).V  The  term "aquatic life" would more accurately
     reflect  the  protection  of  the aquatic  community that  was
      intended  in  Section 101(a)(2)  of the Act.

 9.  IS  THERE  ANY SITUATION WHERE AN EXISTING USE CAN BE REMOVED?

      In general,  no.   Water quality may sometimes be affected,
     but an  existing use, and the  level of water quality to
     protect it must be  maintained (§131.12(a)(1) and (2)  of the
      regulation).  However,  the  State may limit or not designate
      such a  use if the reason for such action is non-water quality
      related.   For example, a State may wish to impose a temporary
      shellfishing ban to prevent overharvesting and ensure an
      abundant  population over the long run, or may wish to restrict
      swimming  from heavily trafficked areas.  If the State chooses,

 V Note:"Fishable/swimmable" is a term of convenience used in
 ~         the standards program in lieu of constantly repeating
           the entire text of Section  101(a)(2)  goal of the Clean
           Water Act.  As a short-hand expression it is potentially
           misleading.
                                — 3—

-------
     for non-water quality reasons, to limit use designations,
     it must still adopt criteria to protect the use if there is
     a reasonable likelihood it will actually occur (e.g.  swimming
     in a prohibited water).  However, if the State's action is
     based on a recognition that water quality is likely to be
     lowered to the point that it no longer is sufficient to
     protect and maintain an existing use, then such action is
     inconsistent with the antidegradation policy.

10. HOW DOES THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LEVEL OF WATER QUALITY
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE EXISTING USE(S)  BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED,
WHICH APPEARS IN §131.12(a)(1),(2), AND (3) OF THE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS REGULATION, ACTUALLY WORK?

     Section 131.12(a)(1), as described in the Preamble to the
     regulation, provides  the absolute floor of water quality in
     all waters of the United States.   This paragraph applies a
     minimum level of protection to all waters.   However,  it is
     most pertinent to waters having beneficial uses that are
     less than the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act.   if it
     can be proven, in that situation, that water quality exceeds
     that necessary to fully protect the  existing use(s)  and
     exceeds water quality standards but  is not of  sufficient
     quality to cause a better use to  be  achieved,  then that
     water quality may be  lowered to the  level required to fully
     protect the existing  use as  long  as  existing water quality
     standards  and downstream water quality standards  are  not
     affected.   If this does not  involve  a change in standards,
     no  public  hearing would be  required  under Section  303(c).
     However, public  participation would  still be provided in
     connection with  the issuance of a NPDES permit  or  amendment
     of  a  208 plan.   If, however,  analysis indicates that  the
     higher water quality  does result  in  a better use,  even if
     not up to  the Section  101(a)(2) goals,  then  the water quality
     standards  must be  upgraded  to reflect the uses  presently
     being  attained  (§131.10(i)).

     Section 131.12(a)(2) applies to waters  whose quality
     exceeds that  necessary  to protect  the Section 101(a)(2)
     goals  of the  Act.   In  this case,  water  quality  may not be
     lowered to  less  than the  level  necessary  to  fully  protect
     the "fishable  /swimmable" uses  and other  existing  uses and
    may be  lowered even to  those  levels only  after  following
    all the provisions  described  in §131il2(a)(2).  This  require-
    ment applies  to  individual water quality  parameters.

    Section 131.12(a)(3) applies  to so-called outstanding National
    Resource (ONRW) waters where  the ordinary use classifications
    and supporting criteria are  not appropriate.  As described  in
    the Preamble to the water quality standards  regulation  "States
    may allow some limited activities which result  in  temporary
    and short-term changes in water quality," but such changes
    in water quality should not alter the essential character or
    special use which makes the water an ONRW.   (See also pages
    2-14,-15 of the Water Quality Standards Handbook.)

    Any one or a combination of several activities may trigger
    the antidegradation policy analysis as discussed above.  Such
    activities include a scheduled water quality standards review,

                              -4-

-------
     the establishment of new or revised wasteload allocations
     NPDES permits,  the* demonstration of need for advanced treatment
     or request by private or public agencies or individuals for a
     special study of the water body.


11  WILL AN ACTIVITY WHICH WILL DEGRADE WATER QUALITY, AND PRECLUDE
AN EXISTING USE IN ONLY A PORTION OF A WATER BODY (BUT ALLOW IT
TO REMAIN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WATER BODY) SATISFY THE ANTIDEGRAD-
ATION REQUIREMENT THAT EXISTING USES SHALL BE MAINTAINED
AND PROTECTED?

     No.  Existing uses must be maintained in all parts of the
     water body segment in question other than in restricted
     mixing zones.  For example, an activity which lowers water
     quality such that a buffer zone must be established within a
     previous  shellfish harvesting area  is inconsistent with the
     antidegradation policy.   (However,  a slightly different
     approach  is taken for fills in wetlands, as explained  in
     Question  13.)


12. DOES  ANTIDEGRADATION APPLY TO POTENTIAL  USES?

     No.  The  focus of the antidegradation policy  is  on protecting
     existing  uses.   Of  course,  insofar as existing uses  and
     water  quality are protected and maintained  by the policy
     the  eventual  improvement  of water quality  and attainment  of
     new  uses  may be  facilitated.   The use attainability  require-
     ments  of  §131.10 also help ensure that  attainable potential
     uses are  actually attained.  (See  also questions  7 and  10.)


13  FILL  OPERATIONS  IN WETLANDS AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATE  ANY
EXISTING  USE  IN THE  FILLED AREA.  HOW IS THE ANTIDEGRADATION
POLICY APPLIED IN  THAT SITUATION?

     Since  a  literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy
     could  result  in preventing the issuance of any wetland fill
     permit under  Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and it  is
     logical  to  assume that  Congress intended some such  permits
     to be  granted within the framework of the Act,  EPA interprets
     §131.12  (a)(l)  of the  antidegradation policy to  be  satisfied
     with regard  to fills in wetlands if the discharge did not
     result in "significant  degradation" to the aquatic  ecosystem
     as defined  under Section 230.10(c) of the Section 404(b)(l)
     guidelines.   If any wetlands were found to have  better
     water quality than "fishable/ swimmable", the State would
     be allowed  to lower water quality to the no significant
     degradation level as long as the requirements of Section
      131.12(a)(2)  were followed.  As for the ONRW provision of
      antidegradation (131.(a)(2)(3)), there is no difference in
      the way  it  applies to wetlands and other water bodies.
                                -5-

-------
 14.  IS  POLLUTION RESULTING FROM NONPOINT SOURCE ACTIVITIES SUBJECT
 TO PROVISIONS  OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?
                                                'IS  '     „    '  ,
      Nonpoint  source ,acitiv,iiifiSoajreJ.not:^ocempt  from the  provisions
      of the  antidegradation policy.  The  language  of Section 131.12
      (a)(2)  of the  regulation:   "Further,  the State shall  assure
      that  there shall  be  achieved  the highest statutory  and regulatory
      requirements for all new and  existing point  sources and all
      cost-effective  and reasonable best  mangement practices for
      nonpoint  source control" reflects statutory  provisions of the
      Clean Water Act.  While it is true  that the  Act does  not
      establish a regulatory program  for  nonpoint  sources,  it clearly
      intends that the  BMPs developed and approved under  sections
      205(j)/ 208 and 303(e)  be  agressively implemented by  th© States,
      As  indicated in the  introduction, EPA will be  developing additional
      guidance  in this  area.

 15.   IN  HIGH QUALITY WATERS, ARE NEW DISCHARGERS  OR EXPANSION OF
 EXISTING FACILITIES  SUBJECT TO  THE PROVISIONS OF  ANTIDEGRADATION?

      Yes.  Since  such activities would presumably  lower water quality,
      they  would  not  be permissible unless  the State finds  that it  is
      necessary  to accommodate important  economic  or social development
      (Section  131.12(a) (2) .   In addition the minimum technology base'd
      requirements must be  met,  including new source performance
      standards.   This standard  would be  implemented through the wast;e-
      load  and NPDES  permit process for such new  or expanded sourcers.

16. A STREAM, DESIGNATED AS  A WARM WATER FISHERY, HAS BEEN
FOUND TO CONTAIN A SMALL,  APPARENTLY NATURALLY OCCURRING POPULATION
OF A COLD-WATER  GAME FISH.   THESE  FISH APPEAR TO  HAVE ADAPTED TO
THE NATURAL WARM WATER TEMPERATURES  OF THE STREAM WHICH  WOULD NOT
NORMALLY ALLOW THEIR GROWTH  AND REPRODUCTION.  WHAT IS THE
EXISTING USE WHICH MUST BE PROTECTED UNDER SECTION  131.12(a)(1)?

     Section 131.12(a)(l)   states that  "Existing instream water
     uses and level of water quality necessary to protect  the
     existing uses shall be maintained and  protected."   While
     sustaining a small cold-water fish  population,  the  stream
     does not support an existing  use of a  "cold-water fishery,"
     The existing stream temperatures are  unsuitable  for a thriving
     cold-water fishery.    The small marginal population  is an
     artifact and should not be employed, to mandate  a more stringen.t
     use (true  cold-water  fishery)  where natural  conditions  are
     not suitable for that use.

     A use attainability analysis  or other  scientific assessment
     should be  used to determine whether the aquatic  life  population
     is  in fact an artifact or  is  a  stable population requ-iring
                               -6-

-------
     water quality protection.   Where species appear in areas not
     normally expected,  some adaptation may have occurred and site-
     specific criteria may be appropriately developed.   Should
     the cold-water fish population consist of a threatened or
     endangered species, it may require protection under the
     Endangered Species Act.  Otherwise the stream need only be
     protected as a warm water fishery.


17. HOW ©OES EPA'S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY APPLY TO A WATERBODY
WHERE A CHANGE IN MAN'S ACTIVITIES IN OR AROUND THAT WATERBODY
WILL PRECLUDE AN EXISTING USE FROM BEING FULLY MAINTAINED?

     If a planned activity will forseeably lower water quality
     to the extent that it no longer is sufficient to protect
     and maintain the existing uses  in that waterbody, such an
     activity  is inconsistent with EPA's antidegradation policy
     which requires that existing uses are to be maintained.   In
     such a circumstance the planned activity must be avoided or
     adequate  mitigation or preventive measures must be  taken  to
     ensure that the existing uses and the water quality to
     protect  them will  be maintained.

     In addition, in "high  quality waters", under §131.12(a)(2) ,
     before any  lowering of water quality  occurs, there  must  be:
     1) a finding that  it  is necessary  in  order to accommodate
     important economical or social  development  in  the  area  in
     which the waters are  located,  (2)  full  satisfaction of  all
     intergovernmental  coordination  and public  participation
     provisions  and (3)  assurance  that  the highest  statutory  and
     regulatory  requirements and best  management  practices for
     pollutant controls are achieved.   This  provision  can  normally
     be satisfied by  the  completion  of Water Quality Management
     Plan updates or  by a  similar  process  that  allows  for  public
     participation  and  intergovernmental  coordination.   This
     provision is  intended  to  provide  relief  only in  a few extra-
     ordinary circumstances where  the  economic  and  social need
     for  the  activity  clearly  outweighs the benefit of maintaining
     water  quality  above that  required for "fishable/swimmable"
     water,  and  the two cannot both be achieved.   The  burden of
     demonstration  on the  individual proposing  such activity will
     be  very high.  In  any case, moreover, the  existing use must
     be maintained and the activity shall not preclude the maintenance
     of a "fishable/swimmable" level of water quality protection.

 18.  WHAT DOES EPA MEAN BY "...THE  STATE SHALL ENSURE THAT THERE
 SHALL  BE ACHIEVED THE HIGHEST STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
 FOR ALL NEW AND EXISTING POINT SOURCES AND ALL COST EFFECTIVE
 AND REASONABLE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR NON-POINT SOURCE
 CONTROL"  (§131.12(a)(2)?

     This requirement ensures that the limited provision for
      lowering water quality of high quality waters down to "fish-
      able /swimmable" levels will not be used to undercut the
      Clean Water Act  requirements for point source and non-point
      source pollution control.  Furthermore, by ensuring compliance
                                 •7-

-------
      with  such  statutory  and regulatory controls, there is less
      chance  that a  lowering of water quality will be sought in
      order to accommodate new economic and social development.


 19. WHAT DOES EPA MEAN BY "...IMPORTANT ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL
 DEVELOPMENT  IN  THE AREA IN WHICH THE WATERS ARE LOCATED"
 IN 131.1 2(a)(2)?

      This  phrase is simply intended to convey a general concept
      regarding what level of social and economic development could
      be used to justify a change in high quality waters.  Any more
      exact meaning will evolve through case-by-case application
      under the State's continuing planning process.   Although
      EPA has issued suggestions on what might be considered in
      determining economic or social impacts,' the Agency has no
      predetermined level of activity that is  defined as "important".


 20.  IP  A WATER BODY WITH A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DESIGNATED USE
 IS,  FOR NON-WATER QUALITY REASONS,  NO LONGER  USED FOR DRINKING
 WATER MUST  THE STATE RETAIN THE PUBLIC WATER  SUPPLY  USE AND
 CRITERIA IN ITS  STANDARDS?

      Under  40 CFR 131.10(h)(1),  the State  may delete the public
      water  supply use  designation  and  criteria  if  the  State adds
      or retains  other  use  designations  for the  waterbodies  which
      have more stringent  criteria.   The  State may  also  delete
      the use  and criteria  if the public water  supply is not an
      "existing use"  as defined  in  131.3  (i.e.,  achieved on or
      after  November  1975), as long  as one  of  the  §131.10(g)
      justifications  for removal  is  met.

     Otherwise,  the  State must maintain the criteria even if  it
     restricts the actual use on non-water quality grounds, as
     long as  there is any possibility the water could actually
     be  used  for drinking.  (This is analogous to the swimming
     example  in  the preamble.)

21.  WHAT IS  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS, TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS, AND THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?

     Wasteload allocations distribute the allowable pollutant
     loadings to a stream between dischargers. Such allocations
     also consider the contribution to pollutant loadings from non-
     point sources.  Wasteload allocations must reflect applicable
     State water quality standards including the antidegradation
     policy.  No  wasteload allocation can be develped or NPDES permit
     issued  that  would result in standard being violated, or,  in the
     case of waters whose quality exceeds that necessary for the
     Section 101(a)(2)  goals of the Act,  can result a lowering
     of  water  quality unless  the applicable public participation,
     intergovernmental  review and baseline control requirements
     of  the  antidegradation policy have been met.
                               -8-

-------
22.  DO THE INl'EKGOVakNMhrtlAL COOKUxNAxiulM AINU i-UBLlC PAKl'iL.1 NATION
REQUIREMENTS WHICH ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THAT
WATER QUALITY WHICH EXCEEDS THAT NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE SECTION
101(a)(2) GOAL  OF THE ACT MAY.BE LOWERED APPLY TO CONSIDERING
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPED FOR THE,DISCHARGERS
IN THE AREA?

     Yes. Section 131.12(a)(2) of the water quality  standards
     regulation is directed towards changes in water quality per
     se, not just towards changes in standards.   The intent  is  to
     ensure that no activity which will cause water  quality  to
     decline in existing high  quality waters  is undertaken without
     adequate public review.   Therefore, if a change in  wasteload
     allocation could alter water quality  in  high quality waters,
     the public participation  and coordination requirements
     apply.

23. IS THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION DIFFERENT IF THE WATER
QUALITY  IS LESS THAN THAT NEEDED TO SUPPORT "FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE"
USES?

     Yes.  Nothing  in either  the water quality standards or  the
     wasteload allocation regulations requires the  same^degree
     of  public participation  or  intergovernmental coordination
     for such waters as  is required for high  quality waters.^
     However, as discussed  in  question  10, public participation
     would still be provided  in connection with  the  issuance of a
     NPDES permit or amendment of a  208 plan. Also, if  the  action
     which causes reconsideration of  the existing wasteloads (such
     as  dischargers withdrawing  from  the  area) will  result in an
     improvement  in water quality which makes a  better use
     attainable,  even  if  not  up  to  the  "fishable/swimmable"  goal,
     then the water quality  standards must be upgraded and full
     public  review  is  required for  any  action affecting  changes in
     standards.  Although not specifically required by the standards
     regulation between  the  triennial reviews, we recommend that
     the State conduct a  use  attainability analysis to determine if
     water  quality  improvement will  result in attaining higher uses
     than currently designated in  situations  where   significant
     changes in wasteloads  are expected (see  question 10).


 24. SEVERAL  FACILITIES ON A STREAM  SEGMENT DISCHARGE PHOSPHORUS-
 CONTAINING WASTES.  AMBIENT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS MEET CLASS B
 STANDARDS,  BUT BARELY.   THREE DISCHARGERS ACHIEVE ELIMINATION OF
 DISCHARGE BY DEVELOPING  A LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM.  AS A  RESULT,
 ACTUAL WATER QUALITY  IMPROVES (I.E.,  PHOSPHORUS LEVELS  DECLINE)
 BUT NOT QUITE TO  THE  LEVEL NEEDED TO MEET CLASS A (FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE)
 STANDARDS.   CAN THE THREE REMAINING DISCHARGERS NOW INCREASE
 THEIR  PHOSPHORUS  DISCHARGE  WITH THE RESULT THAT WATER QUALITY
 DECLINES (PHOSPHORUS  LEVELS INCREASE) TO PREVIOUS LEVELS?

     Nothing in  the water quality standards regulation  expli-
     citly  prohibits  this* (see answer to questions  10 and 23).
     Of course,  changes  in  their NPDES permit limits may be
      subject to  non-water quality constraints, such as  BPT-
     or BAT, which  may restrict this.

                                 -9-

-------
 25.  SUPPOSE  IN THE ABOVE  SITUATION WATER  QUALITY  IMPROVES TO THE
 POINT THAT ACTUAL WATER QUALITY NOW MEETS CLASS A REQUIREMENTS..
 IS THE ANSWER DIFFERENT?

     Yes. The standards must be upgraded  (see answer to question  10).

 26.  AS .AN ALTERNATIVE CASE, SUPPOSE PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS GO DOWN
 AND  WATER QUALITY IMPROVES BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN FARMING PRACTICES,
 E.G., INITIATION OF A SUCCESSFUL NON-POINT PROGRAM. ARE THE
 ABOVE ANSWERS THE SAME?

     Yes. ffliether the improvement results from a  change in point
     or nonpoint source activity is immaterial to how any aspect  of
     the standards regulation operates.   Section  131.10(d) clearly
     indicates that uses  are deemed attainable if they can be achieved
     by "... cost-effective and reasonable best management practices
     for nonpoint source  control".  Section 131.12(a)(2) of the anti-
     degradation policy contains essentially the  same wording.

 27.  WHEN A POLLUTANT DISCHARGE CEASES FOR ANY REASON, MAY THE
 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS' FOR THE OTHER DISCHARGES IN THE AREA BE
ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL LOADING AVAILABLE?

     This may be done consistent with the antidegradation policy
     only under two circumstances:  (1) In "high  quality waters"
     where after the full satisfaction of all public participation
     and intergovernmental review requirements, such adjustments
     are considered necessary to accomodate important economic or
     social development,  and the "threshold" level requirements
     are met; or (2) in less than "high quality waters", when the
     expected improvement in water quality  will  not cause a
     better use to be achieved, the adjusted loads still meet water
     quality standards, and the new wasteload allocations are at
     least as stringent as technology-based limitations.  Of
     course, all applicable requirements  of the Section 402
     permit regulations would have to be  satisfied before a
     permittee could increase its discharge.


28. HOW MAY THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS BE SATISFIED?

     This requirement may be satisfied in several ways.  The State
     may obviously hold a public hearing  or hearings.  The State
     may also satisfy the requirement by providing the opportunity
     for the public to request a hearing.  Activities which may
     affect several water bodies in a river basin or sub-basin
     may be considered in a single hearing.  To ease the resource
     burden on both- the State and public, standards issues may be
     combined with hearings on environmental impact statements,
     water management plans, or permits.   However, if this is
     done, the public must be clearly informed that possible
     changes in  water quality standards are being considered
     along with other activities.  In other words, it is inconsis-
     tent  with the  water quality standards regulation to "back-door"
     changes in   standards through actions on EIS's, wasteload
     allocations,  plans,  or permits.


                               -10-

-------
29. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT, .WHERE A THERMAL
DISCHARGE IS INCLUDED, THE ANTIDEGRADATION" POLICY SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH SECTION! 316 OF THE ACT?

     This requirement is contained in'Section 131.12 (a)(4) of the
     regulation and is intended to coordinate the requirements and
     procedures of the antidegadation policy with those established
     in the Act for setting thermal discharge limitations.
     Regulations implementing Section 316 may be found at 40 CFR
     124.66.  The statutory scheme and legislative history indicate
     that limitations developed under Section 316 take precedence
     over other requirements of the Act.

30.  WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY,
     STATE WATER RIGHTS USE LAWS AND SECTION 101(g) OF THE CLEAN
     WATER ACT WHICH DEALS WITH STATE AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE
     WATER QUANTITIES?

     The exact limitations imposed by section 101(g) are unclear;
     however, the legislative history and the courts interpreting
     it do indicate that  it does not nullify water quality measures
     authorized by CWA (such as water quality standards and their
     upgrading, and NPDES and 402 permits) even  if such measures
     incidentally affect  individual water rights; those authorities
     also indicate that if there is a way to reconcile water
     quality needs and water quantity allocations, such accomodation
     should be be pursued.  In other words, where there are
     alternate ways to meet the water quality requirements of  the
     Act, the one with least disruption  to water  quantity  allocations
     should be chosen.  Where a planned  diversion would lead  to a
     violation of water quality standards  (either the  antidegradation
     policy or a criterion), a 404 permit associated with  the
     diversion should be  suitably conditioned  if  possible  and/or
     additional nonpoint  and/or point  source controls  should  be
     imposed to compensate.

31. AFTER READING THE REGULATION, THE  PREAMBLE,  AND  ALL THESE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS,  I  STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND  ANTIDEGRADATION.
WHOM CAN I TALK TO?

     Call the Standards Branch at:  (202) 245-3042.   You can  also
     call the water quality standards  coordinators  in  each of our
     EPA Regional offices.
                                -11-

-------

-------
         APPENDIX H
         Derivation of the 1985
          Aquatic Life Criteria
                                       hi
                                       a
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------

-------
                      Derivation of the 1985
                        Aquatic Life Critera
The following is a summary of the Guidelines for Derivation of Criteria for Aquatic Life. The complete text is found in "Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses," available from National
Technical Information Service - PB85-227049.

Derivation of numerical! national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and
their uses is a complex process that uses information from many areas of aquatic toxicology. When a
national criterion is needed for a particular material, all available information concerning toxicity to
and bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms is collected, reviewed for acceptability, and sorted. If
enough acceptable data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals are available, they are used to estimate
the highest one-hour average concentration that should not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic
organisms and their uses. If justified, this  concentration is made a function of  water quality
characteristics  such as. pH, salinity, or hardness. Similarly, data on the chronic toxicity of the
material to aquatic animals are used to estimate the highest four-day average concentration that
should not  cause  unacceptable toxicity during a long-term  exposure.  If appropriate, this
concentration is also related to a water quality characteristic.
   Data on toxicity to aquatic plants are examined  to determine whether plants are likely to be
unacceptably affected by  concentrations that should not  cause unacceptable effects on animals.
Data on bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms are used  to determine if residues might subject
edible species to restrictions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or if such residues
might harm wildlife that consumes aquatic life. All other available data are examined for adverse
effects that might be biologically important.
   If a thorough review of the pertinent information indicates that enough acceptable data exists,
numerical national water quality criteria are derived  for fresh water or salt water or both to protect
aquatic organisms and their uses from unacceptable effects due to exposures to high concentrations
for short periods of time, lower concentrations for longer periods of time, and combinations of the
two.

I.   Definition of Material of Concern

     A.  Each separate chemical that does not ionizie substantially in most natural bodies of water
         should usually be considered a separate material, except possibly for structurally similar
         organic compounds that  exist only in large quantities as commercial mixtures of the
         various compounds and apparently have similar biological, chemical, physical, and toxi-
         cological properties.

     B.  For chemicals that do ionize substantially in most natural waterbodies (e.g., some phenols
         and organic acids, some salts of phenols and organic acids, and most inorganic salts and
         coordination complexes of metals), all forms in chemical equilibrium should usually be
         considered one  material. Each different oxidation state of a metal and each  different
         non-ionizable covalently bonded  organometallic compound  should  usually be
         considered a separate material.

     G.  The  definition of the material should include an operational analytical component.
         Identification of a material simply, for example, as "sodium"  obviously implies "total
         sodium" but leaves room for doubt. If "total" is meant, it should be explicitly stated. Even

-------
         "total" has different operational definitions, some of which do not necessarily measure
         "all that is there" in all sample. Thus, it is also necessary to reference or describe one
         analytical method that is intended. The operational analytical component should take into
         account the analytical and environmental chemistry of the material, the desirability of
         using the same analytical method on samples from laboratory tests, ambient water and
         aqueous effluents, and various practical considerations such as labor and equipment
         requirements and whether the method would require measurement in the field or would
         allow measurement after samples are transported to a laboratory.
            The primary requirements of the operational analytical  component are that it be
         appropriate for use on samples of receiving water, compatible with the available toxicity
         and bioaccumulation data without making overly hypothetical extrapolations, and rarely
         result in underprotection or overprotection of aquatic organisms and their uses. Because
         an ideal analytical measurement will rarely be available, a compromise measurement will
         usually be used. This compromise measurement must fit with the general approach: if an
         ambient concentration is lower than the national criterion, unacceptable effects will
         probably not occur (i.e., the compromise measurement must not err on the side of
         underprotection when measurements are made on a surface water). Because the chemical
         and physical properties  of an effluent are  usually quite  different from those of the
         receiving water, an analytical method acceptable for analyzing an effluent might not be
         appropriate for analyzing a receiving water, and vice versa. If the ambient concentration
         calculated from a  measured concentration in  an effluent is  higher than the  national
         criterion, an additional option is to measure the concentration after dilution of the effluent
         with receiving water to determine if the measured concentration is lowered  by such
         phenomena as complexation or sorption. A further option, of course,  is to  derive a
         site-specific criterion (1,2,3).  Thus, the criterion should be based on an appropriate
         analytical measurement, but the criterion is not rendered useless if an ideal measurement
         either is not available or is not feasible.
            The analytical chemistry of the material might need to be considered when defining
         the material or when judging the acceptability of some toxicity tests, but a criterion should
         not be based on the sensitivity of an analytical method. When aquatic organisms are more
         sensitive than routine analytical methods,  the proper solution is to develop better
         analytical methods, not to underprotect aquatic life.

II.   Collection of Data

     A.  Collect all available data on the material concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by,
        aquatic animals and plants; FDA action levels (compliance Policy  Guide, U.S. Food &
        Drug Admin. 1981) and chronic feeding studies and long-term field studies with wildlife
        species that regularly consume aquatic organisms.

     B.  All data that are used should be available in typed, dated, and signed hard copy
        (publication, manuscript, letter, memorandum) with enough supporting information to
        indicate that acceptable test procedures were used and that the results are probably
        reliable.  In some cases, additional  written information from the investigator may be
        needed.  Information that is  confidential, privileged, or otherwise not available for
        distribution should not be used.

     C.  Questionable data, whether published or unpublished, should not be  used. Examples
        would be data from tests that did not contain a control treatment, tests hi which too many
        organisms in the control treatment died or showed signs of stress or disease, and tests in
        which distilled or deionized water was  used as the dilution water without addition of
        appropriate salts.

     D.  Data on technical grade materials may be used, if appropriate; but data on formulated
        mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates of the material may not be used.

-------
     E.  For some highly volatile, hydrolyzable, or degradable materials, only use data from
        flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material were measured often
        enough with acceptable analytical methods.

     F.  Data should be rejected if obtained by using:
          •  Brine shrimp—because they usually occur naturally only in water with salinity
            greater than 35 g/ kg;
          •  Species that do not have reproducing wild populations in North America; or
          •  Organisms that were previously exposed to substantial concentrations of the test
            material or other contaminants.

     G. Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates, and data
        obtained with nonresident species or previously  exposed  organisms may be used to
        provide auxiliary information but should not be used in the derivation of criteria.

III.  Required Data

     A. Certain data should be available to help ensure that each of the four major kinds of
        possible adverse effects receives adequate consideration: results of acute and chronic
        toxicity tests with representative species of aquatic animals  are necessary to indicate the
        sensitivities of appropriate untested species. However, since procedures for conducting
        tests with aquatic plants and interpreting the results are not as well developed, fewer data
        concerning toxicity are required.  Finally, data concerning bioaccumulation by aquatic
        organisms are; required only with relevant information on the significance of residues in
        aquatic organisms.

     B. To derive a criterion for freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses, the following should
        be available:
        1.  Results of acceptable acute tests (see section IV) with at least one species of freshwater
            animal in at least eight different families including all of the following:

             • The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes.
             • A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or
               recrealionally important warm water species, such as bluegill or channel catfish.
             • A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may
               be an amphibian, etc.).
             • A planktonic crustacean such as a cladoceran or copepod.

             • A benthic crustacean (ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.).
             • An insect (mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.).

             • A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata, such as Rotifera,
               Annelida, Mollusca.
             • A f amiily in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.

         2.  Acute-chronic ratios (see section VI) with species of aquatic animals in at least three
            different families, provided that:

             • At least one is a fish;
             • At least one is an invertebrate; and
             • At least one is an acutely sensitive freshwater species (the other two may be
               saltweiter species).

         3.  Results of at least one acceptable test with a freshwater alga or vascular plant (see
            section VIE). If the plants are among the aquatic organisms that are most sensitive to
            the material, test data on a plant in another phylum (division) should also be available.

-------
        4.  At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an appropriate
            freshwater species, if a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available (see
            section IX).

     C To derive a criterion for saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses, the following should
        be available:

        1.  Results of acceptable acute tests (see section IV) with at least one species of saltwater
            animal in at least eight different families, including all of the following:
             •  Two families in the phylum Chordata;
             •  A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata;
             •  Either the Mysidae or Penaeidae family;
             •  Three other families not in the phylum Chordata (may include Mysidae or
               Penaeidae, whichever was not used previously); and
             •  Any other family.

        2.  Acute-chronic ratios (see section VI) with species of aquatic animals in at least three
            different families, provided that of the three species:
             •  At least one is a fish;
             •  At least one is an invertebrate; and

             •  At least one is an acutely sensitive saltwater species (the other may be an acutely
               sensitive freshwater species).

        3.  Results of at least one acceptable test with a saltwater alga or vascular plant (see
            section VIE). If plants are among the aquatic organisms most sensitive to the material,
            results of a test with a plant in another phylum (division) should also be available.

        4.  At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an appropriate
            saltwater species, if a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available (see
            section DQ.

     D. If all required data are available, a numerical criterion can usually be derived, except in
        special cases. For example, derivation of a criterion might not be possible if the available
        acute-chronic ratios vary by more than a factor of 10 with no apparent pattern. Also, if a
        criterion is to be related to a water quality characteristic T (see sections V and VII), more
        data will be necessary.
            Similarly, if all required data are not available, a numerical criterion should not be
        derived except in special cases. For example, even if not enough acute and chronic data are
        available, it might be possible to derive a criterion if the available data dearly indicate that
        the Final Residue Value should be much lower than either the Final Chronic Value or the
        Final Plant Value.

     E. Confidence in a criterion usually increases as the amount of available pertinent data
        increases. Thus, additional data are usually desirable.

IV.  Final Acute Value

     A. Appropriate measures  of the acute (short-term) toxicity of the material to a variety of
        species of aquatic animals are used to calculate the Final Acute Value. The Final Acute
        Value is an estimate of the concentration of the material, corresponding to a cumulative
        probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for genera used in acceptable acute tests
        conducted on the material. However, in some cases, if the Species Mean Acute Value of a
        commercially or recreationally important species is lower than the calculated Final Acute
        Value, then that Species Mean Acute Value replaces the calculated Final Acute Value to
        protect that important species.

-------
B.  Acute toxicity tests should have been conducted using acceptable procedures (ASTM
    Standards E 7219 and 724).

C.  Except for tests with saltwater annelids and mysids, do not use results of acute tests
    during which test organisms were fed, unless data indicate that the food did not affect the
    toxicity of the test material.

D.  Results of acute tests conducted in unusual dilution water (dilution water in which total
    organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded 5 mg/L) should not be used unless a
    relationship is developed between acute toxicity and organic carbon or particulate matter
    or unless data show that the organic carbon or particulate matter does not affect toxicity.

E.  Acute values should be based on endpoints that reflect the total  severe acute adverse
    impact of the test material on the organisms used in the test. Therefore, only the following
    kinds of data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals should be used:

    1. Tests with daphnids and other cladocerans should be started with organisms less than
       24-hours old, and tests with midges should be stressed with second- or third-instar
       larvae.  The result should be the 48-hour ECso based  on percentage of organisms
       immobiluied plus percentage of organisms killed. If such an ECso is not available from
       a test, the 48-hour LCso should be used in place of the desired 48-hour ECso. An ECso or
       LCso of longer than 48 hours can be used as long as the animals were not fed and the
       control animals were acceptable at the end of the test.
    2. The result of a test with embryos and larvae of barnacles, bivalve molluscs (clams,
       mussels, oysters, and scallops), sea urchins, lobsters,  crabs, shrimp, and abalones
       should be; the 96-hour ECso based on the percentage of organisms with incompletely
       developed shells plus the percentage of organisms killed. If such an ECso is not
       available from a test, the  lower of the 96-hour- ECso, based  on the percentage of
       organisms with incompletely developed shells and  the 96-hour LCso should be used
       in place of the desired 96-hour ECso. K the duration of the test was between 48 and 96
       hours, the ECso or LCso at the end of the test should be used.

    3. The acute values from tests with all other freshwater and saltwater animal species and
       older life stages of barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea  urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimps,
       and abalones should be the 96-hour ECso based on the percentage of  organisms
       exhibiting loss of equilibrium, plus the percentage of organisms immobilized, plus the
       percentage of organisms killed. If such an ECso is not available from a test, the 96-hour
        LCso should be used in place of the desired 96-hour ECso.

    4.  Tests with single-celled organisms are not considered acute tests, even if the duration
        was 96 hours or less.

    5.  If the tests were conducted properly, acute values reported as "greater than" values
        and those above the solubility of the test material should be used because rejection of
        such acute values would unnecessarily lower the Final Acute Value by eliminating
        acute values for resistant species.
 F.  If the acute toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently has been shown to be
    related to a water quality characteristic such as  hardness or particulate  matter for
    freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final Acute
    Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. (Go to section V.)

 G. If the available data indicate that one or more Hfe stages are at least a factor of 2 more resistant
    than one or more other life stages of the same species, the data for the more resistant life stages
    should not beusedinthecalculationof the Species Mean Acute Value because a species can be
    considered protected from acute toxicity only if all life stages are protected.

 H. The agreement of the data within and between species should be considered. Acute values
    that appear to be questionable in comparison with other acute and chronic data for the
    same species,  and for other species in the same genus probably should not be used in

-------
    calculation of a Species Mean Acute Value. For example, if the acute values available for a
    species or genus differ by more than a factor of 10, some or all of the values probably
    should not be used in calculations.

I.  For each species for which at least one acute value is available, the Species Mean Acute
    Value should be calculated as the geometric mean of the results of all flow-through tests in
    which the concentrations of test material were measured. For a species for which no such
    result is available, the Species Mean Acute Value should be calculated as the geometric
    mean of all available acute values — i.e.,  results of  flow-through  tests in which the
    concentrations were not measured and results of static and renewal tests based on initial
    concentrations of test material. (Nominal concentrations are acceptable for most test
    materials if measured concentrations are not available.)

     NOTE: Data reported by original investigators should not be rounded off. Results of all
     intermediate calculations should be rounded to four significant digits.

     NOTE- The geometric mean of N numbers is the Nth root of the product of the N numbers.
     Alternatively, the geometric mean can be calculated by adding the logarithms of the N
     numbers, dividing the sum by N, and taking the antilog of the quotient. The geometric mean
     of two numbers is the square root of the product of the two numbers, and the geometric mean
     of one number is that number. Either natural (base 0) or common (base 10) logarithms can be
     used to calculate geometric means as long as they are used consistently within each set of data
     (i.e., the antilog used must match the logarithm used).

     NOTE: Geometric means rather than arithmetic means are used here because the distributions
     of individual organisms' sensitivities in  toxicity tests on most materials, and the distributions
     of species' sensitivities within a genus, are more likely to be lognormal than normal. Similarly,
     geometric means are used for acute-chronic ratios and bioconcentration factors because
     quotients are likely to be closer to lognormal than normal distributions. In addition, division
     of the geometric mean  of a  set of numerators  by the geometric mean of the set of
     corresponding denominators will result in the geometric mean of the set of corresponding
     quotients.

J.  The Genus Mean Acute Value should be calculated as the geometric mean of the Species
    Mean Acute Values available for each genus.

K  Order the Genus Mean Acute Value from high to low.

L.  Assign ranks, R, to the Genus Mean Acute Value from  "1" for the lowest  to "N" for the
    highest If two or more Genus Mean Acute Values are identical, arbitrarily assign them
    successive ranks.

M.  Calculate the cumulative probability, P, for each Genus Mean Acute Value as R/ (N+l).

N.  Select the four Genus Mean Acute Values that have cumulative probabilities closest to
    0.05. (If there are less than 59 Genus Mean Acute Values, these will always be the four
    lowest Genus Mean Acute Values).

O.  Using the selected Genus Mean Acute Values and Ps, calculate:

       S2  2((rnGMAV)2)-(OS(lnGMAV))2/4)

                  2(P)-((Z(VF»2/4)

       L= (Z(hi GMAV) = S(Z(VF)))/4
   (See original document, referenced at beginning of this appendix, for development of the
   calculation procedure and Appendix 2 for example calculation and computer program.)

     NOTE: Natural logarithms (logarithms to base e, denoted as In) are used herein merely
     because they are easier to use on some hand calculators and computers than common (base 10)
     logarithms. Consistent use of either will produce the same result.

-------
     P.  If for a commercially or recreationally important species the geometric mean of the acute
        values  from flow-through  tests in which the  concentrations of test material were
        measured is lower than the calculated Final Acute Value, then that geometric mean should
        be used as the Final Acute Value instead of the calculated Final Acute Value.

     Q. Go to section VI.

V.   Final Acute Equation

     A. When enough data are available to show that acute toxicity to two or more species is similarly
        related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account as
        described in section IV, steps B through G, or using analysis of covariance. The two methods
        are equivalent and produce identical results. The manual method described below provides
        an understanding of this application of covariance analysis, but computerized versions of
        covariance analysis are much more convenient for analyzing large data tests. If two or more
        factors affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis should be used.

     B. For each species for which comparable acute toxicity values are available at two or more
         different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of
         the acute toxidty values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic to
         obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for each species.
          NOTE: Because the best documented relationship fitting these data is that between hardness
          and acute toxicity of metals  in freshwater and a log-log relationship, geometric means and
          natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are used in the rest of this section. For
          relationships based on other water quality characteristics such as pH, temperature, or salinity,
          no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate
          changes will be necessary.

      C Decide whether the data for each species are useful, taking into account the range and
         number  of the tested values of the water  quality characteristic and the  degree of
         agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on six data points
         might be of limited value if based only on data for a very narrow range of water quality
         characteristic values. A slope based on only two data points, however, might be useful if
         consistent with other information and if the two points cover a broad enough range of the
         water quality characteristic.
             In addition, acute values that appear to be questionable in comparison with  other
         acute  and chronic data available for the same species and for other species in the same
         genus probably should not be used. For example, if after adjustment for the water quality
         characteristic the acute values available for a species or genus differ by more than a factor
         of 10, probably some or all of the values should be rejected. If useful slopes  are not
          available for at least one fish and one invertebrate, or if the available slopes  are too
          dissimilar, or if too few data are available to adequately define the relationship between
          acute toxicity and the water quality characteristic, return to section IV.G, using the results
          of tests conducted under conditions and in waters similar to those commonly used for
          toxicity tests with the species.

      D.  Individually for each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available acute values
          and then divide each of these acute values by the mean for the species. This normalizes the
          values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species, individually,
          and for any combination of species is 1.0.

       E.  Similarly  normalize the values of the water quality characteristic for each  species,
          individually.

       F.  Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized acute
          toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic.
          The resulting slopes and 95 percent confidence limits will be identical to those obtained in

-------
         step B. However, now, if the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for each individual
         species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

      G. Treat normalized data as if they were all for the same species and perform a least squares
         regression of all the normalized acute values on the corresponding normalized values of
         the water quality characteristic to obtain the  pooled acute slope, V, and its 95 percent
         confidence limits. If all the normalized data are actually plotted, the line of best fit will go
         through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

      H. For each species, calculate the geometric mean, W, of the acute toxicity values and the
         geometric mean, X, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were calculated
         in steps D and E.)

      I.  For each species, calculate the logarithm, Y, of the Species Mean Acute Value at a selected
         value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:

                                   Y=lnW-V(mX-lnZ).

      J.  For each species, calculate the SMAV at Z using the equation:

                                         SMAV = e>r.

          NOTE: Alternatively, the Species Mean Acute Values at Z can be obtained by skipping step H
          using the equations in steps I and J to adjust each acute value individually to Z, and then
          calculating the geometric mean of the adjusted values for each species individually.

             This alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the adjusted acute
         values for each species.

      K.  Obtain the Final Acute Value at Z by using the procedure described in section IV, steps J
         through O.

      L.  If the Species Mean Acute Value at Z of a commercially or recreationally important species
         is lower than the calculated Final Acute Value  at Z, then that Species Mean Acute Value
         should be used as the Final Acute Value at Z instead of the calculated Final Acute Value.

      M. The Final Acute Equation is written as:

                 Final Acute Value = e(VPn(water ^uality characteristic)] + In A - V[ln Z])
            where

              V = pooled acute slope
              A=Final Acute Value at Z.
            Because V, A, and Z are known, the Final Acute Value can be calculated for any
         selected value of the water quality characteristic.

VI.  Final Chronic Value

     A.  Depending on the data that are available concerning chronic toxicity to aquatic animals,
         the Final Chronic Value might be calculated in the same manner as the Final Acute Value
         or by dividing the Final Acute Value by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio. In some cases, it
         may not be possible to calculate a Final Chronic Value.

          NOTE As the name implies, the Acute-Chronic Ratio is a way of relating acute and chronic
          toxicities. The Acute-Chronic Ratio is basically the inverse of the application factor, but this
          new name is better because it is more descriptive and should help prevent confusion between
          "application factors" and "safety factors." Acute-Chronic Ratios and application factors are
          ways of relating the acute and chronic toxicities of a material to aquatic organisms. Safety
          factors are used to provide an extra margin of safety beyond the  known or estimated
          sensitivities of aquatic organisms. Another advantage of the Acute-Chronic Ratio is that it will
          usually be  greater than 1; this should avoid the confusion as to whether a large application
          factor is one that is close to unity or one that has a denominator that is much greater than the
          numerator.

-------
B.  Chronic values should be based on results of flow- through chronic tests in which the
    concentrations of test material in the test solutions were properly measured at appropriate
    times during the test. (Exception: renewal, which is acceptable for daphnids.)

C.  Results of chronic tests in which survival, growth, or reproduction in the control treatment
    was unacceptably low should not be used. The limits of acceptability will depend on the
    species.

D.  Results of chronic tests conducted in unusual dilution water (dilution water in which'total
    organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded 5 mg/L) should not be used, unless a
    relationship is developed between chronic toxicity and organic carbon or particulate
    matter, or unless data show that organic carbon, particulate matter (and so forth) do not
    affect toxicity.

E.  Chronic values should be based on endpoints and lengths of exposure appropriate to the
    species. Therefore, only results of the following kinds of chronic toxicity tests should be
    used:
    1.  Life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more groups of
        individusils of a species to a different concentration of the test material throughout a
        life cycle. To ensure that all life stages and life processes are exposed, tests with fish
        should begin with embryos or newly hatched young less than 48-hours old, continue
        through maturation and reproduction, and end not less than 24 days  (90 days for
        salmonids) after the hatching of the next generation. Tests with daphnids should
        begin with young less than 24-hours old and last for not less than 21 days. Tests with
        mysids should begin with young less than 24-hours old and continue until seven days
        past the median time of first brood release in the controls.
            For fish, data should be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth of adults
        and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned per female, embryo
        viability (salmonids only), and hatchability. For daphnids, data should be obtained
        and analyzed on survival and young per female. For mysids, data should be
        obtained and analyzed on survival, growth, and young per female.

     2.  Partial life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more groups of
        individuals in a fish species  to a concentration of the test material through most
        portions of a life cycle. Partial life-cycle tests are allowed with fish species that require
        more than a year to reach sexual maturity so that all major life stages can be exposed to
        the test material in less than 15 months.
            Exposure to the test material should begin with immature juveniles at least two
        months prior to active gonad development, continue through maturation and
        reproduction, and end not less than 24 days (90 days for salmonids) after the
        hatching of the next generation. Data should be obtained and analyzed on survival
        and grovrth of adults and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned
        per female, embryo viability (salmonids only), and hatchability.

     3.  Early life stage toxicity tests consisting of 28- to 32-day (60  days post hatch for
         salmonids) exposures of the early life stages of a fish species from  shortly after
         fertilization through embryonic, larval, and early juvenile development. Data should
        be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth.
         NOTE: Results of an early life stage test are used as predictions of results of life-cycle and
         partial li f e-cycle tests with the same species. Therefore, when results of a total or partial
         life-cycle test are available, results of an early life stage test with the same species should
         not be used. Also, results of early life stage tests in which the incidence of mortalities or
         abnormalities increased substantially near the end should not be  used because these
         results are possibly not good predictions of the results of comparable total or partial life
         cycle or partial life cycle tests.

-------
                                                                             j
 F.   A chronic value can be obtained by calculating the geometric mean of the lower and upper
     chronic limits from a chronic test or by analyzing chronic data using regression analysis. A
     lower chronic limit is the highest tested concentration in an acceptable chronic test that did
     not cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on any of the specified biological
     measurements and below which no tested concentration caused an unacceptable effect. An
     upper chronic limit is the lowest tested concentration in an acceptable chronic test that did
     cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on one or more of the specified biological
     measurements and above which all tested concentrations also caused such an effect.
      NOTE: Because various authors have used a variety of terms and definitions to interpret and
      report results of chronic tests, reported results should be reviewed carefully. The amount of
      effect that is considered unacceptable is often based on a statistical hypothesis test but might
      also be defined in terms of a specified percent reduction from the controls. A small percent
      reduction (e.g., 3 percent) might be considered acceptable even if it is statistically significantly
      different from  the control, whereas a large percent reduction (e.g., 30 percent) might be
      considered unacceptable even if it is not statistically significant.

 G.  If the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently has been shown to be
    related  to a water quality characteristic such as  hardness or particulate  matter for
    freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final Chronic
    Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. Go to section VII.

 H,  If chronic values are available for species in eight families as described in sections ffl.B.1 or
    ni.C.1, a Species Mean Chronic Value should also be calculated for each species for which
    at least one  chronic value is available by calculating the geometric mean of all chronic
    values available for the species; appropriate Genus Mean Chronic Values should also be
    calculated.  The Final Chronic Value should then be obtained  using the procedure
    described in section HI, steps J through O. Then go to section VLM.

 I.  For each chronic value for which at least one corresponding appropriate acute value is
    available, calculate an acute-chronic ratio using for the numerator the geometric mean of
    the results of all acceptable flow-through acute tests in the same  dilution water and in
    which the concentrations were measured. (Exception: static is acceptable for daphnids.)
       For fish,  the acute test(s) should have been conducted with juveniles and should have
    been part of the same study as the chronic test. If acute tests were not conducted as part of
    the same study, acute tests conducted in the same laboratory and dilution water but in a
    different study  may be used. If no such acute tests are available, results of acute tests
    conducted in the same dilution water in a different laboratory may be used. If no such
    acute tests are available, an acute-chronic ratio should not be calculated.

J.  For each species, calculate the species mean acute-chronic ratio as the geometric mean of
    all acute-chronic ratios available for that species.

K.  For some materials, the acute-chronic ratio seems to be the same for all species, but for
    other materials, the ratio seems to increase or decrease as the Species Mean Acute Value
    increases. Thus the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio can be obtained in four ways, depending on
    the data available:

    1.  If the Species Mean Acute-Chronic ratio seems to increase or decrease as the Species
       Mean Acute Value increases, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should be calculated as the
       geometric mean of the acute-chronic ratios for species whose Species Mean Acute
       Values are close to the Final Acute Value.

    2.  If no major trend is apparent, and the acute-chronic ratios for a number of species are
       within a factor of 10,  the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should be calculated as the
       geometric mean of all the Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios available for both
       freshwater and saltwater species.

    3.  For acute tests conducted on metals and possibly other substances with embryos and
       larvae of barnacles, bivalve  molluscs, sea urchins,  lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and
       abalones (see section IV.E.2), it  is probably  appropriate  to assume  that  the

-------
           acute-chronic ratio is 2. Chronic tests are very difficult to conduct with most such
           species, but the sensitivities of embryos and larvae would likely determine the results
           of life cycle tests. Thus, if the lowest available Species Mean Acute Values were
           determined with embryos and larvae of such species, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
           should probably be assumed to be 2, so that the Final Chronic Value is equal to the
           Criterion Maximum Concentration (see section XI.B)

        4.  If the most appropriate Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios are less than 2.0, and
           especially if they are less  than 1.0,  acclimation has probably occurred during the
           chronic fcst. Because continuous exposure and acclimation cannot be assured to
           provide adequate protection in field situations, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should
           be assumed to be 2, so that the Final Chronic Value is equal to the Criterion Maximum
           Concentration (see section XLB).
               If the available Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios do not fit one of these cases, a
           Final Acute-Chronic Ratio probably cannot be obtained, and a Final Chronic Value
           probably cannot be calculated.

     L.  Calculate the; Final Chronic Value by  dividing the Final Acute Value by  the Final
        Acute-Chronic Ratio. If there was a Final Acute Equation rather than a Final Acute Value,
        see also section VH. A.

     M. If the Species Mean Chronic Value of a commercially or recreationally important species is
        lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value, then that Species Mean Chronic Value
        should be used as the Final Chronic Value instead of the calculated Final Chronic Value.

     N. Go to section VEH.

VII. Final Chronic Equation

     A. A Final Chromic Equation can be derived in two ways. The procedure described here will
        result in the chronic slope being the same as the acute slope. The procedure described in
        steps B through N usually will result in the chronic slope being different from the acute
        slope.
        1.  If acute-chronic ratios are available for enough species at enough values of the water
            quality characteristic to indicate that the acute-chronic ratio is probably the same for
            all species and is probably independent of the water quality characteristic, calculate
            the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio as the geometric mean of the available Species Mean
            Acute-Clironic Ratios.

        2.  Calculate the Final Chronic Value at the  selected value Z of the water quality
            characteiistic by dividing the Final Acute Value at Z (see section V.M) by the Final
            Acute-Chronic Ratio.

        3.  Use V = pooled acute slope (see section V.M) as L = pooled chronic slope.

        4.  Go to section VH.M.

     B. When enougjh data are available to show that chronic toxicity to at least one species is
        related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account as
         described in steps B through G or using analysis of covariance. The two methods are
         equivalent and produce identical results. The manual method described in the next
         paragraph provides an understanding of this application of covariance analysis, but
         computerized versions of covariance analysis are much more convenient for analyzing
         large data sets. If two or more factors affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis should be
         used.

     C.  For each species for which comparable chronic toxicity values are available at two or more
         different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of

-------
    the chronic toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic
    to obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for each species.

      NOTE: Because the best-documented relationship fitting these data is that between hardness
      and acute toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship, geometric means and
      natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are used in the rest of this section. For
      no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate
      changes will be necessary throughout this section. It is probably preferable, but not necessary,
      to use the same transformation that was used with the acute values in section V.

 D. Decide whether the data for each species are useful, taking into account the range and
    number  of the  tested values of the water  quality characteristic and  the degree of
    agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on six data points
    might be of limited value if founded only on data for a very narrow range of values of the
    water quality characteristic A slope based on only two data points, however, might be
    useful if it is consistent with other information and if the two points cover a broad enough
    range of the water quality characteristic. In addition, chronic values that appear to be
    questionable in  comparison with other acute and  chronic data available for  the same
    species and for other species in the same genus probably should not be used. For example,
    if after adjustment for the water quality characteristic the chronic values available  for a
    species or genus differ by more than a factor of 10, probably some or all of the values
    should be rejected.
        If a useful chronic slope is not available for at least one species, or if the available
    slopes are too  dissimilar, or if too few data are available to adequately define the
    relationship between chronic toxicity and the water  quality characteristic,  the chronic
    slope is probably the same as the acute slope, which is equivalent to assuming that the
    acute-chronic ratio is independent of the water quality characteristic. Alternatively, return
    to section VI.H, using the results of tests conducted under conditions and in waters similar
    to those commonly used for toxicity tests with the species.

 E,  Individually for each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available chronic values
    and then divide each chronic value for a species by its mean. This normalizes the chronic
    values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species individually,
    and for any combination of species, is 1.0.

 F.  Similarly  normalize the values of the  water quality  characteristic for each species,
    individually.

 G.  Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized chronic
    toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic.
    The resulting slopes and the  95 percent confidence limits will be identical to those
    obtained in section B. Now, however, if the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for
    each individual species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

 H.  Treat all the normalized data as if they were all for the same species  and perform a least
    squares regression of all the normalized chronic values on the corresponding normalized
    values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled chronic slope, L, and its 95
    percent confidence limits. If all the normalized data are actually plotted, the line of best fit
    will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

 I.   For each species, calculate the geometric mean, M, of the toxicity values and the geometric
    mean, P, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were calculated in steps E
    andF.)

J.   For each species, calculate the logarithm, Q, of the Species Mean  Chronic Value  at a
    selected value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:

                             Q = lnM-L(lnP-lnZ).
     NOTE: Although it is not necessary, it will usually be best to use the same value of the water
     quality characteristic here as was used in section V.I.

-------
    K.  For each species, calculate a Species Mean Chronic Value at Z using the equation:
                                       SMCV = eQ.
         NOTE: Alternatively, the Species Mean Chronic Values at Z can be obtained by skippingstep J,
         using the equations in steps J and K to adjust each acute value individually to Z, and then
         calculating the geometric means  of the adjusted values for each species individually. This
         alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the adjusted chronic values for
         each species.
    L.  Obtain the Final Chronic Value at Z by using the procedure described in section IV, steps J
        through O.

    M. If the Species. Mean Chronic Value at Z of a commercially or recreationally important
        species is lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value at Z, then that Species Mean
        Chronic Value should be used as the Final Chronic Value at Z instead of the calculated
        Final Chronic Value.

    N. The Final Chronic Equation is written as:

                Fmal Chronic Value = e(Llln
-------
B,  Bioconcentration Factors (BCFs) and bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) are quotients of the
    concentration of a material in one or more tissues of an aquatic organism, divided by the
    average concentration in the solution in which the organism had been living. A BCF is
    intended to account only for net uptake directly from water and thus almost must be
    measured in a laboratory test. Some uptake during the bioconcentration test might not be
    directly from water if the food sorbs some of the test material before it is eaten by the test
    organisms. A BAF is intended to account for net uptake from both food and water in a
    real-world situation. A BAF almost must  be measured in a field situation in which
    predators accumulate the material directly from water and by consuming prey that could
    have accumulated the material from both food and water.
       The BCF and BAF are probably similar for a material with a low BCF, but the BAF is
    probably higher than the BCF for materials with high BCFs. Although BCFs are not too
    difficult to determine, very few BAFs have been measured acceptably because adequate
    measurements must be made of the material's concentration in water to ascertain if it was
    reasonably constant for a long enough time over the range of territory inhabited by the
    organisms. Because so few acceptable BAFs are available, only BCFs will be discussed
    further. However, if an acceptable BAF is available for a material, it should be used instead
    of any available BCFs.

C.  If a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available for a  substance (e.g., parent
    material,  parent material plus metabolites, etc.), the tissue concentration used in the
    calculation of the BCF should be for the  same  substance.   Otherwise, the tissue
    concentration used in the calculation of the  BCF should derive from the material and its
    metabolites that are structurally similar and are not much more soluble in water than the
    parent material.

    1.  ABCF should be used only if the test was flow-through, the BCF was calculated based
       pn measured concentrations of the test material in tissue and in the test solution, and
       the  exposure continued at least until either apparent steady state or 28 days was
       reached. Steady state is reached when the BCF does not change significantly over a
       period of time, such as 2 days or 16 percent of the length of the exposure, whichever is
       longer. The BCF used from a test should be the highest of the apparent steady-state
       BCF, if apparent steady state was reached; the highest BCF obtained, if apparent
       steady state was not reached; and the projected steady state BCF, if calculated.

    2.  Whenever a BCF is determined for a lipophilic material, the percent lipids should also
       be determined in the tissue(s) for which the BCF was calculated.

    3.  A BCF obtained from an exposure that adversely affected the  test organisms may be
       used only if it is similar to a BCF obtained with unaffected organisms of the same
       species at lower concentrations that did not cause adverse effects.

    4.  Because maximum permissible tissue concentrations are almost never based on dry
       weights, a BCF calculated using dry tissue weights must be converted to a wet tissue
       weight basis. If no conversion factor is reported with the BCF, multiply the dry weight
       BCF by 0.1 for plankton and by 0.2 for individual species of fishes and invertebrates.

    5.  If more than one acceptable BCF is available for a species, the  geometric mean of the
       available values should be used; however, the BCFs are from different lengths of
       exposure and the BCF increases with length of exposure, then the BCF for the longest
       exposure should be used.

E.  If enough pertinent data exists, several residue values can be calculated by dividing
    maximum permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate BCFs:

    1.  For each available maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a chronic feeding
       study or a long-term field study with wildlife (including birds and aquatic organisms),
       the appropriate BCF is based on the whole body of aquatic species that constitutes or
       represents a major portion of the diet of the tested wildlife species.

-------
        2.  For an EDA action level for fish or shellfish, the appropriate BCF is the highest
           geometric mean species BCF for the edible portion (muscle for decapods, muscle with
           or without skin for fishes, adductor muscle for scallops, and total soft tissue for other
           bivalve molluscs) of a consumed species. The highest species BCF is used because FDA
           action levels are applied on a species^by-species basis.

    F.  For lipophilk materials, calculating additional residue values is possible. Because the
        steady-state BCF for a lipophilic material seems to be proportional to percent lipids from
        one tissue to another and from one species to another, extrapolations can be made from
        tested tissues,, or species to untested tissues, or species on the basis of percent lipids.

        1.  For each BCF for which the percent lipids is known for the same tissue for which the
           BCF was measured, normalize the BCF to a 1 percent lipid basis by dividing it by the
           percent lipids. This adjustment to a 1 percent lipid basis is intended to make all the
           measured BCFs for a material comparable regardless of the species or tissue with
           which the BCF was measured.
        2.   Calculate the  geometric mean-normalized  BCF. Data for both saltwater  and
           freshwater species should be used to determine the mean-normalized BCF unless they
            show thalt the normalized BCFs are probably not similar.
        3.   Calculate all possible residue values by dividing the available maximum permissible
           tissue concentrations by the mean-normalized BCF and by the percent lipids values
            appropriate to the maximum permissible tissue concentrations, i.e.,
                _  ..     .       (maximum permissible tissue concentration)
                nesiaue vaiue - ^mean normaijze(j BCF)(appropriate percent lipids)

             • For am FDA action level for fish oil, the appropriate percent lipids value is 100.

             • For ant FDA action level for fish, the appropriate percent lipids value is 11 for
              freshwater criteria and 10 for saltwater criteria because FDA action levels are
              applied species-by-species to commonly consumed species. The highest lipid
              contents in the edible portions of important consumed species are about 11
              percent for both the freshwater chinook salmon and lake trout and about 10
              percent for the saltwater Atlantic herring.
             • For a maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a chronic feeding study or
              a long-term field study with wildlife, the appropriate percent lipids is that of an
              aquatic species or group of aquatic species that constitute a major portion of the
              diet of the wildlife species.

     G. The Final Residue Value is obtained by selecting the lowest of the available residue values.
          NOTE: In some cases, the Final Residue Value will not be low enough. For example, a residue
          value calculated from a FDA action level will probably result in an average concentration in
          the edible portion of a fatty species  at the action level.  Some individual organisms and
          possibly some species will have residue concentrations higher than the mean value, but no
          mechanism has been devised to provide appropriate additional protection. Also, some
          chronic feeding studies and longrterm field studies with wildlife identify concentrations that
          cause adverse effects but do not identify concentrations that do not cause adverse effects;
          again, no mechanism has been devised to provide appropriate additional protection. These
          are some of the species and uses that are not protected at all times in all places.

X.   Other Data
     Pertinent information that could not be used in earlier sections might be available concerning
     adverse effects on aquatic organisms and their uses. The most important of these are data on
     cumulative  and delayed toxicity,  flavor impairment,  reduction in survival, growth,  or
     reproduction, or any  other adverse effect shown to be biologically important. Especially
     important are data for species for which no other data are available. Data from behavioral,
     biochemical, physiological, microcosm, and field studies might also be available. Data might be
     available from tests conducted in unusual dilution water (see IV.D and VI.D), from chronic tests

-------
     in which the concentrations were not measured (see VLB), from tests with previously exposed
     organisms (see ILF), and from tests on formulated mixtures or emulsifiable concentrates (see
     ED). Such data might affect a criterion if they were obtained with an important species, the test
     concentrations were measured, and the endpoint was biologically important.

XI.  Criterion

     A.  A criterion consists of two concentrations: the Criterion Maximum Concentration and the
         Criterion Continuous Concentration.

     B.  The CriterionMaxJmum Concentration (CMC) is equal to one-half the Final Acute Value.

     C.  The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is equal to the lowest of the Final Chronic
         Value, the Final Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value, unless other data (see section X)
         show that a lower value should be used. If toxicity is related to a water quality characteristic,
         the Criterion Continuous Concentration is obtained from the Final Chronic Equation, the
         Final Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value by selecting the one, or the combination, that
         results in the lowest concentrations in the usual range of the water quality characteristic,
         unless other data (see section X) show that a lower value should be used.

     D.  Round  both the Criterion Maximum Concentration and the Criterion Continuous
         Concentration to two significant digits.

     E.  The criterion is stated as follows:
         The procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
         Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate that,
         except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, *(1) aquatic organisms
         and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration
         of (2) does not exceed (3) ng/L more than once every three years on the average, and if the
         one-hour average concentration does not exceed (4) ng/L more than once every three
         years onthe average.

         'where   (1) = insert freshwater or saltwater
                 (2) ~ insert name of material
                 (3) = insert the Criterion Continuous Concentration
                 (4) = insert the Criterion Maximum Concentration.

XII.  Final Review

     A.  The derivation of the criterion should be carefully reviewed by rechecking each step of the
         guidelines. Items that should be especially checked are

         1.  If unpublished data are used, are they well documented?

         2.  Are all required data available?

         3.  Is the range of acute values for any species greater than a factor of 10?

         4.  Is the range of Species Mean Acute Values for any genus greater than a factor of 10?

         5.  Is there more than a factor of 10 difference between the four lowest Genus Mean Acute
            Values?

        6.  Are any of the four lowest Genus Mean Acute Values questionable?

        7.  Is the Final Acute Value reasonable in comparison with the Species Mean Acute Values
            and Genus Mean Acute Values?

        8. For any commercially or recreationally important species, is the geometric mean of the
            acute values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material were
            measured lower than the Final Acute Value?

-------
   9.  Are any of the chronic values questionable?
   10. Are chronic values available for acutely sensitive species?
   11. Is the range of acute-chronic ratios greater "than a factor of 10?
   12. Is the Final Chronic Value reasonable in comparison with the available acute and
       chronic data?
   13. Is the measured or predicted chronic value for any commercially or recreationally
       important species below the Final Chronic Value?
   14. Are any of the other data important?                 !
   15. Do any data look like they might be outliers?
   16. Are there any deviations from the guidelines? Are they acceptable?
B. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if the
   criterion is consistent with sound scientific evidence. If not, another criterion — either
   higher or lower—should be derived using appropriate modifications of these guidelines.

-------

-------
          APPENDIX I
             List of EPA
     Water Quality Criteria Documents
                                        W
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
"Ml,;'::["«<'!,h>!:";':.:':'  ,!,;, It;":'.: iliiiiiSi*< JM'IOBHO f^m: !«^^^^^^^^^              Iliill jEViiXai'l
; i jii; i i; ' s: .•. •  K  >, *, < • < • j	w»!, }»M \mitit, vmrn^m	inm^^^          iirii.ti:!!	itii
nf11" X f •!'*	';!  ii;!:" i1;',:!" i• ; II! MIR •> )•; S!& illliti *!m" til!!	ililjHB       1HII »;K^^^
itiil iil!!ll::ll.;«|i!iK> L	i iiliOii V '•nu' Ifllli ;:TiB               BHIV^



ilii^lJ^i^ii^i''!^'!^!^
   liiiiii! "iii i ;	i,,,:, „• i  if!!!!:  ; ii !i'i'  iiiiiii	'!>!	ii'•!,;; v:i,,ii rn :u-'£jW'-  !|L	"•	«i-iwi^	w.'Vmv	Bwww'ti
                            I^hiri'liUiiiiJiJ^i''^];^!!^^!!^^^

                      jii' ,i': iiiiiii 'iiiii'itiiiiiii/ili,1 -'i1 riiiiliaiiifl^wi'iiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii''! 11111111 "ijiiiini'insiaiiiJiiiiiiiiti
     ..' i!1 i l"^!'1.'!'11'^!^;: '>  !,i	i'!;  ; "III '"' iBi ABi'-.;*:""' "ijliil' ii':l!''''!:l''fji|i!!iill!!l!;iiri;::!! '!;!'!!llllilllillillllli!: [lil'ISli!'!!'!	I!'!!	ll!;;il!!i!!;iiili!!ii!!!!!!llillil!i:1ll!ll!!!l!!l  iiliiiSlilldillPlIllillilllJIilllll
                 111'"1;'  ; ,;>!,! „, f  juiiiun i iifiii' iiiiu	i1"!' it "ii I;,'. :i '"n •:»iii'tun ill,,!,: u '.i:i iiiiiiiiiiiii,, is ijiiTBiinii'Hi »ii. 'in 'i'lT'UniH :i 1 iihiiir uiPii'iiiiin" i;, iiiiiiii ill' n: iiiiiji lin.!:1 H
                                                                                                    liilllll''!!!!!!'!!'!;!!''!!!'!!!!!::'!.!:'!!''!!!
    i^ti1?:;!!'!'-'':"!	i,;,!' '8;':f:IIiemSL'i:r	iiiiaiijllli:^     	till	i!	'fElia^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    i!-1: i!' -f:': E' -,;' N»  .'!' I'': :i ill IKlii ii f ;i''	LiS'1 • III (III'!! .tKilllKffiTC.'aiiil' 'fMtSii, II	II iiffiEfl'&l	
                                             	
 i!' fin:",, iil,   '  |:]i:  ,"1, •;<•  :,' 1   ; fi'i'i i i" iiiT;,.  :'",.;!, ii t|  ii;:]*:;!! iliiiit:: lliillli, i,:!!]11!!''!1* I; •	iiiiiiii,;;),!:!!!,:1:!!!!,!!),; i,i linn il-icll iiiiiiiiRM^^^^^^^             	ii'lill ill
                                           !  iijlil "Ii!'» 	•••Ill'  i J,i:	':i|	'	;,«l	 11,1!f:,"!::,IM	|,	IHiill, iiliii,,;i,:,jiipi,, IWi.iiuim^^^^^^
Jl'if, (1, ,„:, 'ii', i  i lii	i ffir' ill it,! ,i <, 181 ,"i,iiillil|i|,,j f i . I1 "ii"', iiiilj,! liiUiliiii (,, 'ii,!':', iliiilllll .tMiliiii	iTii'ttAltii'lHn iliiiiliji*,;, ••[in

-------
         Water Quality Criteria Documents
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published water quality criteria for toxic
pollutant(s) categories. Copies of water quality criteria documents are available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Front Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650.
Prices of individual documents may be obtained by contacting NTIS. Order numbers are listed
below. Where indicated, documents may be obtained from the Water Resource Center, 401M St.,
S.W. RC-4100, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7786.
               Chemical
NTIS Order No.  EPA Document No.
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aesthetics
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Ammonia
Ammonia (saltwater)
Antimony
Antimony (HI) — aquatic
(draft)
Arsenic— 1980
— 1984
Asbestos
Batcteria — 1976
— 1984
Beirium
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium — 1980
— 1984
Garbon Tetrachloride
CMordane
Chloride
Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chlorinated Naphthalene
Chlorinated Phenols
PB 81-117269
PB 81-117277
PB 81-117285
PB 263943
PB 81-117301
PB 263943
PB 88-245998
PB 85-227114
PB 89-195242
PB 81-117319

resource center
PB 81-117327
PB 85-227445
PB 81-117335
PB 263943
PB 86-158045
PB 263943
PB 81-117293
PB 81-117343
PB 81-117350
PB 263943
PB 81-117368
PB 85-224031
PB 81-117376
PB 81-117384
PB 88-175047
PB 81-117392
PB 81-117400
PB 81-117426
PB 81-117434
EPA440/5-80-015
EPA440/5-80-016
EPA 440/5-80-017
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-019
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-86-008
EPA440/5-85-001
EPA 440/5-88-004
EPA 440/5-80-020


EPA440/5-80-021
EPA 440/5-84-033
EPA 440/5-80-022
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-84-002
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-018
EPA 440/5-80-023
EPA440/5-80-024
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-025
EPA 440/5-84-032
EPA440/5-80-026
EPA 440/5-80-027
EPA440/5-88-001
EPA440/5-80-028
EPA 440/5-80-029
EPA 440/5-80-031
EPA 440/5-80-032

-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No.   EPA Document No.
Chlorine
Chloroalkyl Ethers
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Ghlorophenoxy Herbicides
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium — 1980
—1984
Color
Copper — 1980
— 1984
Cyanide
Cyanides
DDT and Metabolites
Demeton
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane/
Dichloropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhydrazine
Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate -
aquatic (draft)
Dissolved Oxygen
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Gasses, Total Dissolved
Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses
Guthion
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Hardness
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene —
aquatic (draft)
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
PB 85-227429
PB 81-117418
PB 81-117442
PB 81-117459
PB 263943
PB 87-105359
PB 81-117467
PB 85-227478
PB 263943
PB 81-117475
PB 85-227023 ,
PB 85-227460
PB 81-117483
PB 81-117491
PB 263943
PB 81-117509
PB 81-117517
PB 81-117525
PB 81-117533

PB 81-117541
PB 81-117558
PB 81-117566
PB 81-117731
resource center
PB 86-208253
PB 81-117574
PB 81-117582
PB 81-117590
PB 81-117608
PB 263943


PB 85-227049
PB 263943
PB 81-117616
PB 81-117624
PB 263943
PB 81-117632

resource center
PB 81-117640
PB 81-117657
EPA 440/5-84-030
EPA 440/5-80-030
EPA 440/5-80-033
EPA 440/5-80-034
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-86-005
EPA 440/5-80-035
EPA 440/5-84-029
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-036
EPA 440/5-84-031
EPA 440/5-84-028
EPA 440/5-80-037
EPA 440/5-80-038
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-039
EPA 440/5-80-040
EPA 440/5-80-041
EPA 440/5-80-042

EPA 440/5-80-043
EPA 440/5-80-044
EPA 440/5-80-045
EPA440/5-80-062

EPA 440/5-86-003
EPA440/5-80-046
EPA 440/5-80-047
EPA440/5-80-048
EPA440/5-80-049
EPA 440/9-76-023



EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-050
EPA 440/5-80-051
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-052


EPA 440/5-80-053
EPA 440/5-80-054

-------
Chemical
NITS Order No.   EPA Document No.
Hexachlorocydopentadiene PB 81-117665
Iron PB 263943
Isophorone PB 81-117673
Lead— 1980 PB 81-117681
— 1984 PB 85-227437
Mallathion PB 263943
Manganese PB 263943
Mercury — 1980 PB 81-117699
— 1984 PB 85-227452
Melthoxychlor PB 263943
Miiex PB 263943
Naphthalene PB 81-117707
Nickel — 1980 PB 81-117715
— 1986 PB 87-105359
Nitrates/ Nitrites PB 263943
Nitrobenzene PB 81-117723
Nitrophenols PB 81-117749
Nitrosamines PB 81-117756
Oil and Grease PB 263943
Parathion PB 87-105383
Pentachlorophenol — 1980 PB 81-117764
— 1986 PB 87-105391
pH PB 263943
Phenanthrene — aquatic
(draft) resource center
Phenol PB 81-117772
Phosphorus PB 263943
Phthalate Esters PB 81-117780
Polychlorinated Biphenyls PB 81-117798
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons PB 81-117806
Selenium — 1980 PB 81-117814
— 1987 PB 88-142239
Silver PB 81-117822
Silver — aquatic (draft) resource center
Solids (dissolved) and
Salinity PB 263943
Solids (suspended) and
Turbidity PB 263943
Sulfides/ Hydrogen Sulfide PB 263943
tainting Substances PB 263943
Temperature PB 263943
2,3,,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
P-Dioxin PB 89 -169825
Tetrachloroethylene PB 81-117830
Thallium PB 81-117848
Toluene PB 81-117863
EPA 440/5-80-055
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-056
EPA440/5-80-057
EPA440/5-84-027
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-058
EPA 440/5-84-026
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-059
EPA 440/5-80-060
EPA440/5-86-004
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-061
EPA440/5-80-063
EPA 440/5-80-064
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-86-007
EPA 440/5-80-065
EPA 440/5-85-009
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA440/5-80-066
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-067
EPA 440/5-80-068
EPA 440/5-80-069
EPA440/5-80-070
EPA 440/5-87-008
EPA440/5-80-071
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-84-007
EPA 440/5-80-073
EPA 440/5-80-074
EPA440/5-80-075

-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No.   EPA Document No.
Toxaphene—1980
          —1986
Tributyltin—aquatic
  (draft)
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol—
  aquatic (draft)
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc—1980
    —1987
PB 81-117863
PB 87-105375

resource center
PB 81-117871

resource center
PB 81-117889
PB 81-117897
PB 87-143581
EPA 440/5-80-076
EPA 440/5-86-006
EPA 440/5-80-077
EPA 440/5-80-078
EPA 440/5-80-079
EPA440/5-87-003

-------
           APPENDIX J
  Attachments to Office of Water Policy and
   Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
         i

           SECOND EDITION

-------
           .;,. Is: •;,•., ?V ;!•:;.;:  < : III I Ml"!"11 >  i'1*!'1!!!" at fit	m
                                                                            iijiliEl	if'tSI	Hi	tiiiiW
                                                                                                    i
                                                                                                    I
1 H t    •    i	• i-':,     >.    ,   I:	  '! ! •.  '•! • i, •' f•'     i  ;:':[ >.        < i: I     f  ';!!	i9MI)3I; pff«WIJlf
  iiii' ;i    i1, :-i  i"i"  i   ;•,   :: iii!:  i   i i'l  '', I, I	"  .i;ti i';. i i 11,; >        ,,	!' Si f H J	tifi •   	    i^^^
                                                           iiir s-s* ::!\iiiiiifii .'.uiinm)*iM>i|i|unNMV«ijMi	in
                                    nu nil!:. :iii;h j'  N     '';: j! ii .i* fi'"«,:• • MK i; •iiiiiif i / IIWP^     	ii !# q i»! ;a:; IHRB i ii IIIIIP !^^^^^^
                                                                     llllllllli
                                                                                                                                                                     ^^

                                                                                 11          II
                                                                     llllllllli
                                                                                                       in  mi
                                                                                                       I	II
                                                                                                       idi ill
 III 111 I   111 III II 111 111 IIIIIIIII
i III II I  I llllllllli llllK 111

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll  llll
••^^^
                                                                                                                                    II  nl "I ill  111II lil il  HI i  I it 111 I iilllllilillll Illllii IIIIIM

-------
                           ATTACHMENT #2
   GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
  ON DISSOLVED CRITERIA
Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria
         October 1993

-------

-------
                                                          10-1-93


      Percent Dissolved in Aquatic Toxicity Tests on Metals


The attached table contains all the data that were found
concerning the percent of the total recoverable metal that was
dissolved in aquatic toxicity tests.  This table is intended to
contain the available data that are relevant to the conversion of
EPA's aquatic life criteria for metals from a total recoverable
basis to a dissolved basis.  (A factor of 1.0 is used to convert
aquatic life criteria for metals that are expressed on the basis
of the acid-soluble measurement to criteria expressed on the
basis of the total recoverable measurement.)  Reports by Grunwald
(1992) and Brungs et al.  (1992) provided references to many of
the documents in rfhich pertinent data were found.  Each document
was Obtained and examined to determine whether it contained
useful data.

"Dissolved" is defined as metal that passes through a 0.45-pm
membrane filter.  If otherwise acceptable, data that were
obtained using 0.3-/uia glass fiber filters and 0.l-pm-.membrane
filters were used, and are identified in the table; these data
did not seem to be outliers.

Data were used only if the metal was in a dissolved inorganic
form when it was added to the dilution water.  In addition, data
were used only if they were generated in water that would have
been acceptable for use as a dilution water in tests used in the
derivation of water quality criteria for aquatic life; in
particular, the pH had to be between 6.5 and 9.0, and the
concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) and total suspended
solids (TSS) had to be below 5 mg/L.  Thus most data generated
using river water would not be used.

Some data were not used for other reasons.  Data presented by
Carroll et al. (1979) for cadmium were not used because 9 of the
36 values were above 150%.  Data presented by Davies et al.
(1976) for lead and Holcombe and Andrew (1978) for zinc were not
used because "dissolved" was defined on the basis of
polarography, rather than filtration.

Beyond this, the data were not reviewed for quality.  Horowitz et
al. (1992) reported that a number of aspects of the filtration
procedure might affect the results.  In addition, there might be
concern about use of "clean techniques" and adequate QA/QC.

Each line in the table is intended to represent a separate piece
of information.  All of the data in the table were determined in
fresh water, because no saltwater data were found.  Data are
becoming available for copper in salt water from the New York

-------
 Harbor study; based on the first set of tests, Hansen  (1993)
 suggested that the average percent of the copper that  is
 dissolved in sensitive saltwater tests is in the range of 76 to
 82 percent.

 A thorough investigation of the percent of total recoverable
 metal that is dissolved in toxicity tests might attempt to
 determine if the percentage is affected by test technique
 (static,  renewal, flow-through), feeding (were the test animals
 fed and,  if so, what food and how much),  water guality
 characteristics (hardness, alkalinity,  pH,  salinity),  test
 organisms (species, loading), etc.

 The attached table also gives the freshwater criteria
 concentrations (CMC and CCC)  because percentages for total
 recoverable concentrations much (e.g.,  more than a factor of 3)
 above or  below the CMC and CCC are  likely to be less relevant.
 When a criterion is expressed as a  hardness equation,  the range
 given extends from a hardness of 50 mg/L  to a hardness of 200
 mg/L.

 The following is a summary of the available information for  each
 metal:
Arsenic(III)

The data  available indicate that the percent  dissolved  is  about
100, but  all  the available data are for  concentrations  that are
much higher than the  CMC and CCC.


Cadmium

Schuyteraa et  al.  (1984)  reported that "there  were no real
differences"  between  measurements of total and dissolved cadmium
at concentrations of  10  to 80 ug/L  (pH - 6.7  to 7.8, hardness =
25 mg/L,  and  alkalinity  = 33 mg/L);  total and dissolved
concentrations were said to be  "virtually equivalent".

The CMC and CCC  are close together  and only range from 0.66 to
8.6 ug/L.  The only available data  that  are known to be in the
range of  the  CMC and  CCC were determined with a glass fiber
filter.   The  percentages that are probably most relevant are 75,
92, 89, 78, and  80.


Chromium(III)

The percent dissolved decreased  as the total  recoverable
concentration increased,  even though the highest concentrations
reduced the pH substantially.  The percentages that are probably

-------
most relevant to the CMC are 50-75, whereas the percentages that
are probably most relevant to the CCC are 86 and 61.


ChromiumfvTV

The data available indicate that the percent dissolved is about
100, but all the available data are for concentrations that are
much higher than the CMC and CCC.


Copper

Howarth and Sprague (1978) reported that the total and dissolved
concentrations of copper were "little different" except when the
total copper concentration was abovev500 ug/L at hardness = 360
mg/L and pH = 8 or 9.  Chakoumakos et al. (1979) found that the
percent dissolved depended m6ra on alkalinity than on hardness,
pH, or the total recoverable concentration of copper.

Chapman (1993) and Lazorchak (1987) both found that the addition
of daphnid food affected the percent dissolved very little, even
though Chapman used yeast-trout chow-alfalfa whereas'-Lazorchak
used algae in most tests, but yeast-trout chow-alfalfa in some
tests.  Chapman (1993) found a low percent dissolved with and
without food, whereas Lazorchak (1987) found a high percent
dissolved with and without food.  All of Lazorchak's values were
in high hardness water; Chapman's one value in high hardness
water was much higher than his other values.

Chapman (1993) and Lazorchak (1987) both compared the effect of
food on the total recoverable LC50 with the effect of food on the
dissolved LC50.  Both authors found that food raised both the
dissolved LC50 and the total recoverable LC50 in about the same
proportion, indicating that food did not raise the total
recoverable LC50 by sorbing metal onto food particles; possibly
the food raised both LCSOs by (a) decreasing the toxicity of
dissolved metal, (b) forming nontoxic dissolved complexes with
_he metal, or (c)  reducing uptake.

The CMC and CCC are close together and only range from 6.5 to 34
ug/L.  The percentages that are probably most relevant are 74,
95, 95, 73, 57, 53, 52, 64, and 91.


Lead

T.he data presented in Spehar et al.  (1978) were from Holcombe et
al.  (1976).  Both Chapman  (1993) and Holcombe et al.  (1976) found
that the percent dissolved increased as the total recoverable
concentration increased.   It would seem reasonable to expect more
precipitate at higher total recoverable concentrations and

-------
 therefore a lower percent dissolved at higher concentrations.
 The increase in percent dissolved with increasing concentration
 might be due to a lowering pf the pH as more metal is added if
 the stock solution was acidic.

 The percentages that are probably most relevant to the CMC are 9,
 18, 25, 10, 62, 68, 71, 75, 81, and 95, whereas the percentages
 that are probably most relevant to the CCC are 9 and 10.


 Mercury

 The only percentage that is available is 73,  but it is for a
 concentration that is much higher than the CMC.


 Nickel

 The percentages that are probably most relevant  to the CMC are
 88,  93,  92,  and 100,  whereas  the only percentage that is probably
 relevant to the CCC is 76.


 Selenium

 No  data  are  available.


 Silver

 There is a CMC, but not  a CCC.   The percentage dissolved  seems to
 be greatly reduced by  the food used to  feed daphnids, but not by
 the  food used to feed  fathead minnows,   .'he percentages that are
 probably most relevant to the CMC are 4:  79, 79, 73, 91, 90, and
 93.


 Zinc

The CMC and CCC are close together and only range from 59 to 210
ug/L.  The percentages that are probably most relevant are 31,
77, 77, 99, 94, 100, 103, and 96.

-------
Recommended Values  (%)A and Ranges of Measured Percent Dissolved
             Considered Most Relevant in Fresh Water

  Metal                   CMC                   CCC
                 Recommended           Recommended
                                        Value (%V (Range
Arsenic (III)
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
V *.* .1. W*^» l| W f
'95
85
85
95
85
50
•35
85
NAE
85
85
100-1048
75-92
50-75
100B
52-95
9-95
738
88^-100
NAC
41-93
31-103
95
85
85
95
85
25
NAE
85
NAE
YYD
85
100-1048
75-92
$1-86
100B
52-95
9-10
NAE
76
NAC
YYD
31-103
A The recommended values are based on current knowledge and are
  subject to change as more data becomes available.
B All available data are for concentrations that are much higher
  than the CMC.
c NA - No data are available.
D YY = A CCC is not available, and therefore cannot be adjusted.
E NA = Bioaccumulative chemical and not appropriate to adjust to
  percent dissolved.

-------
                           CO
                           cn
                           H
 •p
 Cm
 0)   •
 U  10
 t-4  10
 0) -H
 04 O
<
  *
 C
                           e
                           VO
                                  VO
                                  CO
                                  cn
               I
               (0
               •rH
                                  •S
                                  (0
                                  CO
                                  n
                   o
                   vo
                    N

                   O
                          CO
O
cn
H
                   O
                   CJ
                   O
                   CD
                   4J
                   10
                   0)
                          in
                                 fa
              £
              fa
                                 n
•4*
O
^~
H
H
H
x»
CJ
H
sz
w
CO
p^
rtj
rH


O
O
O
in
rH
1
O
o
VO
.0
o
tH






O
O
VO
CM
H




















ttl
**
1-
<"*
t













cn cn
cn cn
cn cn
rH H

C C
(0 (0
S 3
^ QJ Oi
3 (0 (0

J> CJ CJ
CM
CO
cn
rH

0)
3
r4
rJ
0)
>

T3
C
10

{5
o
w

(0
p^
C
•H
fa



VO
CO
cn
f^

4J
TJ
C
(0
•H
fa

•0
C
(0

^1
(0
J3
0)
(X
CO


t t
CO CO
en cn
H rH

C C
0 0
U) CO
rH rH
^ ^
(0 <0
CJ CJ

*^0 ^3
C C
(0 <0

M VH
(0 10
*£ «ti
Q) Q)
a a
CO CO













cn cn cn
cn cn cn
cn cn cn
H H rH

C C C
10 <0 <0
333
cu flu cu
(0 (0 (0
AAJZ
O CJ CJ









CM
CO
cn
H

•
rH
(0

4J
0)

rH
M
(0
CJ







CO
(^
cn
rH

•
f-l
10

^J
0)

J^
(0
^J
0)

CO


CM

cn
rH

•P
10
(0
O

T3
C
10

o^
C
•H
>_l
0)
^
o
•H
P4
3
VO

• vo cn
H
t
CO • ' • • •

r<* p^
(^
{^
m t
• •
fs, fx
mot
• • •
r- co co
in
•
f^
t
•
f**
f%
•
(•^
0
-p
co vo cn
r-
II
• •* CO
4

cn
H

cn
•*

CJ cn cn H t
£ in o
0 H
r*
•-,
CO CO
C7> CD CD
3 ^4 ^4
CM

i
**

1
rH H
cn **

CM in
t t

22
CO CO P»
cn co vo
rH

H in cn
moo
rH CM

§££
t
t

^
t

i
CM
•*

VO
"

fv.
(N.
in
rH

CM
O
CM

S
O
CM
O OS CM
fa
fa
CO CO
CO CO CO
CO
fa
fa
H-l
VO
VO
O
H
§g
CO
o
fc
fafa
gsg
0"
(V.
fc
O
CJ
CJ
'£

-------











Ib
CP
3
o
o
H
CO
O
^
O
CO
at
II
O
6
rj-
•.^
en
3
O

CO
O
O
CM
H
ll
0
O
o

••
0)
4J
"b"cM
vo vo vo vo

at at o in
rH CM

rH 0 VO O
in rH ot at
V rH rH



0000
Z Z Z Z



CO CO CO CO




£ 33 JS S
o a Q Q




0" C1"1 Cx* 0"



VO CM f» CO
CM n CM CM




o r- vo in
^" VO rH VO
CO Cl 1" VO
vo vo r- co
rH ca CM in
      VO

      at
      co

      •O

       (0

       c
       (0
       Q)
      T3
       VO
            vo
            CO
            at
             i
              R)
             •g
              «J
             cu
             CO
              CO
3

VO



II

O
       CM
      O

      CM

      CM
       0)
              O
             Z
rH

H
O
O
o
 0)
 .p
 (0
 01
 0)
       fa
       o
g
               in
o
o
^_
H
|
H

C
a
g
rH

O
O
O
>.
in
CM
A
•
at
at


o
o
CO
*
CO













u.


CO
o
•p
CM
at

II
o
§
3
at at Ot
at at at

rH r-t rH
(8 (B (tj
0) 0) Q)
VI 01 01
O O O
(0 (0 (0
e 1 1

o o o

(0 


O O O
Z Z Z
at at at
at at ~ot

rH rHrH
fl) (0 (0
a) a) o)
01 W 01
000
xxx
flj (8 <0 ,
g 6 6
333
O O 0
^ ^^ ^,4
(tj (0 (0
.C 43 J3
000
O CO ^
r^ oo P*

CM CO O
J^W ^^ ^^


CM rH CO
at co co
,_)


O O O
z z z
at
at

rH
R)
Q)
01
O
5
6
3
O
,^
(0
o
in
CO

at
vo
rH


in
CM


O
z
CM

 o
•p

m

vo

 u

o
o
o
                            M
                            Q)


                            (0



                            1
                            0)
                                                    ft, ELI
                                                     EH "^
                                                     O  J
                                       oo  at
                                   CM vo r-
                                   00 00 00
                                   at
                                   co
o o
31
cu

8
o o o
CO CM rH
1 1 1
O O O
H t CO
O O O
000
CM CM CO
1 1 1
o o o
O CM t
H

O
00
l
o
H

-------


en en
p- P~
en en
H H

rH rH
•P -P
0) 0
W 10
O O
k A i A
couuta*
couraafc
r*» r-*«
(0 ra
x: x:
o o
o in
r^ co
o  ^f^ f^
^ ^
oj <0 ^3 a ja A 
•H^ *«J 	 1 1 	 i i | _^
r~i i~i f""i c~i f™i r~1 rl *Q
ft) (0 CO (0 (0 (0 C« COCO
• (0 C^ O>
c c n c c c 4J w c c
OOOOOO 0) >i (0(0
w w w w w w a Eg
M^^MMM C C (d(0
(o (TJ rtJ (0 fO CO *H »H J2 £*
oorjcjuu jfe oo
CMfMr^fMr^CM OH P*'*
f^* t^* r^ c*"* t** r"* co t^ r^ t^
co co in co in co cocn r>cn
cocoincoinco ^H coco

HHfMrHCMrH f»rH CncO
cocoincoinn -*CM ^^
w w w w
Q) 0) O O O O Q) O O Q)
XX2222 X2 2X
P4P4COP4COP4 fob coco

a a < «! S s E co E 2
rj ^j ^^ ^^ ^| yvj p^ fi ^> ^>

vo
rH Tf
1 CO x
in l CMC
CM cn minvorH coco c^co
Hr*-cncncncn Aco in^*


TH cn
^ cn H „ CM o r-
•a- l i „ in in co •
i CM co o o r» ii vo in
COrHrHCMinrH invO CO









CO CO CO
cn cn cn
cn cn cn
C C C
(0 tO (0
tO (0 (0
666
rH VO CO
cor-r-
cn ^r co
vo ^ co
H
rH H •*•
H in o
CM H
WWW
0) 0) 0
P4 K PH

III





co t** cn
r* in co


CO VO rH
H I-H in
CO CO CO
CO CO CO

rH rH rH

• •
rH H rH
<0 (0 (fl
4J 4J -P CM
0) 0) 0) 00
. . °*
>H r( M H
CO CO CO 000
cncncn 4J -P 4-» • in
cncncn WWW rH r»
CCf. HI ^ H

-------
VO
CO
en
rH
£
R)
•H
fa
•a-
tO
A
0)
a
en

«*
r^

CO
•*

**
O
a
CO
CO
en
VO rH
en c
H O
. -H
(0 U
-P X
tl ^*
0) rtj
rH
X 0)
O O
• SM SM



CO CO CO
en en en
en en en
C C C
ft) Rj (0
egg
Q . O. Q.
2- \*i' ^*
(Q (0 (0
666

i i i
i i i
i i i

iii
I* i
i i
o o o
in o in
rH rH
£££

CO
CO
en
H
Ul
0)
4J
flj
•H
o
(0
Ul
ffl
I

1
1
1

1

CM
CM
o
V£) VO
(^ 
VO VO
en en

(0 (0
Q) 0)
Lcombe
Lcombe
0 O
X X

CM CM


CO CO



Ul 01
0) Q)
>* X
vo vo
cn en


Q) Q)
Lcombe
Lcombe
0 O
X X

CM CM


CO CO



to
0) O
VO
CO
cn

C
•H
fa
•g
(0
(0
m
w
a
CO

*
r*«

CO

„

g
CO CO
CO CO
cn cn
H rH
t •
(0 (0
4J -P
0) 0)
0) 0)
to to
Va)
^ ^
0) Q)
(0 (0
XX

CM CM
r- t^

•* CO

cn H
»* in
O O
VO
CO
cn
i-i

C
to
•H
fa
C
(0
en

*
r-

CO

•*

3" S
                                                             en
£
   W fa
O
o

co
§§§
                  w w en
             sss
                        tS]
                      fa fa fa fa fa fa   fa
B EH &H EH EH EH
CQ CQ 03 00 CQ DO
                                          cn en
§
88
                                                  CM
                                                  O
                                                  0)
»

VO
CO



VO
cn
cn
r»
A
i
cn
«* vo
cn A

o
o
jT
o o
VO CO
H CM
O
O
O .« ^•
0)
4J
3 cn co in
^3 rH CM
Ul
.

x a
H in
t* r-



cn in
H CO
H CM
(V. (V.

X X
H CM
CO CO



0
<# o
r^ H
<* ^
^

cn



o
o
H
CM
H

VO
cn

o
o
t-
CM
1
O
CM
CM
H

in
cn



o
CO
in
+••
U rH
Ul
0)
P,.
f4
CO
r-
H
H
>
&
tt
S



CM
H

-------













u,
*•
H
v
t
F
c
C
u
r
C
4.

c
o
t*

H

c
£
C

*
**•»
0
a
o
CO
(N

O
•P

CO
CO
II

o
CJ
U

CI
•p
id
3»
JC

3
^1* CO rH
) r* r* m
•>
4
) en t^ rH
i *t CO VO
H
>
>
*
H t^ in
in o o
H 
w w w
i. Q) -5
O. ^, O. Q,
(0 (0 (fl (0
0666


r* r^ CN en
c*1- r~ co r^


5 5 5 a




TT H <* O
in in o o
H rH




0 O O O
SB SB SB SB




CO CO CO CO






£ £ £ £
Q Q Q Q










CO CO CN O
co cn en o
rH





in en o •*
^J1 O ^* ^J"
vo co en co
rH rH CN
CO
CO
en
1-1
(0
(U
4J
id
•H
o

U)

K


1
|
1
1


1


^^
^
H ^
CN CJ1
jj

O
«N

0 U
o

CJ
, •«.
CJ [ ^
*H^
CJ*
s

in

« u
O4
u
CJ
CJ

• • «
pi fl>

« «
•^ Q)
id
5 id
H 4J
SB id

0 J
o H o
•<* co SB






CO CO
en en
cn cn
rH rH
C G
cs es
aa
« 5x1
0) CJ t)
X)

rH VO in
id c** r^
^
id
-P t*- r*
C " " -

u>
•H
r*^ c^
CJ «» •**•
CJ
CJ

id
to
O Q)
i-J SB x
^^^
cy
3
CO
H CO CO

O
4J

W
•
rH £ £
Q Q
II

CJ
£
0

(1)
-P

>
A
0) «* CO
 cn co
H! H en
H • •
co o cn
CO CO
CO CO
cn en
rH H
• •
rH rH
id id

-P .p
Q) a)
Ul M
a) a)
0) (U
jQ ^3
0) 0)
SB SB


0 0
r* r^


in in
CN CN



VO VO
co co




(0
O a)




CO CO






Q Q











3 H






0 0
• •
^< ^<









CO CO CO CO CO CO
cn cn cn cn cn cn
cn en cn cn en en

CO "CO CO CO CO CO


H Cn H rH CN H
co r^ co co co co


cn cn cn en cn cn




H en o co o cn
in ^ in TJ- CN ^t
H CN


o
(0
O Q) O O O 0
SB X SB SB SB SB




CO CO CO CO CO CO






Ct4 Ct4 Cb Cti bu Cti











en cn co rH o co




t— i
»* CN CN cn o
in co co co ^"
i i i i i
CO CN CN "* in VO

-------






ifa
5
nr
o
CM
0
-P
in
vo
§



CO CO CO
en en en
en en en
Chapman ]
Chapman ]
Chapman ]

co r> r-
en co r>»
vo co ^r

H ** CM
H o in
CM H

WWW
0)0)0)
>4 >4 :*



CO CO CO
^^ ^ft ^^
^^ ^^ ^^
Chapman :
Chapman :
Chapman :
VO rH CM
r^ co co
t-> in co
•«* co in
rH

^r in vo
in o en
H H

o o o
222
•O »Q
vo vo
CO CO
en en


i-H rH
m m
-P 4J
m At .
Carlson «
Carlson <
CM CM
r*r-
CO CO
CO CO

H H:
co en


W «l
^2 «Q
VO VO
CO CO
en en


id id
-P -P
0) (1)
Carlson <
Carlson i
CM C-
r. r.
co in
co in

H eg
co in


0 0
A A
vo vo
CO CO

rH rH
(0 id
•p -P
Q) 0)
Carlson
Carlson
CM (-•
t-C-
co in
co in

H CM
co in


0 0
CN
CO
Q)
3
0)

•o
ro
C
Finlayso
rH
'"
rH

H
CM


O



•* ••*
vo VO
H rH
Sprague
Sprague
rHC*
r- p.
CN CM
rH rH

O O
CN CM


O 0
2 2
CO CO
CO CO
en en
rH rH
t •
i-H rH
(d id
-P P
0) 0)
to to
0) 0)
vo vo W W
VO VO -H -H
en en Q) 0)
H rH g3
to to
4J 4J Q) Q)
o o id id
s a s a
t>» r~ in CN

CM CM CO VO
vo vo ** •«*
rH rH

o o in *t
/M rvj
\ 'I 1^4

o o o o
22 22
                                                                                                                               •o
                                                                                                                               Q)
                                                                                                                               (0
                                                                                                                                (0
                                                                                                                                s
                                                                                                                                0)
                                                                                                                               -p
3

O
 O
4J
vn
O
O
O
WWW
        Q Q
                                     Q Q
                                     O O
               eg
a  a
o  o
                          rg
                                     P4w
                                                CO

                                                O
                                                                             ca  CQ
                                                                            W W
                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                   E
                                                                             n n
                                     rg  H
                                                                  c-«
4J
 rd

 P
 C
 o
 o

 o
 o

 0)
                                                                                                          a)

                                                                                                          id
                                                                                                          a>
f

in
                                                                                                          id
 to
 0)
4J
 (C


I
 W
 0)


co r* r^

CM CM H
in vo en
rH


TJ- CO VO
t^ r» t*-

VO rH rH
mm'*
co in r^
en r-

-------





















































































B
-=
^
id) it
c] c
oj o
id! N •
Bl
id
idj B '
•H O
C 01
X! W ,
O id 4
(0 i-H
OJHfC

II II

Q W I









01
•H
u
c
a)
,i^
id
•H
•d
id -H
S ry M
O (1)
C (Q C
C OJ T3
H 4J >H
B QJ -H
X3 T3 C fO
O 01 -H O &
(d-H rH E
0) «M (B 0) O
e -d a id B
J iH B rH rH
d o id id 
fi

o
o
CM
•3
C


O
in












































































.
->.
B
in
U
o
i-H
0)


CJ
o


•d
c


(A
^k
t^
"
*H
Jj
•H

J^
Q)
IS
3
4H •




o -o


0)
rH
(U














,
(U

rH
id


(0

f^
11

&
c
•rH
rH
Q)
O
c
o
u

0)
rH
XI
•p
id
XI
01
rH
1
id
u
4J
a)
4J

 K* Id X!
<1) 3 0) -H rH 4J



*
U
c
§
ratpari
o
0
•d
0)
rH
-H
(0
ft


01
j3
c
id
•H
>
0
1
(d

Q)
.G
EH


t
•i
e 1
1 <
r-H f
(d 4->-r
01 3 (
0 S.
0 VH f
•rH «JJ ^
•P 1
C r« C
rH O'l
11 11 1

CO EH C
< CQ c.







d
H
a
3 4J
3 C 3 Q)
O O rH
0 B &H (d
H •-* -P X3
3 id 'O D1
3 03 4J 0) 3
2 X! id 01 01 O
3 t/3 j^f O *O ^ ^
3 -H O rH -H H X!
j i C 4J X! C -H 5 1
Htd'H^JQi O -P Q} ^
DrHXipid -HldCO
JOOOQ 4J4JQ)rH
Id 01 rH <4H
II 11 II II -H
> II II II
3 « 03 EH < 0)
) U CJ U Q J-l W Oi fa
jQ
-l
a) S
fl H
w ^
Q> 01
JQ (Q
S ^

c
01
3

01

^
0)
JJ
rH
•H

brane
§

(3
o t F
d i o
HJ n
•
0) O
X!
EH <
rH
•
O

rtj






in
v
§
rH
0)
XI
01

S
ft

Q)

EH
rH

C
(rt
0)
rH
O
id
01

rH
0)
-p
o
•rH

rH
•H
•d

0)
X!
EH
•H
id

id
01
•H
§
•H
4J
id

O
•H
•0
(U
4->
•H
•H
rH

^M
rH
C
o

c
0
•H
-P
rH
O
01 -
0) o
XI 0
.
•P TJ a)
id c id
XI id D>
4J rH
X! (d
•d w
O>-H 01
B 
oi *d
01 0) 73
id c o
•H O
01 id <«H
•rH 4J
C 0)
•P O X!
HO EH


































•
id
M-4
rH
id
<*H
rH
id

^
O
o
4J
3
O
rH
-P

•P
01
id
0)
01
id


o


0)

EH

































,
O,
B
•H

j3
01

0)

•rH
H
^J
rH
3
T3
«d
C
frozei
01
id


o


0)

EH
K        -        _

-------
References


Adelman, I.R., and L.L. Smith, Jr.  1976.  Standard Test Fish
Development. Part I. Fathead Minnows  fPimephales promelas) and
Goldfish rcarassius auratus) as Standard Fish in Bioassays and
Their Reaction to Potential Reference Toxicants.  EPA-600/3-76-
061a.  National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Page 24.

Benoit, D.A.  1975.  Chronic Effects of Copper on Survival,
Growth, and Reproduction of the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
Trans. Am.  Fish. Soc. 104:353-358.

Brungs, W.A., T.S. Holderman, and M.T. Southerland*.  1992.
Synopsis of Water-Effect Ratios for Heavy Metals as Derived for
Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria.

Call, D.J., L.T. Brooke, and D.D. Vaishnav.  1982.  Aquatic
Pollutant Hazard Assessments and Development of a Hazard
Prediction Technology by Quantitative Structure-Activity
Relationships.  Fourth Quarterly Report.  University of
Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI.

Carlson, A.R., H. Nelson, and D. Hammermeister.  1986a.
Development and Validation of Site-Specific Water Quality
Criteria for Copper.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:997-1012.

Carlson, A.R., H. Nelson, and D. Hammermeister.  1986b.
Evaluation of Site-Specific Criteria for Copper and Zinc: An
Integration of Metal Addition Toxicity, Effluent and Receiving
Water Toxicity, and Ecological Survey Data.  EPA/600/S3-86-026.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Carroll, J.J., S.J. Ellis, and W.S. Oliver.  1979.  Influences of
Hardness Constituents on the Acute Toxicity of Cadmium to Brook
Trout  (Salvelinus fontinalis).

Chakoumakos, C., R.C. Russo, and R.V. Thurston.  1979.  Toxicity
of Copper to Cutthroat Trout  (Salmo clarki) under Different
Conditions of Alkalinity, pH, and Hardness.  Environ. Sci.
Technol. 13:213-219.,

Chapman, G.A.  1993,.  Memorandum to C. Stephan.  June 4.

Davies, P.H., J.P. Goettl, Jr., J.R.  Sinley, and N.F. Smith.
1976.  Acute  and Chronic Toxicity of  Lead to Rainbow Trout Salmo
gairdneri, in Hard and Soft Water.  Water Res. 10:199-206.

Finlayson, B.J., and K.M Verrue.  1982.  Toxicities of Copper,
Zinc,  and Cadmium Mixtures to Juvenile Chinook Salmon.  Trans.
Am.  Fish. Soc. 111:645-650.

                                13

-------
  Geckler,  J.R.,  w.B.  Horning,  T.M.  Neiheisel,  Q.H.  Pickering.  E.L.
  Robinson/  and C.E.  Stephan.   1976.   Validity of Laboratory Tests
  for Predicting Copper Toxicity in  Streams.   EPA-600/3-76-116.
  National  Technical,Information Service,  Springfield,  VA.   Page
  Ho •

  Grunwald,  D.   1992.   Metal Toxicity Evaluation:  Review, Results,
  and Data  Base Documentation.

  Hammermeister,  D., C.  Northcott, L.  Brooke,  and D.  Call.   1983.
  Comparison of Copper,  Lead and Zinc Toxicity  to Four  Animal
  Species in Laboratory and  ST.  Louis River Water.   University of
  Wisconsin-Superior,  Superior,  wi.

  Hansen, D.J.  1993.  Memorandum to  C.E.  Stephan.  April 15.

 Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard, and J.M. McKim.  1976.
 Long-Term Effects of Lead  Exposure  on Three Generations of  Brook
 Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).  J.  Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 33:1731-
 1741.

 Holcombe,  G.W., and R.W. Andrew.  1978.  The Acute Toxicity of
 Zinc to Rainbow and Brook Trout.  EPA-600/3-78-094. .National
 Technical Information Service, Springfield,  VA.

 Horowitz,  A.J.,  K.A.  Elrick,  and M.R. Colberg.  1992.   The Effect
 of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved Trace Element
 Concentrations.   Water Res. 26:753-763.

 Howarth,  R.S., and J.B. Sprague.  1978.  Copper Lethality  to
 Rainbow Trout in Waters on Various Hardness  and pH.  Water Res.
 12:455-462.

 JRB Associates.   1983.   Demonstration of the Site-specific
 Criteria Modification Process:  Selser's Creek, Ponchatoula,
 Louisiana.

 Lazorchak,  J.M.   1987.   The Significance of  Weight  Loss of
 Daphnia magna  Straus  During Acute Toxicity Tests with  Copper.
 Ph.D. Thesis.

 Lima, A.R.,  C. Curtis,  D.E. Hammermeister, T.P.  Markee, C.E.
 Northcott,  L.T.  Brooke.   1984.   Acute and Chronic Toxicities of
 Arsenic(III) to  Fathead Minnows, Flagfish, Daphnids, and an
 Amphipod.  Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 13:595-601.

 Lind, D., K. Alto, and  S. Chatterton.   1978.   Regional  Copper-
 Nickel Study.  Draft.

Mount, D.I.  1966.  The  Effect  of Total Hardness  and pH on Acute
Toxicity of  Zinc to Fish.   Air  Water Pollut. Int. J. 10:49-56.


                                14

-------
Nebeker, A.V., C.K. McAuliffe, R. Mshar, and D.G. Stevens.  1983.
Toxicity of Silver to Steelhead and Rainbow Trout, Fathead
Minnows, and Daphnia magna.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2:95-104.

Pickering, Q.P., and M.H. Cast.  1972.  Acute and^Chronic
Toxicity of Cadmium to the Fathead Minnow  (Pimephales promelas).
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:1099-1106.

Rice, D.W., Jr., and F.L. Harrison.  1983.  The Sensitivity of
Adult, Embryonic, and Larval Crayfish Procambarus clarku to
Copper.  NUREG/CR-3133 or UCRL-53048.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Schuytema, G.S., P.O. Nelson, K.W. Malueg, A.V. Nebeker, D.F.
Krawczyk, A.K. Ratcliff, and J.H. Gakstatter.  1984.  Toxicity  of
Cadmium in Water and Sediment Slurries.to  Daphnia magna.
Environ. Toxicol  Chem. 3:293-308.

Spehar, R.L., R.L. Anderson, and J.T. Fiandt.  1978.  Toxicity
and Bioaccumulation of Cadmium and Lead in Aquatic Invertebrates.
Environ. Pollut. 15:195-208.

Spehar/ R.L., and A.R. Carlson.  1984.  Derivation of Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium and the St. Louis
River Basin, Duluth, Minnesota.  Environ.  Toxicol. Chem. 3:651-
665.

Spehar, R.L., and J.T. Fiandt.  1986.  Acute and Chronic Effects
of Water Quality Criteria-Based Metal Mixtures on Three Aquatic
Species.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:917-931.

Sprague, J.B.  1964.  Lethal Concentration of Copper and Zinc for
Young Atlantic Salmon.  J. Fish. Res. Bd.  Canada 21:17-9926.

Stevens, D.G., and G.A. Chapman.  1984.  Toxicity of Trivalent
Chromium to Early Life Stages of Steelhead Trout.  Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 3:125-133.

University of Wisconsin-Superior.   1993.   Preliminary data  from
work assignment  1-10 for Contract No.  68-C1-0034.
                                15

-------

-------
                                                             ATTACHMENT #3

                              GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
                  ON DYNAMIC MODELING AND TRANSLATORS
                                     August 1993

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs^ and Permits

o      Dynamic Water Quality Modeling

       Although not specifically part of the reassessment of water quality criteria for metals,
dynamic or probabilistic models are another useful tool for implementing water quality
criteria, especially those for protecting aquatic  life.  Dynamic models make best use of the
specified magnitude, duration, and frequency of water quality criteria and thereby provide a
more accurate calculation of discharge impacts on ambient water quality.  In contrast, steady-
state modeling is based on various simplifying  assumptions which makes it less complex and
less accurate than dynamic modeling. Building on accepted practices in water resource
engineering,  ten years  ago  OW devised methods allowing the use of probability distributions
in place of worst-case conditions. The description of these models and their advantages and
disadvantages is found in the 1991 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxic  Control (TSD).

       Dynamic models have received increased attention hi the last few years as a result of
the perception that static modeling is over-conservative due to environmentally conservative
dilution assumptions.  This has led to the misconception that dynamic models will always
justify less stringent regulatory controls (e.g. NPDES  effluent limits) than static models.  In
effluent dominated waters where the upstream  concentrations are relatively constant,
however, a dynamic model will calculate a more stringent wasteload allocation than will a
steady state model.  The reason is that the critical low flow required by many State water
quality standards in effluent dominated streams occurs more  frequently than once every three
years.  When other environmental factors (e.g. upstream pollutant concentrations) do not
vary appreciably,  then the overall return frequency of the steady state model may be greater
than once hi three years.  A dynamic modeling approach,  on the other hand, would be more
 stringent, allowing only a once in three year return frequency.  As a result, EPA considers
 dynamic models to be a more accurate rather than a less stringent approach to implementing
 water quality criteria.

        The 1991 TSD provides recommendations on the use of steady state and dynamic
 water quality models." The reliability of any modeling technique greatly depends on the
 accuracy of the data used in the analysis.  Therefore,  the selection of a model also depends
 upon  the data.  EPA recommends that steady  state wasteload allocation analyses generally  be
 used where few or no whole effluent toxicity or specific chemical measurements are
 available, or where daily receiving water flow records are not available.  Also, if staff
 resources are insufficient to use and defend the use of dynamic models, then steady state
 models may be necessary.  If adequate receiving water flow and effluent concentration data
 are available to estimate frequency distributions, EPA recommends that one of the dynamic

-------
  wasteload allocation modeling techniques be used to derive wasteload allocations which will
  more exactly maintain water quality standards. The minimum data required for input into
  dynamic models include at least 30 years of river flow data and one year of effluent and
  ambient pollutant concentrations.

  o     Dissolved-Total Metal Translators

        When water quality criteria are expressed as the dissolved form of a metal, there  is a
  need to translate TMDLs and NPDES permits to and from the dissolved form of a metal to
  the total recoverable form.  TMDLs for toxic metals must be able to calculate 1) the
  dissolved  metal concentration hi order to ascertain attainment of water quality standards and
  2) the total recoverable metal concentration hi order to achieve mass balance.  In meeting
  these requirements, TMDLs consider metals to be conservative pollutants and quantified as
  total recoverable to preserve conservation of mass.  The TMDL calculates the dissolved or
  ionic species of the metals based on factors such as total suspended solids  (TSS) and ambient
 pH.  (These assumptions ignore the complicating factors of metals interactions with other
 metals.)  In addition, this approach assumes that ambient factors influencing metal
 partitioning remain constant with distance down the river.  This assumption probably is valid
 under the  low flow conditions typically used as design flows for permitting of metals (e.g.,
 7Q10, 4B3,  etc) because erosion,  resuspension, and wet weather loadings are unlikely to be
 significant and river chemistry is generally  stable.  In steady-state dilution modeling, metals
 releases may be assumed to remain fairly constant (concentrations exhibit low variability)
 with time.

       EPA's NPDES regulations require that metals limits hi permits be stated as total
 recoverable in most cases (see 40 CFR §122.45(c)).  Exceptions occur when an effluent
 guideline specifies the limitation hi another  form of the metal or the approved analytical
 methods measure only the dissolved form.  Also, the permit writer may express a metals
 limit hi another form (e.g., dissolved, valent, or total) when required,  hi highly unusual
 cases, to carry out the provisions of the  CWA.

       The preamble to the September 1984 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 Permit Regulations states that the total recoverable method measures dissolved metals plus
 that portion of solid metals that can easily dissolve under ambient conditions (see 49 Federal
 Register 38028, September 26, 1984). This method is intended to measure metals hi the
 effluent that are or may easily become environmentally active, while not measuring metals
 that are expected to settle out and remain inert.

       The preamble cites, as an example, effluent from an electroplating facility that adds
 lime and uses clarifiers.  This effluent will be a combination of solids not removed by the
 clarifiers and residual dissolved metals.  When the effluent from the clarifiers, usually with a
 high pH level, mixes with receiving water having significantly lower pH level, these solids
 instantly dissolve. Measuring dissolved metals hi the effluent, hi this case,  would
underestimate the impact on the receiving water.  Measuring with the total metals method, on

-------
the other hand, would measure metals that would be expected to disperse or settle out and
remain inert or be covered over.  Thus, measuring total recoverable metals in the effluent
best approximates the amount of metal likely to produce water quality impacts.

       However, the NPDES rale does not require in any way that State water quality
standards be in the total recoverable form; rather, the rule requkes permit writers to consider
the translation between differing metal forms hi the calculation of the permit limit so that a
total recoverable limit can be established.  Therefore, both the TMDL and NPDES uses of
water quality criteria require the ability to translate from the dissolved form and the total
recoverable form.

       Many toxic substances, including metals, have a tendency to leave the dissolved phase
and attach to  suspended solids.  The partitioning of toxics between solid and dissolved phases
can be determined as a function of a pollutant-specific partition coefficient and the
concentration of solids.  This function is expressed by a linear partitioning equation:
                      c=	IJ-—-

                                                             where,

                     C  = dissolved phase metal concentration,
                     CTf - total metal concentration,
                     TSS = total suspended solids concentration, and
                     Kd = partition coefficient.

        A key assumption of the linear partitioning equation is that the sorption reaction
 reaches dynamic equilibrium at the point of application of the criteria; that is, after allowing
 for initial mixing the partitioning of the pollutant between the adsorbed and dissolved forms
 can be used at any location to predict the fraction of pollutant in each respective phase.

        Successful application of the linear partitioning equation relies on the  selection of the
 partition coefficient.  The usie of a partition coefficient to represent the degree to which
 toxics adsorb to solids is most readily applied to organic pollutants;  partition coefficients for
 metals are more difficult to define. Metals typically exhibit more complex speciation and
 complexation reactions than organics and the degree of partitioning can vary  greatly
 depending upon site-specific water chemistry.  Estimated partition coefficients can be
 determined for a number of metals, but waterbody or site-specific observations of dissolved
 and adsorbed concentrations are preferred.

        EPA suggests three approaches for instances where  a water quality criterion for a
 metal is expressed in the dissolved form in a State's water  quality standards:

-------
        1.  Using clean analytical techniques and field sampling procedures with appropriate
        QA/QC, collect receiving water samples and determine site specific values of Kd for
        each metal. Use these Kd values to "translate"  between total recoverable and
        dissolved metals in receiving water.  This approach is more difficult to apply because
        it relies upon the availability of good quality measurements of ambient metal
        concentrations. This approach provides an accurate assessment of the dissolved metal
        fraction providing sufficient samples are collected.  EPA's initial recommendation is
        that at least four pairs of total recoverable and dissolved ambient metal measurements
        be made during low flow conditions or 20 pairs over all flow conditions.  EPA
        suggests  that the average of data collected during low flow or the 95th percentile
        highest dissolved  fraction for all flows be used.  The low flow average provides a
        representative picture of conditions during the rare low flow events.  The 95th
        percentile highest dissolved fraction for  all flows provides a critical condition
        approach analogous to the approach used to  identify low flows and other critical
        environmental conditions.

        2.  Calculate the total recoverable concentration for the purpose of setting the permit
        limit.  Use a value of 1  unless the permittee has collected data (see #1 above) to show
        that a different ratio should be used.  The value of 1 is conservative and will not err
        on the side of violating standards.  This  approach is very simple to apply because it
        places the entire burden of data collection and analysis solely upon permitted
        facilities. In terms  of technical merit, it has the same characteristics  of the previous
        approach. However, permitting authorities may be faced with difficulties in
        negotiating with facilities on the amount of data necessary  to determine the ratio and
        the necessary quality control methods to assure that the ambient data  are reliable.

        3.  Use the historical data on total suspended solids (TSS)  hi receiving waterbodies at
        appropriate design flows and K^ values presented in the Technical Guidance Manual
        for Performing Waste Load Allocations.   Book II.  Streams and Rivers.  EPA-440/4-
        84-020 (1984) to "translate" between (total recoverable) permits limits and dissolved
        metals in receiving water.  This approach is  fairly simple to apply. However, these
        K,, values are suspect due to possible quality assurance problems with the data used to
        develop the values.  EPA's initial analysis of this approach and these values in one
        site indicates that these Kd values generally over-estimate the dissolved fraction of
       metals hi ambient  waters (see Figures following).  Therefore, although this  approach
       may not provide an accurate  estimate of  the dissolved fraction, the bias hi the estimate
       is likely to be a conservative one.

       EPA suggests that regulatory authorities use approaches #1 and #2 where States
express then: water quality standards hi the dissolved form.  In those States where the
standards are hi the total recoverable or acid soluble form, EPA recommends that no
translation be used until the time that the State changes  the standards to the dissolved form.
Approach #3 may be used as an interim measure until the data are collected to implement
approach #1.

-------
                                                                                                    1  I
                                                                                                    (U   01
W

o

1
 0>
 o
 o
O
 o
<
•o
I
 O
Q
•O
T3
 O
 (0

 I
 (0
 s
                                                                                             D-
                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                       (0

                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                        Q.
                                                                                                        E
             CO
                           in
                           csi
                                                                                  in
                                                                                  o
                                                    h/Bn)

-------
 I
 I
3
 b
 ft
•a
 o
 m

a


I
 Q)
73
 O
E
1
 (0
 nt

-------
                                                                                                     T?  2J
                                                                                                     "53  w
                                                                                                     •§  s
 0)

 o


I
 o
 o

 o
o

 I
• Ml

•o
 re
O


1
"o
 CO
 CO
5
•a
•o
 o
 •a

 2
 CD
                                                                       o
                                                                       CO
                                     to
                                     CM
                                                                                                _.  o
                                                                            c
                                                                            O


                                                                            i
                                                                            TO
                                                                                                        (55
      (O


      ci
CM


d>
                                                   o


                                                 h/Bn)
8
C9
S

-------
                                                                           2  I
                                                                           0>  tn
                                                                           ~a  to
                                                                           O  Q)



                                                                           f?
 o
 c
 o
o
TJ
 TO
 O

T3
Q

TJ
.2
0)
T3
O
S

to


TJ
O
                                                                         o
                                                                         10
o
to   e

    i
    s
    D>

    "o.

o   n
CM   0)
                                                                      -- O
                                      (1/Bn)

-------
                                                                                                         •o
                                                                                                         
-------
 to

 o

1
«*-•


 I
 o
o

1
 0
 >
 O
 
  .



CO
                                                   (1/Bn)

-------
                                                                                               I  I
                                                                                               5  2


                                                                                               H
 v>

 o
u

o
o
N



1

 O
 W
 w
•o
.2
 o

"8
 0)
_o
^c

43
OT

D)
  .


<0
(0
                                                 (1/Bn)

-------

-------
                                                       ATTACHMENT #4
                             GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
           ON CLEAN ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND MONITORING
                                     October 1993
Guidance on Monitoring

o    Use of Clean Sampling and Analytical Techniques

     Pages 98-108 of the WER guidance document (Appendix L of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook-Second Edition) provides some general guidance on the use of clean
techniques. The Office of Water recommends that this guidance be used by States and
Regions as an interim step while the Office of Water prepares more detailed guidance.


o      Use of Historical DMR Data

       With respect to effluent or ambient monitoring data reported by an NPDES permittee
on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), the certification requirements place the burden on
the permittee  for collecting and reporting quality data. The certification regulation at 40
CFR 122.22(d) requires permittees, when submitting information, to state: "I certify under
penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons
who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is., to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for  submitting false information,
including the  possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."

       Permitting authorities; should continue to consider the  information reported hi DMRs
to be true, accurate, and complete as certified by the permittee.  Under 40 CFR  122.41(1)(8),
however, as soon as the permittee becomes aware of new information specific to the effluent
discharge that calls into question the accuracy of the DMR data, the permittee must submit
such information to the permitting authority.  Examples of such information include a new
finding that the reagents used in the laboratory analysis are contaminated with trace levels of
metals, or a new study that ithe sampling equipment imparts trace metal contamination.  This
information must be specific to the discharge and based on actual measurements rather than
extrapolations from reports from other facilities.  Where a permittee submits information
supporting the contention that the previous data are questionable and the permitting authority
agrees with the findings of the information, EPA expects that permitting authorities will
consider such information in determining appropriate enforcement responses.

-------
                                           18
       In addition to submitting the information described above, the permittee also must
develop procedures to assure the collection and analysis of quality data that are true,
accurate, and complete.  For example, the permittee may submit a revised quality assurance
plan that describes the specific procedures to be undertaken to reduce or eliminate trace
metal contamination.

-------
          APPENDIX K
      Procedures for the Initiation of
        Narrative Biological Criteria
                                         W
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
inM|Pl».S!ft


li^
i:::»!^^
!|l i|i|:jl1|,£ JjflJ; if 'IS:;,1 iffl  i!;
5! civ* :i!'*m" 'if ii'iiir « "i '•! i;
jirt!|V 1! i'  [j;||!|:;.f: !:|:
niiiiii jiiiiiii'iit, wi ! ''iiVuil'i'iiiii'iFt "iibHi, viiiiiiiiii'j "j M: wiiiiiiV'iwviiii :;r'
    / M   i..'i'' i J' i: i ili,  i:IP '  ; i' ;.;;  •,  '! i ifl^	:n1
      '. 3• • •. i 'j:1' 'i.:-,;;;! inu	in nsr 11' iiti tan i '*r«in* "ftitm	HI i)
 i« "fII	II!, Ill  '„,Li]I!:i:	'',»li i"J»iii "I1 I|!npl" i ''' 'illill? I '!ill!l!1"!!!!I'll,I!',i,,! I'1 L!Illi"' ,t"illIlliiWiiilililllijll 'IIH
                     '  Ili/lll'l.^i^liirai;!]1:!!!!!!':!1!!!'!!!^!!!!!!!)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
!!      "j i if !';!)•  ;!	:; ,{<    , 	       "!	• tii. i •
                                                                         l^fl^^^^^^^^
lill	!.!•!! '  liKlKfi, !•;:;  :ril!|.1.:^ll«J!!:!aiK
lillli A Ji! I'!, I	i,,,JI & i!!i! i" ],! Ilillllr!;!,  ;:!!. i'Ui '! "S 'PiHi I V; !!llil|]!1	!s ,i	•!	;!!iifi hi!!::!!1i|l 'I l!»|il!l! r:i
:'! «	!'	' I 'i, ilMI'p I,!!!-1!"!;1  "HtW I  „ Illim1! I:i"!:|i::l!ii:li1i II, i/ifll'i^'KI'liiriiHIII!	l.iiiilii'lirilllllllllllllllMIri	lillKIK^^^
IJIJIi!-'!: I'lJIiiiNiili'l:.!^  	Hi'iiiilil'»!;?:.!	Mli-iiiJISiiiillilitn^^^^^^^^^^^
,»'! !,  I !!!!	'  ''  -i I i I'll li!! I'll"'  I I   ,, J il Ji '  ,', 11 I I  I I   11"' '!; T' '  I 'I   III I 11!	  I I" I '  11     I P I III   I' 1^ M^^
    i	    !   'n!  : i  s   l	 i  '  :  -i if     	,  lip  t       	
                                                                                                  	III! iil'
     i;:i, j.c: *"(;  :w. i.t-.^    i   »(s,::ttw
                                                                           a^^^
miimi	:••     :•  i	mi	                       	m     i
                                    ,kL!!' i  i , i  ',:!!:«: f,i!i!|.lii ,:'„..iiSiHEii,	:; iillllllllllll:

-------
United States         Office of Science and Technology   EPA-822-B-92-002
Environmental Protection    Office of Water          October 1992
Agency           Washington, D.C. 20460
PROCEDURES FOR
INITIATING NARRATIVE
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA

-------

-------
   PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING
NARRATIVE BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
                    By
          George R. Gibson, Jr., Coordinator
            Biological Criteria Program
         Health and Ecological Criteria Division
                Office of Water
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Washington, DC
                October 1992

-------
                 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

   Appreciation is extended to all the specialists in the States, EPA Headquarters pro-
gram offices, and the ten EPA Regional Offices for their suggestions and review com-
ments in the preparation of this document.

   Fred Leutner, Kent Ballentine, and Robert Shippen of the Standards and Applied
Sciences Division contributed advice and citations pertinent to the proper application
of these criteria to EPA regulatory standards.

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                       OFFICE OF
                                                                        WATER
MEMORANDUM
To:

Regarding:

From:
Users of "Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria"

Guidance for \h& development of narrative biological criteria

Margarete Stasikowski, Director        MiJ     JL^^
Health and Ecological Criteria Division O^fks-—
             Office of Science and Technology
             U.S. EPA
                                     r
       This  guidance  was written in response to requests from many State water resource
agencies for specific information about EPA expectations of them as they prepare narrative
biological criteria for the assessment of their surface water resources.

       The array of State experiences with this form of water quality evaluation extends from
almost no experience in  some cases to national leadership roles in others. It may therefore, be
that some readers will find this information too involved, while others will feel it is too basic.
To the latter we wish  to express the sincere hope that this material is a fair approximation of
their good examples. To the former, we emphasize that there is no expectation mat a State just
entering the process will develop a full blown infrastructure overnight. The intent is to outline
both the initiation and the subsequent implementation and application of a State program based
on commonly collected  data  as a starting point. User agencies are encouraged to progress
through this material at their own best pace as needs and resources determine.

       Specific advice, clarification and assistance may be obtained from the U.S. EPA Regional
Offices by consultation with the designated resource personnel listed in the appendix to this
document.
Attachment
                                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------

-------
Purpose of this  Paper

    The Biological Criteria Program was initiated by EPA in response to re-
    search and interest generated over the last several years by Agency, State,
and academic investigators. This interest has been documented in several re-
ports and conference proceedings that were the basis for creation of the pro-
gram and for the preparation of Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters (U.S. Environ. Prot.  Agency, 1990a). The overall concept  and
"narrative biological criteria" are described in that guide.
   Because establishing narrative criteria is an important first step in the pro-
cess, the material that follows here is intended to be an elaboration upon and
clarification of the term narrative biological criteria as used in the guide. The
emphasis here is on a practical, applied approach with particular attention to
cost considerations and the need to introduce the material to readers who may
not be familiar with the program.
Introductiion and Background

     Biological monitoring, assessment and the resultant biological criteria rep-
     resent the current and increasingly sophisticated process of an evolving
water quality measurement technology. This process spans almost 200 years in
North America and the entire 20 years of EPA responsibility.
    The initial efforts in the 1700's to monitor and respond to human impacts
on watercourses were based on physical observations of sediments and debris
discharged by towns, commercial operations, and ships in port (Capper, et al.
1983).
    Later, chemical analyses were developed to measure less directly observ-
able events.  With industrialization, increasing technology, and land develop-
ment pressures, both types of monitoring were incorporated into the body of
our State and Federal public health and environmental legislation.
    Valuable as these methods were, early investigations and compliance with
water quality standards relied primarily on water column measurements re-
flecting only conditions at a given time of sampling. Investigators and manag-
ers have long recognized this limitation and have used sampling of resident
organisms in the streams, rivers, lakes, or estuaries to enhance their under-
standing of water resource quality over a greater span of time. During the past
20 years, this biological technique has become increasingly sophisticated and
reliable and is now a necessary adjunct to the established physical and chemi-
cal measures of water resources quality. In fact, the Clean Water Act states in
Section 101  (a) that the objective of the law is to restore and maintain the chemi-
cal, physical,  and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
    EPA has therefore concluded that biological assessment and consequent bi-
ological criteria are an appropriate and valuable complement *to the Nation's
surface water management programs. This added approach not only expands
and refines  this management effort, it is also consistent with the country's
growing concern that the environment must be protected and managed for
more than the legitimate interests of human health and welfare. The protection

-------
 of healthy ecosystems is part of EPA's responsibility and is indeed related to
 the public's welfare. Fish, shellfish, wildlife, and other indigenous flora and
 fauna of our surface waters require protection as intrinsic components of the
 natural system. Inherent to the Biological Criteria Program is the restoration
 and protection of this "biological integrity" of our waters.
    A carefully completed survey and subsequent assessment of these resident
 organisms in relatively undisturbed areas reveal not only the character, e.g.,
 biological integrity, of a natural, healthy waterbody, they also provide a bench-
 mark or biological criterion against which similar systems may be compared
 where degradation is suspected.  Biological  measurements also help  record
 waterbody  changes  over time with less potential temporal variation than
 physical or chemical approaches  to water quality measurement. Thus, they
 can be used to help determine "existing aquatic life uses" of waterbodies re-
 quiring protection under State management programs.
    This document elaborates on the initiation of narrative biological criteria
 as described in Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.
 Future guidance documents will provide additional technical information to
 facilitate development and implementation of both narrative and numerical
 criteria for each of the surface water types.
 Narrative  Biological  Criteria

    The first phase of the program is the development of "narrative biological
    criteria". These are essentially statements of intent incorporated in State
 water laws to formally consider the fate and status of aquatic biological com-
 munities. Officially stated, biological criteria are "... numerical values or nar-
 rative expressions that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
 communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use" (U.S.
 Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a).
    While a narrative criterion does not stipulate that numerical indices or
 other population parameters be used to indicate a particular level of water
 quality, it does rely upon the use of standard measures and data analyses to
 make qualitative determinations of the resident communities.
    The State, Territory, or Reservation should not only carefully compose the
 narrative biological criteria statement but should also indicate how its applica-
 tion is to be accomplished. The determination of text (how the narrative bio-
 logical criteria are written) and measurement procedures (how the criteria will
 be applied) is up to the individual States in consultation with EPA. Some de-
 gree of standardization among States sharing common regions and waters will
be in their best interests. This regional coordination and cooperation could
help improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand the data base available to
 each State so that management determinations can be made with  greater cer-
tainty.

-------
Attributes of A Sound Narrative Criteria Statement

   A narrative biological criterion should:

   1. Support the goals of the Clean Water Act to provide for the protection
      and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and to restore and
      maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
      Nation's waters;

   2. Protect the most natural biological community possible by
      emphasizing the protection of its most sensitive components.

   3. Refer to specific aquatic, marine, and estuarihe community
      characteristics that must be present for the waterbody to meet a
      particular designated use, e.g., natural diverse systems with their
      respective communities or taxa indicated; and then,

   4. Include measures of the community characteristics, based on sound
      scientific principles, that are quantifiable and written to protect and or
      enhance the designated use;

   5. In no case should impacts degrading existing uses or the biological
      integrity of the waters be authorized.
An Example olf A Narrative Biocriteria Statement

    The State will preserve, protect, and restore the water resources of [name
of State] in their most natural condition. The condition of these waterbodies
shall be determined! from the measures of physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of each surface waterbody type, according to its designated use.
As a component of these measurements, the biological quality of any given
water  system shall be assessed by comparison to a reference condition^)
based  upon similar hydrologic and watershed characteristics that represent
the optimum natural condition for that system.
    Such reference  conditions or reaches of water courses shall be those ob-
served to support the greatest variety and abundance of aquatic life in the re-
gion as is expected to be or has been historically found in natural settings
essentially undisturbed or minimally disturbed by human impacts, develop-
ment,  or  discharges. This condition shall be determined by consistent sam-
pling and reliable measures of selected indicative communities of flora and/or
fauna  as established by ... [appropriate State agency or agencies]... and may
be used in conjunction  with acceptable chemical, physical, and microbial
water  quality measurements and records judged to be appropriate to this pur-
pose.
    Regulations and other management efforts relative to these criteria shall
be consistent with the objective of preserving, protecting, and restoring the
most natural communities of fish, shellfish, and  wildlife attainable in these
waters; and in all cases shall protect against degradation of the highest exist-
ing or subsequently attained uses or biological conditions pursuant to State
antidegradation requirements.

-------
 Dafa Gathering to Establish and Support Narrative
 Biological Criteria

    A State need not specifically list in the narrative statement the sampling
 procedures and parameters to be employed, but it should identify and charge
 the appropriate administrative authority with this responsibility as indicated
 parenthetically in the preceding example.
    The selection and sampling process, certainly at the outset, should be sim-
 ple, reliable, and cost effective. In many instances existing data and State pro-
 cedures will be adequate to initiate a biological criteria program, but there is
 no limitation on the sophistication or rigor of a State's procedures.
   In reviewing existing procedures and in designing new ones, it is impor-
 tant that the planning group include the water resource managers, biologists,
 and chemists directly involved with the resource base. They should be the pri-
mary participants from the outset to help ensure that the data base and de-
rived information adequately support the decisions to be made..
   The State may choose to create procedures and regulations more complex
and complete than are indicated here; however, the basic design and method-
ology should include the following elements:

       • 1. Resource Inventory. A field review of State water resource
   conditions and a first hand documentation of the status of water qual-
   ity relative to the use designation categories ("305(b)" reports) are es-
   sential to provide reliable data for the selections of reference sites,  test
   sites,  and for setting program priorities.

       • 2. Specific Objectives and Sampling Design. States will
   need  to design a system identifying "natural, unimpacted" reference
   sources appropriate to each surface waterbody type in each of the des-
   ignated use categories in the State (e.g., streams, lakes and reservoirs,
   rivers, wetlands, estuaries and coastal,waters) and the use categories
   (see example, Page 8) for each grouping of these waterbody types.
   Sources for defining reference condition may include historical data
   sets, screening surveys, or a consensus of experts in the region of inter-
   est, particularly in significantly disrupted areas as discussed later (see
   item 6, page 7).
      Because natural water  courses  do not  always follow political
   boundaries, the most effective approach may be a joint or group effort
   between two or more States. Where this coordination and cooperation
   is possible, it may produce a superior data base at less cost than any
   individual State effort. EPA is working through its regional offices to
   assist in the development of such joint operations through the use of
   ecoregions and subregions (Gallant et al.  1988). Regional EPA biolo-
   gists and water  quality or standards coordinators can advise and assist
   with these interstate cooperative efforts.
      In any case, reference sites or sources for each waterbody type,
   subcategory of  similar waters, and designated use category  will be
   needed. These may be drawn from "upstream" locations, "far field"
   transects or selected nearby or "ecoregjonal" sites representative of rel-

-------
atively unimpacted, highest quality natural settings (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990a).
    Care must be taken to equate comparable physical characteristics
when selecting reference sites for the waterbodies to be evaluated. For
example, a site on a piedmont stream cannot be the reference source
against which sites on a coastal plain stream are compared; similarly,
coastal tidal and nontidal wetlands should not be compared.
    The organisms to be collected and communities sampled should
represent an array of sensitivities to be as responsive and informative
as possible. An example would be to collect fish, invertebrates repre-
senting both insects and shellfish,  and perhaps macrophytes as ele-
ments of the sampling scheme.

    •  3. Collection Methods. The same sampling techniques should
always be employed  at both  the reference sites  and test sites and
should be consistent as much as possible for both spatial and temporal
conditions. For example, a consistent seining or electroshocking tech-
nique should always be used in collecting fish over the same length of
stream and with the same degree of effort using the same gear. In ad-
dition, the sampling area must be representative of the entire reach or
waterbody segment. The temporal conditions to be considered include
not only such fa.ctors as the length of time spent towing a trawl at a
constant speed but also extend to the times of year when data are gath-
ered.
    Seasonality  of life cycles  and natural environmental pressures
must be addressed to make legitimate  evaluations. For example, the
spring hatch of eiquatic insects is usually avoided as a sampling period
in  favor of more  stable community conditions later in the summer.
Conversely, low nutrient availability in mid-summer may temporarily
but cyclically reduce the abundance of estuarine  or marine benthos.
Dissolved oxygen cycles are another seasonal condition to consider as
are migratory patterns of some fish and waterfowl. The entire array of
temporal and sp>atial patterns must be accommodated to avoid incon-
sistent and misleading data gathering.
    Processing and analysis of the collected specimens is usually based
on the number and identity of taxa collected and the number of indi-
viduals per taxon. This preliminary information is the foundation of
most of the subsequent analytical processes used to evaluate commu-
 nity composition. In the course of examining and sorting the plants or
 animals, notations should be made of any abnormal gross morphologi-
 cal or pathological conditions such as deformities, tumors or lesions.
 This information on disease and deformities in itself can be an impor-
 tant assessment variable.
     Taxonomic sorting can also be the basis for  functional groupings of
 the data, and preservation of the specimens allows for the option of
 additional anatyses after the field season is concluded.
     Table 1 is not  all inclusive in the sense of a thorough biological in-
 vestigation, but it does represent an initial approach to the selection of
 parameters for biological assessment to support the narrative criteria.

-------
       Table 1.-indicator communities and reference sources for biological criteria.
       WATERBODY     FLORA / FAUNA INDICATORS    REFERENCE STATIONS
       Freshwater      Rsh, periphyton &
       Streams        macroinvertebrates, incl.
                      insects & shellfish
       Lakes &        Same, also macrophytes
       Reservoirs
       Rivers         Same as lake & reservoirs
       Wetlands       All of above, plus emergent
                     and terrestrial vegetation &
                     perhaps wildlife & avian spp.
       Estuarine &     Rsh, periphyton &
       near-coastal    macroinvertebrates, esp.
       Waters         shellfish, echinoderms,
                     polychaetes
Ecoregion, upstream and
downstream stations
May need to start with trophic
groups; far- and near-field
transects, ecoregions*
Upstream and downstream stations;
where appropriate, far- and
near-field transects, ecoregions*
Ecoregion;* far- and near-field
transects
Far- and near-field transects;
ecoregion* or physiographic
province
6
      * Where appropriate; ecoregions that are heterogeneous may need to be subdivided into
       cohesive subreglons or these subregions aggregated where financial resources are limited or
       aquatic systems are large (tidal rivers, estuaries, near-coastal marine waters). Also, major
       basins and watersheds could be considered for "keystone indicators' for fish and shellfish.

            •  4.  Quality  Control.  Much of the  analytical  potential  and
         strength of any conclusions reached will depend upon the precision
         and accuracy of sampling techniques and data handling procedures.
         Rigorous attention should therefore be given to the design and consis-
         tency of data gathering techniques and to the training and evaluation
         of field and laboratory staff. Data cataloging and record keeping pro-
         cedures also'must be carefully designed and strictly adhered to by all
         parties involved. EPA Regional Office personnel can  provide advice
         and Agency guidance manuals on this subject; an example is the 1990
         field and  laboratory manual by  the U.S. Environmental Protection
         Agency, (1990b). Similarly, many States already have excellent quality
         assurance procedures that can be used as a foundation for their biolog-
         ical criteria program.

            • 5. Analytical Procedures. The usual approach to biological
         analyses is to identify the presence of impairment and establish the
         probability of being certain in that judgment.
            For example, if there is a significant increase in the number of de-
         formed or diseased organisms, and a significant decrease in the taxa
         and/or individuals and in sensitive or intolerant taxa — given that the
         physical habitats and collection techniques are equivalent — then the
         study site may be presumed to be degraded.  This conclusion will have
         further support if the trend holds true over time; is also supported by
         applicable chemical or physical data; or if probable sources are identi-
         fied. The apparent source or sources of perturbation should then be in-
         vestigated and further specific diagnostic tests conducted to establish
         cause. Remedial action may then follow through regulatory or other
         appropriate management procedures.

-------
      • 6. Reference Condition and Criteria for Significantly Dis-
   rupted Areas. In regions of significantly disrupted land use such as
   areas of intensive agricultural or urban/suburban development, the
   only data base available to serve as a reference condition might be sim-
   ply "the best of what is left."  To establish criteria on this basis would
   mean an unacceptable lowering of water quality  objectives and de
   facto acceptance of degraded  conditions as the norm; or worse, as the
   goal of water quality management. The alternative would be to estab-
   lish perhaps impossible goals to restore the water system to  pristine,
   pre-development conditions.
       A rational solution avoiding these two pitfalls is to establish the
   reference condition from the body of historical research for the region
   and the consensus opinion of a panel of qualified water resource ex-
   perts. The panel, selected in consultation with EPA, should be required
   to. establish an objective and  reasonable expectation of the restorable
   (achievable) water resource quality for  the region. The determination
   would become the basis of the biological criteria selected.
       Consistent with State antidegradation requirements, the best exist-
   ing conditions achieved since November 28, 1975 [see 40 CFR 131.3(c)
   and 131.12(a)(l)] must be the  lowest acceptable status for interim  con-
   sideration  while planning, managing, and regulating  to meet the
   higher criteria established above.  In this way reasonable progress can
   be made  to improve water  quality without making unrealistic de-
   mands upon the community.


Application of Biological Criteria  to State Surface
Water Use Attainability  Procedures

   Another application of the data collected  is in helping define the desig-
nated uses to be achieved by comparing all test sites relative to the benchmark
of reference conditions established per designated use category. Biological cri-
teria can be used to help define  the level of protection for "aquatic life use"
designated uses for surface waters. These criteria also help determine relative
improvement or decline of water resource  quality, and should be equated to
appropriate reference site conditions as closely as possible. Determinations of
attainable uses and biological conditions should be made in accordance with
the requirements stipulated in Section 131.10  of the  EB4 Water Quality Stan-
dards Regulations (40 CFR 131). A hypothetical State-designated use category
system might be as follows:

   • Class A: Highest quality  or Special Category State waters. In-
      cludes those designated as  unique aesthetic or habitat resources and
      fisheries, especially protected shellfish waters. No discharges of any
      kind and no significant landscape alterations are permitted in the
      drainage basins of these waters. Naturally occurring biological life
      shall be attained, maintained, and protected  in all respects. (Indica-
      tor sensitive resident species might be designated to help define
      each class, e.g., trout, some darters, mayflies, oysters, or clams, etc.)

   • Class B: High quality waters suitable for body contact. Only
      highly treated nonimpacting discharges and land development  with

-------
          well established riparian vegetative buffer zones are allowed. Natu-
          rally occurring biological life shall be protected and no degradation
          of the aquatic communities of these waters is allowed.  (Indicator
          sensitive species might be suckers and darters, stoneflies, or soft-
          shelled clams, etc.)

        • Class C: Good quality water but affected by runoff from pre-
          vailing developed land uses. Shore zones are protected, but buffer
          zones are not as extensive as Class B. Highly treated, well-diluted
          final effluent permitted. Existing aquatic life and community com-
          position shall be protected and no further degradation of the aquatic
          communities is allowed. (Indicator sensitive species might be sun-
          fish, caddisflies, or blue crabs, etc.)

        • Class D: Lowest quality water In State's designated use sys-
          tem. Ambient water quality must be or become sufficient to support
          indigenous aquatic life and no further degradation of the aquatic
          community is allowed. Structure and function of aquatic community
          must be preserved, but species composition may differ from Class C
          waters.

        Since all States have some form of designated use classification system,
    bioassessment procedures can be applied to each surface water type by class
    and the information used to help determine relative4 management success or
    failure. In concert with other measurements, bioassessments and biocriteria
    help determine designated use attainment under the Clean Water Act. This at-
    tainment or nonattainment in turn determines the need for or the conditions
    of such regulatory requirements as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES) permits. In addi-
    tion, biological assessments based on these biological criteria can be used to
    help meet section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires periodic re-
    ports from the States on the status of their surface water resources. The proce-
    dure also can be  used to support regulatory  actions, detect previously
    unidentified problems, and help establish priorities for management projects
    (see "Additional Applications of Biological Criteria," Page 10).
        Table 2 is a simplified illustration of this approach to evaluating compre-
    hensive surface water quality conditions by each designated use to help deter-
    mine and report "designated use attainment"  status.
        It is important to construct and calibrate each table according to consistent
    regional and habitat conditions.
        Using quantitative parameters or metrics derived from the data base and
    the reference condition, standings in the tables can be established from which
    relative status can be defined. This material can. eventually serve as the basis
    for numeric biological criteria.
        A well-refined quantitative approach to the narrative process can be ad-
    ministratively appended to the States' preexisting narrative criteria to meet fu-
    ture needs for numeric criteria.  This can be accomplished fairly easily by
    amending the narrative statement, as illustrated on page 3, to include a desig-
    nated regulatory responsibility for the  appropriately identified agency. The
    advantage of this approach  is as changes in the supportive science evolve,  the
    criteria can be appropriately adjusted.
8

-------
 Table 2.—Data display to facilitate evaluating waterbody condition and
 relative designated use attainment.	

 DESIGNATED USE   BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS (by number)
 (per Sf. water type)
 Taxa
Inverts
Taxa
Fish
Invertebrates
  Irrtolerants
  Fish
Irrtolerants
                                                                 Diseased
 Highest quality in      high        high
 designated use
 Good qua(ity in
 designated use
 Adequate to
 designated use
 Marginal for
 designated use
 Poor quality           low        low
                       high
                        high
                            low
                        low
                         low
                            high
 DESIGNATED USE   PUBLIC HEALTH, CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL DATA
(per Sf. water type) T. Coll E. Coll D.O. pH PCM NO3 Turb.
Highest quality in l<
designated use
Good quality in
designated use
Adequate to
designated use
Marginal for
designated use
w Ic


>w hi


Qh
V
b
res


Usi
Ic
bl
y
lion


jally Usu
w lo


ally Usi
w Ic


jally
>w


Poor quality high high low Usually Usually Usually
high high high
    Further, the compiling of physical and chemical data with the biological
data facilitates comprehensive evaluations and aids in  the investigation of
causes of evident water quality declines. Having the numbers all in one^place
helps the water resource manager assess conditions. However, it is important
to note that none of these parameters should supercede the others in manage-
ment or regulations because  they have unique as well as overlapping attri-
butes. Failure  of a designated  site to meet any  one of a State's physical,
chemical, or biological criteria should be perceived as sufficient justification
for corrective action.                                      1
    One other note  on the use of biological criteria is important. The data gath-
ered should be comprehensively evaluated on a periodic basis. This gives the
manager an opportunity to assess relative monitoring and management suc-
cess, monitor the condition of the reference sites,  and adjust procedures ac-
cordingly. As conditions improve, it will also be  important to reassess and
adjust the biological criteria. This may be particularly appropriate in the case
of "significantly disrupted areas" discussed earlier.
                                                                             9

-------
    Additional Applications of Biological Criteria

        As shown in the previous illustrations, narrative biological criteria can
    have many applications to the management and enhancement of surface water
    quality.

        • Refinement and augmentation off existing waterbody monitor-
          ing procedures. With between 200 and 500 new chemicals entering
          the market annually, it is impossible to develop chemical  criteria
          that address them all. Further, synergism  between even regulated
          chemicals meeting existing standards may create degraded condi-
          tions downstream that are identifiable only by using biological mon-
          itoring and criteria. Thus, the  approach  may  help  identify and
          correct problems not previously recognized.

        • Non-chemical impairments (e.g., degradation of physical habitats,
          changes in hydrologic conditions, stocking, and harvesting) can be
          identified. Remediation of these impairments, when they are the pri-
          mary factor, can be less  expensive and more relevant than some
          point source abatements.

        • Waterbody management decisionmaking. By reviewing an array
          of diverse parameters in a comprehensive manner, the decisionma-
          ker is able to make better judgments. The strengths of this diversity
          can be used to determine with greater confidence the resources to
          assign to a given waterbody or groups of waterbodies in the alloca-
          tion of scarce manpower or funds. The information can also be used
          to set priorities where required by law, such as section 303(d) of the
          Clean Water Act, or to help guide regulatory decisions.
             In  conjunction  with nutrient, chemical, and sediment parame-
          ters, biological information and criteria are an important tool for wa-
          tershed investigations. The combined data helps the manager select
          areas of likely  nonpoint as well as point sources of pertebation and
          makes it possible to focus remedial efforts on key subbasins.

        • Regulatory aspect. Once established to the satisfaction of the State
          and EPA, the biocriteria process may be incorporated in the State's
          system of regulations as part of its surface  water quality protection
          and management program. Biological assessment and criteria can
          become an important additional tool in this context as the Nation in-
          creasingly upgrades the quality of our water resources.


    Perspective  of the Future: Implementing
    Biological Criteria

        This guide to narrative biological  criteria was composed with the fiscal
    and technical constraints of all the States, Territories, and Reservations in
    mind. The array of scientific options available to biological assessment and cri-
    teria illustrated here is by no means exhaustive,  and many jurisdictions  will
    prefer a more involved approach. In no way is this guide intended to restrain
    States from implementing more detailed or rigorous programs. In fact, we
    welcome comments and suggestions for additional techniques and parameters
    to consider.
10

-------
    The basic  approach  discussed here, while compiled  to be the least de-
manding on State budgets, equipment, and manpower pools, consists of a reli-
able, reproducible scientific method. The metrics considered should not be
restricted to those illustrated in this guide. Rather, they should be developed
from the expertise of State biologists and water resource managers — perhaps
in concert with colleagues in neighboring States for a coordinated regional ap-
proach  to  waterbodies  and natural biological regions that cross political
boundaries. Good science should be applied to a realistic appraisal of what
can actually be accomplished, and the EPA regional office specialists, listed on
the following pages, can  assist in such assessments  and coordination. For
more detailed discussions of sampling and analytical  methods, the reader is
also referred to the references appended to this text.
    The structure for narrative biological criteria described here is an appro-
priate interim step for the eventual development of numeric biological criteria.
The infrastructure developed now may be  expanded and refined to meet fu-
-ture needs.
 References

 Capper, ]., G. Power and F.R. Shivers, Jr. 1983. Chesapeake Waters, Pollution, Public Health,
    and Public Opinion, 1607-1972. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville, MD.
 Gallant, A.L. et al. 1989. Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources.
    EPA/600-3-89-060. Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Biological Criteria National Program Guid-
    ance for Surface Waters. EPA/440-5-90-004. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
    Washington, DC.
 	. 1990b. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biologi-
    cal Integrity of Surface Waters. EPA/600/4-90/030. Environ. Monitor. Syst. Lab., U.S.
    Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
 	. 1990c. Protection of Environment. Code of Fed. Reg. (CFR), Part 131. Off. Fed. Regis-
    ter, Nat. Archives and Records Admin., Washington, DC.
 Additional  References

 Plafkin, J.L. et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
    Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Prot.
    Agency, Washington, DC.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century.
    Proceedings of a national conference. Office of Water, Standards and Applied Science
    Division, Washington, DC.
 	. 1991.  Technical Support Document for  Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
    EPA /505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
 	. 1991. Biological  Criteria: Research and Regulation. Proceedings of a symposium.
    EPA-440/5-91-005. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washing-
    ton, DC.
 	. 1991. Biological; Criteria: Guide to Technical Literature. EPA-440/5-91-004. Office of
    Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
        1991. Biological Criteria: State Development and  Implementation Efforts.  EPA-
     440/5-91-003. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.


                                                                              11

-------
     U.S.   EPA  Regional  Sources  of

     Technical  Assistance

     REGION 1:  JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203
        Regional Biologist: Pete Nolan/Celeste Barr (617) 860-4343
        Monitoring Coordinator: Diane Switzer (617) 860-4377
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Eric Hall (617) 565-3533

     REGION 2:  26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278
        Regional Biologist: Jim Kurtenbach (908) 321-6716
        Monitoring Coordinator: Randy Braun (908) 321-6692
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Felix Locicero (212) 264-5691

     REGION 3: 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
        Regional Biologist: Ron Preston (304) 233-2315
        Monitoring Coordinator: Chuck Kanetsky (215) 597-8176
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator:  Helene Drago (215) 597-9911

     REGION 4: 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365
        Regional Biologist: Hoke Howard/Jerry Stober/William Peltier (706) 546-2296
        Monitoring Coordinator: Larinda Tervelt (706) 347-2126
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator:  Fritz Wagener/Jim Harrison (706) 347-33%

     REGION 5: 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604
        Regional Biologist: Charles Steiner (312) 353-9070
        Monitoring Coordinator. Donna Williams (312) 886-6233
        Water Quality Standards Coordinators: David Pfiefer (312) 353-9024
                                       Tom Simon (312) 353-8341

     REGION 6: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202
        Regional Biologist: Evan Hornig/Philip Crocker/Terry Hollister (214) 655-2289
        Monitoring Coordinator: Charles Howell (214) 655-2289
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator:  Cheryl Overstreet (214) 655-7145

     REGION 7:  726 \linnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101
        Regional Biologist: Michael Tucker/Gary Welker (913) 551-5000
        Monitoring Coordinator: John Helvig (913) 551-5002
        Wafer Quality Standards Coordinator:  Lawrence Shepard (913) 551-7441

     REGION 8: 99918th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2405
        Regional Biologist: Loys Parrish (303) 236-5064
        Monitoring Coordinator: Phil Johnson (303) 293-1581
        Wafer Quality Standards Coordinator: Bill Wuerthele (303) 293-1586

     REGION 3: 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
        Regional Biologist: Peter Husby (415) 744-1488
        Monitoring Coordinator: Ed Liu (415) 744-2006
        Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Phillip Woods (415) 744-1997

     REGION 10:1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
        Regional Biologist: Joseph Cummins (206) 871-0748, ext. 1247
        Monitoring Coordinator: Gretchen Hayslip (206) 553-1685
        Water Quality Standards Coordinators: Sally Marquis (206) 553-2116
                                       Marica Lagerloeff (206) 553-0176

     HEADQUARTERS: 401 M Street SW, Biocriteria Program (WH 586),
     Washington, DC 20640
        Program Coordinators: George Gibson (202) 260-7580
                          Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

     NOTE: Address provided is the EPA Regional Office; -personnel indicated may be located at
     satellite facilities.
12

-------
          APPENDIX L
   Interim Guidance on Determination and
    Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                                                                  II'    '"  llll'lll'l    '"I	'"I	r |I"T
                                                                                                   II  111   III  111 111    111  111        11  111
I'!"1' /'  i.
V   «-

-------
                           FEE 22 1994
                                                EPA-823-B-94-001
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Use of the Water-Effect Ratio in Water Quality
          Standards

FROM:     Tudor T. Davies, Director
          Office of Science and Technology

TO:       Water Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
          State Water Quality Standards Program Directors


PURPOSE

     There are two purposes for this memorandum.

     The first is to transmit the Interim Guidance on the
Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals.  EPA
committed to developing this guidance to support implementation
of federal standards for those States included in the National
Toxics Rule.

     The second is to provide policy guidance on whether a
State's application of a water-effect ratio is a site-specific
criterion adjustment subject to EPA review and
approval/disapproval.


BACKGROUND

     In the early 1980's, members of the regulated community
expressed concern that EPA's laboratory-rderived water quality
criteria might not accurately reflect site-specific conditions
because of the effects of water chemistry and the ability of
species to adapt over time.  In response to these concerns, EPA
created three procedures to derive site-specific criteria.  These
procedures were published in the Water Quality Standards
Handbook. 1983.

-------
      Site-specific criteria are  allowed by regulation and are
 subject  to EPA review and approval.   The Federal water quality
 standards  regulation at  section  131.11(b)(1) provides States with
 the  opportunity to adopt water quality  criteria that are
 "...modified to reflect  site-specific conditions."  Under section
 131.5(a)(2),  EPA reviews standards to determine "whether a State
 has  adopted criteria to  protect  the  designated water uses."

      On  December 22,  1992,  EPA promulgated the National Toxics
 Rule which established Federal water quality standards for 14
 States which had not met the requirements  of Clean Water Act
 Section  303(c)(2)(B).  As part of that  rule, EPA gave the States
 discretion to adjust the aquatic life criteria for metals to
 reflect  site-specific conditions through use of a water-effect
 ratio.   A  water-effect ratio is  a means to account for a
 difference between the toxicity  of the  metal in laboratory
 dilution water and its toxicity  in the  water at the site.

      In  promulgating the National Toxics Rule, EPA committed to
 issuing  updated guidance on the  derivation of water-effect
 ratios.  The  guidance reflects  new  information since the
 previous guidance and is more comprehensive in order to provide
 greater  clarity and increased understanding.   This new guidance
 should help standardize  procedures for  deriving water-effect
 ratios and make results  more comparable and defensible.

      Recently,  an issue  arose concerning the most appropriate
 form of  metals  upon which to base water quality standards.   On
 October  1,  1993,  EPA issued guidance  on this issue which
 indicated  that  measuring the dissolved  form of metal is the
 recommended approach.  This hew  policy  however, is prospective
 and  does not  affect the  criteria in  the National Toxics Rule.
 Dissolved  metals  criteria are not generally numerically equal to
 total recoverable criteria  and the October 1, 1993 guidance
 contains recommendations for correction factors for fresh water
 criteria.   The  determination of  site-specific criteria is
 applicable to criteria expressed as  either total recoverable
 metal or as dissolved metal.

 DISCUSSION

      Existing guidance and  practice  are that EPA will approve
 site- specific  criteria  developed using appropriate procedures.
 That  policy continues  for the options set  forth in the interim
 guidance transmitted today,  regardless  of  whether the resulting
 criterion  is  equal  to  or more or less stringent than the EPA
 national 304(a) guidance.   This  interim guidance supersedes all
 guidance concerning water-effect ratios previously issued by the
Agency.

-------
     Each of the three options for deriving a final water-effect
ratio presented in this interim guidance meets the scientific and
technical acceptability test for deriving site-specific criteria.

Option 3 is the simplest, least restrictive and generally the
least expensive approach for situations where simulated
downstream water appropriately represents a "site."  It is a
fully acceptable approach for deriving the water-effect ratio
although it will generally provide a lower water-effect ratio
than the other 2 options.  The other 2 options may be more costly
and time consuming if more than 3 sample periods and water-effect
ratio measurements are made, but are more accurate, and may yield
a larger, but more scientifically defensible site specific
criterion.

      Site-specific criteria, properly determined, will fully
protect existing uses.  The waterbody or segment thereof to which
the site-specific criteria apply must be clearly defined.  A site
can be defined by the State and can be any size, small or large,
including a watenshed or basin.  However, the site-specific
criteria must protect the site as a whole.  ,It is likely to be
more cost-effective to derive any site-specific criteria for as
large an area as possible or appropriate.  It is emphasized that
site-specific criteria are ambient water quality criteria
applicable to a site.  They are not intended to be direct
modifications to LNTational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)  permit limits.  In most cases the "site" will be
synonymous with a State's "segment" in its water quality
standards.  By defining sites on a larger scale, multiple
dischargers can collaborate on water-effect ratio testing and
attain appropriate site-specific criteria at a reduced cost.

     More attention has been given to water-effect ratios
recently because of the numerous discussions and meetings on the
entire question of metals policy and because WERs were
specifically applied in the National Toxics Rule.  In comments on
the proposed National Toxics Rule, the public questioned whether
the EPA promulgation should be based solely on the total
recoverable form of a metal.  For the reasons set forth in the
final preamble, EPA chose to promulgate the criteria based on the
total recoverable form with a provision for the application of a
water-effect ratio.  In addition, this approach was chosen
because of the unique difficulties of attempting to authorize
site-specific criteria modifications for nationally promulgated
criteria.

     EPA now recommends the use of dissolved metals for States
revising their water quality standards.  Dissolved criteria may
also be modified by a site-specific adjustment.

-------
      While the regulatory application of  the water-effect ratio
 applied only to the 10  jurisdictions  included  in  the  final
 National Toxics Rule for aquatic  life metals criteria, we
 understood that other States  would be interested  in applying WERs
 to  their adopted water  quality standards.  The guidance upon
 which to base the judgment of the acceptability of the water-
 effect ratio applied by the State is  contained in the attached
 Interim Guidance on The Determination and Use  of  Water-Effect
 Ratios for Metals.  It should  be noted that this guidance also
 provides additional information on the recalculation procedure
 for site-specific criteria modifications.

 Status of the Water-effect Ratio  (WER) in non-National Toxics
 Rule States

      A central question concerning WERs is whether their use by a
 State results in a site-specific  criterion subject to EPA review
 and approval under Section 303 (c)  of  the  Clean Water Act?

      Derivation of a water-effect ratio by a State is a site-
 specific criterion adjustment subject  to  EPA review and
 approval/disapproval under Section 303 (c) .  There are two options
 by  which this review can be accomplished.

      Option 1:   A State  may derive and submit  each individual
      water-effect ratio  determination  to  EPA for review and
      approval.   This would be accomplished through the normal
      review and revision process  used  by  a State.

      Option 2:   A State  can amend its  water quality standards to
      provide a formal procedure which  includes derivation of
      water-effect ratios,  appropriate  definition of sites,   and
      enforceable monitoring provisions to assure that designated
      uses  are  protected.   Both this procedure  and the resulting
      criteria  would be subject to  full public participation
      requirements.   Public  review  of a site-specific criterion
      could be  accomplished in conjunction with the public review
      required  for permit  issuance.  EPA would review and
      approve/disapprove  this  protocol  as a revised standard once.
      For public  information,  we recommend that once a year the
      State  publish  a list  of  site-specific criteria.

     An exception to this policy applies to the waters of the
 jurisdictions  included in  the National Toxics Rule.   The EPA
review is not  required for  the jurisdictions included in the
National Toxics  Rule  where  EPA established the procedure for the
State for application to the  criteria promulgated.  The National
Toxics Rule was  a formal rulemaking process with notice and
comment by which EPA pre-authorized the use of a correctly
applied water-effect  ratio.   That  same process has not yet  taken
place in States  not  included  in the National Toxics Rule.

-------
However, the National Toxics Rule does not affect State authority
to establish scientifically defensible procedures to determine
Federally authorized WERs, to certify those WERs in NPDES permit
proceedings, or to deny their application based on the State's
risk management analysis.

     As described in Section 131.36(b) (iii) of the water quality
standards regulation  (the official regulatory reference to the
National Toxics Rule), the water-effect ratio is a site-specific
calculation.  As indicated on page 60866 of the preamble to the
National Toxics Rule, the rule was constructed as a rebuttable
presumption. The water-effect ratio is assigned a value of 1.0
until a different water-effect ratio is derived from suitable
tests representative of conditions in the affected waterbody.  It
is the responsibility of the State to determine whether to rebut
the assumed value of 1.0 in the National Toxics Rule and apply
another value of the water-effect ratio in order to establish a
site-specific criterion.  The site-specific criterion is then
used to develop appropriate NPDES permit limits.  The rule thus
provides a State with the flexibility to derive an appropriate
site-specific criterion for specific waterbodies.

     As a point of emphasis, although a water-effect ratio
affects permit limits for individual dischargers,  it is the State
in all cases that determines if derivation of a site-specific
criterion based on the water-effect ratio is allowed and it is
the State that ensures that the calculations and data analysis
are done completely and correctly.

CONCLUSION

     This interim guidance explains and clarifies the use of
site-specific criteria.  It is issued, as interim guidance because
it will be included as part of the process underway for review
and possible revision of the national aquatic life criteria
development methodology guidelines.  As part of that review,  this
interim guidance is subject to amendment based on comments,
especially those from the users of the guidance.  At the end of
the guidelines revision process the auidance will be issued as
"final."

     EPA is interested in and encourages the submittal of high
quality datasets that can be used to provide insights into the
use of these guidelines and procedures.   Such data and technical
comments should be submitted to Charles E.  Stephan at EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory at Duluth,  MN.  A complete
address, telephone number and fax number for Mr. Stephan are
included in the guidance itself.   Other questions or comments
should be directed to the Standards and Applied Science Division
(mail code 4305, telephone 202-260-1315) .

-------
     There is attached to this memorandum a simplified flow
diagram and an implementation procedure.  These are intended to
aid a user by placing the water-effect ratio procedure in the
context of proceeding from at site-specific criterion to a permit
limit.  Following these attachments is the guidance itself.

Attachments

cc: Robert Perciasepe, OW
    Martha G. Prothro, OW
    William Diamond, SASD
    Margaret Stasikowski, HECD
    Mike Cook, OWEC
    Cynthia Dougherty, OWEC
    Lee Schroer, OGC
    Susan Lepow, OGC
    Courtney Riordan, ORD
    ORD  (Duluth and Narragansett Laboratories)
    BSD Directors, Regions I - VIII, X
    BSD Branch, Region IX
    Water Quality Standards Coordinators, Regions I - X

-------
                                              •—   as   E
                                              ±3   *c   o
OS


CD


-CD

Q.

E
nr / -—
S / &
~-i, / «L
> / CO





c:
<

^
CO
itOB
I 1
1
Q.
0


-------

-------
                WATER-EFFECT RATIO IMPLEMENTATION

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS & PLAN FORMULATION

     - Site definition

       • How many discharges must be accounted for?  Tributaries?
         See page 17.
       • What is the waterbody type? (i.e., stream, tidal river,
         bay, etc.).   See page 44 and Appendix A.
       • How can these considerations best be combined to define
         the relevant geographic "site"?  See Appendix A @ page
         82.

     - Plan Development for Regulatory Agency Review

       • Is WER method 1 or 2 appropriate? (e.g., Is design flow
         a meaningful concept or are other considerations
         paramount?).  See page 6.
       • Define the effluent & receiving water sample locations
       • Describe the temporal sample collection protocols
         proposed.  See page 48.
       • Can simulated site water procedure be done, or is
         downstream sampling required?  See Appendix A.
       • Describe the testing protocols - test species, test
         type, test length, etc.  See page 45, 50; Appendix I.
       • Describe the chemical testing proposed.  See Appendix C.
       • Describe other details of study - flow measurement,
         QA/QC, number of sampling periods proposed, to whom the
         results are expected to apply, schedule, etc.


SAMPLING DESIGN FOR STREAMS

     - Discuss the quantification of the design streamflow  (e.g.,
       7Q10) - USG!S gage directly, by extrapolation from USGS
       gage, or ?

     - Effluents

       • measure flows to determine average for sampling day
       • collect 24 hour composite using "clean" equipment and
         approprisite procedures; avoid the use of the plant's
         daily composite sample as a shortcut.

     - Streams

       • measure flow  (use current meter or read from gage if
         available;)  to determine dilution with effluent; and to
         check if Within acceptable range for use of the data
          (i.e., design flow to 10 times the design  flow).
       • collect 24  hour composite of upstream water.

-------
LABORATORY PROCEDURES  (NOTE:  These are described in detail in
                       interim guidance).


     - Select appropriate primary & secondary tests

     - Determine appropriate cmcWER and/or cccWER

     - Perform chemistry using clean procedures, with methods
       that have adequate sensitivity to measure low
       concentrations, and use appropriate QA/QC

     - Calculate final water-effect ratio (FWER) for site.
       See page 3 6.

IMPLEMENTATION

     - Assign FWERs and the site specific criteria for each metal
       to each discharger (if more than one).

     - perform a waste load allocation and total maximum daily
       load (if appropriate) so that each discharger is provided
       a permit limit.

     - establish monitoring condition for periodic evaluation of
       instream biology (recommended)

     - establish a permit condition for periodic testing of WER
       to verify site-specific criterion (NTR recommendation)

-------
        Interim Guidance on

      Determination and Use of

   Water-Effect Ratios for Metals
           February 1994
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

           Office  of Water
  Office of Science and Technology
          Washington,  D.C.

 Office of Research and Development
 Environmental  Research Laboratories
          Duluth,  Minnesota
     Narragansett, Rhode Island

-------
                             NOTICES


This document has been reviewed by the Environmental Research
Laboratories, Duluth, MN and Narragansett, RI (Office of Research
and Development) and the Office of Science and Technology (Office
of Water), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.


Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                             FOREWORD


This document provides interim guidance concerning the
experimental determination of water-effect ratios (WERs) for
metals; some aspects of the use of WERs are also addressed.  It
is issued in support of EPA regulations and policy initiatives
involving the application of water quality criteria and standards
for metals.  This document is agency guidance only.   It does not
establish or affect legal rights or obligations.-  It does not
establish a binding norm or prohibit alternatives not included in
the document.  It is not finally determinative of the issues
addressed.  Agency decisions in any particular case will be made
by applying the law and regulations on the basis of specific
facts when regulations are promulgated or permits are issued.

This document is expected to be revised periodically to reflect
advances in this rapidly evolving area.  Comments, especially
those accompanied by supporting data, are welcomed and should be
sent to: Charles E. Stephan, U.S. EPA, 6201 Congdon Boulevard,
Duluth MN 55804  (TEL: 218-720-5510; FAX: 218-720-5539).
                                ill

-------
                            FEE 22 1994
        OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POSITION STATEMENT

    Section 131.11(b)(ii)  of the water quality standards
 regulation (40 CFR Part 131)  provides the regulatory mechanism
 for a State to develop site-specific criteria for use in water
 quality standards.  Adopting site-specific criteria  in water
 quality standards is  a State option--not a requirement.   The
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  in 1983 provided guidance
 on  scientifically acceptable methods by which site-specific
 criteria could be developed.

    The interim guidance provided in  this document supersedes all
 guidance concerning water-effect ratios and the  Indicator Species
 Procedure given  in Chapter 4  of the  Water Quality Standards
 Handbook issued  by EPA in 1983  and in Guidelines for Deriving
 Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria by
 Modifying National  Criteria,  1984.   Appendix  B  also supersedes
 the guidance  in  these  earlier documents for the  Recalculation
 Procedure for performing site-specific criteria  modifications.

    This  interim  guidance  fulfills a  commitment made  in the final
 rule to  establish numeric criteria for priority  toxic  pollutants
 (57 FR 60848,  December 22,  1992,  also  known as the "National
 Toxics Rule").   This guidance also is  applicable  to  pollutants
 other than metals with appropriate modifications, principally to
 chemical  analyses.

    Except  for the jurisdictions  subject  to  the aquatic life
 criteria  in the  national  toxics  rule,  water-effect ratios are
 site-specific criteria subject  to review and approval by the
 appropriate EPA  Regional  Administrator.  Site-specific criteria
 are new or revised  criteria subject  to the  normal EPA review
 requirements  established  in Clean Water  Act  § 303 (c)  .  For the
 States in  the National  Toxics Rule,  EPA has  established that
 site-specific water-effect ratios may  be applied  to  the criteria
promulgated in the  rule to establish site-specific criteria.   The
water-effect  ratio  portion of these  criteria would still be
 subject to State  review before the development of total maximum
daily  loads,  waste  load allocations  or translation into NPDES
permit limits.  EPA would only review  these water-effect ratios
during its oversight review of these State programs or review of
State-issued  permits.
                                IV

-------
     Each of the three options for deriving a final water-effect
ratio presented on page 36 of this interim guidance meets the
scientific and technical acceptability test for deriving site-
specific criteria specified in the water quality standards
regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)).  Option 3 is the simplest, least
restrictive and generally the least expensive approach for
situations where simulated downstream water appropriately
represents a "site."  Option 3 requires experimental
determination of three water-effect ratios with the primary test
species that are determined during any season (as long as the
downstream flow is between 2 and 10 times design flow
conditions.)   The final WER is generally (but not always) the
lowest experimentally determined WER.  Deriving a final water-
effect ratio using option 3 with the use of simulated downstream
water for a situation where this simulation appropriately
represents a "site", is a fully acceptable approach for deriving
a water-effect ratio for use in determining a site-specific
criterion, although it will generally provide a lower water-
effect ratio than the other 2 options.

   As indicated in the introduction to this guidance, the
determination of a water-effect ratio may require substantial
resources.  A discharger should consider  cost-effective,
preliminary measures described in this guidance (e.g., use of
"clean" sampling and chemical analytical techniques or.in non-NTR
States, a recalculated criterion) to determine if an indicator
species site-specific criterion is really needed.   It may be that
an appropriate site-specific criterion is actually being
attained.  In many instances, use of these other measures may
eliminate the need for deriving final water-effect ratios.  The
methods described in this interim guidance should be sufficient
to develop site-specific criteria that resolve concerns of
dischargers when there appears to be no instream toxicity from a
metal but, where  (a) a discharge appears to exceed existing or
proposed water quality-based permit limits, or (b) an instream
concentration appears to exceed an existing or proposed water
quality criterion.

   This guidance describes 2 different methods for determining
water-effect ratios.  Method 1 has 3 options each of which may
only require 3 sampling periods.  However options 1 and 2 may be
expanded and require a much greater effort.  While this position
statement has discussed the simplest, least expensive option for
method 1  (the single discharge to a stream) to illustrate that
site specific criteria are feasible even when only small
dischargers are affected, water-effect ratios may be calculated
using any of the other options described in the guidance if the
State/discharger believe that there is reason to expect that a
more accurate site-specific criterion will result from the
increased cost and complexity inherent in conducting the
                                v

-------
additional tests  and  analyzing the results.  Situations where
this could be  the case  include,  for example, where seasonal
effects in receiving  water quality or in discharge quality need
to be assessed.

   In addition, EPA will consider other scientifically defensible
approaches in  developing final water-effect ratios as authorized
in 40 CFR 131.11.  However, EPA  strongly recommends that before a
State/discharger  implements any  approach other than one described
in this interim guidance, discussions be held with appropriate
EPA regional offices  and Office  of Research and Development's
scientists before actual testing begins.  These discussions would
be to ensure that time  and resources are not wasted on
scientifically and technically unacceptable approaches.  It
remains EPA's  responsibility to  make final decisions on the
scientific and technical validity of alternative approaches to
developing site-specific water quality criteria.

   EPA is fully cognizant of the continuing debate between what
constitutes guidance  and what is a regulatory requirement.
Developing site-specific criteria is a State regulatory option.
Using the methodology correctly  as described in this guidance
assures the State  that  EPA will  accept the result.  Other
approaches are possible and logically should be discussed with
EPA prior to implementation.

     The Office of Science and Technology believes that this
interim guidance  advances the science of determining site-
specific criteria  and provides policy guidance that States  and
EPA can use in this complex area.  It reflects the scientific
advances in the past  10 years and the experience gained from
dealing with these issues in real world situations.  This
guidance will help improve implementation of water quality
standards and be the basis for future progress.
                             Tudor T. Davies,  Director
                             Office of Science And Technology
                             Office of Water
                               VI

-------
                            CONTENTS
Notices .  ..........................  ii

Foreword  ....................... ... iii

Office of Science and Technology Position Statement .....  iv

Appendices  ... ................ .....  viii

Figures ...........................  ix

Acknowledgments  ........................ x

Executive Summary ......................  xi

Abbreviations  .......................  xiii

Glossary  ......................  .... xiv

Preface ...........................
Introduction   ................. . ..... .  .  .  1


Method 1   ......  ....................   17
   A. Experimental Design  ......... .  ........   17
   B. Background Information and Initial Decisions  .....   44
   C. Selecting Primary and Secondary Tests .  . .......   45
   D. Acquiring and Acclimating Test Organisms  .......   47
   E. Collecting and Handling Upstream Water and Effluent .  .   48
   F. Laboratory Dilution Water ...............   49
   G. Conducting Tests   ....... ............   50
   H. Chemical and Other Measurements ............   55
   I. Calculating and  Interpreting the Results  .......   57
   J. Reporting the Results  ......  ...........   62


Method 2   .................... .......   65


References  .........................   76
                               VI1

-------
                            APPENDICES
                                                             Page

A.  Comparison of WERs Determined Using Upstream and
    Downstream Water	79

B.  The Recalculation Procedure	      90

C.  Guidance Concerning the Use  of  "Clean Techniques" and
    QA/QC when Measuring Trace Metals  	  98

D.  Relationships between WERs and  the Chemistry and
    Toxicology of Metals	109

E.  U.S. EPA Aquatic Life Criteria  Documents for Metals  . .  . 134

F.  Considerations Concerning Multiple-Metal, Multiple-
    Discharge, and Special Flowing-Water Situations 	 135

G.  Additivity and the Two Components of a WER Determined
    Using Downstream Water  	 ....... 139

H.  Special Considerations Concerning the Determination
    of WERs with Saltwater Species	145

I.  Suggested Toxicity Tests for Determining WERs
    for Metals	•	147

J.  Recommended Salts of Metals  	 153
                              Vlll

-------
                             FIGURES





                                                             Page



1.  Four Ways to Derive a Permit Limit  ...........  16



2.  Calculating an Adjusted Geometric Mean	71



3.  An Example Derivation of a FWER	  72



4.  Reducing the Impact of Experimental Variation ......  73



5.  Calculating an LC50 (or EC50) by Interpolation  .....  74



6.  Calculating a Time-Weighted Average 	  75



Bl. An Example of the Deletion Process Using Three Phyla  .  .  97



Dl. A Scheme for Classifying Forms of Metal in Water  .... Ill



D2. An Example of the Empirical Extrapolation Process .... 125



D3. The Internal Consistency of the Two Approaches	126



D4. The Application of the Two Approaches	 128



D5. A Generalized Complexation Curve  	 131



D6. A Generalized Precipitation Curve .  	 132
                                IX

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This document was written by:

     Charles E. Stephan, U.S. EPA, ORD, Environmental Research
          Laboratory, Duluth, MN.

     William H. Peltier, U.S. EPA, Region  IV, Environmental
          Services Division, Athens, GA.

     David J. Hansen, U.S. EPA, ORD, Environmental Research
          Laboratory, Narragansett, RI.

     Charles G. Delos, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Health
          and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.

     Gary A. Chapman, U.S. EPA, ORD, Environmental Research
          Laboratory  (Narragansett), Pacific Ecosystems Branch,
          Newport, OR.


The authors thank all the people who participated in the open
discussion of the experimental determination of water-effect
ratios on Tuesday evening, January 26, 1993 in Annapolis, MD.
Special thanks go to Herb Allen, Bill Beckwith, Ken Bruland, Lee
Dunbar, Russ Erickson, and Carlton Hunt for their technical input
on this project, although none of them necessarily agree with
everything in this document.  Comments by Kent Ballentine, Karen
Gourdine, Mark Hicks, Suzanne Lussier, Nelson Thomas, Bob Spehar,
Fritz Wagener, Robb Wood, and Phil Woods on various drafts, or
portions of drafts, were also very helpful, as were discussions
with several other individuals.

-------
                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


A variety of physical and chemical characteristics of both the
water and the metal can influence the toxicity of a metal to
aquatic organisms in a surface water.  When a site-specific
aquatic life criterion is derived for a metal, an adjustment
procedure based on the toxicological determination of a water-
effect ratio (WER) ms\y be used to account for a difference
between the toxicity of the metal in laboratory dilution water
and its toxicity in the water at the site.  If there is a
difference in toxicity and it is not taken into account, the
aquatic life criterion for the body of water will be more or less
protective than intended by EPA's Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Wetter Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.  After a WER is determined for
a site, a site-specific aquatic life criterion can be calculated
by multiplying an appropriate national, state, or recalculated
criterion by the WER.  Most WERs are expected to be equal to or
greater than 1.0, but some might be less than 1.0.  Because most
aquatic life criteria consist of two numbers, i.e., a Criterion
Maximum Concentration (CMC) and a Criterion Continuous
Concentration  (CCC), either a cmcWER or a cccWER or both might be
needed for a site.  The cmcWER and the cccWER cannot be assumed
to be equal, but it is not always necessary to determine both.

In order to determine a WER, side-by-side toxicity tests are
performed to measure the toxicity of the metal in two dilution
waters.  One of the waters has to be a water that would be
acceptable for use in laboratory toxicity tests conducted for the
derivation of national water quality criteria for aquatic life.
In most situations, the second dilution water will be a simulated
downstream water that is prepared by mixing upstream water and
effluent in an appropriate ratio; in other situations, the second
dilution water will be a sample of the actual site water to which
the site-specific criterion is to apply.  The WER is calculated
by dividing the endpoint obtained in the site water by the
endpoint obtained in the. laboratory dilution water.  A WER should
be determined using a toxicity test whose endpoint is close to,
but not lower than, the CMC and/or CCC that is to be adjusted.

A total recoverable WER can be determined if the metal in both of
the side-by-side toxicity tests is analyzed using the total
recoverable measurement, and a dissolved WER can be determined if
the metal is analyzed in both tests using the dissolved
measurement.  Thus four WERs can be determined:
      Total recoverable cmcWER.
      Total recoverable cccWER.
      Dissolved cmcWER.
      Dissolved cccWER.
A total recoverable WER is used to calculate a total recoverable
site-specific criterion from a total recoverable national, state,

                                xi

-------
or recalculated aquatic life criterion, whereas a dissolved WER
is used to calculate a dissolved site-specific criterion from a
dissolved criterion.  WERs are determined individually for each
metal at each site; WERs cannot be extrapolated from one metal to
another, one effluent to another, or one site water to another.

Because determining a WER requires substantial resources, the
desirability of obtaining a WER should be carefully.evaluated:
1. Determine whether use of "clean techniques" for collecting,
   handling, storing, preparing, and analyzing samples will
   eliminate the reason for considering determination of a WER,
   because existing data concerning concentrations of metals in
   effluents and surface waters might be erroneously high.
2. Evaluate the potential for reducing the discharge of the
   metal.
3. Investigate possible constraints on the permit limits, such as
   antibacksliding and antidegradation requirements and human
   health and wildlife criteria.
4. Consider use of the Recalculation Procedure.
5. Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of determining a WER.
If the determination of a WER is desirable; a detailed workplan
for should be submitted to the appropriate regulatory authority
(and possibly to the Water Management Division of the EPA
Regional Office) for comment.  After the workplan is completed,
the initial phase should be implemented, the data should be
evaluated, and the workplan should be revised if appropriate.

Two methods are used to determine WERs.  Method 1, which is used
to determine cccWERs that apply near plumes and to determine all
cmcWERs, uses data concerning three or more distinctly separate
sampling events.  It is besft if the sampling events occur during
both low-flow and higher-fiow periods.  When sampling does not
occur during both low and higher flows, the site-specific
criterion is derived in a more conservative manner due to greater
uncertainty.  For each sampling event, a WER is determined using
a selected toxicity test; for at least one of the sampling
events, a confirmatory WER is determined using a different test.

Method 2, which is used to determine a cccWER for a large body of
water outside the vicinities of plumes, requires substantial
site-specific planning and more resources than Method 1.  WERs
are determined using samples of actual site water obtained at
various times, locations, and depths to identify the range of
WERs in the body of water.  The WERs are used to determine how
many site-specific CCCs should be derived for the body of water
and what the one or more CCCs should be.

The guidance contained herein replaces previous agency guidance
concerning (a) the determination of WERs for use in the
derivation of site-specific aquatic life criteria for metals and
(b) the Recalculation Procedure.  This guidance is designed to
apply to metals, but the principles apply to most pollutants.

                               xii

-------
                          ABBREVIATIONS



ACR:   Acute-Chronic Ratio

CCC:   Criterion Continuous Concentration

CMC:   Criterion Maximum Concentration

CRM:   Certified Reference Material

FAV:   Final Acute Value

FCV:   Final Chronic Value

FW:    Freshwater

FWER:  Final Water-Effect Ratio

GMAV:  Genus Mean Acute Value

HCME:  Highest Concentration of the Metal in the Effluent

MDR:   Minimum Data Requirement

NTR:   National Toxics Rule

QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control

SMAV:  Species Mean Acute Value
                                                        •s
SW:    Saltwater

TDS:   Total Dissolved Solids

TIE:   Toxicity Identification Evaluation

.TMDL:  Total Maximum Daily Load

TOC:   Total Organic Carbon

TRE:   Toxicity Reduction Evaluation

TSD:   Technical Support Document

TSS:   Total Suspended Solids

WER:   Water-Effect Ratio

WET:   Whole Effluent Toxicity

WLA:   Wasteload Allocation

                               xiii

-------
                             GLOSSARY


Acute-chronic ratio - an appropriate measure of the acute
     toxicity of a material divided by an appropriate
     measure of the chronic toxicity of the same material
     under the same conditions.

Appropriate regulatory authority - Usually the State water
     pollution control agency, even for States under the National
     Toxics Rule; if, however, a State were to waive its section
     401 authority, the Water Management Division of the EPA
     Regional Office would become the appropriate regulatory
     authority.

Clean techniques - a set of procedures designed,to prevent
     contamination of samples so that concentrations of
     trace metals can be measured accurately and precisely.

Critical species - a species that is commercially or
     recreationally important at the site, a species that exists
     at the site and is listed as threatened or endangered under
     section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, or a species for
     which there is evidence that the loss of the species from
     the site is likely to cause an unacceptable impact on a
     commercially or recreationally important species, a
     threatened or endangered species, the abundances of a
     variety of other species, or the structure or function of
     the community.

Design flow - the flow used for steady-state wasteload
     allocation modeling.

Dissolved metal - defined here as "metal that passes through
     either a 0.45-/*m or a 0.40-/im membrane filter".

Endpoint - the concentration of test material that is expected to
     cause a specified amount of adverse effect.

Final Water-Effect Ratio - the WER that is used in the
     calculation of a site-specific aquatic life criterion.

Flow-through test - a test in which test solutions flow into
     the test chambers either intermittently (every few
     minutes) or continuously and the excess flows out.

Labile metal - metal that is in water and will readily
     convert from one form to another when in a
     nonequilibrium condition.

Particulate metal - metal that is measured by the total
     recoverable method but not by the dissolved method.

                               xiv

-------
Primary test - the toxicity test used in the determination
     of a Final Water-Effect Ratio (FWER);  the specification
     of the test includes the test species, the life stage
     of the species, the duration of the test, and the
     adverse effect on which the endpoint is based.

Refractory metal - metal that is in water and will not
     readily convert from one form to another when in a
     nonequilibrium condition, i.e.,  metal that is in water
     and is not labile.

Renewal test - a test, in which either the test solution in a
     test chamber is renewed at least once during the test
     or the test organisms are transferred into a new test
     solution of the same composition at least once during
     the test.

Secondary test - a toxicity test that is usually conducted
     along with the primary test only once to test the
     assumptions that, within experimental variation, (a)
     similar WERs will be obtained using tests that have
     similar sensitivities to the test material, and  (b)
     tests that are less sensitive to the test material will
     usually give WERs that are closer to 1.

Simulated downstream water - a site water prepared by mixing
     effluent and upstream water in a known ratio.

Site-specific aquatic life criterion - a water quality
     criterion for aquatic life that has been derived to be
     specifically appropriate to the water quality
     characteristics and/or species composition at a
     particular location.

Site water - upstream water, actual downstream water, or
     simulated downstream water in which a toxicity test is
     conducted side-by-side with the same toxicity test in a
     laboratory dilution water to determine a WER.

Static test - a test in which the solution and organisms
     that are in a  test chamber at the beginning of the test
     remain in the  chamber until the end of the test.

Total recoverable metal - metal that is in aqueous solution
     after the sample is appropriately acidified and
     digested and insoluble material is separated.

Water-effect ratio  - an appropriate measure of the toxicity
     of a material  obtained in a site water divided by  the
     same measure of the toxicity of the same material
     obtained simultaneously  in a laboratory  dilution water.

                                xv

-------
                             PREFACE


Several issues need consideration when guidance such as this is
written:

1. Degrees of importance;  Procedures and methods are series of
   instructions, but some of the instructions are more important
   than others.  Some instructions are so important that, if they
   are not followed, the results will be questionable or
   unacceptable; other instructions are less important, but
   definitely desirable.  Possibly the best way to express
   various degrees of importance is the approach described in
   several ASTM Standards, such as in section 3.6 of Standard
   E729 (ASTM 1993a), which is modified here to apply to WERs:
      The words "must", "should", "may", "can", and "might" have
      specific meanings in this document.  "Must" is used to
      express an instruction that is to be followed, unless a
      site-specific consideration requires a deviation, and is
      used only in connection with instructions that directly
      relate to the validity of toxicity tests, WERs,  FWERs, and
      the Recalculation Procedure.  "Should" is used to state
      instructions that are recommended and are to be followed if
      reasonably possible.  Deviation from one "should" will not
      invalidate a WER, but deviation from several probably will.
      Terms such as "is desirable",  "is often desirable", and
      "might be desirable" are used in connection with less
      important instructions.  "May" is used to mean "is (are)
      allowed to", "can" is used to mean "is (are) able to", and
      "might" is used to mean "could possibly".  Thus the classic
      distinction between "may" and "can" is preserved, and
      "might" is not used as a synonym for either "may" or "can".
   This does not eliminate all problems concerning the degree of
   importance, however.  For example,  a small deviation from a
   "must"  might not invalidate a WER,  whereas a large deviation
   would.   (Each "must" and "must not" is in bold print for
   convenience, not for emphasis, in this document.)

2. Educational and explanatory material:  Many people have asked
   for much detail in this document to ensure that as many WERs
   as possible are determined in an acceptable manner.  In
   addition,  some people want justifications for each detail.
   Much of the detail that is desired by some people is based on
   "best professional judgment",  which is rarely considered an
   acceptable justification by people who disagree with a
   specified detail.  Even if details are taken from an EPA
   method or an ASTM standard, they were often included in those
   documents on the basis of best professional judgment.  In
   contrast,  some people want detailed methodology presented
   without explanatory material.   It was decided to include as
   much detail as is feasible, and to provide rationale and
   explanation for major items.

                               xvi

-------
3. Alternatives:  When more than one alternative is both
   scientifically sound and appropriately protective,  it seems
   reasonable to present the alternatives rather than presenting
   the one that is considered best.  The reader can then select
   one based on cost-effectiveness, personal preference, details
   of the particular situation, and perceived advantages and
   disadvantages.

4. Separation of "science", "best professional judgment" and
   "regulatory decisions";  These can never be completely
   separated in this kind of document; for example, if data are
   analyzed for a statistically significant difference, the
   selection of alpha is an important decision, but a rationale
   for its selection is rarely presented, probably because the
   selection is not a scientific decision.  In this document, an
   attempt has been made to focus on good science, best
   professional judgment, and presentation of the rationale; when
   possible, these are separated from "regulatory decisions"
   concerning margin of safety, level of protection, beneficial
   use, regulatory convenience, and the goal of zero discharge.
   Some "regulatory decisions" relating to implementation,
   however, should be integrated with, not separated from,
   "science" because the two ought to be carefully considered_
   together wherever science has implications for implementation.

5. Best professional -judgment;  Much of the guidance contained
   herein  is qualitative rather than quantitative, and much
   judgment will usually be required to derive a site-specific
   water quality criterion for aquatic life.  In addition,
   although this version of the guidance for determining and
   using WERs attempts to cover all major questions that have
   arisen  during use of the previous version and during
   preparation  of this version, it undoubtedly does not cover all
   situations,  questions, and  extenuating circumstances that
   might arise  in 'the future.  All necessary decisions  should be
   based on both a thorough knowledge of aquatic toxicology and
   an understanding of this guidance; each decision should be
   consistent with the spirit  of this guidance, which  is to make
   best use of  "good science"  to derive the most appropriate
   site-specific criteria.  This guidance should be modified
   whenever sound scientific evidence indicates that a site-
   specific criterion produced using  this guidance will probably
   substantially underprotect  or overprotect the aquatic life at
   the site of  concern.   Derivation of  site-specific criteria for
   aquatic life is a complex process  and  requires  knowledge  in
   many areas of aquatic  toxicology;  any  deviation from this
   guidance  should be  carefully considered  to  ensure that  it  is
   consistent with other  parts of  this  guidance and with  "good
   science".

 6. Personal  bias:  Bias  can never  be  eliminated,  and  some
   decisions  are at  the  fine  line  between "bias" .and  "best
                               xvi i

-------
professional judgment".  The possibility of bias can be
eliminated only by adoption of an extreme position such as "no
regulation" or "no discharge".   One way to deal with bias is to
have decisions made by a team of knowledgeable people.

7. Teamwork:   The determination of a WER should be a cooperative
   team effort beginning with the completion of the initial
   workplan,  interpretation of initial data, revision of the
   workplan,  etc.  The interaction of a variety of knowledgeable,
   reasonable people will help obtain the best results for the
   expenditure of the fewest resources.  Members of the team
   should acknowledge their biases so that the team can make best
   use of the available information,  taking into account its
   relevancy to the immediate situation and its quality.
                             xvi 11

-------
                           INTRODUCTION


National aquatic life criteria for metals are intended to protect
the aquatic life in almost all surface waters of the United
States  (U.S. EPA 1985).   This level of protection is accomplished
in two ways.  First, the national dataset is required to contain
aquatic species that have been found to be sensitive to a variety
of pollutants.  Second,  the dilution water and the metal salt
used in the toxicity tests are required to have physical and
chemical characteristics that ensure that the metal is at least
as toxic in the tests as it is in nearly all surface waters.  For
example, the dilution water is to be low in suspended solids and
in organic carbon, and some forms of metal (e.g., insoluble metal
and metal bound by organic complexing agents) cannot be used as
the test material.  (The term "metal" is used herein to include
both "metals" and "metalloids".)

Alternatively, a national aquatic life criterion might not
adequately protect the aquatic life at some sites.  An untested
species that is important at a site might be more sensitive than
any of the tested species.  Also, the metal might be more toxic
in site water than in laboratory dilution water because, for
example, the site water has a lower pH and/or hardness than most
laboratory waters.  Thus although a national aquatic life
criterion is intended to be lower than necessary for most sites,
a national criterion might not adequately protect the aquatic
life at some sites.

Because a national aquatic life criterion might be more or less
protective than intended for the aquatic life in most bodies of
water, the U.S. EPA provided guidance (U.S. EPA 1983a,1984)
concerning three procedures that may be used to derive a site-
specific criterion:
1. The Recalculation Procedure is intended to take into account
   relevant differences between the sensitivities of the aquatic
   organisms in the national dataset and the sensitivities of
   organisms that occur at the site.
2. The Indicator Species Procedure provides for the use of a
   water-effect ratio (WER) that is intended to take into account
    relevant differences between the toxicity of the metal in
   laboratory dilution water and in site water.
3. The Resident Species Procedure is intended to take into
   account both kinds of differences simultaneously.
A site-specific criterion is intended to come closer than the
national criterion to providing the intended level of protection
to the aquatic life at the site, usually by taking into account
the biological and/or chemical conditions  (i.e., the species
composition and/or water quality characteristics) at the site.
The fact that the U.S. EPA has made these procedures available
should not be interpreted as implying that the agency advocates
that states derive site-specific criteria before setting state

-------
 standards'.  Also, derivation of a site-specific criterion does
 not change the intended level of protection of the aquatic life
 at the site.  Because a WER is expected to appropriately take
 into account (a)  the site-specific toxicity of the metal, and (b)
 synergism, antagonism, and additivity with other constituents of
 the site water, using a WER is more likely to provide the
 intended level of protection than not using a WER.

 Although guidance concerning site-specific criteria has been
 available since 1983 (U.S.  EPA 1983a,1984),  interest has
 increased in recent years as states have devoted more attention
 to chemical-specific water quality criteria for aquatic life.   In
 addition,  interest in water-effect ratios (WERs)  increased when
 the "Interim Guidance" concerning metals (U.S.  EPA 1992)  made a
 fundamental change in the way that WERs are experimentally
 determined (see Appendix A),  because the change is expected to
 substantially increase the magnitude of many WERs.  Interest was
 further focused on WERs when they were integrated into some of
 the aquatic life  criteria for metals that were  promulgated by the
 National Toxics Rule (57 FR 60848,  December 22,  1992).   The
 newest guidance issued by the U.S.  EPA (Prothro 1993)  concerning
 aquatic life criteria for metals affected the determination and
 use of WERs only  insofar as  it affected the  use of total
 recoverable and dissolved criteria.

 The early guidance concerning WERs  (U.S.  EPA 1983a,1984)
 contained few details and needs revision,  especially to take into
 account newer guidance concerning metals  (U.S.  EPA 1992;  Prothro
 1993).   The guidance presented herein supersedes -all guidance
 concerning WERs and the Indicator Species Procedure given in
 Chapter 4  of the  Water Quality Standards  Handbook  (U.S. EPA
 1983a)  and in U.S.  EPA (1984).   All  guidance presented  in U.S.
 EPA (1992)  is superseded by that presented by Prothro  (1993) and
 by this document.   Metals are specifically addressed herein
 because of the  National Toxics Rule  (NTR)  and because of  current
 interest in aquatic life criteria for metals; although  most  of
 this guidance also applies to other  pollutants, some obviously
 applies only to metals.

 Even though this  document was prepared mainly because of  the NTR,
 the guidance  contained  herein concerning  WERs is likely to  have
 impact  beyond its  use with the NTR.   Therefore, it  is appropriate
 to also present new guidance  concerning the  Recalculation
 Procedure  (see  Appendix B) because the previous guidance  (U.S.
 EPA 1983a,1984) concerning this  procedure  also contained  few
 details  and needs  revision.   The NTR does not allow use of  the
Recalculation Procedure  in jurisdictions  subject to  the NTR.

The previous  guidance concerning site-specific procedures did not
allow the Recalculation  Procedure and the WER procedure to be
used together in the derivation  of a  site-specific  aquatic  life
criterion;  the  only way  to take  into  account both  species

-------
composition arid water quality characteristics in the
determination of a site-specific criterion was to use the
Resident Species Procedure.  A specific change contained herein
is that, except in -jurisdictions that are subject to the NTR,	the
Recalculation Procedure and the WER Procedure mav now be used
together.   Additional reasons for addressing both the
Recalculation Procedure and the WER Procedure in this document
are that both procedures are based directly on the guidelines for
deriving national aquatic life criteria  (U.S. EPA 1985) and, when
the two are used together, use of the Recalculation Procedure has
specific implications concerning the determination of the WER.

This guidance is intended to produce WERs that may be used to
derive site-specific aquatic life criteria for metals from most
national and state aquatic life criteria that were derived from
laboratory toxicity data.  Except in jurisdictions that are
subject to the NTR, the WERs may also be used with site-specific
aquatic life criteria that are derived for metals using the
Recalculation Procedure described in Appendix B.  WERs obtained
using the methods described herein should not be used to adjust
aquatic life criteria that were derived  for metals in other ways.
For example, because they are designed to be applied to criteria
derived on the basis of laboratory toxicity tests, WERs
determined using the methods described herein cannot be used to
adjust the residue-based mercury Criterion Continuous
Concentration  (CCC) or the field-based selenium freshwater
criterion.  For the purposes of the NTR, WERs may be used with
the aquatic life criteria  for arsenic, cadmium, chromium(III),
chromium(VI), copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc and with the
Criterion Maximum Concentration  (CMC) for mercury.  WERs may also
be used with saltwater criteria for selenium.

The concept of  a WER is rather simple:
   Two-side-by-side toxicity tests are conducted  - one test using
   laboratory dilution water and the other using  site  water.  The
   endpoint obtained using site water is divided  by the endpoint
   obtained using  Iciboratory dilution water.  The quotient  is the
   WER, which  is multiplied times the national,  state, or_
   recalculated aquatic life criterion to calculate the site-
   specific criterion.
Although  the concept  is  simple,  the  determination and  use of WERs
 involves  many  considerations.

 The primary purposes  of  this document  are to:            _
 1.  Identify steps  that  should  be  taken before the determination
   of a WER is begun.
 2. Describe the methods  recommended  by the  U.S.  EPA for  the
    determination of WERs.
 3. Address some issues  concerning the  use  of WERs.
 4.  Present new guidance  concerning the  Recalculation Procedure.

-------
 Before Determining a WER

 Because a national criterion is intended to protect aquatic life
 in almost all bodies of water and because a WER is intended to
 account for a difference between the toxicity of a metal in a
 laboratory dilution water and its toxicity in a site water,
 dischargers who want higher permit limits than those derived on
 the basis of an existing aquatic life criterion will probably
 consider determining a WER.   Use of a WER should be considered
 only as a last resort for at least three reasons:
 a.  Even though some WERs will be substantially greater than 1.0,
    some will be about 1.0 and some will  be less than 1.0.
 b.  The determination of a WER requires substantial resources.
 c.  There are other things that a discharger can do that might be
    more cost-effective than determining  a WER.

 The two situations in which the determination of a WER might
 appear attractive to dischargers are when (a)  a discharge  appears
 to  exceed existing or proposed water quality-based permit  limits,
 and (b)  an instream concentration appears to exceed an existing
 or  proposed aquatic life criterion.   Such situations result  from
 measurement of the concentration of  a metal  in  an  effluent  or a
 surface water.   It would therefore seem  reasonable to ensure that
 such measurements were not subject to contamination.   Usually it
 is  much easier to verify chemical measurements  by  using "clean
 techniques"  for collecting,  handling,  storing,  preparing, and
 analyzing samples,  than to determine a WER.   Clean techniques  and
 some related QA/QC considerations are discussed in Appendix  C.

 In  addition to investigating the use of  "clean  techniques",  other
 steps  that  a discharger should take  prior to  beginning  the
 experimental determination of a WER  include:
 1.  Evaluate  the  potential  for reducing the discharge  of the
    metal.
 2.  Investigate  such possible constraints  on permit  limits as
    antibacksliding and antidegradation requirements and human
    health and wildlife criteria.
 3.  Obtain assistance  from  an aquatic  toxicologist who understands
    the basics of WERs  (see Appendix  D), the U.S. EPA's national
    aquatic life  guidelines  (U.S.  EPA 1985), the guidance
   presented by  Prothro  (1993),  the national criteria document
    for the metal(s) of  concern  (see Appendix E), the procedures
   described by  the U.S. EPA (1993a,b,c)   for acute and chronic
   toxicity  tests  on effluents  and surface waters, and the
   procedures described by ASTM (1993a,b,c,d,e) for acute and
   chronic toxicity tests in  laboratory dilution water.
4. Develop an initial  definition of the site to which the site-
   specific  criterion  is to apply.
5. Consider use of the Recalculation Procedure  (see Appendix B)
6. Evaluate  the cost-effectiveness of the determination of a WER.
   Comparative toxicity tests provide the most useful data,  but
   chemical analysis of the downstream water might be helpful

-------
because the following are often true for some metals:
   a. The lower the percent of the total recoverable metal in the
      downstream water that is dissolved, the higher the WER.
   b. The higher the concentration of total organic carbon (TOG)
      and/or total suspended solids (TSS),  the higher the WER.
   It is also true that the higher the concentration of nontoxic
   dissolved metal, the higher the WER.  Although some chemical
   analyses might provide useful information concerning the
   toxicities of some metals in water, at the present only
   toxicity tests can accurately reflect the toxicities of
   different forms of a metal  (see Appendix D).
7. Submit a workplan for the experimental determination of the
   WER to the appropriate regulatory authority  (and possibly to
   the Water Management Division of the EPA Regional Office)  for
   comment.  The workplan should include detailed descriptions of
   the site; existing criterion and standard; design flows; site
   water; effluent; isampling plan; procedures that will be used
   for collecting, handling, and analyzing samples of site water
   and effluent; primary and secondary toxicity tests; quality
   assurance/quality control  (QA/QC) procedures; Standard
   Operating Procedures  (SOPs); and data interpretation.
After the workplan is completed, the initial phase should be
implemented; then the data obtained should be evaluated, and the
workplan should be revised if  appropriate.  Developing and
modifying the workplan and analyzing and interpreting the data
should be a cooperative effort by a team of knowledgeable people.


Two  Kinds of WERs

Most aquatic life  criteria contain both  a CMC and a  CCC, and  it
is usually possible to determine both  a  cmcWER  and a cccWER.  The
two  WERs cannot be assumed to  be equal because  the magnitude  of  a
WER  will probably  depend on the sensitivity of  the toxicity  test
used and on the percent effluent in the  site water  (see Appendix
D),  both of which  can depend  on which  WER is  to be determined.
In some cases, it  is expected that a  larger WER can  be applied  to
the  CCC than to the CMC, and  so it would be environmentally
conservative to apply cmcWERs  to CCCs.   In such cases  it  is
possible to determine a  cmcWER and apply it to  both  the  CMC_and
the  CCC in order  to derive  a  site-specific CMC, a  site-specific
CCC, and new permit limits.   If these  new permit limits  are
controlled by  the  new  site-specific  CCC, a cccWER  could  be
determined using  a more  sensitive  test,  possibly raising the
site-specific  CCC and  the  permit  limits  again.  A  cccWER may,  of
course, be determined  whenever desired.  Unless the  experimental
variation  is  increased,  use of a  cccWER will  usually improve the
accuracy  of  the  resulting  site-specific CCC.

 In some  cases,  a larger WER cannot be applied to  the CCC than to
 the  CMC  and so it might  not be environmentally conservative  to
 apply a  cmcWER to a CCC (see section A.4 of  Method 1).

-------
 Steady-state and Dynamic Models

 Some of the guidance contained herein specifically applies to
 situations in which the permit limits were calculated using
 steady-state modeling; in particular, some samples are to be
 obtained when^the actual stream flow is close to the design flow.
 If permit limits were calculated using dynamic modeling,  the
 guidance_will have to be modified,  but it is unclear at present
 what modifications are most appropriate.   For example,  it might
 be useful to determine whether the  magnitude of the WER is
 related to the flow of the upstream water and/or the effluent.


 Two Methods

 Two methods are used to determine WERs.   Method 1 will  probably
 be used to determine all cmcWERs and most cccWERs because it can
 be applied to situations that  are in the  vicinities of  plumes.
 Because WERs are likely to depend on the  concentration  of
 effluent in the water and because the percent  effluent  in a water
 sample  obtained in the immediate vicinity of a plume is unknown,
 simulated downstream water is  used  so that the percent  effluent
 in the  sample is known.   For example,  if  a sample that  was
 supposed to represent a complete-mix situation was accidently
 taken in the plume upstream of complete mix,  the  sample would
 probably have a higher percent effluent and a  higher WER  than a
 sample  taken downstream of complete mix;  use of the higher WER  to
 derive  a site-specific criterion for the  complete-mix situation
 would result in underprotection.  If the  sample were  accidently
 taken upstream of complete mix but  outside the plume,
 overprotection would probably  result.

 Method  1 will probably be  used to determine  all cmcWERs and most
 cccWERs  in flowing fresh waters,  such as  rivers and streams.
 Method  1 is  intended to apply  not only to ordinary rivers  and
 streams  but  also to streams that  some  people might  consider
 extraordinary,  such as  streams  whose design  flows  are zero  and
 streams  that some state  and/or  federal agencies refer to as
 "effluent-dependent",  "habitat-creating",  or "effluent-
 dominated" .   Method 1  is also used  to  determine cmcWERs in  such
 large sites  as  oceans  and  large  lakes, reservoirs,  and estuaries
 (see Appendix F).

Method 2 is  used to determine WERs  that apply outside the area of
plumes in  large  bodies of  water.  Such WERs will be cccWERs and
will be  determined  using samples  of  actual site water obtained at
various  times,  locations,  and depths in order to identify the
range_of WERs that  apply to the body of water.  These
experimentally determined WERs are  then used to decide how 'many
site-specific criteria should be  derived  for the. body of water
and what the  criterion  (or  criteria) should be.  Method 2
requires substantially more resources than Method 1.

-------
The complexity of each method increases when the number of metals
and/or the number of discharges is two or more:
a. The simplest situation is when a WER is to be determined for
   only one metal and only one discharge has permit limits for
   that metal.   (This is the single-metal single-discharge
   situation.)
b  A more complex situation is when a WER is to be determined for
   only one metal, but more than one discharge has permit limits
   for that metal.   (This is the single-metal multiple-discharge
   situation.)
c  An even more complex situation is when WERs are to toe
   determined for more than one metal, but only one discharge has
   permit limits for any of the metals.   (This is the multiple-
   metal single-discharge situation.)
d  The most complex  situation is when WERs are to be determined
   for more than one metal and more than one discharge has permit
   limits for some or all of the metals.   (This is the multiple-
   metal multiple-discharge situation.)
WERs need to be  determined for each metal at each site because
extrapolation of a WER from one metal to another, one effluent to
another, or one  surface water to another is too uncertain.

Both methods work well in multiple-metal situations, but  special
tests or additional  tests will be necessary to show that  the
resulting combination of site-specific criteria will not  be too
toxic   Method  2  is  better suited to multiple-discharge
situations than is Method 1.  Appendix F provides additional
guidance concerning  multiple-metal and multiple-discharge
situations, but it does not discuss  allocation of waste  loads,
which is performed when a wasteload  allocation (WLA) or  a total
maximum daily load  (TMDL) is developed  (U.S. EPA 1991a).


Two Analytical  Measurements

A total recoverable  WER can be  determined if the metal  in both of
 the  side-by-side toxicity tests is  analyzed using  the  total
 recoverable  measurement;  similarly,  a dissolved WER can be
 determined if the metal in  both tests is analyzed  using the
 dissolved measurement.   A total recoverable WER is used to
 calculate a total recoverable  site-specific criterion from an
 aquatic life criterion that  is expressed using the total
 recoverable measurement,  whereas a dissolved WER is used to_
 calculate a dissolved site-specific criterion  from a criterion
 that is expressed in terms  of the dissolved measurement.  Figure
 1 illustrates the relationships between total  recoverable and
 dissolved criteria,  WERs,  and the Recalculation Procedure.

 Both Method 1 and Method 2 can be used to determine a total  _
 recoverable WER and/or a dissolved WER.  . The only difference in
 the experimental procedure is whether the WER is based on  _
 measurements of total recoverable metal or dissolved metal in the

-------
 test solutions.  Both total recoverable and dissolved
 measurements are to be performed for all tests to help judge the
 quality of the tests, to provide a check on the analytical
 chemistry, and to help understand the results; performing both
 measurements also increases the alternatives available for use of
 the results.  For example, a dissolved WER that is not useful
 with a_total recoverable criterion might be useful in the future
 if a dissolved criterion becomes available.  Also, as explained
 in Appendix D,  except for experimental variation,  use of a total
 recoverable WER with a total recoverable criterion should produce
 the same total recoverable permit limits as use of a dissolved
 WER with a dissolved criterion; the internal consistency of the
 approaches and the data can be evaluated if both total
 recoverable and dissolved criteria and WERs are determined.   It
 is expected that in many situations total recoverable WERs will
 be larger and more variable than dissolved WERs.


 The Quality of  the Toxicitv Tests

 Traditionally,  for practical reasons,  the requirements concerning
 such aspects as acclimation of test organisms  to test temperature
 and dilution water have  not been as stringent  for  toxicity tests
 on surface waters  and effluents as  for tests using laboratory
 dilution water.  Because a WER is a ratio calculated from the
 results  of side-by-side  tests,  it might  seem that  acclimation is
 not important for  a WER  as long as  the organisms and conditions
 are identical in the two tests.   Because WERs  are  used to adjust
 aquatic  life criteria that are derived from results  of laboratory
 tests, the tests conducted in  laboratory dilution  water  for the
 determination of WERs should be conducted in the same  way as  the
 laboratory toxicity tests  used in the  derivation of  aquatic life
 criteria.   In the WER process,  the  tests  in laboratory dilution
 water provide the vital  link between national  criteria and site-
 specific  criteria,  and so  it is  important  to compare at  least
 some results  obtained in the laboratory dilution water with
 results obtained in  at least one  other laboratory.

 Three important principles  for making decisions concerning the
methodology  for  the  side-by-side  tests are:
 1. The tests  using laboratory dilution water should be conducted
   so that the results would be acceptable  for use in the
   derivation of national criteria.
2. As much as is feasible,  the tests using  site water should be
   conducted  using the same procedures as the tests using the
   laboratory dilution water.
3. All tests  should follow  any special requirements that are
   necessary because the results are to be used to calculate a
   WER.   Some such special  requirements are imposed because the
   criterion  for a rather complex situation is being changed
   based on few data, so more assurance is required that the data
   are high quality.
                                8

-------
The most important special requirement is that the concentrations
of the metal are to be measured using both the total recoverable
and dissolved methods in all toxicity tests used for the
determination of a WER.  This requirement is necessary because
half of the tests conducted for the determination of WERs use a
site water in which the concentration of metal probably is not
negligible.  Because it is likely that the concentration of metal
in the laboratory dilution water is negligible, assuming that the
concentration in both waters is negligible and basing WERs on the
amount of metal added would produce an unnecessarily low value
for the WER.  In addition, WERs are based on too few data to
assume that nominal concentrations are accurate.  Nominal  _
concentrations obviously cannot be used if a dissolved WER is to
be determined.  Measured dissolved concentrations at the       -'
beginning and end of the test are used to judge the acceptability
of the test, and it is certainly reasonable to measure the total
recoverable concentration when the dissolved concentration is
measured   Further, measuring the concentrations might lead to an
interpretation of the  results that allows, a substantially better
use of the WERs.


Conditions for Determining  a WER

The appropriate regulatory  authority  might recommend that one or
more  conditions be met when a WER is  determined in  order to
reduce  the possibility of having to determine  a new WER later:
1 Requirements that  are  in the existing  permit concerning WET
   testing, Toxicity  Identification Evaluation (TIE),  and/or
   Toxicity Reduction Evaluation  (TRE)  (U.S.  EPA  1991a).
2  Implementation of  pollution prevention efforts,  such as
   pretreatment,  waste minimization,  and  source reduction.
3. A  demonstration that  applicable technology-based requirements
    are  being  met.                                      ,
 If one  or more  of these  is  not  satisfied  when the WER  is
determined and  is implemented later,  it  is likely that a new WER
will  have to  be determined  because of the possibility  of  a change
 in the  composition of the effluent.

 Even  if all recommended conditions  are satisfied, determination,
 of a  WER might  not be possible if  the effluent,  upstream water,
 and/or downstream water are toxic  to the test organisms.   In some
 such cases,  it  might be possible to  determine a WER,  but
 remediation of  the toxicity is likely to be required anyway.   It
 is unlikely that a WER determined before remediation would be
 considered acceptable for use after remediation.   If it is
 desired to determine a WER before remediation and the toxicity is
 in the upstream water, it might be possible to use a laboratory
 dilution water or a water from a clean tributary in place of the
 upstream water; if a substitute water is used, its water quality
 characteristics should be similar to those of the upstream water
  (i e   the pH should be within 0.2 pH units and the hardness,

-------
 alkalinity, and concentrations of TSS and TOG should be within 10
 % or 5 mg/L, whichever is greater, of those in the upstream
 water).  If the upstream water is chronically toxic, but not
 acutely toxic, it might be possible to determine a cmcWER even if
 a cccWER cannot be determined; a cmcWER might not be useful,
 however, if the permit limits are controlled by the CCC; in'such
 a case, it would probably not be acceptable to assume that the
 cmcWER is an environmentally conservative estimate of the cccWER.
 If the WER is determined using downstream water and the toxicity'
 is due to the effluent, tests at lower concentrations of the
 effluent might give an indication of the amount of remediation
 needed.


 Conditions for Using a WBR

 Besides requiring that the WER be valid,  the appropriate
 regulatory authority might consider imposing other conditions for
 the approval of a site-specific criterion based on the WER:
 1.  Periodic reevaluation of the WER.
    a.  WERs determined in upstream water take into account
       constituents contributed by point and nonpoint sources and
       natural  runoff;  thus a WER should be reevaluated whenever
       newly implemented controls or other changes substantially
       affect such factors as hardness,  alkalinity,  pH,  suspended
       solids,  organic  carbon,  or other  toxic materials.
    b.  Most  WERs determined using downstream water are  influenced
       more  by  the  effluent than the upstream water.  Downstream
       WERs  should  be reevaluated whenever newly  implemented
       controls  or  other changes might substantially impact the
       effluent,  i.e.,  might  impact  the  forms and concentrations
       of the metal, hardness,  alkalinity,  pH, suspended  solids,
       organic carbon,  or  other toxic materials.   A special
       concern is the possibility of a shift  from discharge of
      nontoxic  metal to discharge of toxic metal  such that the
       concentration of the metal  does not  increase; analytical
      chemistry might  not  detect  the change  but  toxicity tests
      would.
   Even if no changes  are known to have occurred, WERs should be
   reevaluated periodically.   (The NTR recommends that NPDES
   permits include periodic determinations of WERs  in the
   monitoring requirements.)  With advance planning, it should
   usually be possible to perform such reevaluations under
   conditions that are at least reasonably similar to those that
   control the permit  limits  (e.g., either design-flow or high-
   flow conditions) because there should be a reasonably long
   period of time during which the reevaluation can be performed.
   Periodic determination of WERs should be designed to answer
   questions, not just generate data.
2.  Increased chemical monitoring of the upstream water, effluent,
   and/or downstream water, as appropriate, for water quality
   characteristics that probably affect the toxicity of the metal

                                10

-------
(e.g., hardness* alkalinity, pH, TOG, and TSS)  to determine
whether conditions change.  The conditions at the times the
samples were obtained should be kept on record for reference.
The WER should be reevaluated whenever hardness, alkalinity, pH,
TOG, and/or TSS decrease below the values that existed when the
WERs were determined.
3.  Periodic reevaluation of the environmental fate of tne metal
   in the effluent  (see Appendix A).
4.  WET testing.
5.  Instream bioassessments.

Decisions concerning the possible  imposition of such conditions
should take into account:
a.  The ratio of the new and old criteria.  The greater the
   increase in the  criterion, the  more concern there should be
   about  (1) the fate of any nontoxic metal that contributes to
   the WER and  (2)  changes  in water  quality that might occur
   within the site.  The imposition  of one or more conditions
   should be considered if  the WER is used to raise the criterion
   by, for example, a factor of two, and especially if it is
   raised by a  factor of five or more.  The significance of  the
   magnitude of the ratio  can be judged by comparison with  the
   acute-chronic ratio, the factor of two that  is the ratio  of
   the FAV to the CMC, and the  range of sensitivities_of species
   in the criteria  document for the  metal  (see Appendix E).
b. The size of  the  site.                                   -
c. The size of  the  discharge.
d. The rate of  downstream  dilution.
e. Whether the  CMC  or the  CCC controls the permit limits.
When WERs are determined  using  upstream water,  conditions on the
use  of a WER are more likely when  the water contains  an effluent
that increases  the  WER by adding TOG and/or TSS, because the WER
will be  larger  and  any decrease in the discharge of  such TOG
and/or TSS might decrease  the WER  and result  in underprotection.
A  WER determined using downstream  water  is likely to  be larger
and quite dependent on the composition of  the  effluent; there
 should be concern  about  whether a  change  in the effluent might
 result  in underprotection at  some  time in  the  future.


 Implementation Considerations

 In some  situations a discharger might  not  want to or might  not  be
 allowed to  raise  a criterion as much as  could be  justified by a
 WER:                                                 .  .    .,
 1. The maximum possible  increase  is not  needed and  raising the
    criterion more than needed might greatly  raise  the cost if a
    greater increase would require more tests  and/or increase the
   ' conditions imposed on approval of the site-specific criterion.
 2   Such other constraints as antibacksliding or antidegradation
    requirements or human health or wildlife  criteria might limit
    the amount of increase regardless of  the  magnitude of the WER.

                                11

-------
 3. The permit limits might be limited by an aquatic life
    criterion that applies outside the site.  It is EPA policy
    that permit limits cannot be so high that they inadequately
    protect a portion of the same or a different body of water
    that is outside the site; nothing contained herein changes
    this policy in any way.
 If no increase in the existing discharge is allowed,  the only use
 of a WER will be to determine whether an existing discharge needs
 to be reduced.  Thus a major use of WERs might be where
 technology-based controls allow concentrations in surface waters
 to exceed national,  state, or recalculated aquatic life criteria.
 In this case, it might only be necessary to determine that the
 WER is greater than a particular value;  it might not  be necessary
 to quantify the WER.   When possible,  it  might be desirable to
 show that the maximum WER is greater than the WER that will be
 used in order to demonstrate that a margin of safety  exists,  but
 again it might not be necessary to quantify the maximum WER.

 In jurisdictions not  subject to the NTR,  WERs should  be used to
 derive site-specific  criteria,  not just  to calculate  permit
 limits,  because data  obtained from ambient monitoring should be
 interpreted by comparison with ambient criteria.   (This is not a
 problem in jurisdictions  subject to the  NTR because the NTR
 defines the ambient criterion as "WER x  the EPA criterion".)   If
 a  WER is used to adjust permit  limits without adjusting the
 criterion,  the permit limits would allow the criterion to  be
 exceeded.   Thus the WER should  be used to calculate a site-
 specific criterion, which should then be  used to  calculate permit
 limits.   In some states,  site-specific criteria can only be
 adopted as  revised criteria  in  a separate,  independent water
 quality standards review  process.   In other states, site-specific
 criteria can be developed in conjunction  with the NPDES
 permitting  process, as long  as  the  adoption of  a  site-specific
 criterion satisfies the pertinent water quality standards
 procedural  requirements  (i.e.,  a public notice  and a  public
 hearing).  ;In either  case, site-specific  criteria are  to be
 adopted  prior to  NPDES permit issuance.   Moreover, the  EPA
 Regional Administrator has authority  to approve or disapprove all
 new and  revised site-specific criteria and  to review NPDES
 permits  to  verify compliance with the applicable water  quality
 criteria.

 Other aspects  of  the use of WERs  in connection with permit
 limits, WLAs,  and TMDLs are outside the scope of this document.
 The Technical  Support Document  (U.S. EPA  1991a) and Prothro
 (1993) provide more information  concerning  implementation
procedures.  Nothing contained herein should be interpreted as
 changing the  three-part approach that EPA uses to protect aquatic
 life:  (1) numeric  chemical-specific water quality criteria  for
 individual pollutants, (2) whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing,
and (3) instream bioassessments.
                                12

-------
Even though there are similarities between WET testing and the
determination of WERs, there are important differences.  For
example, WERs can be used to derive site-specific criteria for
individual pollutants, but WET testing cannot.  The difference
between WET testing and the determination of WERs is less when
the toxicity tests used in the determination of the WER are ones
that are used in WET testing.  If a WER is used to make a large
change in a criterion, additional WET testing and/or instream
bioassessments are likely to be recommended.


The Sample-Specific WER Approach

A major problem with the determination and use of aquatic life
criteria for metals is that no analytical measurement or
combination of measurements has yet been shown to explain the
toxicity of a metal to aquatic plants, invertebrates, amphibians,
and fishes over the relevant range of conditions in surface
waters  (see Appendix D).  It is not just that insufficient data
exist to justify a relationship; rather, existing data possibly
contradict some ideas that could possibly be very useful if_true.
For example, the concentration of free metal  ion could possibly
be a useful basis for expressing water quality criteria for
metals  if it could be feasible and could be used in a way that
does not result in widespread underprotection of aquatic life.
Some available data,  however, might contradict the idea that  the
toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms is proportional to the
concentration or the  activity of the  cupric ion.  Evaluating_the
usefulness of any approach based on metal speciation is difficult
until it is known how many of the species of  the metal are toxic,
what the relative toxicities are, whether they are additive  (if
more than one is toxic),  and the quantitative effects  of the
factors that have major  impacts on the bioavailability and/or
toxicity of the toxic species.  Just  as it  is not easy to find a
useful  quantitative  relationship between  the  analytical chemistry
of metals and the toxicity of metals  to aquatic  life,  it is also
not easy to find a qualitative  relationship that can be used  to
provide adequate protection  for the aquatic life in almost  all
bodies  of water without  providing as  much overprotection for  some
bodies  of water  as results  from use of  the  total recoverable  and
dissolved measurements.

The U.S. EPA  cannot  ignore  the  existence  of pollution  problems
and delay  setting  aquatic life  criteria until all  scientific
issues  have been adequately resolved.  In light  of  uncertainty,
the agency needs  to  derive  criteria  that  are  environmentally
conservative  in most bodies  of  water.  Because of  uncertainty
concerning the  relationship between  the analytical  chemistry  and
the  toxicity of metals,  aquatic life  criteria for  metals  are
 expressed in terms of analytical  measurements that  result  in  the
 criteria providing more protection than necessary for the  aquatic
 life  in most  bodies of water.   The agency has provided for the

                                13

-------
 use of WERs to address the general conservatism,  but expects that
 some WERs will be less than 1.0 because national,  state,  and
 recalculated criteria are not necessarily environmentally
 conservative for all bodies of water.

 It has become obvious, however, that the determination and use  of
 WERs is not a simple solution to the existing general
 conservatism.  It is likely that a permanent solution will have
 to be based on an adequate quantitative explanation of how metals
 and aquatic organisms interact.  In the meantime,  the use of
 total recoverable and dissolved measurements to express criteria
 and the use of site-specific criteria  are intended to provide
 adequate protection for almost all bodies of water without
 excessive overprotection for too many  bodies of water.   Work
 needs to continue on the permanent solution and,  just in case,  on
 improved alternative approaches.

 Use of WERs to derive site-specific criteria is intended to allow
 a  reduction or elimination of the general overprotection
 associated with application of a national criterion to individual
 bodies of water,  but a major problem is that a WER will rarely  be
 constant over time,  location,  and depth in a body  of water due  to
 plumes,  mixing,  and resuspension.   It  is possible  that  dissolved
 concentrations and WERs will be less variable than total
 recoverable ones.   It might also be possible to reduce  the impact
 of the heterogeneity if WERs are additive across time,  location,
 and depth (see Appendix G).   Regardless of what approaches,
 tools,  hypotheses,  and assumptions are  utilized, variation will
 exist and WERs will  have to be used in  a conservative  manner.
 Because of variation between bodies of  water,  national  criteria
 are derived to be  environmentally conservative for most bodies of
 water,  whereas the WER procedure,  which is intended to  reduce the
 general  conservatism of national  criteria,  has to  be  conservative
 because  of variation among WERs within  a body of water.

 The conservatism introduced by variation among WERs  is  due  not to
 the concept of WERs,  but to the way they are  used.   The reason
 that  national criteria are conservative  in the first place  is the
 uncertainty concerning the linkage  of analytical chemistry  and
 toxicity;  the toxicity of  solutions  can  be  measured, but toxicity
 cannot be  modelled adequately  using available  chemical
 measurements.  Similarly,  the  current way that WERs  are used
 depends  on a  linkage  between analytical  chemistry  and toxicity
 because WERs  are used to derive site-specific  criteria  that are
 expressed  in  terms of chemical  measurements.

Without  changing the  amount  or  kind  of toxicity testing that is
performed when WERs are  determined using Method 2, a different
way of using  the WERs  could  avoid some of  the problems introduced
by  the dependence  on  analytical chemistry.  The "sample-specific
WER approach"  could consist  of  sampling a body of  water at a
number of locations,  determining the WER  for each  sample, and

                                14

-------
measuring the concentration of the metal in each sample.  Then
for each individual sample, a quotient would be calculated by
dividing the concentration of metal in the sample by the product
of the national criterion times the WER obtained for that sample.
Except for experimental variation, when the quotient for a_sample
is less than 1, the concentration of metal in that sample is
acceptable; when the quotient for a sample is greater than 1, the
concentration of metal in that sample is too high.  As a check,
both the total recoverable measurement and the dissolved
measurement should be used because they should provide the same
answer if everything is done correctly and accurately.  This
approach can also be used whenever Method 1 is used; although
Method 1 is used with simulated downstream water, the sample-
specific WER approach can be used with either simulated
downstream water or actual downstream water.

This sample-specific WER approach has several interesting
"f~ (^ 3 "t~ 11 "K*^ ^? *
1  It is'not a different way of determining WERs; it is merely a
   different way of using  the WERs that are determined.
2  Variation among WERs within a body of water is not a problem.
3! It eliminates problems  concerning the unknown relationship
   between  toxicity and analytical chemistry.
4. It works equally well in areas  that  are  in or near plumes and
   in areas that are  away  from plumes.                _
5. It works equally well in single-discharge and multiple-
   discharge  situations.
6. It automatically accounts  for  synergism, antagonism,  and
   additivity between toxicants.
This way of using WERs  is  equivalent  to expressing  the  national
criterion for a  pollutant  in  terms of  toxicity  tests  whose
endpoints equal  the  CMC and the  CCC;  if the site  water  causes
 less adverse  effect  than is  defined  to be  the endpoint,  the
 concentration of that pollutant  in the site water does  not  exceed
 the  national  criterion.   This sample-specific WER approach_does
 not  directly fit into the  current framework wherein criteria are
 derived and then permit limits are calculated from the  criteria.

 If the sample-specific WER approach were to produce a number of
 quotients that are greater than 1, it would seem that the
 concentration of metal in the discharge(s)  should be reduced
 enough that the quotient is not greater than 1.   Although this
 might sound straightforward,  the discharger(s)  would find that a
 substantial reduction in the discharge of a metal would not
 achieve the intended result if the reduction was due to removal
 of nontoxic metal.  A chemical mpnitoring approach that cannot
 differentiate between toxic and nontoxic metal would not detect
 that only nontoxic metal had been removed, but the sample-
 specific WER approach would.
                                 15

-------
Figure  1:  Pour Ways to Derive  a  Permit  Limit
                              Total Recoverable Criterion
                                \
                                         Recalculation
                                          Procedure
                                                  \/
                                                                      _v
    Total
 Recoverable
  cmcWER
and/or cccWER
                                                 Total Recoverable
                                                Site-specific Criterion
                              Total Recoverable Permit Limit
        Dissolved Criterion =  (TR Criterion) (% dissolved in toxicity tests)
                                         Recalculation
                                          Procedure
  Dissolved
  cmcWER
and/or cccWER
                                                   \/
                                                                 \/
                                                   Dissolved Site-
                                                  specific Criterion
       Net % contribution from the total recoverable metal in the effluent
       to the dissolved metal in the downstream water. (This will probably
       change if the total recoverable concentration in the effluent changes.)
                           Total Recoverable Permit Limit
 For both the total recoverable and dissolved measurements, derivation of an
 optional site-specific criterion is described on the right. If both the
 Recalculation Procedure and the WER procedure are used, the Recalculation
 Procedure must be performed first. (The Recalculation Procedure cannot be
 used in jurisdictions that are subject to the National Toxics Rule.)
                                         16

-------
METHOD 1: DETERMINING WERs FOR AREAS IN OR NEAR PLUMES


Method 1 is based on the determination of WERs using simulated
downstream water and so it can be used to determine a WER that
applies in the vicinity of a plume.  Use of simulated downstream
water ensures that the concentration of effluent in the site
water is known, which is important because the magnitude of the
WER will often depend on the concentration of effluent in the
downstream water.  Knowing the concentration of effluent makes it
possible to quantitatively relate the WER to the effluent.
Method 1 can be used to determine either cmcWERs or cccWERs or
both in single-metal, flowing freshwater situations, including
streams whose design flow is zero and "effluent-dependent"
streams  (see Appendix F).  As is also explained in Appendix F,
Method 1 is used when cmcWERs are determined for "large sites",
although Method 2 is used when cccWERs are determined for "large
sites".  In addition, Appendix F addresses special considerations
regarding multiple-metal and/or multiple-discharge situations.

Neither Method 1 nor Method 2 covers all important methodological
details for conducting the side-by-side toxicity tests that are
necessary in order to determine a WER.  Many references are made
to information published by the U.S. EPA  (1993a,b,c) concerning
toxicity tests on effluents and surface waters and by ASTM
 (1993a,b,c,d,e,f) concerning tests in laboratory dilution water.
Method 1 addresses aspects of toxicity tests that  (a) need
special attention when determining WERs and/or  (b) are usually
different for tests conducted on effluents and tests conducted in
laboratory dilution water.  Appendix H provides additional
information concerning toxicity tests with saltwater species.


A. Experimental Design

   Because of the variety of considerations that have important
   implications for the determination of a WER, decisions
   concerning experimental design should be given careful
   attention and need to answer the following questions:
   1. Should WERs be determined using upstream water, actual
      downstream water, and/or simulated downstream water?
   2. Should WERs be determined when the stream flow is equal to,
      higher than, and/or lower than the design flow?
   3. Which toxicity tests should be used?
   4. Should a cmcWER or a cccWER or both be determined?
   5. How should a FWER be derived?
   6. For metals whose criteria are hardness-dependent, at what
      hardness should WERs be determined?
   The answers to these questions should be based on the  reason
   that WERs are determined, but the decisions should also take
   into  account some practical considerations.


                                17

-------
1.  Should WERs be determined using upstream water,  actual
    downstream water, and/or simulated downstream water?

    a. Upstream water provides the least complicated way of
       determining and using WERs because plumes, mixing
       zones, and effluent variability do not have to be taken
       into account.   Use of upstream water provides the least
       useful WERs because it does not take into-account the
       presence of the effluent,  which is the source of the
       metal.  It is easy to assume that upstream water will
       give smaller WERs than downstream water,  but  in some
       cases downstream water might give smaller WERs (see
       Appendix G).   Regardless of whether upstream  water
       gives smaller or larger WERs,  a WER should be
       determined using the water to which the site-specific
       criterion is to apply (see Appendix A).

    b. Actual downstream water might seem to be  the  most
       pertinent water to use when WERs are determined,  but
       whether this is true depends on what use  is to be made
       of the WERs.   WERs determined using actual downstream
       water can be quantitatively interpreted using the
       sample-specific WER approach described at the end of
       the Introduction.  If,  however,  it is desired to
       understand the quantitative implications  of a WER for
       an effluent of concern,  use of actual downstream water
       is problematic because the concentration  of effluent in
       the water can only be known approximately.

       Sampling actual downstream water in areas that are in
       or near plumes is especially difficult.   The  WER
       obtained is likely to depend on where the sample is
       taken because  the WER will probably depend on the
       percent effluent in the sample (see Appendix  D).   The
       sample could be taken at the end of the pipe,  at the
       edge of the acute mixing zone,  at the edge of the
       chronic mixing zone,  or in a completely mixed
       situation.   If the sample  is taken at the edge of a
       mixing zone, the composition of the sample will
       probably differ from one point to another along the
       edge of the mixing zone.

       If samples  of  actual downstream water are to  be taken
       close to a  discharge,  the  mixing patterns and plumes
       should be well known.   Dye dispersion studies
       (Kilpatrick 1992)  are commonly used to determine
       isopleths of effluent concentration and complete mix;
       dilution models (U.S.  EPA  1993d)  might also be helpful
       when selecting sampling locations.   The most  useful
       samples of  actual downstream water are probably those
       taken just  downstream of the point at which complete
       mix occurs  or  at the most  distant point that  is within

                            18

-------
the site to which the site-specific criterion is to
apply.  When samples are collected from a complete-mix
situation, it might be appropriate to composite samples
taken over a cross section of the stream.  Regardless
of where it is decided conceptually that a sample
should be taken, it might be difficult to identify
where the point exists in the stream and how it changes
with flow and over time.  In addition, if it is not
known exactly what the sample actually represents,
there is no way to know how reproducible the sample is.
These problems make it difficult to relate WERs
determined in actual downstream water to an effluent of
concern because the concentration of effluent in the
sample is not known; this is not a problem, however, if
the sample-specific WER approach is used to interpret
the results.

Simulated downstream water would seem to be the most
unnatural of the three kinds of water, but it offers
several important advantages because effluent and
upstream water are mixed at a known ratio.  This is
important because the magnitude of the WER will often
depend on the concentration of effluent  in the
downstream water.  Mixtures can be prepared to simulate
the ra1;io of effluent and upstream water that exists at
the edge of the acute mixing zone, at the edge of the
chronic mixing zone, at complete mix, or at any other
point of interest.  If desired, a sample of effluent
can be mixed with a sample on upstream water in
different ratios to simulate different points in a
stream.  Also, the ratio used can be one that simulates
conditions at design flow or at any other flow.

The sample-specific WER approach can be  used with both
actual and simulated downstream.water.   Additional
quantitative uses can be made of WERs determined using
simulated downstream water because the percent effluent
in the water is known, which allows quantitative
extrapolations  to the effluent.  In addition, simulated
downstream water can be used to determine the variation
in the WER that is due  to variation in the effluent.
It also allows  comparison of two or more effluents  and
determination of the interactions of  two or more
effluents.  Additivity  of WERs  can be studied using
simulated downstream water  (see Appendix G); studies of
toxicity  within plumes  and  studies of whether increased
flow  of upstream water  can  increase toxicity are  both
studies of  additivity of WERs.  Use of simulated
downstream  water also makes  it  possible  to conduct
controlled  studies  of changes  in WERs due  to aging  and
changes  in  pH.
                      19

-------
    In Method 1, therefore, WERs are determined using
    simulated downstream water that is prepared by mixing
    samples of effluent and upstream water in an appropriate
    ratio.  Most importantly, Method 1 can be used to
    determine a WER that applies in the vicinity of a plume
    and can be quantitatively extrapolated to the effluent.

2.  Should WERs be determined when the stream flow is equal
    to, higher than, and/or lower than the design flow?

    WERs are used in the derivation of site-specific criteria
    when it is desired that permit limits be based on a
    criterion that takes into account the characteristics of
    the water and/or the metal at the site.   In most cases,
    permit limits are calculated using steady-state models and
    are based on a design flow.   It is therefore important
    that WERs be adequately protective under design-flow
    conditions,  which might be expected to require that some
    sets of samples of effluent  and upstream water be obtained
    when the actual stream flow is close to the design flow.
    Collecting samples when the  stream flow is close to the
    design flow will limit a WER determination to the low-flow
    season (e.g., from mid-July to mid-October in some places)
    and to years in which the flow is sufficiently low.

    It is also important,  however,  that WERs that are applied
    at design flow provide adequate protection at higher
    flows.  Generalizations concerning the impact of higher
    flows on WERs are difficult  because such flows might (a)
    reduce hardness, alkalinity,  and pH,  (b)  increase or
    decrease the concentrations  of TOG and TSS,  (c)  resuspend
    toxic and/or nontoxic metal  from the sediment,  and (d)
    wash additional pollutants into the water.   Acidic
    snowmelt,  for example,  might lower the WER both by
    diluting the WER and by reducing the hardness,  alkalinity,
    and pH;  if substantial labile metal is present,  the  WER
    might be lowered more than the concentration of the  metal,
    possibly resulting in increased toxicity at flows higher
    than design  flow.   Samples taken at higher flows might
    give smaller WERs because the concentration of the
    effluent is  more dilute;  however,  total  recoverable  WERs
    might be larger if the sample is taken just after an event
    that greatly increases the concentration of TSS and/or TOG
    because  this might increase  both (1)  the concentration of
    nontoxic particulate metal in the water  and (2)  the
    capacity of  the water to  sorb and detoxify metal.

    WERs are not of concern when the stream  flow is lower than
    the design flow because these are acknowledged times of
    reduced  protection.   Reduced protection  might not occur,
    however,  if  the WER is sufficiently high when the flow is
    lower than design flow.

                            20

-------
3.   Which toxicity tests should be used?

    a. As explained in Appendix D, the magnitude of an
       experimentally determined WER is likely to depend on
       the sensitivity of the toxicity test used.  This
       relationship between the magnitude of the WER and the
       sensitivity of the toxicity test is due to the aqueous
       chemistry of metals and is not related to the test
       organisms or the type of test.  The available data
       indicate that WERs determined with different tests do
       not differ greatly if the tests have about the same
       sensitivities, but the data also support the
       generalization that less sensitive toxicity tests
       usually give smaller WERs than more sensitive tests
       (see Appendix D) .
    b. When the CCC is lower than the CMC, it is likely that a
       larger WER will result from tests that are sensitive at
       the CCC than from tests that are sensitive at the CMC.
    c. The considerations concerning the sensitivities of two
       tests should also apply to two endpoints for the same
       test.  For any lethality test, use of the LC25 is
       likely to result in a larger WER than use of the LC50,
       although the difference might not be measurable in most
       cases and the LC25 is likely to be more variable than
       the LC50.  Selecting the percent effect to be used to
       define the endpoint might take into account  (a) whether
       the endpoint is above or below the CMC and/or the CCC
       and  (b) the data obtained when tests are conducted.
       Once the percent effect is selected for a particular
       test  (e.g., a 48-hr LC50 with 1-day-old fathead
       minnows), the same percent effect must be used whenever
       that test is used to determine a WER for that effluent.
       Similarly, if two different tests with the same species
       (e.g., a lethality test and a sublethal test) have
       substantially different sensitivities, both a cmcWER
       and a cccWER could be obtained with the same species.
    d. The primary toxicity test used in the determination of
       a WER should have an endpoint in laboratory dilution
       water that is close to, but not lower than, the CMC
       and/or CCC to which the WER is to be applied.
    e. Because the endpoint of the primary test in laboratory
       dilution water cannot be lower than the CMC and/or CCC,
       the magnitude of the WER is likely to become closer to
       1 as the endpoint of the primary test becomes closer to
       the CMC and/or CCC  (see Appendix D).
    f. The WER obtained with the primary test should be
       confirmed with a secondary test that uses a species
       that is taxonomically different from the species used
       in the primary test.
       1) The endpoint of the secondary test may be higher or
          lower than the CMC, the CCC, or the endpoint of the
          primary test.

                             21

-------
    2)  Because  of  the  limited number of toxicity  tests that
       have sensitivities  near the  CMC or CCC  for a metal,
       it  seems unreasonable  to require that the  two
       species  be  further  apart taxonomically  than being  in
       different orders.
    Two different  endpoints. with the same species must not
    be  used as  the primary and secondary tests, even if one
    endpoint is lethal and the other is sublethal.
g.  If  more sensitive  toxicity tests generally give larger
    WERs than less sensitive.tests, the maximum value of  a
    WER will usually be.obtained using a toxicity test
    whose  endpoint in  laboratory dilution water equals the
    CMC or CMC.  If such a test is  not used, the  maximum
    possible WER probably  will not  be obtained.
h.  No  rationale exists to support  the idea that  different
    species or  tests with  the same  sensitivity will produce
    different WERs.  Because  the mode of action might
    differ from species to species  and/or from effect to
    effect,  it  is  easy to  speculate that in some  cases the
    magnitude of a WER will depend  to some extent on the
    species,  life  stage, and/or kind of test,  but no data
    are available  to support  conclusions concerning the
    existence and/or magnitude of any such differences.
i.  If  the tests are otherwise acceptable, both cmcWERs and
    cccWERs may be determined using acute and/or  chronic
    tests  and using lethal and/or sublethal endpoints.  The
    important consideration is the  sensitivity of the test,
    not the duration,  species,  life stage, or  adverse
    effect used.
j.  There  is  no  reason to  use  species that occur at the
    site;  they may be  used in  the determination of a WER  if
    desired,  but:
    1)  It  might  be difficult  to  determine which of the
       species that occur  at  the site are sensitive to the
       metal  and are adaptable to laboratory conditions.
    2)  Species that occur  at the site might be harder to
       obtain in sufficient numbers for conducting toxicity
       tests  over  the  testing  period.
    3) Additional  QA tests will probably be needed (see
       section C.3.b)   because  data  are not likely to be
       available from  other laboratories for comparison
      with the  results in laboratory dilution water.
k. Because a WER  is a ratio of results obtained with the
    same test in two different dilution waters, toxicity
   tests  that are used in WET testing,  for example,  may be
   used,  even if  the  national aquatic life guidelines
    (U.S.  EPA 1985) do not allow use of the test in the
   derivation of  an aquatic life criterion.  Of course,  a
   test whose endpoint in laboratory dilution water is
   below  the CMC  and/or CCC that is to be adjusted cannot
   be used as a primary test.
                         22

-------
    1.  Because there is no rationale that suggest that it
       makes any difference whether the test is conducted with
       a species that is warmwater or coldwater,  a fish or an
       invertebrate, or resident or nonresident at the site,
       other than the fact that less sensitive tests are
       likely to give smaller WERs, such considerations as the
       availability of test organisms might be important in
       the selection of the test.  Information in Appendix I,
       a criteria document for the metal of concern (see
       Appendix E),  or any other pertinent source might be
       useful when selecting primary and secondary tests.
    m.  A test in which the test organisms are not fed might
       give a different WER than a test in which the organisms
       are fed just because of the presence of the food  (see
       Appendix D).   This might depend on the metal, the type
       and amount of food, and whether a total recoverable or
       dissolved WER is determined.
    Different tests with similar sensitivities are expected to
    give similar WERs, except for experimental variation.  The
    purpose of the secondary test is to provide information
    concerning this assumption and the validity of the WER.

4.   Should a cmcWER or a cccWER or both be determined?

    This question does not have to be answered if the
    criterion for the site contains either a CMC or a CCC but
    not both.  For example, a body of water that is protected
    for put-and-take fishing might have only a CMC, whereas a
    stream whose design flow is zero might have only a CCC.

    When the criterion contains both a CMC and a CCC, the
    simplistic way to answer the question is to determine
    whether the CMC or the CCC controls the existing permit
    limits; which one is controlling depends on  (a) the ratio
    of the CMC to the CCC,  (b) whether the number of mixing
    zones is zero,  one, or two, and  (c) which steady-state or
    dynamic model was used in the calculation of the permit
    limits.  A better way to answer the question would be to
    also determine how much the controlling value would have
    to be changed for the other value to become controlling;
    this might indicate that it would not be cost-effective to
    derive, for example, a site-specific CMC  (ssCMC) without
    also deriving a site-specific CCC  (ssCCC).  There are also
    other possibilities:  (1) It might be appropriate to use a
    phased approsich, i.e., determine either the cmcWER or the
    cccWER and then decide whether to determine the other.
    (2) It might be appropriate and environmentally
    conservative to determine a WER that can be applied to
    both the CMC and the CCC.   (3) It is always allowable to
    determine and use both a cmcWER and a cccWER, although
    both can be determined only if toxicity test's with
    appropriate sensitivities are available.

                             23

-------
Because the phased approach can always be used, it is only
important to decide whether to use a different approach
when its use might be cost-effective.  Deciding whether to
use a different approach and selecting which one to use is
complex because a number of considerations need to be
taken into account:.
a. Is the CMC equal to or higher than the CCC?
      If the CMC equals the CCC, two WERs cannot be
      determined if they would be determined using the
      same site water, but two WERs could be determined if
      the cmcWER and the cccWER would be determined using
      different site waters, e.g., waters that contain
      different concentrations of the effluent.
b. If the CMC is higher than the CCC, is there a toxicity
   test whose endpoint in laboratory dilution water is
   between the CMC and the CCC?
      If the CMC is higher than the CCC and there is a
      toxicity test whose endpoint in laboratory dilution
      water is between the CMC and the CCC, both a cmcWER
      and a cccWER can be determined.  If the CMC is
      higher than the CCC but no toxicity test has an
      endpoint in laboratory dilution water between the
      CMC and the CCC, two WERs cannot be determined if
      they would be determined using the same site water;
      two WERs could be determined if they were determined
      using different site waters, e.g., waters that
      contain different concentrations of the effluent.
c. Was a steady-state or a dynamic model used in the
   calculation of the permit limits?
      It is complex,  but reasonably clear, how to make a
      decision when a steady-state model was used, but it
      is not clear how a decision should be made when a
      dynamic model was used.
d. If a steady-state model was used, were one or two
   design flows used, i.e., was the hydrologically based
   steady-state method used or was the biologically based
   steady-state method used?
      When the hydrologically based method is used, one
      design flow is used for- both the CMC and the CCC,
      whereas when the biologically based method is used,
      there is a CMC design flow and a CCC design flow.
      When WERs are determined using downstream water, use
      of the biologically based method will probably cause
      the percent effluent in the site water used in the
      determination of the cmcWER to be different from the
      percent effluent in the site water used in the
      determination of the cccWER; thus the two WERs
      should be determined using two different site
      waters.  This does not impact WERs determined using
      upstream water.
                         24

-------
 e.  Is  there  an acute mixing  zone?   Is  there  a  chronic
    mixing  zone?
       1. When  WERs  are determined using upstream water,
         the presence or  absence of mixing zones has no
         impact;  the cmcWER  and the cccWER will both be
         determined using site water that contains  zero
         percent  effluent, i.e., the two. WERs  will  be
         determined using the same  site water.
       2. Even  when  downstream water is used, whether there
         is  5in acute mixing  zone affects the point  of
         .application of the  CMC or  ssCMC, but  it does not
         affect the determination of any WER.
       3. The existence of a  chronic mixing zone has
         important  implications for the determination of
         WERs  when  downstream water is used  (see Appendix
         A).   When  WERs are  determined using downstream
         water, the cmcWER should be determined using
         water at the edge of the chronic mixing zone,
         whereas  the cccWER  should be determined using
         water from a complete-mix situation.   (If  the
         biologically based  method is used, the two
         different  design flows should also be taken into
         account when determining the percent effluent
         that  should be in the simulated downstream
         water.)  Thus the percent effluent in the  site
         water used in the determination of the cmcWER
         will  be different from the percent effluent in
         the site water used in the determination of the
         cccWER; this is  important because the magnitude
         of  a  WER will often depend substantially on the
         percent effluent  in the water (see Appendix D).
f.  In what situations would  it be environmentally
    conservative to  determine one WER and.use it to  adjust
   both the cmcWER  and the cccWER?           .
      Because  (1)  the CMC  is never lower than the CCC and
       (2) a more sensitive test will generally give a WER
      closer to 1,  it will be environmentally conservative
      to use a  cmcWER to adjust a CCC when there are no
      contradicting considerations.   In this case,   a
      cmcWER can be determined and used to adjust both the
      CMC and  the CCC.   Because water quality can affect
      the WER,   this approach is necessarily valid only if
      the cmcWER and the cccWER are determined in the same
      site water.   Other situations in which it would be
      environmentally conservative to use one WER to
      adjust both the CMC and the CCC are described below.
These considerations have one set of implications when
both the cmcWER and cccWER are to be determined using the
same site water, and another set  of implications when the
two WERs are to be determined using different site waters,
e.g., when the  site waters contain different
concentrations of effluent.

                        25

-------
When WERs are determined using upstream water, the same
site water is used in the determination of both the cmcWER
and the cccWER.  Whenever the two WERs are determined in
the same site water, any difference in the magnitude .of
the cmcWER and the cccWER will probably be due to the
sensitivities of the toxicity tests used.  Therefore:
a. If more sensitive toxicity tests generally give larger
   WERs than less sensitive tests, the maximum cccWER (a
   cccWER determined with a test whose endpoint equals the
   CCC) will usually be larger than the maximum cmcWER
   because the CCC is never higher than the CMC.
b. Because the CCC is never higher than the CMC, the
   maximum cmcWER will usually be smaller than the maximum
   cccWER and it will be environmentally conservative to
   use the cmcWER to adjust the CCC.
c. A cccWER can be determined separately from a cmcWER
   only if there is a toxicity test with an endpoint in
   laboratory dilution water that is between the CMC and
   the CCC.  If no such test exists or can be devised,
   only a cmcWER can be determined, but it can be used to
   adjust both the CMC and the CCC.
d. Unless the experimental variation is increased, use of
   a cccWER, instead of a cmcWER, to adjust the CCC will
   usually improve the accuracy of the resulting site-
   specific CCC.  Thus a cccWER may be determined and used
   whenever desired, if a toxicity test has an endpoint in
   laboratory dilution water between the CMC and the CCC.
e. A cccWER cannot be used to adjust a CMC if the cccWER
   was determined using an endpoint that was lower than
   the CMC in laboratory dilution water because it will
   probably reduce the level of protection.
f. Even if there is a toxicity test that has an endpoint
   in laboratory dilution water that is between the CMC
   and the CCC, it is not necessary to decide initially
   whether to determine a cmcWER and/or a cccWER.  When
   upstream water is used, it is always allowable to
   determine a cmcWER and use it to derive a site-specific
   CMC and a site-specific CCC and then decide whether to
   determine a cccWER.
g. If there is a toxicity test whose endpoint in
   laboratory dilution water is between the CCC and the
   CMC, and if this test is used as the secondary test in
   the determination of the cmcWER, this test will provide
   information that should be very useful for deciding
   whether to determine a cccWER in addition to a cmcWER.
   Further, if it is decided to determine a cccWER, the
   same two tests used in the determination of the cmcWER
   could then be used in the determination of the cccWER,
   with a reversal of their roles as primary and secondary
   tests.  Alternatively, a cmcWER and a cccWER could be
   determined simultaneously if both tests are conducted
   on each sample of site water.

                         26

-------
When WERs are determined using downstream water, the
magnitude of each WER will probably depend on the
concentration of effluent in the downstream water used
(see Appendix D).  The first important consideration is
whether the design flow is greater than zero, and the
second is whether there is a chronic mixing zone.
a. If the design flow is zero, cmcWERs and/or cccWERs that
   are determined for design-flow conditions will both be
   determined in 100 percent effluent.  Thus this case is
   similar to using upstream water in that both WERs are
   determined in the same site water.  When WERs are
   determined for high-flow conditions, it will make a
   difference whether a chronic mixing zone needs to be
   taken into account, which is the second consideration.
b. If there is no chronic mixing zone, both WERs will be
   determined for the complete-mix situation; this case is
   similar to using upstream water in that both WERs are
   determined using the same site water.  If there is a
   chronic mixing zone, cmcWERs should be determined in
   the site water that exists at the edge of the chronic
   mixing zone, whereas cccWERs should be determined for
   the complete-mix situation (see Appendix A).  Thus the
   percent effluent will be higher in the site water used
   in the determination of the cmcWER than in the site
   water used in the determination of the cccWER.   Because
   a site -watesr with a higher percent effluent will
   probably give a larger WER than a site water with a
   lower percent effluent, both a cmcWER and a cccWER can
   be determined even if there is no test whose endpoint
   in laboratory dilution water is between the CMC and the
   CCC.  There; are opposing considerations, however:
   1) The site water used in the determination of the
      cmcWER will probably have a higher percent effluent
      than the site water used in the determination of the
      cccWER, which will tend to cause the cmcWER to be
      larger than the cccWER.
   2) If there; is a toxicity test whose endpoint in
      laboratory dilution water is between the CMC and the
      CCC, use; of a more sensitive test in the
      determination of the cccWER will tend to cause the
      cccWER to be larger than the cmcWER.
One consequence of these opposing considerations is that
it is not known whether use of the cmcWER to adjust the
CCC would be environmentally conservative; if this
simplification is not known to be conservative, it should
not be used.  Thus it is important whether there is a
toxicity test whose endpoint in laboratory dilution water
is between the CMC and the CCC:
a. If no toxicity test has an endpoint in laboratory
   dilution water between the CMC' and the CCC, the two
   WERs have to be determined with the same test,  in which
   case the cmcWER will probably be larger because the

                         27

-------
       percent effluent in the site water will be higher.
       Because of the difference in percent effluent in the
       site waters that should be used in the determinations
       of the two WERs, use of the cmcWER to adjust the CCC
       would not be environmentally conservative, but use of
       the cccWER to adjust the CMC would be environmentally
       conservative.  Although both WERs could be determined,
       it would also be acceptable to determine only the
       cccWER and use it to adjust both the CMC and the CCC.
    b. If there is a toxicity test whose endpoint in
       laboratory dilution water is between the CMC and the
       CCC, the two WERs could be determined using different
       toxicity tests.  An environmentally conservative
       alternative to determining two WERs would be to
       determine a hybrid WER by using (1) a toxicity test
       whose endpoint is above the CMC (i.e., a toxicity test
       that is appropriate for the determination of a cmcWER)
       and (2) site water for the complete-mix situation
       (i.e., site water appropriate for the determination of
       cccWER).  It would be environmentally conservative to
       use this hybrid WER to adjust the CMC and it would be
       environmentally conservative to use this hybrid WER to
       adjust the CCC.  Although both WERs could be
       determined, it would also be acceptable to determine
       only the hybrid WER and use it to adjust both the CMC
       and the CCC.   (This hybrid WER described here in
       paragraph b is the same as the cccWER described in
       paragraph a above in which no toxicity test had an
       endpoint in laboratory dilution water between the CMC
       and the CCC.)

5.  How should a FWER be derived?

    Background

    Because of experimental variation and variation in the
    composition of surface waters and effluents,  a single
    determination of a WER does not provide sufficient
    information to justify adjustment of a criterion.  After a
    sufficient number of WERs have been determined in an
    acceptable manner, a Final Water-Effect Ratio (FWER)  is
    derived from the WERs, and the FWER is then used to
    calculate the site-specific criterion.  If both a site-
    specific CMC and a site-specific CCC are to be derived,
    both a cmcFWER and a cccFWER have to be derived, unless an
    environmentally conservative estimate is used in place of
    the cmcFWER and/or the cccFWER.

    When a WER is determined using upstream water, the two
    major sources of variation in the WER are (a) variability
    in the quality of the upstream water, much of which might
    be related to season and/or flow, and (b) experimental

                             28

-------
variation.  When a WER is determined in downstream water,
the four major sources of variation are (a)  variability in
the quality of the upstream water, much of which might be
related to season and/or flow, (b) experimental variation,
(c) variability in the composition of the effluent, and
(d) variability in the percent effluent in the downstream
water.  Variability and the possibility of mistakes and
rare events make it necessary to try to compromise between
(1) providing a high probability of adequate protection
and (2) placing too much reliance on the smallest
experimentally determined WER, which might reflect
experimental variation, a mistake, or a rare event rather
than a meaningful difference in the WER.

Various ways can be employed to address variability:
a. Replication can be used to reduce the impact of some
   sources of variation and to verify the importance of
   others.
b. Because variability in the composition of the effluent
   might contribute substantially to the variability of
   the WER, it might be desirable to obtain and store two
   or more samples of the effluent at slightly different
   times, with the selection of the sampling times
   depending on such characteristics of the discharge as
   the average retention time, in case an unusual WER is
   obtained with the first sample used.
c. Because of the possibility of mistakes and rare events,
   samples of effluent and upstream water should be large
   enough that portions can be stored for later testing or
   analyses if an unusual WER is obtained.
d. It might be possible to reduce the impact of the
   variability in the percent effluent in the downstream
   water by establishing a relationship between the WER
   and the percent effluent.
Confounding of the sources can be a problem when more than
one source contributes substantial variability.

When permit limits are calculated using a steady-state
model, the limits are based on a design flow, e.g., the
7Q10.  It is usually assumed that a concentration sof metal
in an effluent that does not cause unacceptable effects at
the design flow will not cause unacceptable effects at
higher flows because the metal is diluted by the increased
flow of the upstream water.  Decreased protection might
occur, however, if an increase in flow increases toxicity
more than it dilutes the concentration of metal.  When
permit limits are based on a national .criterion, it is
often  assumed that the criterion.is sufficiently
conservative that an increase in  toxicity will not be
great  enough to overwhelm the combination of dilution and
the assumed conservatism, even though it is likely that
the national criterion is not overprotective of all bodies

                         29

-------
of water.  When WERs are used to reduce the assumed
conservatism, there is moire concern about the possibility
of increased toxicity at flows higher than the design flow
and it is important to  (1) determine some WERs that
correspond to higher flows or  (2) provide some
conservatism.  If the concentration of effluent in the
downstream water decreases as flow increases, WERs
determined at higher flows are likely to be smaller than
WERs determined at design flow but the concentration of
metal will also be lower.  If the concentration of TSS
increases at high flows, however, both the WER and the
concentration of metal might increase.  If they are
determined in an appropriate manner, WERs determined at
flows higher than the design flow can be used in two ways :
a. As environmentally conservative estimates of WERs
   determined at design flow.
b. To assess whether WERs determined at design flow will
   provide adequate protection at higher flows .

In order to appropriately take into account seasonal and
flow effects and their interactions, both ways of using
high- flow WERs require that the downstream water used in
the determination of the WER be similar to that which
actually exists during the time of concern.  In addition,
high-flow WERs can be used in the second way only if the
composition of the downstream water is known.  To satisfy
the requirements that (a) the downstream water used in the
determination of a WER be similar to the actual water and
(b) the composition of the downstream water be known, it
is necessary to obtain samples of effluent and upstream
water at the time of concern and to prepare a simulated
downstream water by mixing the samples at the ratio of the
flows of the effluent and the upstream water that existed
when the samples were obtained.

For the first way of using high- flow WERs, they are used
directly as environmentally conservative estimates of the
design-flow WER.  For the second way of using high- flow
WERs, each is used to calculate the highest concentration
of metal that could be in the effluent without causing the
concentration of metal in the downstream water to exceed
the site- specific criterion that would be derived for that
water using the experimentally determined WER.  This
highest concentration of metal in the effluent (HCME) can
be calculated as :

 ir/^fc. -  t ( CCC) ( WER) ( eFLOW + uFLOW) ]  - [ ( uCONC) ( uFLOW) ]
 HCME --     -  '
where :
CCC =   the national, state, or recalculated CCC  (or CMC)
        that is to be adjusted.

                         30

-------
eFLOW = the flow of the effluent that was the basis of the
        preparation of the simulated downstream water.
        This should be the flow of the effluent that
        existed when the samples were taken.
uFLOW = the flow of the upstream water that was the basis
        of the preparation of the simulated downstream
        water,.  This should be the flow of the upstream
        water that existed when the samples were taken.
uCONC = the concentration of metal in the sample of
        upstream water used in the preparation of the
        simulated downstream water.
In order to calculate a HCME from an experimentally
determined WER, the only information needed besides the
flows of the effluent and the upstream water is the
concentration of metal in the upstream water, which should
be measured anyway in conjunction with the determination
of the WER.

When a steady-state model is used to derive permit limits,
the limits on the effluent apply at all flows; thus, each
HCME can be used to calculate the highest WER  (hWER) that
could be used to derive a site-specific criterion for the
downstream water at design flow so that there would be
adequate protection at the flow for which the HCME was
determined.  The hWER is calculated as:

      ,    = (HCME) (eFLOWdf) + (uCONCdf) (uFLOWdf)
      n            (CCC) (eFLOWdf + uFLOWdf)

The suffix "df" indicates that the values used for these
quantities in the. calculation of the hWER are those that
exist at design-flow conditions.  The additional datum
needed in order to calculate the hWER is the concentration
of metal in upstream water at design-flow conditions; if
this  is assumed to be zero, the hWER will be
environmentally conservative.  If a WER is determined when
uFLOW equals  the design flow, hWER = WER.

The two ways  of using WERs determined at flows higher than
design flow can be illustrated using the following
examples.  These examples were formulated using the
concept of additivity of WERs  (see Appendix G).  A WER
determined in downstream water consists of two components,
one due to the effluent  (the eWER) and one due to the
upstream water  (the uWER).  If the eWER and uWER are
strictly additive, when WERs are determined at various
upstream flows, the downstream WERs can be  calculated from
the composition of the downstream water  (the  % effluent
and the % upstream water) and the two WERs  (the eWER  and
the uWER) using the equation:
                         31

-------
      _  (% effluent) (eWER)  + (% upstream water) (uWER)
                           100
 In the examples below, it is assumed that:
 a. A site-specific CCC is being derived.
 b. The national CCC is 2 ug/L.
 c. The eWER is 40.
 d. The eWER and uWER are constant and strictly additive.
 e. The flow of the effluent  (eFLOW) is always 10 cfs.
 f. The design flow of the upstream water  (uFLOWdf) is 40
    cfs.
 Therefore:
HOME
[(2 ug/L) (WER) (10 cfs + UFLOW)] - [ (uCONC) (uFLOW)]
                   10 ug/L
       hWER = (HOME) (10 Cfs) + (uCONCdf) (40 cfs)
                  (2 ug/L) (10 cfs + 40 cfs)
 In the first example, the uWER is assumed to be 5 and so
 the upstream site-specific CCC (ussCCC) = (CCC)(uWER) =
 (2 ug/L)(5)  = 10 ug/L.  uCONC is assumed to be 0.4 ug/L,
 which means that the assimilative capacity of the upstream
 water is  9.6 ug/L.
 eFLOW
 (cfs)

  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  uFLOW
  (cfs)

    40
    63
    90
   190
   490
   990
  1990
  At Complete Mix
% Eff. % UPS.
WER
20
13
10
5
2
1
0
.0
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
80
86
90
95
98
99
99
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
12
9
8
6
5
5
5
.000
.795
.500
.750
.700
.350
.175
 HCME
(ua/L)

 118.4
 140.5
 166.4
 262.4
 550.4
1030.4
1990.4
                   hWER
                                   12.00
                                   14.21
                                   16.80
                                   26.40
                                   55.20
                                  103.20
                                  199.20
As  the flow of the upstream water increases, the WER
decreases to a limiting value equal to uWER.  Because the
assimilative capacity is greater than zero, the HCMEs and
hWERs  increase due to the increased dilution of the
effluent.   The increase in hWER at higher flows will not
allow  any use of the assimilative capacity of the upstream
water  because the allowed concentration of metal in the
effluent  is controlled by the lowest hWER, which is the
design-flow hWER in this example.  Any WER determined at a
higher flow can be used as an environmentally conservative
estimate  of the design-flow WER,  and the hWERs show that
the WER of 12 provides adequate protection at all flows.
When uFLOW equals the design flow of 40 cfs, WER = hWER.
                         32

-------
In the second example, uWER is assumed to be 1, which
means that ussCCC = 2 ug/L.  uCONC is assumed to be 2
ug/L, so that uCONC = ussCCC.  The assimilative capacity
of the upstream water is 0 ug/L.
eFLOW
(cfs)

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
uFLOW
(cfs)

  40
  63
  90
 190
 490
 990
1990
  At Complete Mix
% Eff.  % UPS.
WER
20.0
13.7
10.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
80.0
86.3
90.0
95.0
98.0
99.0
99.5
8.800
6.343
4.900
2.950
1.780
1.390
1.195
 HOME
(ucr/L)

 80.00
 80.-. 00
 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
                                                  hWER
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
All the WERs in this example are lower than the comparable
WERs in the first example because the uWER dropped from 5
to 1; the limiting value of the WER at very high flow is
1.  Also, the HCMEs and hWERs are independent of flow
because the increased dilution does not allow any more
metal to be discharged when uCONC = ussCCC, i.e., when the
assimilative capacity is zero.  As in the first example,
any WER determined at a flow higher than design flow can
be used as an environmentally conservative estimate of the
design-flow WER and the hWERs show that the WER of 8.8
determined at design flow will provide adequate protection
at all flows for which information is available.  When
uFLOW equals the design flow of 40 cfs, WER = hWER.
In the third example, uWER is assumed to be 2, which means
that ussCCC = 4 ug/L.  uCONC is assumed to be 1 ug/L; thus
the assimilative capacity of the upstream water is 3 ug/L.
eFLOW
 (cfs)

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
uFLOW
 (cfs)

  40
  63
  90
 190
 490
 990
 1990
  At Complete Mix
% Eff. % UPS.
WER
20.0
13.7
10.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
80.0
86.3
90.0
95.0
98.0
99.0
99.5
9.600
7.206
5.800
3.900
2.760
2.380
2.190
 HCME
(ucr/L)

  92.0
  98.9
 107.0
 137.0
 227.0
 377.0
 677.0
                                                  hWER
                                   9.60
                                  10.29
                                  11.10
                                  14.10
                                  23.10
                                  38.10
                                  68.10
All  the WERs  in  this  example are  intermediate between the
comparable WERs  in  the  first two  examples because  the uWER
is now 2, which  is  between  1 and  5;  the  limiting value of
the  WER at very  high  flow is 2.   As  in the  other examples,
any  WER determined  at a flow higher  than design flow can
be used as an environmentally  conservative  estimate of the
                         33

-------
design-flow WER and the hWERs show that the WER of 9.6
determined at design flow will provide adequate protection
at all flows for which information is available.  When
uFLOW equals the design flow of 40 cfs, WER = hWER.

If this third example is assumed to be subject to acidic
snowmelt in the spring so that the eWER and uWER are less-
than-additive and result in a WER of 4.8 (rather than 5.8)
at a uFLOW of 90 cfs, the third HCME would be 87 ug/L, and
the third hWER would be 9.1.  This hWER is lower than the
design-flow WER of 9.6, so the site-specific criterion
would have to be derived using the WER of 9.1, rather than
the design-flow WER of 9.6, in order to provide the
intended level of protection.  If the eWER and uWER were
less-than-additive only to the extent that the third WER
was 5.3, the third HCME would be 97 ,ug/L and the third
hWER would be 10.1.  In this case, dilution by the
increased flow would more than compensate for the WERs
being less-than-additive, so that the design-flow WER of
9.6 would provide adequate protection at a uFLOW of 90
cfs.  Auxiliary information might indicate whether an
unusual WER is real or is an accident; for example, if the
hardness, alkalinity, and pH of snowmelt are all low, this
information would support a low WER.

If the eWER and uWER were more-than-additive so that the
third WER was 10, this WER would not be an environmentally
conservative estimate of the design-flow WER.  If a WER
determined at a higher flow is to be used as an estimate
of the design-flow WER and there is reason to believe that
the eWER and the uWER might be more-than-additive, a test
for additivity can be performed (see Appendix G).

Calculating HCMEs and hWERs is straightforward if the WERs
are based on the total recoverable measurement.  If they
are based on the dissolved measurement, it is necessary to
take into account the percent of the total recoverable
metal in the effluent that becomes dissolved in the
downstream water.

To ensure adequate protection, a group of WERs should
include one or more WERs corresponding to flows near the
design flow, as well as one or more WERs corresponding to
higher flows.
a. Calculation of hWERs from WERs determined at various
   flows and seasons identifies the highest WER that can
   be used in the derivation of a site-specific criterion
   and still provide adequate protection at all flows for
   which WERs are available.  Use of hWERs eliminates the
   need to assume that WERs determined at design flow will
   provide adequate protection at higher flows.  Because
   hWERs are calculated to apply at design flow, they

                         34

-------
   apply to the flow on which the permit limits are based.
   The lowest of the hWERs ensures adequate protection at
   all flows, if hWERs are available for a sufficient
   range of flows, seasons, and other conditions.
b. Unless additivity is assumed, a WER cannot be
   extrapolated from one flow to another and therefore it
   is not possible to predict a design-flow WER from a WER
   determined at other conditions.  The largest WER is
   likely to occur at design flow because, of the flows
   during which protection is to be provided, the design
   flow is the flow at which the highest concentration of
   effluent will probably occur in the downstream water.
   This largest WER has to be experimentally determined;
   it cannot be predicted.

The examples also illustrate that if the concentration of
metal in the upstream water is below the site-specific
criterion for that water, in the limit of infinite
dilution of the effluent with upstream water, there will
be adequate protection.  The concern, therefore, is for_
intermediate levels of dilution.  Even if the assimilative
capacity is zero, as in the second example, there is more
concern at the lower or intermediate flows, when the
effluent load is  still a major portion of the total load,
than at higher flows when the effluent load is a minor
contribution.
The Options

To ensure  adequate protection over a range of  flows, two
types  of WERs  need to be determined:
Type 1 WERs  are  determined by obtaining samples of
         effluent and upstream water when the  downstream
         flow  is between one and  two times higher than
         what,  it would be under design-flow  conditions.
Type 2 WERs  aire  determined by obtaining samples of
         effluent and upstream water when the  downstream
         flow  is between two and  ten times higher than
         what  it would be under design-flow  conditions.
The only difference  between the two types of samples is
the downstrecim flow  at the time the samples  are taken.
For both types of WERs, the samples should be  mixed at the
ratio  of the flows that existed when the samples were
taken  so that  seasonal and flow-related changes in  the
water  quality characteristics of  the upstream  water are
properly related to  the flow at which  they occurred.  The
ratio  at which the samples are mixed does not  have  to be
the  exact  ratio that existed when the  samples  were  taken,
but  the ratio has  to be known, which is why  simulated
downstream water is  used.  For each Type 1 WER and  each
Type  2 WER that is determined, a  hWER  is calculated.

                         35

-------
Ideally,  sufficient numbers of both types of WERs would be
available and each WER would be sufficiently precise and
accurate  and the Type 1 WERs would be sufficiently similar
that the  FWER could be the geometric mean of the Type 1
WERs, unless the FWER had to be lowered because of one or
more hWERs.  If an adequate number of one or both types of
WERs is not available, an environmentally conservative WER
or hWER should be used as the FWER.

Three Type 1 and/or Type 2 WERs, which were determined
using acceptable procedures and for which there were at
least three weeks between any two sampling events, must be
available in order for a FWER to be derived.  If three or
more are  available, the FWER should be derived from the
WERs and  hWERs using the lowest numbered option whose
requirements are satisfied:
1. If there are two or more Type 1 WERs:
   a. If  at least nineteen percent of all of the WERs are
      Type 2 WERs, the derivation of the FWER depends on
      the properties of the Type 1 WERs:
      1)  If the range of the Type 1 WERs is not greater
          than a factor of 5 and/or the range of the ratios
          of the Type 1 WER to the concentration of metal
          in the simulated downstream water is not greater
          than a factor of 5, the FWER is the lower of (a)
          the adjusted geometric mean (see Figure 2)  of all
          of the Type 1 WERs and (b) the lowest hWER.
      2)  If the range of the Type 1 WERs is greater than a
          factor of 5 and the range of the ratios of the
          Type 1 WER to the concentration of metal in the
          simulated downstream water is greater than a
          factor of 5, the FWER is the lowest of (a)  the
          lowest Type 1 WER, (b)  the lowest hWER, and (c)
          the geometric mean of all the Type 1 and Type 2
          WERs, unless an analysis of the joint
          probabilities of the occurrences of WERs and
          metal concentrations indicates that a higher WER
          would still provide the level of protection
          intended by the criterion.  (EPA intends to
          provide guidance concerning such an analysis.)
   b. If  less than nineteen percent of all of the WERs are
      Type 2 WERs, the FWER is the lower of (1)  the lowest
      Type 1 WER and (2)  the lowest hWER.
2. If there is one Type 1 WER,  the FWER is the lowest of
   (a)  the Type 1 WER,  (b)  the lowest hWER,  and (c)  the
   geometric mean of all of the Type 1 and Type 2 WERs.
3. If there are no Type 1 WERs,  the FWER is the lower of
   (a)  the lowest Type 2 WER and (b)  the lowest hWER.
If fewer  than three WERs are available and a site-specific
criterion is to be derived using a WER or a FWER,  the WER
or FWER has to be assumed to be 1.   Examples of deriving
FWERs using these options are presented in Figure 3.

                        36

-------
The options are designed to ensure that:
a. The options apply equally well to ordinary flowing
   waters and to streams whose design flow is zero._
b. The requirements for deriving the FWER as_something
   other than the lowest WER are not too stringent.
c. The probability is high that the criterion will be
   adequately protective at all flows, regardless of the
   amount of data -that are available.
d. The generation of both types of WERs is encouraged
   because environmental conservatism is built in if both
   types of WERs are not available in acceptable numbers.
e. The amount of conservatism decreases as the quality and
   quantity of the available data increase.
The requirement that three WERs be available is based on a
judgment that fewer WERs will not provide sufficient
information.  The requirement that at least nineteen
percent of all of the available WERs be Type 2 WERs is
based on a judgment concerning what constitutes an
adequate mix of the two types of WERs: when there are five
or more WERs, at least one-fifth should be Type 2 WERs.

Because each of these options for deriving a FWER is
expected to provide adequate protection, anyone who
desires to determine a FWER can generate three or more
appropriate WERs and use the option that corresponds to
the WERs that, are available.  The options that utilize the
least useful WERs are expected to provide adequate
protection because of the way the FWER is derived  from the
WERs.  It is intended that, on the average, Option la.will
result in the highest FWER, and so it is recommended that
data generation should be designed to satisfy the
requirements of this option if possible.  For example,_if
two Type 1 WERs have been determined, determining  a third
Type 1 WER will require use of Option Ib, whereas
determining a Type 2 WER will require use of Option la.

Calculation of the FWER as an adjusted geometric mean
raises three  issues:
a. The level  of protection would  be  greater  if the lowest
   WER,  rather than  an  adjusted mean, were used  as the
   FWER.  Although true, the  intended level  of protection
   is provided by the national aquatic  life  criterion
   derived  according to the national guidelines; when
   sufficient data are  available  and it  is  clear how the
   data  should be used, there  is  no  reason to  add  a
   substantial margin of  safety  and  thereby change the
   intended level of protection.   Use of an adjusted
   geometric  mean is acceptable  if sufficient  data are
   available  concerning the WER  to demonstrate that  the
   adjusted geometric mean will  provide the intended  level
   of protection.  Use  of  the lowest of three  or more  WERs
   would be justified,  if,  for example,  the criterion  had

                         37

-------
    been_lowered to protect a commercially important
    species and a WER determined with that species was
    lower than WERs determined with other species.
 b.  The level of protection would be greater if the
    adjustment was to a probability of 0,95 rather than to
    a probability of 0.70.   As above,  the intended level of
    protection is provided by the national aquatic life
    criterion derived according to the national guidelines.
    There is no need to substantially increase the level of
    protection when site-specific criteria are derived.
 c.  It would be easier to use the more common arithmetic
    mean,  especially because the geometric mean usually
    does not provide much more protection than the
    arithmetic mean.  Although true,  use  of the geometric
    mean rather than the arithmetic mean  is justified on
    the basis of statistics and mathematics;  use of the
    geometric mean is also consistent  with the intended
    level  of protection.   Use of the arithmetic mean is
    appropriate when the values can range from minus
    infinity to plus infinity.   The geometric mean (GM)  is
    equivalent to using the arithmetic mean of the
    logarithms of the values.   WERs cannot be negative,  but
    the logarithms of WERs  can.   The distribution of the
    logarithms of WERs is therefore more  likely to be
    normally distributed than is the distribution of the
    WERs._  Thus,  it is better to use the  GM of WERs.   In
    addition,  when dealing  with quotients,  use of the GM
    reduces arguments about the correct way to do some
    calculations  because  the same answer  is obtained in
    different  ways.   For  example,  if WER1  = (N1)/(D1)  and
    WER2 «  (N2)/(D2),  then  the  GM of WER1  and WER2  gives
    the same value as [(GM  of Nl and N2)/(GM  of  Dl  and D2)]
    and also equals the  square  root of
    { [(Nl) (N2)]/[(D1) (D2)]}.

Anytime the FWER is derived as  the lowest  of  a  series of
experimentally determined  WERs  and/or hWERs,  the magnitude
of  the FWER will depend  at  least  in part  on  experimental
variation.  There are at least  three ways  that  the
influence  of  experimental variation on the FWER can  be
reduced:
a. A WER determined with a  primary test can be  replicated
    and the  geometric mean of the  replicates used as  the
   value of the  WER for that determination.  Then the FWER
   would be the  lowest of a number of geometric means
   rather  than the  lowest of a  number of  individual WERs.
   To  be true replicates, the replicate determinations  of
   a WER should  not be based on the same test in
   laboratory dilution water, the  same sample of site
   water, or the  same sample of effluent.
b. If, for example, Option  3 is to be used with three Type
   2 WERs and the endpoints of both the primary and

                         38

-------
       secondary tests  in  laboratory dilution water are  above
       the  CMC  and/or CCC  to which  the WER  is to  apply,  WERs
       can  be determined with both  the primary and secondary
       tests for each of the three  sampling times.  For  each
       sampling time, the  geometric mean  of the WER obtained
       with the primary test and the WER  obtained with the
       secondary test could be  calculated;  then the lowest  of
       these three geometric means  could  be used  as the  FWER.
       The  three WERs cannot consist of some WERs determined
       with one of the  tests and some WERs  determined with  the
       other test; similarly the three WERs cannot consist  of
       a combination of individual  WERs obtained  with the
       primary  and/or secondary tests and geometric means of
       results  of primary  and  secondary tests.
    c.  As mentioned above, because  the variability of the
       effluent might contribute substantially to the
       variability of the  WERs,  it  might  be desirable to
       obtain and store more than one sample of the effluent
       when a WER is to be determined in  case an  unusual WER
       is obtained with the first sample  used.
    Examples  of the first  and  second ways of reducing the
    impact  of experimental variation are  presented  in Figure
    4.   The availability of these alternatives does not  mean
    that, they .are necessarily  cost-effective.

6.  For metals  whose criteria  are hardness-dependent, at what
    hardness should WERs be determined?

    The issue of hardness bears on  such topics  as acclimation
    of test organisms  to the site water,  adjustment  of  the
    hardness of the site water, and how an  experimentally
    determined WER should be used.   If  all  WERs  were
    determined at design-flow conditions, it might  seem that
    all WERs should be determined at the design-flow hardness.
    Some permit limits, however, are not based on_the hardness
    that is most  likely to occur at design  flow;  in addition,
    conducting all tests at design-flow conditions  provides no
    information concerning whether adequate protection will be
    provided at other flows.   Thus, unless  the hardnesses of
    the upstream  water and the effluent are similar and do not
    vary with flow, the hardness of the site water will not be
    the same for  all WER determinations.

    Because the toxicity tests should be begun within 36 hours
    after  the samples of effluent and upstream water are
    collected,  there is little time to acclimate organisms to
    a  sample-specific hardness.  One alternative would be to
    acclimate the organisms to a preselected hardness and then
    adjust the hardness of the site water,  but adjusting the
    hardness of the site water might have various effects on
    the toxicity  of the metal due  to competitive binding and
    ionic  impacts on the  test organisms and on the speciation

                             39

-------
 of the metal; lowering hardness without also diluting the
 WER is especially problematic.   The least objectionable
 approach is to acclimate the organisms to a laboratory
 dilution water with a hardness  in the range of 50  to 150
 mg/L and then use this water as the laboratory dilution
 water when the WER is determined.   In this way,  the test
 organisms will be acclimated to the laboratory dilution
 water as specified by ASTM (1993a,b,c,d,e).

 Test organisms may be acclimated to the site water for a
 short time as long as this does not cause the tests to
 begin more than 36 hours after  the samples were collected.
 Regardless of what acclimation  procedure  is used,  the
 organisms used for the toxicity test  conducted using site
 water are unlikely to be acclimated as  well as would be
 desirable.   This is a general problem with toxicity tests
 conducted in site water (U.S. EPA 1993a,b,c;  ASTM  1993f),
 and its impact on the results of tests  is unknown.

 For the practical reasons given above,  an experimentally
 determined WER will usually be  a ratio  of endpoints
 determined at two different hardnesses  and will  thus
 include contributions from a variety  of differences
 between the two waters,  including  hardness.   The
 disadvantages of differing hardnesses are that (a)  the
 test organisms probably will  not be adequately acclimated
 to  site water and (b)  additional calculations  will  be
 needed to account for the differing hardnesses;  the
 advantages  are that it allows the  generation  of  data
 concerning  the adequacy of protection at  various flows of
 upstream water and it provides  a way  of overcoming  two
 problems with the hardness equations:  (1)  it  is  not known
 how applicable they are to hardnesses outside  the range of
 25  to 400 mg/L and (2)  it is not known  how applicable  they
 are  to unusual combinations of  hardness,  alkalinity, and
 pH  or to unusual ratios of calcium and magnesium.

 The  additional calculations that are necessary to account
 for  the differing hardnesses will  also overcome the
 shortcomings  of  the hardness equations.   The purpose of
 determining a WER is  to determine  how much metal can be in
 a site  water  without  lowering the  intended level of
 protection.   Each experimentally determined WER is
 inherently  referenced to  the hardness of  the laboratory
 dilution water that was used in  the determination of the
 WER, but the  hardness  equation can be used to  calculate
 adjusted WERs  that  are  referenced  to other hardnesses  for
 the  laboratory dilution water.  When used to adjust WERs,
 a hardness  equation for a  CMC or CCC can be used to
 reference a WER  to  any  hardness  for a laboratory dilution
water,  whether it  is  inside or outside the range of 25 to
 400 mg/L, because  any  inappropriateness in the equation

                         40

-------
will be automatically compensated for when the adjusted
WER is used in the derivation of a FWER and permit limits.

For example, the hardness equation for the freshwater CMC
for copper gives CMCs of 9.2, 18, and 34 ug/L at
hardnesses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L, respectively.  If
acute toxicity tests with Ceriodaphnia reticulata gave an
EC50 of 18 ug/L using a laboratory dilution water with a
hardness of 100 mg/L and an EC50 of 532.2 ug/L in a site
water, the resulting WER would be 29.57.  It can be
assumed that, within experimental variation, ECSOs of 9.2
and 34 ug/L arid WERs of 57.85 and 15.65 would have been
obtained if laboratory dilution waters with hardnesses of
50 and 200 mg/L, respectively, had been used, because the
EC50 of 532.2 ug/L obtained in the site water does not
depend on what: water is used for the laboratory dilution
water.  The WERs of 57.85 and 15.65 can be considered to
be adjusted WERs that were extrapolated from the
experimentally determined WER using the hardness equation
for the copper CMC.  If used correctly, the experimentally
determined WER and all of the adjusted WERs will result in
the same permit  limits because they are internally
consistent and are all based on the EC50 of 532.2 ug/L
that was obtained in site water.

A hardness equation for copper can be used to adjust the
WER if the hardness of the laboratory dilution water used
in the determination of the WER is in the range of 25 to
400 mg/L  (preferably in the range of about 40 to 250 mg/L
because most of  the data used to derive the equation are
in this range).  However, the hardness equation can be
used  to adjust WERs to hardnesses outside the-range of 25
to 400 mg/L because the basis of the adjusted WER does not
change the  fact  that the EC50 obtained in site water was
532.2. ug/L.  If  the hardness of the site water was 16
mg/L, the hardness equation would predict an EC50 of 3.153
ug/L, which would result in  an adjusted WER of 168.8.
This  use of the  hardness equation outside the range of 25
to 400 ma/L is valid  only if the calculated CMC is used
with  the corresponding adjusted WER.  Similarly,  if the
hardness of the  site  water had been 447 mg/L, the hardness
equation would predict an EC50 of 72.66 ug/L, with a
corresponding adjusted WER of 7.325.  If the hardness of
447 mg/L were due to  an  effluent that contained calcium
chloride and the alkalinity  and  pH  of the site water were
what  would  usually occur at  a hardness  of 50 mg/L rather
than  400 mg/L,  any inapproprlateness  in the  calculated
EC50  of  72.66 ug/L will  be compensated  for  in the adjusted
WER of  7.325, because the adjusted  WER  is based on the
EC50  of  532.2 ug/L that  was  obtained  using  the  site water.
                         41

-------
    In the above examples it was assumed that at a hardness of
    100 mg/L the EC50 for C. reticulata equalled the CMC,
    which is a very reasonable simplifying assumption.  If,
    however, the WER had been determined with the more
    resistant Daphnia pulex and ECSOs of 50 ug/L and 750 ug/L
    had been obtained using a laboratory dilution water and a
    site water, respectively, the CMC given by the hardness
    equation could not be used as the predicted EC50.   A new
    equation would have to be derived by changing the
    intercept so that the new equation gives an EC50 of 50
    ug/L at a hardness of 100 mg/L;  this new equation  could
    then be used to calculate adjusted ECSOs,  which could then
    be used to calculate corresponding adjusted WERs:

            Hardness         EC50          WER
             (ma/L)          (ug/L)         	
               16            8.894        84.33
               50           26.022        28.82
              100           50.000*       15.00*
              200           96.073         7.81
              447          204.970         3.66

    The values marked with an asterisk are the assumed
    experimentally determined values;  the others were
    calculated from these values.   At  each hardness  the
    product of the EC50 times the  WER  equals  750 ug/L because
    all of the WERs are based on the same EC50 obtained  using
    site water.  Thus use of the WER allows application  of  the
    hardness equation for a metal  to conditions  to which it
    otherwise might not be applicable.

    HCMEs can then be calculated using either the
    experimentally determined WER  or an adjusted WER as  long
    as  the WER is applied to the CMC that corresponds to the
    hardness on which the WER is based.   For  example,  if the
    concentration of copper in the upstream water was 1  ug/L
    and the flows of the effluent  and  upstream water were 9
    and 73 cfs,  respectively,  when the  samples were  collected,
    the HCME calculated from the WER of 15.00 would  be:

HOME -  (17.73 ug/L) (15) (9 + 73 cfs) -  (1 ug/L) (73 cfs)  = 2415 ug/L
                         y c^ s

    because the CMC is 17.73 ug/L  at a  hardness  of 100 mg/L.
    (The value of 17.73 ug/L is used for the  CMC instead of 18
    ug/L to reduce roundoff error  in this example.)   If  the
    hardness of the site water was actually 447  ug/L,  the HCME
    could also be calculated using the  WER of 3.66 and the  CMC
    of  72.66 ug/L that would be obtained from the CMC hardness
    equation:
                            42

-------
= (72.66 ug/L) (3.66) (9 + 73 cfs) - (1 ug/L) (73 cfs) = 2415 ug/L _
                      9
 Either WER can be used in the calculation of the HOME as
 long as the CMC and the WER correspond to the same
 hardness and therefore to each other,  because:

          (17.73  ug/L) (15) = (72.66 ug/L) (3 . 66) .

 Although the HCME will be correct as long as the hardness,
 CMC, and WER correspond to each other, the WER used in the
 derivation of the FWER must be the one that is calculated
 using a hardness equation to be compatible with the
 hardness of the site water.  If the hardness of the site
 water was 447 ug/L,  the WER used in the derivation of the
 FWER has to be 3.66; therefore, the simplest approach is
 to calculate the HCME using the WER of 3.66 and the
 corresponding CMC of 72.66 ug/L, because these correspond
 to the hardness of 447 ug/L, which is the hardness of the
 site water.

 In contrast, the hWER should be calculated using the CMC
 that corresponds to the design hardness.  If the design
 hardness is 50 mg/L, the corresponding CMC is 9.2 ug/L.
 If the design, flows of the effluent and the upstream water
 are 9 and 20 cfs, respectively, and the concentration of
 metal in upstream water at design conditions is 1 ug/L,
 the hWER obtained from the WER determined using the site
 water with a hardness of 447 mg/L would be:

   hm— _  (2415 ug/L) (9 cfs) + (1 ug/L) (20 cfs) = 81 54
   AVER        (9_2 ug/L} (9 cfg + 20 cfs)

 None of these  calculations provides a way of extrapolating
 a WER from one site-water hardness to another.  The only
 extrapolations that are possible are from one hardness of
 laboratory dilution water to another; the adjusted WERs
 are based on predicted toxicity in laboratory dilution
 water, but they  are all based  on measured toxicity in site
 water.   If a WER is to apply to the design  flow and the
 design hardness,  one or more toxicity tests have to be
 conducted using  samples of  effluent and  upstream water
 obtained under design- flow  conditions and mixed at the
 design-flow  ratio to produce the design  hardness. _ A WER
 that  is  specifically appropriate to design  conditions _
 cannot be based  on predicted toxicity in site water; it
 has to be based  on measured toxicity  in  site  water _ that
 corresponds  to design-flow  conditions.   The situation is
 more  complicated if the design hardness  is  not  the
 hardness that  is most  likely to occur when  effluent and
 upstream water are mixed  at the ratio of the  design flows.
                          43

-------
B. Background Information and Initial Decisions

   1.  Information should be obtained concerning the effluent and
       the operating and discharge schedules of the discharger.

   2.  The spatial extent of the site to which the WER and the
       site-specific criterion are intended to apply should be
       defined (see Appendix A).   Information concerning
       tributaries, the plume, and the point of complete mix
       should be obtained.  Dilution models (U.S. EPA 1993d)  and
       dye dispersion studies (Kilpatrick 1992) might provide
       information that is useful for defining sites for cmcWERs.

   3.  If the Recalculation Procedure (see Appendix B)  is to be
       used,  it should be performed.

   4.  Pertinent information concerning the calculation of the
       permit limits should be obtained:
       a. What are the design flows,  i.e., the flow of the
          upstream water (e.g.,  7Q10)  and the flow of the
          effluent that are used in the calculation of the permit
          limits?  (The design flows  for the CMC and CCC might be
          the same or different.)
       b. Is  there a CMC (acute)  mixing zone and/or a CCC
          (chronic) mixing zone?
       c. What are the dilution(s)  at the edge(s)  of the mixing
          zone(s)?
       d. If  the criterion is hardness-dependent,  what  is the
          hardness on which the permit limits are based?  Is  this
          a hardness that is likely to occur under design-flow
          conditions?

   5.  It should be decided whether to determine a cmcWER and/or
       a cccWER.

   6.  The water quality criteria document (see Appendix E) that
       serves as  the basis of the aquatic life criterion should
       be read to identify any chemical  or toxicological
       properties of the metal that are  relevant.

   7.  If the WER is being determined by or for a discharger,  it
       will probably be desirable to  decide what is the  smallest
       WER that  is desired by the discharger (e.g.,  the  smallest
       WER that would not require a reduction  in the amount of
       metal  discharged).   This  "smallest desired WER" might  be
       useful when deciding whether to determine a WER.   If a WER
       is determined,  this  "smallest  desired WER"  might  be useful
       when selecting the range of  concentrations  to be  tested in
       the site water.

   8.   Information should be read concerning health and  safety
       considerations regarding collection and handling  of

                               44

-------
       effluent and surface water samples and conducting toxicity
       tests (U.S.  EPA 1993a;  ASTM 1993a).   Information should
       also be read concerning safety and handling of the
       metallic salt that will be used in the preparation of the
       stock solution.

   9.   The proposed work should be discussed with the appropriate
       regulatory authority (and possibly the Water Management
       Division of the EPA Regional Office)  before deciding how
       to proceed with the development of a detailed workplan.

   10.  Plans should be made to perform one or more rangefinding
       tests in both laboratory dilution water and site water
       (see section G.7).


C. Selecting Primary and Secondary Tests

   1.  For each WER  (cmcWER and/or cccWER)  to be determined, the
       primary and secondary tests should be selected using_the
       rationale presented in section A.3,  the information in
       Appendix I, the information in the criteria document for
       the metal (see Appendix E), and any other pertinent
       information that is available.  When a specific test
       species is not specified, also select the species.
       Because at least three WERs must be determined with the
       primary test, but only one must be determined with the
       secondary test, selection of the tests might be influenced
       by the availability of the species (and the life stage in
       some cases) during the planned testing period.
       a. The description of a  "test" specifies not only the test
          species and the duration of the test but also the_life
          stage of the species and the adverse effect on which
          the results are to be based, all of which can have a
          major impact on the sensitivity of the test.
       b. The endpoint  (e.g., LC50, EC50, IC50) of the primary
          test in laboratory dilution water should be as close as
          possible,  but it must not be below, the CMC and/or CCC
          to which the WER is to be applied, because for any two
          tests, the test that has the lower endpoint is likely
          to give the higher WER  (see Appendix D).
          NOTE: If both the Recalculation Procedure and a WER are
                to be used in the derivation of the site-specific
                criterion, the  Recalculation Procedure must be
                completed first because the recalculated CMC
                and/or  CCC must be used in the selection of the
                primary and secondary tests.
       c. The  endpoint  (e.g., LC50, EC50, IC50) of the secondary
          test in laboratory dilution water should be as close as
          possible,  but  may be  above or below, the CMC and/or CCC
          to which  the  WER is to be applied.


                                45

-------
        1)  Because  few toxicity  tests have endpoints close to
           the  CMC  and CCC  and because the major use of the
           secondary test is  confirmation  (see section I.7.b),
           the  endpoint of  the secondary test may be below the
           CMC  or CCC.   If  the endpoint of the secondary test
           in laboratory dilution water is above the CMC and/or
           CCC,  it  might be possible to use the results to
           reduce the impact  of  experimental variation (see
           Figure 4) .   If the endpoint of the primary test in
           laboratory dilution water is above the CMC and the
           endpoint of the  secondary test is between the CMC
           and  CCC,  it should be possible to determine both a
           cccWER and a cmcWER using the same two tests.
        2)  It is often desirable to conduct the secondary test
           when the first primary test is conducted in case the
           results  are surprising; conducting both tests the
           first time also  makes it possible to interchange the
           primary  and secondary tests, if desired, without
           increasing the number of tests that need to be
           conducted.   (If  results of one or more rangefinding
           tests are  not available, it might be desirable to
           wait and conduct the  secondary test when more
           information is available concerning the laboratory
           dilution water and the site water.)

2.  The primary and- secondary tests must be conducted with
    species in different taxonomic orders; at least one
    species must be  an animal and, when feasible,  one species
    should be a vertebrate and  the other should be an
    invertebrate.  A plant cannot be used if nutrients and/or
    chelators need to  be added  to either or both dilution
    waters in order  to determine the WER.   It is desirable to
    use a  test and species for which the rate of success is
    known  to be high and for which the test organisms are
    readily available.  (If the WER is to be used with a
    recalculated CMC and/or CCC, the species used in the
    primary and secondary tests do not have to be on the list
    of species that are used to obtain the recalculated CMC
    and/or CCC.)

3.   There are advantages to using tests suggested in Appendix
    I or other tests of comparable sensitivity for which data
    are available  from one or more other laboratories.
    a. A good indication of the sensitivity of the test  is
       available.   This helps ensure that  the endpoint in
       laboratory dilution water is close  to the CMC and/or
       CCC and aids in the selection of concentrations of the
       metal to be used in the rangefinding and/or definitive
       toxicity tests  in laboratory dilution water.   Tests
       with other species such as species  that occur at  the
       site may be used, but it is sometimes more  difficult to
       obtain,  hold, and test such species.

                             46

-------
       b.  When a WER is  determined and used,  the  results  of  the
          tests in laboratory dilution water  provide  the
          connection between the data used in the derivation of
          the national criterion and the  data obtained in site
          water,  i.e., the results in laboratory  dilution water
          are a vitcil link in the derivation  and  use  of a WER.
          It is,  therefore,  important to  be able  to judge the
          quality of the results in laboratory dilution water.
          Comparison of  results with data from other  laboratories
          evaluates all  aspects of the test methodology
          simultaneously,  but for the determination of WERs, the
          most important aspect is the quality of the laboratory
          dilution water because the dilution water is the most
          important difference between the two side-by-side  tests
          from which the WER is calculated.  Thus,  two tests must
          be conducted for which data are available on the metal
          of concern in  a laboratory dilution water from  at  least
          one other laboratory.  If both  the  primary  and
          secondary tests are ones for which  acceptable data are
          available from at least one other laboratory, these are
          the only two tests that have to be  conducted.  If,
          however, the primary and/or secondary tests are ones
          for which no results are already available  for  the
          metal of concern from another laboratory, the first or
          second time a  WER is determined at  least two additional
          tests must be  conducted in the  laboratory dilution
          water in addition to the tests  that are conducted for
          the determination of WERs  (see  sections F.5 and 1.5).
          1) For the determination of a WER,  data are not
             required for a reference toxicant with either the
             primary test or the secondary test because the  above
             requirement provides similar data for the metal for
             which the WER is actually being  determined.
          2) See Section 1.5 concerning interpretation of the
             results of these tests before additional tests  are
             conducted.


D. Acquiring and Acclimating Test Organisms

   1.  The test organisms should be obtained, cultured, held,
       acclimated, fed,  and handled as recommended by the U.S.
       EPA  (1993a,b,c) and/or by ASTM  (1993a,b,c,d,e).  All test
       organisms must be acceptably acclimated to a laboratory
       dilution water that satisfies the requirements given in
       sections F.3 and F.4; an appropriate number of the
       organisms may be randomly or impartially removed from  the
       laboratory dilution water and placed in the site water
       when  it becomes available in order to acclimate the
       organisms to the site water for a while just before  the
       tests are begun.


                                47

-------
   2.  The organisms used in a pair of side-by-side tests must be
       drawn from the same population and tested under identical
       conditions.


E. Collecting and Handling Upstream Water and Effluent

   1.  Upstream water will usually be mixed with effluent to
       prepare simulated downstream water.  Upstream water may
       also be used as a site water if a WER is to be determined
       using upstream water in addition to or instead of
       determining a WER using downstream water.   The samples of
       upstream water must be representative; they must not be
       unduly affected by recent runoff events (or other erosion
       or resuspension events)  that cause higher levels of TSS
       than would normally be present, unless there is particular
       concern about such conditions.

   2.  The sample of effluent used in the determination of a WER
       must be representative;  it must be collected during a
       period when the discharger is operating normally.
       Selection of the date and time of sampling of the effluent
       should take into account the discharge pattern of the
       discharger.   It might be appropriate to collect effluent
       samples during the middle of the week to allow for
       reestablishment of steady-state conditions after shutdowns
       for weekends and holidays; alternatively,  if end-of-the-
       week slug discharges are routine,  they should probably be
       evaluated.   As mentioned above, because the variability of
       the effluent might contribute substantially to the
     •  variability of the WERs,  it might be desirable to obtain
       and store more than one  sample  of the effluent when WERs
       are to be determined in  case an unusual WER is obtained
       with the first sample used.

   3.   When samples of site water and  effluent are collected for
       the determination of the WERs with the primary test,  there
       must be at  least  three weeks between one sampling event
       and the next.   It is desirable  to obtain samples  in at
       least two different seasons and/or during  times of
       probable differences in  the characteristics of the site
       water and/or effluent.

   4.   Samples of upstream water and effluent must be collected,
       transported,  handled,  and stored as recommended by the
       U.S.  EPA (1993a).   For example,  samples of effluent should
       usually be composites, but grab samples are acceptable if
       the residence time of the effluent is sufficiently long.
       A  sufficient volume should be obtained so  that some can be
       stored for additional testing or analyses  if  an unusual
       WER is obtained.   Samples must  be  stored at 0  to  4°C in
       the dark with no  air space in the  sample container.

                               48

-------
   5.   At the time of collection,  the flow of both the upstream
       water and the effluent must be either measured or
       estimated by means of correlation with a nearby U.S.G.S.
       gauge, the pH of both upstream water and effluent must be
       measured,  and samples of both upstream water and effluent
       should be filtered for measurement of dissolved metals.
       Hardness,  TSS, TOG,  and total recoverable and dissolved
       metal must be measured in both the effluent and the
       upstream water.  Any other water quality characteristics,
       such as total dissolved solids (TDS)  and conductivity,
       that are monitored monthly or more often by the permittee
       and reported in the Discharge Monitoring Report must also
       be measured.  These and the other measurements provide
       information concerning the representativeness of the
       samples and the variability of the upstream water and
       effluent.

   6.   "Chain of custody" procedures (U.S. EPA 1991b)  should be
       used for all samples of site water and effluent,
       especially if the data might be involved in a legal
       proceeding.

   7.   Tests must be begun within 36 hours after the collection
       of the samples of the effluent and/or the site water,
       except that tests may be begun more than 36 hours after
       the collection of the samples if it would require an
       inordinate amount of resources to transport the samples to
       the laboratory and begin the tests within 36 hours.

   8.   If acute and/or chronic tests are to be conducted with
       daphnids and if the sample of the site water contains
       predators, the site water must be filtered through a 37-^m.
       sieve or screen to remove predators.


F. Laboratory Dilution Water

   1.   The laboratory dilution water must satisfy the
       requirements given by U.S. EPA (1993a,b,c) or ASTM
       (1993a,b,c,d,e).  The laboratory dilution water must be a
       ground water, surface water, reconstituted water, diluted
       mineral water, or dechlorinated tap water that has been
       demonstrated to be acceptable to aquatic organisms.  If a
       surface water is used for acute or chronic tests with
       daphnids and if predators are observed in the sample of
       the water, it must be filtered through a 37-/xm sieve or  -
       screen to remove the predators.  Water prepared by such
       treatments as deionization and reverse osmosis must not be
       used as the laboratory dilution water unless salts,
       mineral water, hypersaline brine, or sea salts are added
       as recommended by U.S. EPA  (1993a) or ASTM  (1993a).


                                49

-------
   2.  The concentrations of both TOG and TSS must be less than 5
       mg/L.

   3.  The hardness of the laboratory dilution water should be
       between 50 and 150 mg/L and must be between 40 and 220
       mg/L.  If the criterion for the metal is hardness-
       dependent, the hardness of the laboratory dilution water
       must not be above the hardness of the site water, unless
       the hardness of the site water is below 50 mg/L.

   4.*  The alkalinity and pH of the laboratory dilution water
       must be appropriate for its hardness; values for
       alkalinity and pH that are appropriate for some hardnesses
       are given by U.S. EPA (1993a) and ASTM (1993a); other
       corresponding values should be determined by
       interpolation.  Alkalinity should be adjusted using sodium
       bicarbonate, and pH should be adjusted using aeration,
       sodium hydroxide, and/or sulfuric acid.

   5.  It would seem reasonable that, before any samples of site
       water or effluent are collected, the toxicity tests that
       are to be conducted in the laboratory dilution water for
       comparison with results of the same tests from other
       laboratories  (see sections C.3.b and 1.5) should be
       conducted.  These should be performed at the hardness,
       alkalinity, and pH specified in sections F.3 and F.4.


G. Conducting Tests

   1.  There must be no differences between the side-by-side
       tests other than the composition of the dilution water,
       the concentrations of metal tested, and possibly the water
       in which the test organisms are acclimated just prior to
       the beginning of the tests.

   2.  More than one test using site water may be conducted side-
       by-side with a test using laboratory dilution water; the
       one test in laboratory dilution water will be used in the
       calculation of several WERs, which means that it is very
       important that that one test be acceptable.

   3.  Facilities for conducting toxicity tests should be set up
       and test chambers should be selected and cleaned as
       recommended by the U.S.  EPA  (1993a,b,c) and/or ASTM
       (1993a,b,c,d,e).

   4.  A stock solution should be prepared using an inorganic
       salt that is highly soluble in water.
       a. The salt does not have to be one that was used in tests
          that were used in the derivation of the national
          criterion.  Nitrate salts are generally acceptable;

                               50

-------
       chloride and sulfate salts of many metals are also
       acceptable (see Appendix J).   It is usually desirable
       to avoid use of a hygroscopic salt.  The salt used
       should meet A.C.S. specifications for reagent-grade, if
       such specifications are available; use of a better
       grade is usually not worth the extra cost.  No salt
       should be used until information concerning safety and
       handling has been read.
    b. The stock solution may be acidified (using metal-free
       nitric acid)  only as necessary to get the metal into
       solution.
    c. The same stock solution must be used to add metal to
       all tests conducted at one time.

5.  For tests suggested in Appendix I, the appendix presents
    the recommended duration and whether the static or renewal
    technique should be used; additional information is
    available in the references cited in the appendix.
    Regardless of whether or not or how often test solutions
    are renewed when these tests are conducted for other
    purposes, the following guidance applies to all tests that
    are conducted for the determination of WERs:
    a. The renewa.l technique must be used for tests that last
       longer than 48 hr.
    b. If the concentration of dissolved metal decreases by
       more than 50 % in 48 hours in static or renewal tests,
       the test solutions must be renewed every 24 hours.
       Similarly, if the concentration of dissolved oxygen
       becomes too low, the test solutions must be renewed
       every 24 hours.  If one test in a pair of tests is a
       renewal test, both tests must be renewal tests.
    c. When test solutions are to be renewed, the new test
       solutions must be prepared from the original unspiked
       effluent amd water samples that have been stored at 0
       to 4°C in the dark with no air space in the sample
       container.
    d. The static technique may be used for tests that do not
       last longer than 48 hours unless the above
       specifications require use of the renewal technique.
    If a test is used that is not suggested in Appendix I, the
    duration and technique recommended for a comparable test
    should be used.

6.  Recommendations concerning temperature, loading, feeding,
    dissolved oxygen, aeration, disturbance, and controls
    given by the U.S. EPA  (1993a,b,c) and/or ASTM
    (1993a,b,c,d,e) must be followed.  The procedures that are
    used must be used in both of the side-by-side tests.

7.  To aid in the; selection of the concentrations of metals
    that should be used in the test solutions in site water, a
    static rangefinding test should be conducted for 8 to 96

                             51

-------
    hours, using a dilution factor of 10  (or 0.1) or 3.2 (or
    0.32) increasing from about a factor of 10 below the value
    of the endpoint given in the criteria document for the
    metal or in Appendix I of this document for tests with
    newly hatched fathead minnows.  If the test is not in the
    criteria document and no other data are available, a mean
    acute value or other data for a taxonomically similar
    species should be used as the predicted value.   This
    rangefinding test will provide information concerning the
    concentrations that should be used to bracket the endpoint
    in the definitive test and will provide information
    concerning whether the control survival will be
    acceptable.  If dissolved metal is measured in one or more
    treatments at the beginning and end of the rangefinding
    test, these data will indicate whether the concentration
    should be expected to decrease by more than 50  % during
    the definitive test.  The rangefinding test may be
    conducted in either of two ways:
    a. It may be conducted using the samples of effluent and
       site water that will be used in the definitive test.
       In this case, the duration of the rangefinding test
       should be as long as possible within the limitation
       that the definitive test must begin within 36 hours
       after the samples of effluent and/or site water were
       collected, except as per section E.7.
    b. It may be conducted using one set of samples of
       effluent and upstream water with the definitive tests
       being conducted using samples obtained at a  later date.
       In this case the rangefinding test might give better
       results because it can last longer, but there is the
       possibility that the quality of the effluent and/or
       site water might change.   Chemical analyses  for
       hardness and pH might indicate whether any major
       changes occurred from one sample to the next.
    Rangefinding tests are especially desirable before the
    first set of toxicity tests.  It might be desirable to
    conduct rangefinding tests before each individual
    determination of a WER to obtain additional information
    concerning the effluent, dilution water, organisms, etc.,
    before each set of side-by-side tests are begun.

8.  Several considerations are important in the selection of
    the dilution factor for definitive tests.   Use  of
    concentrations that are close together will reduce the
    uncertainty in the WER but will require more
    concentrations to cover a range within which the endpoints
    might occur.  Because of the resources necessary to
    determine a WER, it is important that endpoints in both
    dilution waters be obtained whenever a set of side-by-side
    tests are conducted.   Because static and renewal tests can
    be used to determine WERs,  it is relatively easy to use
    more treatments than would be used in flow-through tests.

                            52

-------
    The dilution factor for total recoverable metal must be
    between 0.65 and 0.99,  and the recommended factor is 0.7.
    Although factors between 0.75 and 0.99 may be used,  their
    use will probably not be cost-effective.   Because there is
    likely to be more uncertainty in the predicted value of
    the endpoint in site water,  6 or 7 concentrations are
    recommended in the laboratory dilution water, and 8  or 9
    in the simulated downstream water, at a dilution factor of
    0.7.  It might be desirable to use even more treatments in
    the first of the WER determinations, because the design of
    subsequent tests can be based on the results of the  first
    tests if the site water, laboratory dilution water,  and
    test organisms do not change too much.  The cost of  adding
    treatments can be minimized if the concentration of  metal
    is measured only in samples from treatments that will be
    used in the calculation of the endpoint.

9.   Each test must contain a dilution-water control.  The
    number of test organisms intended to be exposed to each
    treatment, including the controls, must be at least  20.
    It is desirable that the organisms be distributed between
    two or more test chambers per treatment.   If test
    organisms are not randomly assigned to the test chambers,
    they must be assigned impartially (U.S. EPA 1993a; ASTM
    1993a) betweejQ all test chambers for a pair of side-by-
    side tests.  For example, it is not acceptable to assign
    20 organisms to one treatment, and then assign 20
    organisms to another treatment, etc.  Similarly, it  is not
    acceptable to assign all the organisms to the test using
    one of the dilution waters and then assign organisms to
    the test using the other dilution water.   The test
    chambers should be assigned to location in a totally
    random arrangement or in a randomized block design.

10. For the test using site water, one of the following
    procedure~s~~should be used to prepare the test solutions
    for the test chambers and the "chemistry controls"  (see
    section H.1):
    a. Thoroughly mix the sample of the effluent and place the
       same known volume of the effluent in each test chamber;
       add the necessary amount of metal, which will be
       different for each treatment; mix thoroughly; let stand
       for 2 to 4 hours; add the necessary amount of upstream
       water to each test chamber; mix thoroughly; let stand
       for 1 to 3 hours.
    b. Add the necessary amount of metal to a large sample of
       the effluent and also maintain an unspiked sample of
       the effluent; perform serial dilution using a graduated
       cylinder and the well-mixed spiked and unspiked samples
       of the effluent; let stand for 2 to 4 hours; add the
       necessary amount of upstream water to each test
       chamber; mix thoroughly; let stand for 1 to 3 hours.

                             53

-------
    c. Prepare a large volume of simulated downstream water by
       mixing effluent and upstream water in the desired
       ratio; place the same known volume of the simulated
       downstream water in each test chamber; add the
       necessary amount of metal, which will be different for
       each treatment; mix thoroughly and let stand for 1 to 3
       hours.
    d. Prepare a large volume of simulated downstream water by
       mixing effluent and upstream water in the desired
       ratio; divide it into two portions; prepare a large
       volume of the highest test concentration of metal using
       one portion of the simulated downstream water; perform
       serial dilution using a graduated cylinder and the
       well-mixed spiked and unspiked samples of the simulated
       downstream water; let stand for 1 to 3 hours.
    Procedures "a" and "b" allow the metal to equilibrate
    somewhat with the effluent before the solution is diluted
    with upstream water.

11. For the test using the laboratory dilution water, either
    of the following procedures may be used to prepare the
    test solutions for the test chambers and the "chemistry
    controls" (see section H.I):
    a. Place the same known volume of the laboratory dilution
       water in each test chamber; add the necessary amount of
       metal, which' will be different for each treatment; mix
       thoroughly; let stand for 1 to 3 hours.
    b. Prepare a large volume of the highest test
       concentration in the laboratory dilution water; perform
       serial dilution using a graduated cylinder and the
       well-mixed spiked and unspiked samples of the
       laboratory dilution water; let stand for 1 to 3 hours.

12. The test organisms, which have been acclimated as per
    section D.I,  must be added to the test chambers for the
    site-by-side tests at the same time.  The time at which
    the test organisms are placed in the test chambers is
    defined as the beginning of the tests, which must be
    within 36 hours of the collection of the samples, except
    as per section E.7.

13. Observe the test organisms and record the effects and
    symptoms as specified by the U.S. EPA (1993a,b,c) and/or
    ASTM (1993a,b,c,d,e) .   Especially note whether the
    effects, symptoms, and time course of toxicity are the
    same in the side-by-side tests.

14. Whenever solutions are renewed, sufficient solution should
    be prepared to allow for chemical analyses.
                             54

-------
H. Chemical and Other Measurements

   1.  To reduce the possibility of contamination of test
       solutions before or during tests, thermometers and probes
       for measurincf pH and dissolved oxygen must not be placed
       in test chambers that will provide data concerning effects
       on test organisms or data concerning the concentration of
       the metal.  Thus measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and
       temperature before or during a test must be performed
       either on "chemistry controls" that contain test organisms
       and are fed the same as the other test chambers or on
       aliquots that, are removed from the test chambers.   The
       other measurements may be performed on the actual test
       solutions at the beginning and/or end of the test or the
       renewal.

   2.  Hardness  (in fresh water) or salinity (in salt water), pH,
       alkalinity,  TSS, and TOG must be measured on the upstream
       water, the effluent, the simulated and/or actual
       downstream waiter, and the laboratory dilution water.
       Measurement of conductivity and/or total dissolved solids
       (TDS) is recommended in fresh water.

   3.  Dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature must be measured
       during the test at the times specified by the U.S. EPA
       (1993a,b,c)  and/or ASTM  (1993a,b,c,d,e).   The measurements
       must be performed on the same schedule for both of the
       side-by-side tests.  Measurements must be performed on
       both the chemistry controls and actual test solutions at
       the end of the test.

   4.  Both total recoverable and dissolved metal must be
       measured in the upstream water, the effluent, and
       appropriate test solutions for each of the tests.
       a. The analytical measurements should be sufficiently
         • sensitive and precise that variability in analyses will
          not greatly increase the variability of the WERs.  If
          the detection limit of the analytical method that will
          be used to determine the metal is greater than one-
          tenth of the CCC or CMC that is to be adjusted, the
          analytical, method should probably be improved or
          replaced (see Appendix C).  If additional sensitivity
          is needed,  it is often useful to separate the metal
          from the matrix because this will simultaneously
          concentrate the metal and remove interferences.
          Replicate analyses should be performed if necessary to
          reduce the.. impact of analytical variability.
          1) EPA methods  (U.S. EPA 1983b,1991c)  should usually be
             used for both total recoverable and dissolved
             measurements, but in some cases alternate methods
             might have to be used in order to achieve the
             necessa.ry sensitivity.   Approval for use of

                                55

-------
      alternate methods is to be requested from the
      appropriate regulatory authority.
b. All measurements of metals must be performed using
   appropriate QA/QC techniques.  Clean techniques for
   obtaining-, handling, storing, preparing, and analyzing
   the samples should be used when necessary to achieve
   blanks that are sufficiently low  (see Appendix C).
c. Rather than measuring the metal in all test solutions,
   it is often possible to store samples and then analyze
   only those that are needed to calculate the results of
   the toxicity tests.  For dichotomous data (e.g.,
   either-or data; data concerning survival),  the metal in
   the following must be measured:
   1) all concentrations in which some, but not all,  of
      the test organisms were adversely affected.
   2) the highest concentration that did not adversely
      affect any test organisms.
   3) the lowest concentration that adversely affected all
      of the test organisms.
   4) the controls.
   For data that are not dichotomous (i.e., for count and
   continuous data), the metal in the controls and in the
   treatments that define the concentration-effect curve
   must be measured; measurement of the concentrations of
   metals in other treatments is desirable.
d. In each treatment in which the concentration of metal
   is to be measured, both the total recoverable and
   dissolved concentrations must be measured;
   1) Samples must be taken for measurement of total
      recoverable metal once for a static test, and once
      for each renewal for renewal tests; in renewal
      tests, the samples are to be taken after the
      organisms have been transferred to the new test
      solutions.  When total recoverable metal is measured
      in a test chamber, the whole solution in the chamber
      must be mixed before the sample is taken for
      analysis; the solution in the test chamber must not
      be acidified before the sample is taken.   The sample
      must be acidified after it is placed in the sample
      container.
   2) Dissolved metal must be measured at the beginning
      and end of each static test; in a renewal test,  the
      dissolved metal must be measured at the beginning of
      the test and just before the solution is renewed the
      first time.  When dissolved metal is measured in a
      test chamber, the whole solution in the test chamber
      must be mixed before a sufficient amount is removed
      for filtration; the solution in the test chamber
      must not be acidified before the sample is taken.
      The sample must be filtered within one hour after it
      is taken, and the filtrate must be acidified after
      filtration.

                         56

-------
   5.  Replicates, matrix spikes, and other QA/QC checks must be
       performed as required by the U.S.  EPA (1983a,1991c).


I.  Calculating and Interpreting the Results

   1.  To prevent roundoff error in subsequent calculations, at
       least four significant digits must be retained in all
       endpoints, WERs,  and FWERs.   This  requirement is not  based
       on mathematics or statistics and does not reflect the
       precision of the value; its  purpose is to minimize concern
       about the effects of rounding off  on a site-specific
       criterion.  All of these numbers are intermediate values
       in .the calculation of permit limits and should not be
       rounded off as if they were  values of ultimate concern.

   2.  Evaluate the acceptability of each toxicity test
       individually.
       a.  If the procedures used deviated from those specified
          above,  particularly in terms of acclimation,
          randomization,  temperature control,  measurement of
          metal,  and/or disease or  disease-treatment,  the test
          should be rejected;  if deviations were numerous and/or
          substantial,  the test must be rejected.
       b.  Most tests  are unacceptable if  more than 10  percent of
          the organisms  in the controls were adversely affected,
          but the limit  is higher for some tests;  for the tests
          recommended in Appendix I,  the  references given should
          be consulted.
       c.  If an LC50  or  EC50 is to  be calculated:
          1)  The percent  of the organisms that  were adversely
             affected must have been less than  50  percent, and
             should have  been less  than 37 percent,  in at least
             one treatment other than the control.
          2)  In laboratory dilution water the percent  of the
             organisms that were adversely affected must have
             been greater than 50 percent,  and  should  have been
             greater  than 63 percent,  in  at least  one  treatment.
             In site  water the percent of the organisms that were
             adversely affected should have been greater than 63
             percent  in  at least one  treatment.   (The  LC50 or
             EC50 may be  a "greater than"  or "less  than"  value  in
             site Welter,  but not in laboratory  dilution water.)
          3)  If there was an inversion in the data  (i.e., if a
             lower concentration killed or affected a  greater
             percentage of the organisms  than a higher
             concentration),  it must  not  have involved  more  than
             two  concentrations that  killed or  affected between
             20 and 80 percent of the test organisms.
          If  an endpoint  other than an LC50  or  EC50  is  used  or  if
          Abbott's formula is  used, the above requirements will
          have to be;  modified  accordingly.

                               57

-------
d. Determine whether there was anything unusual about the
   test results that would make them questionable.
e. If solutions were not renewed every 24 hours, the
   concentration of dissolved metal must not have
   decreased by more than 50 percent from the beginning to
   the end of a static test or from the beginning to the
   end of a renewal in a renewal test in test
   concentrations that were used in the calculation of the
   results of the test.

Determine whether the effects, symptoms, and time course
of toxicity was the same in the side-by-side tests in the
site water and the laboratory dilution water.  For
example, did mortality occur in one acute test, but
immobilization in the other?  Did most deaths occur before
24 hours in one test, but after 24 hours in the other?  In
sublethal tests, was the most sensitive effect the same in
both tests?  If the effects, symptoms, and/or time course
of toxicity were different, it might indicate that the
test is questionable or that additivity, synergism, or
antagonism occurred in site water.  Such information might
be particularly useful when comparing tests that produced
unusually low or high WERs with tests that produced
moderate WERs.

Calculate the results of each test:
a. If the data for the most sensitive effect are
   dichotomous, the endpoint must be calculated as a LC50,
   EC50, LC25, EC25, etc., using methods described by the
   U.S. EPA  (1993a) or ASTM  (1993a).  If two or more
   treatments affected between 0 and 100 percent in both
   tests in a side-by-side pair, probit analysis must be
   used to calculate results of both tests, unless the
   probit model is rejected by the goodness of fit test in
   one or both of the acute tests.  If probit analysis
   cannot be used, either because fewer than two
   percentages are between 0 and 100 percent or because
   the model does not fit the data, computational
   interpolation must be used  (see Figure 5); graphical
   interpolation must not be used.
   1) The same endpoint  (LC50, EC25, etc.) and the same
      computational method must be used for both tests
      used in the calculation of a WER.
   2) The selection of the percentage used to define the
      endpoint might be influenced by the percent effect
      that occurred in the tests and the correspondence
      with the CCC and/or CMC.
   3) If no treatment killed or affected more than 50
      percent of the test organisms and the test was
      otherwise acceptable, the LC50 or EC50 should be
      reported to be greater than the highest test
      concentration.

                         58

-------
   4) If no treatment other than the control killed or
      affected less than 50 percent of the test organisms
     , and the test was otherwise acceptable, the LC50 or
      EC50 should be reported to be less than the lowest
      test concentration.
b. If the data for the most sensitive effect are not
   dichotomous, the endpoint must be calculated using a
   regression-type method  (Hoekstra and Van Ewijk 1993;
   Stephan and Rogers 1985), such as linear interpolation ,
   (U.S. EPA 1993b,c) or a nonlinear regression method
   (Barnthouse et al. 1987; Suter et al.  1987; Bruce and
   Versteeg 1992).   The selection of the percentage used
   to define the endpoint might be influenced by the
   percent effect that occurred in the tests and the
   correspondence with the CCC and/or CMC.  The endpoints
   in the side-by-side tests must be based on the same
   amount of the same adverse effect so that the WER is a
   'ratio of identical endpoints.  The same computational
   method must be used for both tests used in the.
   calculation of the WER.
c. Both total recoverable and dissolved results should be
   calculated for each test.
d. Results should be based on the time-weighted average
   measured metal concentrations (see Figure 6).

The acceptability of the laboratory dilution water must be
evaluated by comparing results obtained with two sensitive
tests using the laboratory dilution water with results
that were obtained using a comparable laboratory dilution
water in one or more other laboratories (see sections
C.3.b and F.5).
a. If, after taking into account any known effect of
   hardness on toxicity, the new values for the endpoints
   of both of the tests are (1)  more than a factor of 1.5
   higher than the respective means of the values from the
   other laboratories or (2)  more than a factor of 1.5
   lower than the respective means of values from the
   other laboratories or (3)  lower than the respective
   lowest values available from other laboratories or (4)
   higher than the respective highest values available
   from other laboratories, the new and old data must be
   carefully evaluated to determine whether the laboratory
   dilution water used in the WER determination was
   acceptable.   For example,  there might  have been an
   error in the chemical measurements,  which might mean
   that the results of all tests performed in the WER
   determination need to be adjusted and that the WER
   would not change.  It is also possible that the metal
   is more or less toxic in the laboratory dilution water
   used in the WER determination.  Further, if the new
   data were based on measured concentrations but the old
   data were based on nominal concentrations, the new data

                         59

-------
   should probably be considered to be better than the
   old.  .Evaluation of results of any other toxicity tests
   on the same or a different metal using the same
   laboratory dilution water might be useful.
b. If/ after taking into account any known effect of
   hardness on toxicity, the new values for the endpoints
   of the two tests are not either both higher or both
   lower in comparison than data from other laboratories
   (as per section a above) and if both of the new values
   are within a factor of 2 of the respective means of the
   previously available values or are within the ranges of
   the values, the laboratory dilution water used in the
   WER determination is acceptable.
c. A control chart approach may be used if sufficient data
   are available.
d. If the comparisons do not indicate that the laboratory
   dilution water, test method, etc., are acceptable, the
   tests probably should be considered unacceptable,
   unless other toxicity data are available to indicate
   that they are acceptable.
Comparison of results of tests between laboratories
provides a check on all aspects of the test procedure; the
emphasis here is on the quality of the laboratory dilution
water because all other aspects of the side-by-side tests
on which the WER is based must be the same, except
possibly for the concentrations of metal used and the
acclimation just prior to the beginning of the tests.

If all the necessary tests and the laboratory dilution
water are acceptable, a WER must be calculated by dividing
the endpoint obtained using site water by the endpoint
obtained using laboratory dilution water.
a. If both a primary test and a secondary test were
   conducted using both waters, WERs must be calculated
   for both tests.
b. Both total recoverable and dissolved WERs must be
   calculated.
c. If the detection limit of the analytical method used to
   measure the metal is above the endpoint in laboratory
   dilution water, the detection limit must be used as the
   endpoint, which will result in a lower WER than would
   be obtained if the actual concentration had been
   measured.  If the detection limit of the analytical
   method used is above the endpoint in site water, a WER
   cannot be determined.

Investigation of the WER.
a. The results of the chemical measurements of hardness,
   alkalinity, pH, TSS, TOG, total recoverable metal,
   dissolved metal, etc., on the effluent and the upstream
   water should be examined and compared with previously
   available values for the effluent and upstream water,

                         60

-------
respectively, to determine whether the samples were
representative and to get some indication of the
variability in the composition, especially as it might
affect the toxicity of the metal and the WER, and to
see if the WER correlates with one or more of the
measurements.
The WERs obtained with the primary and secondary tests
should be compared to determine whether the WER
obtained with the secondary test confirmed the WER
obtained with the primary test.  Equally sensitive
tests are expected to give WERs that are similar (e.g.,
within a factor of 3), whereas a test that is less
sensitive will probably give a smaller WER than a more
sensitive test (see Appendix D).   Thus a WER obtained
with a primary test is considered confirmed if either
or both of the following are true:
1) the WERs obtained with the primary and secondary
   tests are within a factor of 3.
2) the test, regardless of whether it is the primary or
   secondary test, that gives a higher endpoint in the
   laboratory dilution water also gives the larger WER.
If the WER obtained with the secondary test does not
confirm the WER obtained with the primary test, the
results should be investigated.  In addition, WERs
probably should be determined using both tests the next
time samples are obtained and it would be desirable to
determine a WER using a third test.  It is also
important to evaluate what the results imply about the
protectiveness of any proposed site-specific criterion.
If the WER is larger than 5, it should be investigated.
1) If the endpoint obtained using the laboratory
   dilution water was lower than previously reported
   lowest value or was more than a factor of two lower
   than an existing Species Mean Acute Value in a
   criteria document, additional tests in the
   laboratory dilution water are probably desirable.
2) If a total recoverable WER was larger than 5 but the
   dissolved WER was not, is the metal one whose WER is
   likely to be affected by TSS and/or TOC and was the
   concentration of TSS and/or TOC high?  Was there a
   substantial difference between the total recoverable
   and dissolved concentrations of the metal in the
   downstream water?
3) If both the total recoverable and dissolved WERs
   were larger than 5,  is it likely that there is
   nontoxic dissolved metal in the downstream water?
The adverse effects and the time-course of effects in
the side-by-side tests should be compared.  If they are
different,  it might indicate that the site-water test
is questionable or that additivity, synergism,  or
antagonism occurred in the site water.   This might be
especially important if the WER obtained with the

                     61

-------
          secondary test did not confirm the WER obtained with
          the primary test or if the WER was very large or small.

   8.   If at least one WER determined with the primary test was
       confirmed by a WER that was simultaneously determined with
       the secondary test, the cmcFWER and/or the cccFWER should
       be derived as described in section A.5.

   9.   All data generated during the determination of the WER
       should be examined to see if there are any implications
       for the national or site-specific aquatic life criterion.
       a. If there are data for a species for which data were not
          previously available or unusual data for a species for
          which data were available, the national criterion might
          need to be revised.
       b. If the primary test gives an LC50 or EC50 in laboratory
          dilution water that is the same as the national CMC,
          the resulting site-specific CMC should be similar to
          the LC50 that was obtained with the primary test using
          downstream water.  Such relationships might serve as a
          check on the applicability of the use of WERs.
       c. If data indicate that the site-specific criterion would
          not adequately protect a critical species, the site-
          specific criterion probably should be lowered.


J. Reporting the Results

   A report of the experimental determination of a WER to the
   appropriate regulatory authority must include the following:
   1.   Name(s) of the investigator(s), name and location of the
       laboratory, and dates of initiation and termination of the
       tests.
   2.   A description of the laboratory dilution water, including
       source, preparation, and any demonstrations that an
       aquatic species can survive,  grow, and reproduce in it.
   3.   The name, location, and description of the discharger, a
       description of the effluent,  and the design flows of the
       effluent and the upstream water.
   4.   A description of each sampling station, date, and time,
       with an explanation of why they were selected, and the
       flows of the upstream water and the effluent at the time
       the samples were collected.
   5.   The procedures used to obtain, transport, and store the
       samples of the upstream water and the effluent.
   6.   Any pretreatment, such as filtration, of the effluent,
       site water, and/or laboratory dilution water.
   7.   Results of all.chemical and physical measurements on
       upstream water, effluent, actual and/or simulated
       downstream water, and laboratory dilution water, including
       hardness (or salinity), alkalinity, pH, and concentrations
       of total recoverable metal, dissolved metal, TSS,  and TOG.

                                62

-------
8.   Description of the experimental design,  test chambers,
    depth and volume of solution in the chambers,  loading and
    lighting, and numbers of organisms and chambers per
    treatment.
9.   Source and grade of the metallic salt, and how the stock
    solution was prepared, including any acids or bases used.
10. Source of the test organisms,  scientific name and how
    verified, age, life stage,  means and ranges of weights
    and/or lengths, observed diseases, treatments, holding and
    acclimation procedures, and food.
11. The average and range of the temperature, pH,  hardness (or
    salinity),  and the concentration of dissolved oxygen (as %
    saturation and as mg/L) during acclimation, and the method
    used to measure them.
12. The following must be presented for each toxicity test:
    a. The average and range of the measured concentrations of
       dissolved oxygen, as % saturation and as mg/L.
    b. The average and range of the test temperature and the
       method used to measure it.
    c. The schedule for taking samples of test solutions and
       the methods used to obtain, prepare,  and store them.
    d. A summary table of the total recoverable and dissolved
       concentrations of the metal in each treatment,
       including all controls,  in which they were measured.
    e. A summary table of the values of the toxicological
       variable(s) for each treatment, including all controls,
       in sufficient detail to allow an independent
       statistical analysis of the'data.
    f. The endpoint and the method used to calculate it.
    g. Comparisons with other data obtained by'conducting the
       same test on the same metal using laboratory dilution
       water in the same and different laboratories; such data
       may be from a criteria document or from another source.
    h. Anything unusual about the test, any deviations from
       the procedures described above, and any other relevant
       information.
13. All differences, other than the dilution water and the
    concentrations of metal in the test solutions, between the
    side-by-side tests using laboratory dilution water and
    site water.
14. Comparison of results obtained with the primary and
    secondary tests.
15. The WER and an explanation of its calculation.
A report of the derivation of a FWER must include the
following:
1.  A report of the determination of each WER that was
    determined for the derivation of the FWER; all WERs
    determined with secondary tests must be reported along
    with all WERs that were determined with the primary test.

                             63

-------
The design  flow of the upstream water and the effluent and
the hardness used in the derivation of the permit limits,
if the criterion for the metal is hardness-dependent.
A summary table must be presented that contains the
following for each WER that was derived:
a. the value of the WER and the two endpoints from which
   it was calculated.
b. the hWER calculated from the WER.
c. the test and species that was used.
d. the date the samples of effluent and site water were
   collected.
e. the flows of the effluent and upstream water when the
   samples  were taken.
f. the following information concerning the laboratory
   dilution water, effluent, upstream water, and actual
   and/or simulated downstream water: hardness (salinity),
   alkalinity, pH, and concentrations of total recoverable
   metal, dissolved metal,  TSS, and TOG.
A detailed  explanation of how the FWER was derived from
the WERs that are in the summary table.
                        64

-------
METHOD 2s DETERMINING cccWERs FOR AREAS AWAY FROM PLUMES


Method 2 might be viewed as a simple process wherein samples of
site water are obtained from locations within a large body of
fresh or salt water  (e.g., an ocean or a large lake, reservoir,
or estuary), a WER is determined for each sample, and the FWER is
calculated as the geometric mean of some or all of the WERs.  In
reality, Method 2 is not likely to produce useful results unless
substantial resources are devoted to planning and conducting the
study.  Most sites to which Method 2 is applied will have long
retention times, complex mixing patterns, and a number of
dischargers.  Because, metals are persistent, the long retention
times mean that the sites are likely to be defined to cover,
rather large areas; thus such sites will herein be referred to
generically as "large sites".  Despite the differences between
them, all large sites require similar special considerations
regarding the determination of WERs.  Because Method 2 is based
on samples of actual surface water  (rather than simulated surface
water), no sample should be taken in the vicinity of a plume and
the method should be used to determine cccWERs, not cmcWERs.  If
WERs are to be determined for more than one metal, Appendix F
should be read.

Method 2 uses many of the same methodologies as Method 1, such as
those for toxicity tests and chemical analyses.  Because the
sampling plan is crucial to Method 2 and the plan has to be based
on site-specific considerations, this description of Method 2
will be more qualitative than the description of Method 1.

Method 2 is based on use of actual surface water samples, but use
of simulated surface water might provide information that is
useful for some purposes:
1. It might be desiraible to compare the WERs for two discharges
   that contain the same metal.  This might be accomplished by
   selecting an appropriate dilution water and preparing two
   simulated surface waters, one that contains a known
   concentration of one effluent and one that contains a known
   concentration of the other effluent.  The relative magnitude
   of the two WERs is likely to be more useful than the absolute
   values of the WERs themselves.
2. It might be desirable to determine whether the eWER for a
   particular effluent is additive with the WER of the site water
    (see Appendix G).  This can be studied by determining WERs for
   several different known concentrations of the effluent in site
   water.
3. An event such as a rain might affect the WER because of a
   change  in the water quality, but it might also reduce the WER
   just by dilution of refractory metal or TSS.  A proportional
   decrease in the WER and in the concentration of the metal
    (such as by dilution of refractory metal) will not result in
   underprotection;  if, however, dilution decreases the WER

                                65

-------
   proportionally more  than  it decreases the concentration of
   metal  in  the  downstream water, underprotection is likely to
   occur.  This  is  essentially a determination of whether the WER
   is additive when the effluent is diluted with rain water (see
   Appendix  G).
4. An event  that increases TSS might increase the total
   recoverable concentration of the metal and the total
   recoverable WER  without having much effect on either the
   dissolved concentration or the dissolved WER.
In all four  cases,  the  use of simulated surface water is useful
because it allows for the determination of WERs using known
concentrations of effluent.

An important step in the determination of any WER is to define
the area  to be included in the site.  The major principle that
should be applied when  defining the area is the same for all
sites: The site  should  be neither too small nor too large.  If
the area  selected is too small, permit limits might be
unnecessarily controlled by  a criterion for an area outside the
site, whereas too large an area might unnecessarily incorporate
spatial complexities that are not relevant to the discharge(s) of
concern and thereby unnecessarily increase the cost of
determining the  WER.  Applying this principle is likely to be
more difficult for  large sites than for flowing-water sites.

Because WERs for large  sites will usually be determined using
actual,  rather than simulated, surface water,  there are five
major considerations regarding experimental design and data
analysis:

1. Total recoverable WERs at large sites might vary so much
   across time,  location, and depth that they are not very
   useful.  An assumption should be developed that an
   appropriately defined WER will be much more similar across
   time,  location,  and  depth within the site than will a total
   recoverable WER.   If such an assumption cannot be used,  it  is
   likely that either the FWER will have to be set equal to the
   lowest WER and be overprotective for most of the site or
   separate site-specific criteria will have to be derived for
   two or more sites.
   a. One assumption that is likely to be worth testing is that
      the dissolved WER varies much less across time,  location,
      and depth within a site than the total recoverable WER.   If
      the assumption proves valid,  a dissolved WER can be applied
      to a dissolved national water quality criterion to derive a
      dissolved  site-specific water quality criterion that will
      apply to the whole site.
   b. A second assumption that might be worth testing is that  the
      WER correlates with a water quality characteristic such  as
      TSS or TOG across time, location,  and depth.
   c. Another assumption that might be worth testing is that  the
      dissolved and/or total recoverable WER is mostly due to

                               66

-------
   nontoxic metal rather than to a water quality
   characteristic that reduces toxicity.  If this is true and
   if there is variability in the WER,  the WER will correlate
   with the concentration of metal in the site water.  This is
   similar to the first assumption, but this one can allow use
   of both total recoverable and dissolved WERs, whereas the
   first one only allows use of a dissolved WER.
If WERs are too variable to be useful and no way can be found
to deal with the variability, additional sampling will
probably be required in order to develop a WER and/or a site-
specific water quality criterion that is either  (a) spatially
and/or temporally dependent or  (b) constant and
environmentally conservative for nearly all conditions.

An experimental design should be developed that tests whether
the assumption is of practical value across the range of
conditions that occur at different times, locations, and
depths within the site.  Each design has to be formulated
individually to fit the specific site.   The design should try
to take into account the times, locations, and depths at which
the extremes of the physical, chemical, and biological
conditions occur within the site, which will require detailed
information concerning the site.  In addition, the
experimental design should balance available resources with
the need for adequate sampling.
a. Selection of the number and timing of sampling events
   should take into account seasonal, weekly, and daily
   considerations.  Intensive sampling should occur during the
   two most extreme seasons, with confirmatory sampling during
   the other two seasons.  Selection of the day and time of
   sample collection should take into account the discharge
   schedules of the major industrial and/or municipal
   discharges.  For example, it might be appropriate to
   collect samples during the middle of the week to allow for
   reestablishment of steady-state conditions after shutdowns
   for weekends and holidays; alternatively, end-of-the-week
   slug discharges are routine  in some situations.  In coastal
   sites, the tidal cycle might be important if  facilities
   discharge, for example, over a four-hour period beginning
   at slack high tide.  Because the highest concentration of
   effluent in the surface water probably occurs at ebb tide,
   determination of WERs using  site water samples obtained at
   this time might result in inappropriately large WERs that
   would result in underprotection at other times; samples
   with unusually large WERs might be especially useful for
   testing assumptions.  The importance of each  consideration
   should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
b. Selection of the number and  locations of stations to be
   sampled within a sampling event should consider the site as
   a whole and take into account  sources of water  and
   discharges, mixing patterns, and currents  (and  tides in
   coastal areas).  If the site has been adequately

                             67

-------
    characterized,  an acceptable design can probably be
    developed using existing information concerning (1)  sources
    of the metal and other pollutants and (2)  the  spatial  and
    temporal distribution of concentrations of the metal and
    water quality factors that might affect the toxicity of  the
    metal.  Samples should not be taken within or  near mixing
    zones or plumes of dischargers;  dilution models (U.S.  EPA
    1993)  and dye dispersion studies (Kilpatrick 1992) can
    indicate areas  that should definitely be avoided.  Maps,
    current charts,  hydrodynamic models,  and water quality
    models used to  allocate waste loads and derive permit
    limits are likely to be helpful  when determining when  and
    where to obtain site-water samples.   Available information
    might provide an indication of the acceptability of  site
    water for testing selected species.   The larger and  more
    complex the site,  the greater the number of sampling
    locations that  will be needed.
c.  In addition to  determining the horizontal  location of  each
    sampling station,  the vertical location (i.e.,  depth)  of
    the sampling point needs to be selected.   Known mixing
    regimes,  the presence of vertical stratification of  TSS
    and/or salinity,  concentration of metal, effluent plumes,
    tolerance of test  species,  and the need to obtain samples
    of site water that span the range of  site  conditions should
    be considered when selecting the depth at  which the  sample
    is to be taken.   Some decisions  concerning depth cannot  be
    made until information is obtained at  the  time  of sampling;
    for example,  a  conductivity meter,  salinometer,  or
    transmissometer  might be useful  for determining where  and
    at what depth to collect samples.   Turbidity might
    correlate with TSS and both might relate to the toxicity of
    the metal in site  water;  salinity can  indicate  whether the
    test organisms and the site water are  compatible.
Because each site is  unique,  specific  guidance cannot be given
here  concerning either the selection of the appropriate number
and locations of sampling stations  within a site or the
frequency of sampling.   All available  information  concerning
the site  should be  utilized to ensure  that the  times,
locations,  and depths of samples  span  the  range of water
quality characteristics  that might  affect  the  toxicity of the
metal:
    a.  High and low  concentrations of TSS.
   b.  High and low  concentrations of effluents.
    c.  Seasonal  effects.
   d.  The  range  of  tidal conditions  in saltwater situations.
The sampling plan should provide the data needed to allow an
evaluation of the usefulness of the  assumption(s)   that the
experimental  design is  intended to  test.  Statisticians should
play a  key role  in experimental design and data analysis,  but
professional  judgment  that  takes into account pertinent
biological,  chemical,  and toxicological considerations is at
least as important as  rigorous statistical analysis when

                             68

-------
   interpreting the data and determining the degree to which the
   data correspond to the assumption(s).

3.  The details of each sampling design should be formulated with
   the aid of people who understand the site and people who have
   a working knowledge of WERs.  Because of the complexity of
   designing a WER study for large sites, the design team should
   utilize the combined expertise and experience of individuals
   from the appropriate EPA Region, states, municipalities,
   dischargers, environmental groups,  and others who can
   constructively contribute to the design of the study.
   Building a team of cooperating aquatic toxicologists, aquatic
   chemists, limnologists, oceanographers,  water quality
   modelers, statisticians, individuals from other key
   disciplines, as well as regulators and those regulated, who
   have knowledge of the site and the site-specific procedures,
   is central to success of the derivation of a WER for a large
   site.  Rather than submitting the workplan to the appropriate
   regulatory authority  (and possibly the Water Management
   Division of the EPA Regional Office)  for comment at the end,
   they should be members of the team from the beginning.

4.  Data from one sampling event should always be analyzed prior
   to the next sampling event with the goal of improving the
   sampling design as the study progresses.  For example, if the
   toxicity of the metal in surface water samples is related to
   the concentration of TSS, a water quality characteristic such
   as turbidity might be measured at the time of collection of
   water samples and used in the selection of the concentrations
   to be used in the WER toxicity tests in site water.  At a
   minimum, the team that interprets the results of one sampling
   event and plans the next should include an aquatic
   toxicologist, a metals chemist, a statistician, and a modeler
   or other user of the data.

5.  The final interpretation of the data and the derivation of the
   FWER(s) should be performed by a team.  Sufficient data are
   likely to be available to allow a quantitative estimate of
   experimental variation, differences between species, and
   seasonal differences.  It will be necessary to decide whether
   one site-specific criterion can be applied to the whole area
   or whether separate site-specific criteria need to be derived
   for two or more sites.  The interpretation of the data might
   produce two or more alternatives that the appropriate
   regulatory authority  could  subject to a cost-benefit analysis.

Other aspects of the determination of a WER for a large site are
likely to be the same as described for Method 1.  For example:
a. WERs should be determined using two or more sensitive species;
   the suggestions griven in Appendix I should be considered when
   selecting the tests and species to be used.


                                69

-------
b. Chemical analyses of site water, laboratory dilution water,
   and test solutions should follow the requirements for the
   specific test used and those given in this document.
c. If tests in many surface water samples are compared to one
   test in a laboratory dilution water, it is very important that
   that one test be acceptable.  Use of (1) rangefinding tests,
   (2) additional treatments beyond the standard five
   concentrations plus controls, and (3) dilutions that are
   functions of the known concentration-effect relationships
   obtained with the toxicity test and metal of concern will help
   ensure that the desired endpoints and WERs can be calculated.
d. Measurements of the concentrations of both total recoverable
   and dissolved metal should be targeted to the test
   concentrations whose data will be used in the calculation of
   the endpoints.
e. Samples of site water and/or effluent should be collected,
   handled, and transported so that the tests can begin as soon
   as is feasible.
f. If the large site is a saltwater site,  the considerations
   presented in Appendix H ought to be given attention.
                               70

-------
Figure 2: Calculating an Adjusted Geometric Mean


Where n  = the number of experimentally  determined WERs  in a set,
the "adjusted geometric mean" of the set is calculated  as
follows:

a. Take  the logarithm of each of the WERs.  The logarithms can be
   to any base, but natural logarithms  (base e) are preferred for
  . reporting purposes.
b. Calculate x  =  the" arithmetic mean of the  logarithms.
c. Calculate s  =  the sample standard deviation of the
   logarithms:
                          g = ., (x-
                                n - 1
   Calculate  3E =  the  standard error of the arithmetic mean:
    SE -     .
e.  Calculate  A=x- (t0.7) (SE) , where  t0-7  is  the value  of  Student's
    t statistic  for a  one-sided probability  of  0.70  with  n - 1
    degrees of freedom.  The values of  fc0.7 for  some  common
    degrees of freedom (df)  are:

                          df         t0.7

                           1       0.727
                           2       0.617
                           3       0.584
                           4       0.569

                           5       0.559
                           6       0.553
                           7       0.549
                           8       0.546

                           9       0.543
                          10       0.542
                          11       0.540
                          12       0.539

    The values of t0/,  for more degrees ,of freedom are available,
    for example, on page T-5 of Natrella (1966) .
 f .  Take the  antilogarithm of A .

 This adjustment of the geometric mean accounts for the fact that
 the means of fifty percent of the sets of WERs are expected to be
 higher than the actual mean; using the one-sided value of t for
 0.70 reduces the percentage to thirty.
                                 71

-------
 Figure 3:  An Example Derivation of a PWER
This  example assumes  that  cccWERs  were  determined monthly using
simulated downstream  water that  was  prepared  by mixing upstream
water with effluent at  the ratio that existed when the samples
were  obtained.   Also, the  flow of  the effluent  is always  10  cfs,
and the  design  flow of  the upstream  water  is  40 cfs.   (Therefore,
the downstream  flow at  design-flow conditions is  50 cfs.)  The
concentration of metal  in  upstream water at design flow is 0.4
ug/L, and the CCC  is  2  ug/L.   Each FWER is derived from the  WERs
and hWERs that  are available  through that month.
Month
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
eFLOW
(cfs)

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
uFLOW
(cfs)

 850
 289
 300
 430
 120
  85
  40
  45
 150
 110
 180
 244
uCONC
(ucr/L)

 0.8
 0.6
 0.6
 0.6
 0.4
 0.4
 0.4
 0.4
 0.4
 0.4
 0.6
 0.6
                                  WER
 HCME
(ucr/L)
hWER
                                                           FWER
5.2a
6.0°
5.8°
5.7°
7.0°
10. 5e
12. Oe
11. Oe
7.5C
3.5°
6.9C
6.1=
826.4
341.5
341.6
475.8
177.2
196.1
118.4
119.2
234.0
79.6
251.4
295.2
82.80
34.31
34.32
47.74
17.88
19.77
12.00
12.08
23.56
8.12
25.30
29.68
1.0b
1.0b
1.0b
5.7d
5.7d
6.80f
10.69g
10. 889
10.88g
8.12h
8.12h
8.12h
   Neither Type 1 nor Type 2; the downstream flow (i.e., the sum
   of the eFLOW and the uFLOW) is > 500 cfs.
   The total number of available Type 1 and Type 2 WERs is less
   than 3.
   A Type 2 WER; the downstream flow is between 100 and 500 cfs.
   No Type 1 WER is available; the FWER is the lower of the
   lowest Type 2 WER and the lowest hWER.
   A Type 1 WER; the downstream flow is between 50 and 100 cfs.
   One Type 1 WER is available; the FWER is the geometric mean of
   all Type 1 and Type 2 WERs.
   Two or more Type 1 WERs are available and the range is less
   than a factor of 5; the FWER is the adjusted geometric mean
   (see Figure 2)  of the Type 1 WERs,  because all the hWERs are
   higher.
   Two or more Type 1 WERs are available and the range is not
   greater than a factor of 5; the FWER is the lowest hWER
   because  the lowest hWER is lower than the adjusted geometric
   mean of  the Type 1 WERs.
                               72

-------
Figure 4: Reducing the Impact of Experimental Variation
When the FWER is the lowest of, for example, three WERs, the
impact of experimental variation can be reduced by conducting
additional primary tests.  If the endpoint of the secondary test
is above the CMC or CCC to which the FWER is to be applied, the
additional tests can also be conducted with the secondary test.
Month
April
May
June

Lowest
    Case 1

   (Primary
    Test)'

   4.801
   2.552
   9.164

   2.552
        (Primary
          Test)

         4.801
         2.552
         9.164
           Case 2

          (Primary
            Test)

           3.565
           4.190
           6.736
        Geometric
          Mean

          4.137
          3.270
          7.857

          3.270
Month
April
May
June

Lowest
           Case  3

(Primary  (Second.
  Test)      Test)
  4.801
  2 .552
  9.164
3.163
5.039
7.110
Geo.
 Mean

3.897
3.586
8.072

3.586
                               Case 4

                    (Primary  (Second.
                      Test)      Test)
4.801
2.552
9.164
3..163
2.944
7.110
Geo.
 Mean

3.897
2 .741
8.072

2.741
Case 1 uses the  individual WERs obtained with the primary test
for the three months, and the FWER is the lowest of the three
WERs.  In Case 2, duplicate primary tests were conducted in each
month, so that a geometric mean could be calculated for each
month; the FWER  is  the  lowest of the three geometric means.

In Cases 3 and 4, both  a primary test and a secondary test were
conducted each month  and the endpoints  for both tests in
laboratory dilution water are above the CMC or CCC to which the
FWER is to be applied.  In both of these cases, therefore, the
FWER is the lowest  of the three geometric means.

The availability of these alternatives  does not mean that they
are necessarily  cost-effective.
                                73

-------
 Figure 5: Calculating an LC50 (or EC50)  by Interpolation


 When fewer than two treatments kill some but not all of the
 exposed test organisms,  a statistically sound estimate of an LC50
 cannot be calculated.  Some programs and methods produce LC50s
 when there are fewer than two "partial kills",  but such results
 are obtained using interpolation,  not statistics.  If (a)  a test
 is otherwise acceptable,  (b)  a sufficient number of organisms are
 exposed to each treatment,  and (c)  the concentrations are
 sufficiently close together,  a test with zero or one partial kill
 can provide all the information that is  needed concerning the
 LC50.   An LC50 calculated by interpolation should probably be
 called an "approximate LC50"  to acknowledge the lack of a
 statistical basis for its calculation, but this does not imply
 that such an LC50 provides  no useful toxicological information.
 If desired,  the binomial  test can  be used to calculate a
 statistically sound probability that the true LC50 lies between
 two tested concentrations (Stephan 1977).

 Although more complex interpolation methods can be used,  they
 will not produce a more useful LC50 than the method described
 here.   Inversions in the  data between two test  concentrations
 should be removed by pooling  the mortality data for those  two
 concentrations and calculating a percent mortality that is then
 assigned to both concentrations.   Logarithms to a base other than
 10 can be used if desired.   If PI  and P2 are the percentages of
 the test organisms that died  when  exposed to concentrations Cl
 and C2,  respectively,  and if    Cl  < C2,    PI <  P2,    0 s  PI s 50,
 and   50 «;  P2 s 100,  then:

                            P = 50  -PI
                                P2  - PI

                    C = Log Cl + P(Log C2 - Log Cl)

                             LC50 = 10C

 If PI  «  0  and P2  = 100, LC50 = ^ (Cl) (C2)  .
 If PI  »  P2 -  50,  LC50 = J(C1) (C2)  .
 If PI  -  50, LC50  = Cl.
 If  P2  «  50, LC50  - C2.
 If  Cl  -  4 mg/L,  C2 =  7 mg/L,  PI  =  15  %,  and P2  = 100  %,
    then  LC50  « 5.036565 mg/L.

Besides  the mathematical  requirements given above,  the following
toxicological  recommendations  are given  in  sections G.8 and 1.2:
a.   0.65  < C1/C2  <  0.99.
b.   0 s PI < 37.
c.   63  <  P2 s  100.
                                74

-------
Figure 6: Calculating a Time-Weighted Average


If a sampling plan  (e.g., for measuring metal in a treatment in a
toxicity test) is designed so that a series of values are
obtained over time in such a way that each value contains the
same amount of information (i.e., represents the same amount of.
time), then the most meaningful average is the arithmetic
average.  In most cases, however, when a series of values is
obtained over time, some values contain more information than
others; in these cases the most meaningful average is a time-
weighted average  (TWA).  If each value contains the same amount
of information,.the arithmetic average will equal the TWA.

A TWA is obtained by multiplying each value by a weight and then
dividing the sum of the products by the sum of the weights.  The
simplest approach is to let each weight be the duration of time
that the sample represents.  Except for the first and last
samples, the period of time represented by a sample starts
halfway to the previous sample and ends halfway to the next
sample.  The period of time represented by the first sample
starts at the beginning of the test, and the period of time
represented by the  last sample ends at the end of the test.  Thus
for  a 96-hr toxicity test, the sum of the weights will be 96 hr.

The  following are hypothetical examples of grab samples taken
from 96-hr flow-through tests for two common sampling regimes:

Sampling   Cone.    Weight   Product    Time-weighted average
time (hr)   (ma/L)    (hr)    (hr) (ma/L)  	(mg/L)	

     0       12        48
    96       14        48      	
                      96      1248          1248/96 = 13.00
     0         8       12
    24         6       24
    48         7       24
    72         9       24
    96         8       12.       	
                      96        720           720/96 = 7.500


 When all the weights are the same,  the arithmetic average equals
 the TWA.  Similarly, if only one sample is taken, both the
 arithmetic average and the TWA-equal the value of that sample.

 The rules are more complex for composite samples and for samples
 from renewal tests.  In all cases,  however, the sampling plan can
 be designed so that the TWA equals the arithmetic average.
                                 75

-------
                             REFERENCES


 ASTM.  1993a.  Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with
 Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.  Standard E729
 American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM.  1993b.  Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests
 Starting with Embryos of Four Species of Saltwater Bivalve
 Molluscs.  Standard E724.  American Society for Testing and
 Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM.  1993c.  Guide for Conducting Renewal Life-Cycle Toxicity
 Tests with Daphnia magna.  Standard E1193.   American Society for
 Testing and Materials,  Philadelphia,  PA.

 ASTM.  1993d.  Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage Toxicity
 Tests with Fishes.   Standard E1241.  American Society for Testincr
 and Materials,  Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM.  1993e.  Guide for Conducting Three-Brood,  Renewal Toxicity
 Tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia.   Standard E1295.   American Society
 for Testing and Materials,  Philadelphia, PA.

 ASTM.  1993f.  Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on
 Aqueous Effluents with- Fishes,  Macroinvertebrates,  and
 Amphibians.   Standard E1192. American Society for Testing and
 Materials,  Philadelphia,  PA.

 Barnthouse,  L.W., G.W.  Suter, A.E.  Rosen, and J.J.  Beauchamp.
 1987.   Estimating Responses  of  Fish Populations to Toxic
 Contaminants.   Environ.  Toxicol.  Chem.  6:811-824.

 Bruce,  R.D.,  and D.J. Versteeg.   1992.   A Statistical  Procedure
 for Modeling Continuous  Toxicity  Data.   Environ.  Toxicol.  Chem
 11:1485-1494.

 Hoekstra,  J.A.,  and  P.H. Van Ewijk.   1993.  Alternatives for the
 No-Observed-Effect Level.  Environ. Toxicol.  Chem.  12:187-194.

 Kilpatrick,  F.A.  1992.  Simulation of  Soluble Waste Transport
 and Buildup  in  Surface Waters Using Tracers.  Open-File  Report
 92-457.  U.S. Geological Survey,  Books  and Open-File Reports, Box
 25425,  Federal  Center, Denver, CO 80225.

Natrella, M.G.  1966.  Experimental Statistics.  National Bureau
of  Standards Handbook 91.   (Issued August 1, 1963; reprinted
October 1966 with corrections).  U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC.                                                  '
                                76

-------
Prothro, M.G.  1993.  Memorandum titled "Office of Water_Policy
and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Metals Criteria".  October 1.

Stephan, C.E.  1977.  Methods for Calculating an LC50.  In:
Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation.  (F.L. Mayer and J.L.
Hamelink, eds.)  ASTM STP 634.  American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.  pp. 65-84.

Stephan, C.E., and J.W. Rogers.  1985.  Advantages of Using
Regression Analysis to Calculate Results of Chronic Toxicity
Tests.  In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Eighth
Symposium.   (R.C. Banner and D.J. Hansen, eds.)  ASTM STP 891.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
pp. 328-338.

Suter, G.W., A.E. Rosen, E. Linder, and D.F. Parkhurst.  1987.
Endpoints for Responses of Fish to Chronic Toxic Exposures.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:793-809.

U.S. EPA.  1983a.  Water Quality Standards Handbook.  Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1983b.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes.  EPA-600/4-79-020.  National Technical  Information
Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1984.  Guidelines  for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria.
EPA-600/3-84-099  or  PB85-121101.  National Technical
Information  Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1985.  Guidelines  for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality  Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses.  PB85-227049.  National Technical  Information
Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1991a.   Technical  Support Document  for  Water Quality-
based Toxics Control.   EPA/505/2-90-001  or   PB91-127415.
National Technical  Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U S EPA.  1991b.   Manual  for the  Evaluation of Laboratories
Performing Aquatic  Toxicity Tests.  EPA/600/4-90/031.  National
Technical  Information  Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1991c.   Methods  for the Determination of Metals  in
Environmental  Samples.  EPA-600/4-91-010.  National Technical
 Information  Service, Springfield,  VA.
                                77

-------
U.S. EPA.   1992.   Interim Guidance on  Interpretation and
Implementation of  Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals.  Office of
Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.   1993a.  Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms.  Fourth Edition.  EPA/600/4-90/027F.  National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.   1993b.  Short-term Methods  for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater
Organisms.  Third  Edition.  EPA/600/4-91/002.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1993C.  Short-Term Methods  for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and
Estuarine Organisms.  Second Edition.  EPA/600/4-91/003.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield,  VA.

U.S. EPA.  1993d.  Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges.
Second Edition.   EPA/600/R-93/139.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
                               78

-------
Appendix A: Comparison of WERs Determined Using Upstream and
            Downstream Water


The "Interim Guidance" concerning metals (U.S. EPA 1992) made a
fundamental change in the way WERs should be experimentally
determined because it changed the source of the site water.  The
earlier guidance  (U.S. EPA 1983,1984) required that upstream
water be used as the site water, whereas the newer guidance  (U.S.
EPA 1992) recommended that downstream water be used as the site
water.  The change in the source of the site water was merely an
acknowledgement that the WER that applies at a location in a body
of water should, when possible, be determined using the water
that occurs at that location.

Because the change in the source of the dilution water was
expected to result in an increase in the magnitude of many WERs,
interest in and concern about the determination and use of WERs
increased.  When upstream water was the required site water, it
was expected that WERs would generally be low and that the
determination and use of WERs could be fairly simple.  After
downstream water became the recommended site water, the
determination and use of WERs was examined much more closely.  It
was then realized that the determination and use of upstream WERs
was more complex than originally thought.  It was also realized
that the use of downstream water greatly increased the complexity
and was likely to increase both the magnitude and the variability
of many WERs.  Concern about the fate of discharged metal also
increased because use of downstream water might allow the
discharge of large amounts of metal that has reduced or no
toxicity at the end of the pipe.  The probable increases in  the
complexity, magnitude, and variability of WERs and the  increased
concern about fate, increased the importance of understanding the
relevant issues as they apply to WERs determined using both
upstream water and downstream water.


A. Characteristics of the Site Water

   The  idealized  concept of  an upstream water is a pristine  water
   that  is  relatively unaffected by people.   In the real world,
   however, many  upstream waters contain naturally occurring
   ligands, one or more effluents, and materials from nonpoint
   sources; all of these might  impact a WER.  If the upstream
   water receives an  effluent  containing TOC  and/or TSS that
   contributes  to the WER,  the WER will probably change whenever
   the  quality  or quantity  of  the TOC and/or  TSS changes.   In
   such a  case, the  determination and use  of  the WER in upstream
   water will have  some of  the  increased complexity associated
   with use of  downstream water and  some of the concerns
   associated with multiple-discharge situations  (see Appendix
   F).   The amount  of complexity will depend  greatly on the

                                79

-------
    number and type of upstream point and nonpoint sources,  the
    frequency and magnitude of fluctuations,  and whether the WER
    is being determined above or below the point of complete mix
    of the upstream sources.

    Downstream water is a mixture of effluent and upstream water,
    each of which can contribute to the WER,  and so there are two
    components to a WER determined in downstream water:  the
    effluent component and the upstream component.   The  existence
    of these two components has the following implications:
    1. WERs determined using downstream water are likely to  be
       larger and more variable than WERs determined using
       upstream water.
    2. The effluent component should be applied only where the
       effluent occurs,  which has implications concerning
       implementation.
    3. The magnitude of the effluent component of a WER  will
       depend on the concentration of effluent in the downstream
       water.   (A consequence of this is that the effluent
       component will be zero where the concentration of effluent
       is  zero,  which is the point of item 2  above.)
    4.  The magnitude of the effluent component of a WER  is likely
       to  vary as the composition of the effluent varies.
    5.  Compared to upstream water,  many effluents contain higher
       concentrations of a  wider variety of substances that  can
       impact  the toxicity  of metals in a wider variety  of ways,
       and_so  the effluent  component of a WER can be  due  to  a
       variety of chemical  effects in addition to such factors as
       hardness,  alkalinity,  pH,  and humic acid.
    6.  Because the effluent component  might be  due,  in whole or  in
       part, to  the discharge of  refractory metal  (see Appendix
       D),  the WER cannot be  thought  of simply as being  caused by
       the  effect of  water  quality on  the  toxicity  of the  metal.
   Dealing with  downstream WERs  is  so  much simpler if the
   effluent_WER  (eWER)  and the upstream WER  (uWER) are additive
   that it is desirable to understand  the concept of additivity
   of WERs, its  experimental  determination,  and  its use  (see
   Appendix G).


B. The Implications of Mixing Zones.

   When WERs are determined using upstream water, the presence or
   absence of mixing  zones has no impact; the cmcWER and the
   cccWER will both be determined using site water that  contains
   zero percent of the effluent of concern, i.e., the two WERs
   will be determined using the same site water.

   When WERs are determined using downstream water, the  magnitude
   of each WER will probably depend on the'concentration of
   effluent in the downstream water used  (see Appendix D).  The
   concentration of effluent in the site water will depend on

                                80

-------
where the sample is taken, which will not be the same for the
cmcWER and the cccWER if there are mixing zone(s).   Most, if
not all, discharges have a chronic (CCC)  mixing zone; many,
but not all, also have an acute (CMC) mixing zone.   The CMC
applies at all points except those inside a CMC mixing zone;
thus if there is no CMC mixing zone,  the CMC applies at the
end of the pipe.  The CCC applies at all points outside the
CCC mixing zone.  It is generally assumed that if permit
limits are based on a point in a stream at which both the CMC
and the CCC apply, the CCC will control the permit limits,
although the CMC might control if different averaging periods
are appropriately taken into account.  For this discussion, it
will be assumed that the same design flow (e.g., 7Q10) is used
for both the CMC and the CCC.

If the cmcWER is to be appropriate for use inside the chronic
mixing zone, but the cccWER is to be appropriate for use
outside the chronic mixing zone, the concentration of effluent
that is appropriate for use in the determination of the two
WERs will not be the same.  Thus even if the same toxicity
test is used in the determination of the cmcWER and the
cccWER, the two WERs will probably be different because the
concentration of effluent will be different in the two site
waters in which the WERs are determined.

If the CMC is only of concern within the CCC mixing zone, the
highest relevant concentration of metal will occur at the edge
of the CMC mixing zone if there is a CMC mixing zone; the
highest concentration will occur at the end of the pipe if
there is no CMC mixing zone.  In contrast, within the CCC
mixing zone, the lowest cmcWER will probably occur at the
outer edge of the CCC mixing zone.  Thus the greatest level of
protection would be provided if the cmcWER is determined using
water at the outer edge of the CCC mixing zone, and then the
calculated site-specific CMC is applied at the edge of the CMC
mixing zone or at the end of the pipe, depending on whether
there is an acute mixing zone.  The cmcWER is likely to be
lowest at the outer edge of the CCC mixing zone because of
dilution of the effluent, but this dilution will also dilute
the metal.  If the cmcWER is determined at the outer edge of
the CCC mixing zone but the resulting site-specific CMC is
applied at the end of the pipe or at the edge of the CMC
mixing zone, dilution is allowed to reduce the WER but it is
not allowed to reduce the concentration of the metal.  This
approach is environmentally conservative, but it is probably
necessary given current implementation procedures.   (The
situation might be more complicated  if the uWER is higher than
the eWER or if the two WERs are less-than-additive.)

A comparable situation applies to the CCC.  Outside the CCC
mixing  zone, the  CMC and  the CCC both apply, but it is assumed
that the CMC can  be ignored because  the CCC will be more

                             81

-------
   restrictive.  The cccWER should probably be determined for the
   complete-mix situation, but the site-specific CCC will have to
   be met at the edge of the CCC mixing zone.  Thus dilution of
   the WER from the edge of the CCC mixing zone to the point of
   complete mix is taken into account, but dilution of the metal
   is not.

   If there is neither an acute nor a chronic mixing zone, both
   the CMC and the CCC apply at the end of the pipe, but the CCC
   should still be determined for the complete-mix situation.


C. Definition of site.

   In the general context of site-specific criteria, a "site" may
   be a state,  region, watershed,  waterbody,  segment of a
   waterbody, category of water (e.g., ephemeral streams), etc.,
   but the site-specific criterion is to be derived to provide
   adequate protection for the entire site, however the site is
   defined.  Thus,  when a site-specific criterion is derived
   using the Recalculation Procedure, all species that "occur at
   the site" need to be taken into account when deciding what
   species, if any, are to be deleted from the dataset.
   Similarly, when a site-specific criterion is derived using a
   WER,  the WER is to be adequately protective of the entire
   site.   If, for example,  a site-specific criterion is being
   derived for an estuary,  WERs could be determined using samples
   of the surface water obtained from various sampling stations,
   which, to avoid confusion,  should not be called "sites".   If
   all the WERs were sufficiently similar, one site-specific
   criterion could be derived to apply to the whole estuary.  If
   the WERs were sufficiently different,  either the lowest WER
   could be used to derive a site-specific criterion for the
   whole estuary,  or the data might indicate  that the estuary
   should be divided into two or more sites,  each with its own
   criterion.

   The major principle that should be applied when defining the
   area to be included in the site is very simplistic:  The site
   should be neither too small nor too large.
   1.  Small sites are probably appropriate for cmcWERs,  but
      usually are not appropriate  for cccWERs because metals are
      persistent,  although some oxidation states are not
      persistent and some metals are not persistent in the water
      column.   For cccWERs,  the smaller the defined site,  the
      more likely it is that the permit limits will be controlled
      by a criterion for an area that is outside the site,  but
      which could have been included in the site without
      substantially changing the WER or increasing the cost  of
      determining the WER.
   2.  Too large an  area might  unnecessarily increase the cost of
      determining the WER.   As the size of the site increases,

                               82

-------
   the spatial and temporal variability is likely to increase,
   which will probably increase the number of water samples in
   which WERs will need to be determined before a site-
   specific criterion can be derived.
3.  Events that import or resuspend TSS and/or TOG are likely
   to increase the total recoverable concentration of the
   metal and the total recoverable WER while having a much
   smaller effect, on the dissolved concentration and the
   dissolved WER.  Where the concentration of dissolved metal
   is substantially more constant than the concentration of
   total recoverable metal, the site can probably be much
   larger for a dissolved criterion than for a total
   recoverable criterion.  If one criterion is not feasible
   for the whole area, it might be possible to divide it into
   two or more sites with separate total recoverable or
   dissolved criteria or to make the criterion dependent on a
   water quality characteristic such as TSS or salinity.
4.  Unless the site ends where one body of water meets another,
   at the outer edge of the site there will usually be an
   instantaneous decrease in the allowed concentration of the
   metal in the water column due to the change from one
   criterion to another, but there will not be an
   instantaneous decrease in the actual concentration of metal
   in the water column.  The site has to be large enough to
   include the transition zone in which the actual
   concentration decreases so that the criterion outside the
   site is not exceeded.
It is, of course, possible in some situations that relevant
distant conditions  (e.g., a lower downstream pH) will
necessitate a low criterion that will control the permit
limits such that it is pointless to determine a WER.

When a WER is determined in upstream water, it is generally
assumed that a downstream effluent will not decrease the WER.
It is therefore assumed that the site can usually cover a
rather large geographic area.

When a site-specific  criterion is derived based on WERs
determined using downstream water, the site should not be
defined in the same way that it would be defined if the WER
were determined using upstream water.  The eWER should be
allowed to affect the site-specific  criterion wherever the
effluent occurs, but  it should not be allowed to affect the
criterion in places where  the effluent does not occur.  In
addition, insofar as  the magnitude of the effluent component
at a point in the site depends on the concentration of
effluent, the magnitude of the WER at a particular point will
depend on the concentration of effluent at that point.  To the
extent that the  eWER  and the uWER are additive, the WER and
the concentration of  metal in the plume will decrease
proportionally  (isee Appendix G) .


                             83

-------
    When WERs are determined using downstream water,  the  following
    considerations should be taken into account  when  the  site  is
    defined:
    1.  If a_site-specific criterion is  derived using  a  WER that
       applies to the complete-mix situation,  the  upstream edge of
       the site to which this criterion applies  should  be the
       point  at which complete mix actually occurs.   If the site
       to which the complete-mix WER is applied  starts  at the  end
       of the pipe and extends all the  way  across  the stream,
       there  will be an area beside the plume  that will not be
       adequately protected by the site-specific criterion.
    2.  Upstream of the point of complete mix,  it will usually  be
       protective to apply a site-specific  criterion  that was
       derived using a WER that was determined using  upstream
       water.
    3.  The plume might be an area in which  the concentration of
       metal  could exceed a site-specific criterion without
       causing toxicity because of simultaneous  dilution  of  the
       metal  and the eWER.   The fact that the  plume is  much  larger
       than the mixing zone might not be important if there  is no
       toxicity within the plume.   As long  as  the  concentration of
       metal  in 100  % effluent  does not  exceed that allowed  by the
       additive portion of the  eWER,  from a toxicological
       standpoint neither the  size nor  the  definition of  the plume
       needs  to be of concern because the metal  will  not  cause
       toxicity within the plume.   If there  is no toxicity within
       the  plume,  the area in the plume  might  be like a
       traditional mixing zone  in that  the  concentration  of metal
       exceeds  the site-specific  criterion,   but  it would be
       Different  from a traditional  mixing  zone  in that the  level
       of protection is not  reduced.

   Special considerations  are  likely to be  necessary in order to
   take into account  the  eWER when  defining a site related to
   multiple discharges  (see Appendix F).
D. The variability in the experimental determination of a WER.

   When a WER is determined using upstream water, the two major
   sources of variation in the WER are (a) variability in the
   quality of the site water, which might be related to season
   and/or flow, and  (b)  experimental variation.  Ordinary day-to-
   day variation will account for some of the variability, but
   seasonal variation is likely to be more important.

   As explained in Appendix D, variability in the concentration
   of nontoxic dissolved metal will contribute to the variability
   of both total recoverable WERs and dissolved WERs; variability
   in the concentration of nontoxic particulate metal will
   contribute to the variability in a total recoverable WER,  but
   not to the variability in a dissolved WER.  Thus,  dissolved
                               84

-------
WERs are expected to be less variable than total recoverable
WERs, especially where events commonly increase TSS and/or
TOG.  In some cases, therefore, appropriate use of analytical
chemistry can greatly increase the usefulness of the
experimental determination of WERs.   The concerns regarding
variability are increased if an upstream effluent contributes
to the WER.

When a WER is determined in downstream water, the four major
sources of variability in the WER are (a) variability in the
quality of the upstream water, which might be related to
season and/or flow,  (b) experimental variation,  (c)
variability in the composition of the effluent, and (d)
variability in the ratio of the flows of the upstream water
and the effluent.  The considerations regarding the first two
are the same as for WERs determined using upstream water;
because of the additional sources of variability, WERs
determined using downstream water are likely to be more
variable than WERs determined using upstream water.

It would be desirable if a sufficient number of WERs could be
determined to define the variable factors in the effluent and
in the upstream water that contribute to the variability in
WERs that are determined using downstream water.  Not only is
this likely to be very difficult in most cases, but it is also
possible that the; WER will be dependent on interactions
between constituents of the effluent and the upstream water,
i.e., the eWER arid uWER might be additive, more-than-additive,
or less-than-additive  (see Appendix G).  When interaction
occurs, in order to completely understand the variability of
WERs determined using downstream water, sufficient tests would
have to be conducted to determine the means and variances of:
   a. the effluent component of the WER.
   b. the upstream component of the WER.
   c. any interaction between the two components.
An interaction might occur, for example, if the toxicity of a
metal is affected by pH, and the pH and/or the buffering
capacity of the effluent and/or the upstream water vary
considerably.

An increase in the variability of WERs decreases the
usefulness of any one WER.  Compensation for this decrease in
usefulness can be attempted by determining WERs at more times;
although this will provide more data, it will not necessarily
provide a proportionate increase,in understanding.  Rather
than determining WERs at more times, a better use of resources
might be to obtain more information concerning a smaller
number of specially  selected occasions.

It is likely that some cases will be so  complex that achieving
even a reasonable understanding will require unreasonable
resources.  In contrast, some WERs determined using the

                             85

-------
    methods presented herein might  be  relatively  easy to
    understand if appropriate chemical measurements are performed
    when WERs are determined.
    1.  If the variation of  the total recoverable  WER is
       substantially greater than the  variation of the comparable
       dissolved WER,  there is probably a variable and substantial
       concentration of particulate nontoxic metal.  It might be
       advantageous  to use  a dissolved WER just because it will
       have less variability than a total recoverable WER.
    2.  If the total  recoverable and/or dissolved  WER correlates
       with the total  recoverable and/or dissolved concentration
       of metal in the site water,  it  is likely that a substantial
       percentage of the metal is nontoxic.  In this case the WER
       will probably also depend on the concentration of effluent
       in the site water and on the concentration of metal in the
       effluent.
    These approaches are more  likely to be useful when WERs are
    determined using downstream water,  rather than upstream water,
    unless both the  magnitude  of the WER and the  concentration of
    the metal in the upstream  water are elevated  by an upstream
    effluent and/or  events  that increase TSS and/or TOG.

    Both of these approaches can be applied to WERs that are
    determined using actual downstream water, but the second can
    probably provide much better information if it is used with
    WERs determined  using simulated downstream water that is
    prepared by mixing a sample of  the  effluent with a sample of
    the upstream water.  In this way the composition and
    characteristics  of both the effluent and the upstream water
    can be determined,  and  the  exact ratio in the downstream water
    is  known.

    Use  of simulated downstream water  is also a way to study the
    relation between the WER and the ratio of effluent to upstream
    water  at  one  point in time,  which  is the most direct way to
    test  for additivity of  the  eWER and the uWER  (see Appendix G).
    This  can be viewed as a test  of the assumption that WERs
    determined using downstream water will decrease as the
    concentration of effluent decreases.  If this assumption is
    true,  as  the  flow  increases,  the concentration of effluent in
    the  downstream water will decrease  and the WER will decrease.
    Obtaining such information  at one point in time is useful, but
    confirmation  at  one  or  more  other times would be much more
   useful.


E. The  fate  of metal  that  has  reduced or no toxicity.

   Metal  that has reduced  or no toxicity at the end of the pipe
   might be more  toxic  at  some  time in the future.   For example,
   metal  that is  in the water  column and is not toxic now might
   become more toxic  in the water column later or might move into

                                86

-------
the sediment and become toxic.  If a WER allows a surface
water to contain as much toxic metal as is acceptable, the WER
would not be adequately protective if metal that was nontoxic
when the WER was determined became toxic in the water column,
unless a compensating change occurred.  Studies of the fate of
metals need to address not only the changes that take place,
but also the rates of the changes.

Concern about the fate of discharged metal justifiably raises
concern about the possibility that metals might contaminate
sediments.  The possibility of contamination of sediment by
toxic and/or nontoxic metal in the water column was one of the
concerns that led to the establishment of EPA's sediment
quality criteria program, which is developing guidelines and
criteria to protect sediment.  A separate program was
necessary because ambient water quality criteria are not
designed to protect sediment.  Insofar as technology-based
controls and water quality criteria reduce the discharge of
metals, they tend to reduce the possibility of contamination
of sediment.  Conversely, insofar as WERs allow an increase in
the discharge of metals, they tend to increase the possibility
of contamination of sediment.

When WERs are determined in upstream water, the concern about
the fate of metal with reduced or no toxicity is usually small
because the WERs are usually small.  In addition, the factors
that result in upstream WERs being greater than 1.0 usually
are  (a) natural organic materials such as humic acids and  (b)
water quality characteristics such as hardness, alkalinity,
and pH.  It is easy to assume that natural organic materials
will not degrade rapidly, and it is easy to monitor changes in
hardness, alkalinity, and pH.  Thus there is usually little
concern about the fate of the metal when WERs are determined
in upstream water, especially if the WER is small.  If the WER
is large and possibly due at least in part to an upstream
effluent, there is more concern about the fate of metal that
has reduced or no toxicity.

When WERs are determined in downstream water, effluents are
allowed to contain virtually unlimited amounts of nontoxic
particulate metal and nontoxic dissolved metal.  It would seem
prudent to obtain some data concerning whether the nontoxic
metal might become toxic at some time in the future whenever
 (1) the concentration of nontoxic metal is large,  (2) the
concentration of dissolved metal is below the dissolved
national criterion but the concentration of total recoverable
metal is substantially above the total recoverable national
criterion, or  (3) the site-specific criterion is substantially
above the national criterion.  It would seem appropriate to:
a. Generate some data concerning whether "fate"  (i.e.,
   environmental processes) will cause any of the nontoxic
   metal to become toxic due to oxidation of organic matter,

                             87

-------
       oxidation of sulfides,  etc.   For  example,  a WER could be
       determined using a sample  of  actual  or  simulated downstream
       water,  the sample aerated  for a period  of  time  (e.g., two
       weeks),  the pH adjusted if necessary, and  another WER
       determined.   If aeration reduced  the WER,  shorter and
       longer periods of aeration could  be  used to study the rate
       of  change.
   b.  Determine the effect  of a  change  in  water  quality
       characteristics on the  WER; for example, determine the
       effect  of lowering the  pH  on  the  WER if influent lowers the
       pH  of  the downstream  water within the area to which the
       site-specific criterion is to apply.
   c.  Determine a WER in actual  downstream water to demonstrate
       whether downstream conditions change sufficiently  (possibly
       due to  degradation of organic matter, multiple dischargers,
       etc.) to lower the WER  more than  the concentration of the
       metal is lowered.
   If  environmental processes cause nontoxic metal to become
   toxic, it  is important to  determine  whether the time scale
   involves days,  weeks,  or years.


Summary

When WERs are  determined using downstream  water, the site water
contains  effluent  and the WER will  take into account not only the
constituents of the upstream  water,  but also the toxic and
nontoxic  metal and other constituents of the effluent as they
exist  after mixing with  upstream water.  The determination of the
WER automatically  takes  into  account any additivity, synergism,
or antagonism  between the metal  and components of the effluent
and/or the upstream water.  The  effect of  calcium,  magnesium,  and
various heavy  metals  on  competitive  binding by such organic
materials_as humic  acid  is  also  taken into account.   Therefore,  a
site-specific  criterion  derived  using a WER is likely to be more
appropriate for a  site than a  national, state, or recalculated
criterion not  only because  it  takes  into account the water
quality characteristics  of  the site water but also because it
takes into account  other constituents in the effluent and
upstream water.

Determination  of WERs using downstream water causes  a general
increase  in the complexity,  magnitude,  and variability of WERs,
and an increase in  concern  about the fate of metal  that has
reduced or no  toxicity at the  end of the pipe.  In addition,
there are some  other  drawbacks with the use of downstream water
in the determination  of  a WER:
1. It might serve as  a disincentive for some dischargers to
   remove any more  organic  carbon and/or particulate matter than
   required,  although WERs  for some metals will not  be related to
   the concentration of  TOG or TSS.
                                88

-------
2. If conditions change, a WER might decrease in the future.
   This is not a problem if the decrease is due to a reduction in
   nontoxic metal, but  it might be a problem if the decrease is
   due to a decrease in TOG or TSS or an increase in competitive
   binding.
3. If a WER is determined when the effluent contains refractory
   metal but a change in operations results in the discharge of
   toxic metal in place of refractory metal, the site-specific
   criterion and the permit limits will not provide adequate
   protection.  In most cases chemical monitoring probably will
   not detect such a change, but toxicological monitoring
   probably will.

Use of WERs that are determined using downstream water rather
•than upstream water increases:
1. The importance of understanding the various issues involved in
   the determination and use of WERs.
2. The importance of obtaining data that will provide
   understanding rather than obtaining data that will result in
   the highest or lowest WER.
3. The appropriateness  of site-specific criteria.
4. The resources needed to determine a WER.
5. The resources needed to use a WER.
6. The resources needed to monitor the acceptability of the
   downstream water.
A WER determined using  upstream water will usually be smaller,
less variable, and simpler to implement than a WER determined
using downstream water.  Although in some situations a downstream
WER might be smaller than an upstream WER, the important
consideration is that a WER should be determined using the water
to which it is to apply.                                •
References

U.S. EPA.  1983.  Water Quality Standards Handbook.-  Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1984.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria.
EPA-600/3-84-099  or  PB85-121101.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Interim Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals.  Office of
Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
Washington, DC.
                                89

-------
Appendix B: The Recalculation Procedure


NOTE: The National Toxics Rule  (NTR) does not allow use of the
      Recalculation Procedure in the derivation of a site-
      specific criterion.  Thus nothing in this appendix applies
      to jurisdictions that are subject to the NTR.


The Recalculation Procedure is intended to cause a site-specific
criterion to appropriately differ from a national aquatic life
criterion if justified by demonstrated pertinent toxicological
differences between the aquatic species that occur at the site
and those that were used in the derivation of the national
criterion.  There are at least three reasons why such differences
might exist between the two sets of species.  First, the national
dataset contains aquatic species that are sensitive to many
pollutants, but these and comparably sensitive species might not
occur at the site.  Second, a species that is critical at the
site might be sensitive to the pollutant and require a lower
criterion.   (A critical species is a species that is commercially
or recreationally important at the site, a species that exists at
the site and is listed as threatened or endangered under section
4 of the Endangered Species Act, or a species for which there is
evidence that the 1933 of the species from the site is likely to
cause an unacceptable impact on a commercially or recreationally
important species, a threatened or endangered species, the
abundances of a variety of other species, or the structure or
function of the community.)  Third, the species that occur at the
site might represent a narrower mix of species than those in the
national dataset due to a limited range of natural environmental
conditions.  The procedure presented here is structured so that
corrections and additions can be made to the national dataset
without the deletion process being used to take into account taxa
that do and do not occur at the site; in effect, this procedure
makes it possible to update the national aquatic life criterion.

The phrase "occur at the site" includes the species, genera,
families, orders, classes, and phyla that:
a. are usually present at the site.
b. are present at the site only seasonally due to migration.
c. are present intermittently because they periodically return to
   or extend their ranges into the site.
d. were present at the site in the past, are not currently
   present at the site due to degraded conditions, and are
   expected to return to the site when conditions improve.
e. are present in nearby bodies of water, are not currently
   present at the site due to degraded conditions, and are
   expected to be present at the site when conditions improve.
The taxa that "occur at the site" cannot be determined merely by
sampling downstream and/or upstream of the site at one point in
time.  "Occur at the site" does not include taxa that were once

                                90

-------
present at the site but cannot exist at the site now due to
permanent physical alteration of the habitat at the site
resulting from dams, etc.

The definition of the "site" can be extremely important when
using the Recalculation Procedure.  For example, the number of  •
taxa that occur at the site will generally decrease as the size
of the site decreases.  Also, if the site is defi-ned to be very
small, the permit limit might be controlled by a criterion that
applies outside (e.g., downstream of) the site.

   Note: If the variety of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and
         fishes is so limited that species in fewer than eight
         families occur at the site, the general Recalculation
         Procedure is not applicable and the following special
         version of the Recalculation Procedure must be used:
         1. Data must be available for at least one species in
            each of the families that occur at the site.
         2. The lowest Species Mean Acute Value that is available
            for a species that occurs at the site must be used as
            the FAV.
         3. The site-specific CMC and CCC must be calculated as
            described below in part 2 of step E, which is titled
            "Determination of the CMC and/or CCC" .

The concept of the Recalculation Procedure is to create a dataset
that is appropriate for deriving a site-specific criterion by
modifying the national dataset in some or all of three ways:
   a. Correction of data that are in the national dataset.
   b. Addition of data to the national dataset.
   c. Deletion of data that are in the national dataset.
All corrections and additions that have been approved by U.S. EPA
are required, whereas use of the deletion process is optional.
The Recalculation Procedure is more likely to result in lowering
a criterion if the net result of addition and deletion is to
decrease the number of genera in the dataset, whereas the
procedure is more likely to result in raising a criterion if the
net result of addition and deletion is to increase the number of
genera in the dataset.

The Recalculation Procedure consists of the following steps:
A. Corrections are made in the national dataset.
B. Additions are made to the national dataset.
C. The deletion process may be applied if desired.
D. If the new dataset does not satisfy the applicable Minimum
   Data Requirements (MDRs), additional pertinent data must be
   generated; if the new data are approved by the U.S. EPA, the
   Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B with
   the addition of the new data.
E. The new CMC or CCC or both are determined.
F. A report is written.
Each step is disciissed in more detail below.

                                91

-------
A. Corrections

1. Only corrections approved by the U.S. EPA may be made.
2. The concept of "correction" includes removal of data that
   should not have been in the national dataset in the first
   place.  The concept of "correction" does not include removal
   of a datum from the national dataset just because the quality
   of the datum is claimed to be suspect.  If additional data are
   available for the same species, the U.S. EPA will decide which
   data should be used, based on the available guidance  (U.S. EPA
   1985); also, data based on measured concentrations are usually
   preferable to those based on nominal concentrations.
3. Two kinds of corrections are possible:
   a. The first includes those corrections that are known to and
      have been approved by the U.S. EPA; a list of these will be
      available from the U.S. EPA.
   b. The second includes those corrections that are submitted to
      the U.S. EPA for approval.  If approved, these will be
      added to EPA's list of approved corrections.
4. Selective corrections are not allowed.  All corrections on
   EPA's newest list must be made.


B. Additions

1. Only additions approved by the U.S. EPA may be made.
2. Two kinds of additions are possible:
   a. The first includes those additions that are known to and
      have been approved by the U.S. EPA; a list of these will be
      available from the U.S. EPA.
   b. The second includes those additions that are submitted to
      the U.S. EPA for approval.  If approved, these will be
      added to EPA's list of approved additions.
3. Selective additions are not allowed.  All additions on EPA's
   newest list must be made.


C. The Deletion Process

The basic principles are:
1. Additions and corrections must be made as per steps A and B
   above, before the deletion process is performed.
2. Selective deletions are not allowed.  If any species is to be
   deleted, the deletion process described below must be applied
   to all species in the national dataset, after any necessary
   corrections and additions have been made to the national
   dataset.  The deletion process specifies which species must be
   deleted and which species must not be deleted.  Use of the
   deletion process is optional, but no deletions are optional
   when the deletion process is used.
3. Comprehensive information must be available concerning what
   species occur at the site; a species cannot be deleted based

                                92

-------
  ' on incomplete information concerning the species that do and
   do not satisfy the definition of "occur at the site".
4. Data might have to be generated before the deletion process is
   begun:
   a. Acceptable pertinent toxicological data must be available
      for at least one species in each class of aquatic plants,
      invertebrates, amphibians, and fish that contains a species
      that is a critical species at the site.
   b. For each aquatic plant, invertebrate, amphibian, and fish
      species that occurs at the site and is listed as threatened
      or endangered under section 4 of the Endangered Species
      Act, data must.be available or be generated for an
      acceptable surrogate species.  Data for each surrogate
      species must be used as if they are data for species that
      occur at the site.
   If additional data are generated using acceptable procedures
   (U.S. EPA 1985) and they are approved by the U.S. EPA, the
   Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B with
   the addition of the new data.
5. Data might have to be generated after the deletion process is
   completed.  Even if one or more species are deleted, there
   still are MDRs (see step D below) that must be satisfied.  If
   the data remaining after deletion do not satisfy the
   applicable MDRs,  additional toxicity tests must be conducted
   using acceptable procedures  (U.S. EPA 1985) so that all MDRs
   are satisfied.  If the new data are approved by the U.S. EPA,
   the Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B
   with the addition of new data.
6. Chronic tests do not have to be conducted because the national
   Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (FACR) may be used in the derivation
   of the site-specific Final Chronic Value  (FCV).  If acute-
   chronic ratios (ACRs) are available or are generated so that
   the chronic MDRs are satisfied using only species that occur
   at the site, a site-specific FACR may be derived and used in
   place of the national FACR.  Because a FACR was not used in
   the derivation of the freshwater CCC for cadmium, this CCC can
   only be modified the same way as a FAV; what is acceptable
   will depend on which species are deleted.

If any species are to be deleted, the following deletion process
must be applied:
   a. Obtain a copy of the national dataset, i.e., tables 1, 2,
      and 3 in the national criteria document  (see Appendix E).
   b. Make corrections in and/or additions to the national
      dataset as described in steps A and B above.
   c. Group all the species in the dataset taxonomically by
      phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.
   d. Circle each species that satisfies the definition of "occur
      at the site" as presented on the first page of this
      appendix, and including any data for species that are
      surrogates of threatened or endangered species that occur
      at the site.

                                93

-------
e. Use the following step-wise process to determine
   which of the uncircled species must be deleted and
   which must not be deleted:

   1. Does the genus occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 2.
        If "Yes", are there one or more species in the genus
                  that occur at the site but are not in the
                  dataset?
                     If "No", go to step 2.
                     If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*

   2. Does the family occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 3.
        If "Yes", are there one or more genera in the family
                  that occur at the site but are not in the
                  dataset?
                     If "No", go to step,3.
                     If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*

   3. Does the order occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 4.
        If "Yes", does the dataset contain a circled species
                  that is in the same order?
                     If "No", retain the uncircled species.*
                     If "Yes", delete the uncircled species.*

   4. Does the class occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 5.
        If "Yes", does the dataset contain a circled species
                  that is in the same class?
                     If "No", retain the uncircled species.*
                     If "Yes", delete the uncircled species.*

   5. Does the phylum occur at the site?
        If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
        If "Yes", does the dataset contain a circled species
                  that is in the same phylum?
                     If "No", retain the uncircled species.*
                     If "Yes", delete the uncircled species.*

   * » Continue the deletion process by starting at step 1 for
       another uncircled species unless all uncircled species
       in the dataset have been considered.

The species that are circled and those that are retained
constitute the site-specific dataset.   (An example of the
deletion process is given in Figure Bl.)

This deletion process is designed to ensure that:
a. Each species that occurs both in the national dataset and
   at the site also occurs in the site-specific dataset.

                             94

-------
      Each species that occurs at the site but does not occur in
      the national dataset is represented in the site-specific
      dataset by all species in the national dataset that are in
      the same genus.
      Each genus that occurs at the site but does not occur in
      the national dataset is represented in the site-specific
      dataset by. all. genera in the national dataset that are in
      the same family.
      Each order,  class, and phylum that occurs both in the
      national dataset and at the site is represented in the
      site-specific dataset by the one or more species in the
      national dataset that are most closely related to a species
      that occurs at the site.
D. Checking the Minimum Data Requirements

The initial MDRs for the Recalculation Procedure are the same as
those for the derivation of a national criterion.  If a specific
requirement cannot be satisfied after deletion because that kind
of species does not occur at the site, a taxonomically similar
species must be substituted in order to meet the eight MDRs:

   If no species of the kind required occurs at the site, but a
   species in the same order does, the MDR can only be satisfied
   by data for a species that occurs at the site and is in that
   order; if no species in the order occurs at the site, but a
   species in the class does, the MDR can only be satisfied by
   data for a species that occurs at the site and is in that
   class.  If no species in the same class occurs at the site,
   but a species in the phylum does, the MDR can only be
   satisfied by delta for a species that occurs at the site and is
   in that phylum.  If no species in the same phylum occurs at
   the site, any species that occurs at the site and is not used
   to satisfy a different MDR can be used to satisfy the MDR.  If
   additional data are generated using acceptable procedures
   (U.S. EPA 1985) and they are approved by the U.S. EPA, the
   Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B with
   the addition of the new data.

If fewer than eight families of aquatic invertebrates,
amphibians, and fishes occur at the site, a Species Mean Acute
Value must be available for at least one species in each of the
families and the special version of the Recalculation Procedure
described on the second page of this appendix must be used.


E. Determining the CMC and/or CCC

1. Determining the FAV:
   a. If the eight family MDRs are satisfied, the site-specific
      FAV must be calculated from Genus Mean Acute Values using

                                95

-------
       the procedure described in the national  aquatic  life
       guidelines (U.S.  EPA 1985).
    b.  If fewer than eight families of aquatic  invertebrates,
       amphibians,  and fishes occur at the  site,  the  lowest
       Species Mean Acute Value that is available for a species
       that occurs  at the site must be used as  the FAV,  as per the
       special version of the Recalculation Procedure described  on
       the second page of this appendix.
 2.  The site-specific CMC must be calculated by dividing the  site-
    specific FAV by 2.   The site-specific FCV must be calculated
    by  dividing the site-specific FAV by the national FACR  (or by
    a site-specific FACR if one is  derived).   (Because  a FACR was
    not used to derive the national CCC for cadmium in  fresh
    water,  the site-specific CCC equals the site-specific FCV.)
 3.  The calculated  FAV,  CMC,  and/or CCC must be lowered,  if
    necessary,  to (1)  protect an aquatic plant, invertebrate,
    amphibian,  or fish species that is a critical species at  the
    site,  and (2) ensure that the criterion is  not likely to
    jeopardize the  continued existence of any endangered or
    threatened species  listed under section 4 of  the  Endangered
    Species Act or  result in the destruction or adverse
    modification of such species'  critical  habitat.


 F,  Writing the Report

 The report of  the  results of use of  the Recalculation Procedure
must include:
 1.  A list  of all species of  aquatic  invertebrates, amphibians,
    and fishes  that  are  known to "occur at  the  site",  along with
    the source  of the  information.
 2.  A list  of all aquatic plant,  invertebrate,  amphibian, and  fish
    species that  are critical species  at the site,  including all
    species that  occur at the site  and are  listed as  threatened or
    endangered  under section  4  of the  Endangered  Species Act.
 3.  A site-specific  version of  Table  1  from a criteria document
    produced by the  U.S.  EPA  after  1984.
4.  A site-specific  version of  Table  3  from a criteria document
    produced by the  U.S.  EPA  after  1984.
5.  A list  of all species  that  were deleted.
6.  The new calculated FAV, CMC, and/or CCC.
7.  The lowered FAV, CMC,  and/or CCC,  if one or more were lowered
    to protect  a specific  species.


Reference

U.S. EPA.   1985.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality  Criteria  for the  Protection of Aquatic  Organisms
and Their Uses.  PB85-227049.  National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.


                                96

-------
Figure Bl: An Example of the Deletion Process Using Three Phyla
SPECIES THAT ARE IN THE THREE PHYLA AND OCCUR AT THE SITE
Phylum    Class     Order      Family     Species
Annelida  Hirudin.  Rhynchob.
Bryozoa   (No species in this
Chordata  Osteich.  Cyprinif.
Chordata  Osteich.  Cyprinif.
Chordata  Osteich.  Cyprinif.
Chordata  Osteich.  Cyprinif.
Chordata  Osteich.  Salmonif.
Chordata  Osteich.  Percifor.
Chordata  Osteich.  Percifor.
Chordata  Amphibia,  Caudata
 Glossiph.  Glossip. complanata
phylum occur at the site.)
 Cyprinid.  Carassius auratus
 Cyprinid.  Notropis anogenus
 Cyprinid.  Phoxinus eos
 Catostom.  Carpiodes carpio
 Osmerida.  Osmerus mordax
 Centrarc.  Lepomis cyanellus
 Centrarc.  Lepomis humilis
 Ambystom.  Ambystoma gracile
SPECIES THAT ARE IN THE THREE PHYLA AND IN THE NATIONAL DATASET
Phvlum    Class     Order      Family     Species            Code

                                          Tubifex tubifex      P
                                          Lophopod. carter!    D
                                          Petromyzon marinus   D
                                          Carassius auratus    S
                                          Notropis hudsonius   G
                                          Notropis, stramineus  G
                                          Phoxinus eos         S
                                          Phoxinus oreas       D
                                          Tinea tinea          D
                                          Ictiobus bubalus     F
                                          Oncorhynchus mykiss  O
                                          Lepomis cyanellus    S
                                          Lepomis macrochirus  G
                                          Perca flavescens     D
                                          Xenopus laevis       C
Annelida
Bryozoa
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Oligoch.
Phylact .
Cephala.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.,
Osteich,,
Osteich,,
Osteich,,
Amphibia
Haplotax .
	
Petromyz .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Salmonif .
Percifor.
Percifor.
Percifor.
Anura
Tubifici
Lophopod
Petromyz
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Catostom
Salmon id
Centrarc
Centrarc
Percidae
Pipidae
 Explanations of Codes:
   S = retained because  this Species occurs at the site.
   G = retained because  there is a species in this Genus  that
       occurs at the site but not in the national dataset.
   F = retained because  there is a genus in this Family that
       occurs at the site but not in the national dataset._
   O = retained because  this Order occurs at the site and is not
       represented by a  lower taxon.
   C = retained because  this Class occurs at the site and is not
       represented by a  lower taxon.
   P = retained because  this Phylum occurs at the site and is not
       represented by a  lower taxon.
   D = deleted because this species does not satisfy any of the
       requirements for retaining species.
                                 97

-------
 Appendix C: Guidance Concerning the Use of "Clean Techniques" and
             QA/QC when Measuring Trace Metals


    Note: This version of this appendix contains more information
          than the version that was Appendix B of Prothro (1993).


 Recent_information (Shiller and Boyle 1987; Windom et al.  1991)
 has raised questions concerning the quality of reported
 concentrations of trace metals in both fresh and salt (estuarine
 and marine) surface waters.  A lack of awareness of true ambient
 concentrations of metals in fresh and salt surface waters  can be
 both a cause and a result of the problem.   The ranges of
 dissolved metals that are typical in surface waters of the United
 States away from the immediate influence of discharges (Bruland
 1983;  Shiller and Boyle 1985,1987;  Trefry et al.  1986; Windom et
 al.  1991)  are:

            Metal        Salt water          Fresh water
           	         facr/L)               faa/L)
           Cadmium     0.01  to  0.2         0.002  to  0.08
           Copper      0.1   to  3.          0.4    to  4.
           Lead        0.01  to  1.          0.01   to  0.19
           Nickel      0.3   to  5.          1.     to  2.
           Silver      0.005  to  0.2         	
           Zinc        0.1   to 15.          0.03   to  5.

The(U.S.  EPA (1983,1991)  has published  analytical methods  for
monitoring metals in waters  and wastewaters, but  these methods
are inadequate for determination of ambient concentrations of
some metals  in some surface  waters.  Accurate and precise
measurement  of these low  concentrations requires  appropriate
attention to seven areas:
1. Use of "clean techniques" during collecting, handling,
   storing,  preparing, and analyzing samples to avoid
   contamination.
2. Use of analytical methods that have  sufficiently  low detection
   limits.
3. Avoidance of interference in the quantification (instrumental
   analysis)  step.
4. Use of blanks to assess contamination.
5. Use of matrix spikes  (sample spikes) and certified reference
   materials (CRMs) to assess  interference and contamination.
6. Use of replicates to assess  precision.
7. Use of certified standards.
In a strict  sense,  the term  "clean techniques" refers to
techniques that  reduce contamination and enable the accurate and
precise measurement of trace metals in  fresh and  salt surface
waters.   In  a broader sense, the term also refers to related
issues concerning detection limits, quality control,  and quality

                                98

-------
assurance.  Documenting data quality demonstrates the amount of
confidence that can be placed in the data, whereas increasing the
sensitivity of methods reduces the problem of deciding how to
interpret results that are reported to be below detection limits.

This appendix is written for those analytical laboratories that
want guidance concerning ways to lower detection limits, increase
accuracyr and/or increase precision.  The ways to achieve these
goals are to increase the sensitivity of the analytical methods,
decrease contamination, and decrease interference.  Ideally,
validation of a procedure for measuring concentrations of metals
in surface water requires demonstration that agreement can be
obtained using completely different procedures beginning with the
sampling step and continuing through the quantification step
(Bruland et al. 1979), but few laboratories have the resources to
compare two different procedures.  Laboratories can, however,  (a)
use techniques that others have found useful for improving
detection limits, accuracy, and precision, and  (b) document data
quality through use of blanks, spikes, CRMs, replicates, and
standards.

Nothing contained or not contained in this appendix adds to or
subtracts from any regulatory requirement set forth in other EPA
documents concerning analyses of metals.  A WER can be acceptably
determined without, the use of clean techniques as long as the
detection limits, accuracy, and precision are acceptable.  No
QA/QC requirements beyond those that apply to measuring metals  in
effluents are necessary for the determination of WERs.  The word
"must" is not used in  this appendix.  Some items, however, are
considered so important, by analytical chemists who have_worked  to
increase  accuracy and  precision and lower detection limits  in
trace-metal analysis that  "should"  is in bold print to draw
attention to the item.  Most  such items are emphasized because
they have been found to have  received inadequate  attention  in
some laboratories performing  trace-metal  analyses.

In  general, in order to achieve accurate  and precise measurement
of  a particular  concentration, both the detection limit_and the
blanks should be less  than one-tenth of that concentration.
Therefore, the term  "metal-free"  can be interpreted  to  mean that
the total amount of  contamination that occurs during sample
collection and processing (e.g.,  from gloves, sample containers,
labware,  sampling  apparatus,  cleaning solutions,  air,  reagents,
etc.)  is sufficiently low that blanks are less  than  one-tenth  of
the lowest concentration  that needs to be measured.

Atmospheric particulates  can be  a major  source  of contamination
 (Moody 1982;  Adeloju and  Bond 1985) .  The term  "class-lOCT1  refers
 to  a specification concerning the amount  of particulates  in air
 (Moody 1982);  although the specification says nothing  about the
 composition  of the particulates,  generic  control of particulates
 can greatly  reduce trace-metal blanks.   Except  during  collection
                                 99

-------
 of samples, initial cleaning of equipment,  and handling of
 samples containing high concentrations of metals,  all handling of
 samples, sample containers,  labware,  and sampling apparatus
 should be performed in a class-100 bench, room,  or glove box.

 Neither the "ultraclean techniques" that might be necessary when
 trace analyses of mercury are performed nor safety in analytical
 laboratories is addressed herein.   Other documents should be
 consulted if one or both of  these  topics are of concern.
 Avoiding contamination by use of "clean techniques"

 Measurement of trace metals in surface  waters  should  take  into
 account  the potential for contamination during each step in  the
 process.   Regardless of the specific  procedures used  for
 collection,  handling,  storage,  preparation  (digestion,
 filtration,  and/or extraction),  and quantification  (instrumental
 analysis),  the general principles  of  contamination control should
 be applied.   Some  specific recommendations  are:
 a. Powder-free (non-talc,  class-100)  latex, polyethylene, or
   polyvinyl chloride (PVC,  vinyl) gloves should be worn during
   all steps from  sample collection to  analysis.   (Talc seems to
   be a particular problem with zinc; gloves made with talc
   cannot  be decontaminated sufficiently.)  Gloves should only
   contact  surfaces that are metal-free; gloves should be changed
   if even  suspected of contamination.
 b. The acid used to acidify samples for preservation and
   digestion and to acidify water  for final cleaning of labware,
   sampling apparatus,  and sample  containers should be metal-
   free.  The quality of the acid used  should be better than
   reagent-grade.   Each lot  of  acid should be analyzed for the
   metal(s)  of interest before  use.
 c. The water used  to prepare acidic cleaning solutions and to
   rinse labware,  sample containers, and sampling apparatus may
   be prepared by  distillation, deionization,  or reverse osmosis,
   and should be demonstrated to be metal-free.
 d. The work  area,  including  bench tops  and hoods,  should be
   cleaned  (e.g.,  washed and wiped dry with lint-free, class-100
   wipes) frequently to  remove contamination.
 e. All handling of  samples in the laboratory,  including filtering
   and analysis, should  be performed in a class-100 clean bench
   or a glove box  fed by particle-free air or nitrogen;  ideally
   the clean bench or glove box should be located within a class-
   100 clean room.
f. Labware, reagents, sampling apparatus, and sample containers
   should never be left  open  to the atmosphere; they should be
   stored in a class-100 bench, covered with plastic wrap,  stored
   in a plastic box, or  turned upside down on a clean surface.
   Minimizing the time between cleaning and using will help
   minimize contamination.

                               100

-------
 Separate sets of sample containers,  labware,  and sampling
 apparatus should be dedicated for different  kinds of  samples,
 e.g.,  surface water samples,  effluent  samples,  etc.
 To avoid contamination of clean rooms,  samples  that contain
 very high concentrations of metals and do not require use of
 "clean techniques"  should not be brought  into clean rooms.
 Acid-cleaned plastic,  such as high-density polyethylene
 (HDPE),  low-density polyethylene (LDPE),  or  a fluoroplastic,
 should be the only material that ever  contacts  a sample,
 except possibly during digestion for the  total  recoverable
 measurement.
 1. Total recoverable samples can be digested in some  plastic
    containers.
 2. HDPE and LDPE might not be acceptable  for mercury.
 3. Even if acidified,  samples and standards  containing silver
    should be in amber containers.
 All labware,  sample containers, and sampling apparatus should
 be acid-cleaned before use or reuse.
 1. Sample containers,  sampling apparatus, tubing, membrane
    filters, filter assemblies, and other  labware should be
    soaked in acid until metal-free.  The  amount of cleaning
    necessary might depend on the amount of contamination and
    the length of time the item will be in contact with
    samples.  For example, if an acidified sample will be
    stored in a sample container for three weeks, ideally the
    container should have been soaked in an acidified metal-
    free solution for at least three weeks.
 2. It might be desirable to perform initial cleaning, for
    which reagent-grade acid may be used,  before the items are
    taken into a clean room.  For most metals, items should be
    either  (a) so.aked in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid at
    50°C for at least one hour, or  (b)  soaked in 50 percent
    concentrated nitric acid at room temperature for at least
    two days; for arsenic and mercury,  soaking for up to two
    weeks at 50°C in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid might
    be required.  For plastics that might be damaged by strong
    nitric acid, such as polycarbonate and possibly HDPE and_
    LDPE, soaking in 10 percent concentrated hydrochloric acid,
    either in place of or before soaking  in a nitric  acid
    solution, might be desirable.
  3. Chromic acid should not be used  to clean  items that will be
    used  in analysis of metals.
  4. Final soaking and cleaning  of  sample  containers,  labware,
    and  sampling apparatus  should  be performed  in  a class-100
    clean room using metal-free acid and  water.  The  solution
    in an acid bath should  be  analyzed periodically to
    demonstrate  that it  is  metal-free.
,  Labware, sampling  apparatus,  and_sample  containers should  be
  stored  appropriately  after cleaning:
  1. After the labware  and sampling apparatus  are cleaned,  they
    may  be  stored  in a  clean room in a weak  acid bath prepared
    using metal-free acid and water.   Before  use,  the items

                              101

-------
    should be rinsed at least three  times with metal-free water.
    After the final rinse,  the items should be moved  immediately,
    with the open end pointed down,  to  a class-100  clean bench.
    Items may be dried on a class-100 clean bench;  items should
    not  be dried in an oven or with  laboratory towels.  The
    sampling apparatus should be  assembled in a class-100 clean
    room or bench and double-bagged  in  metal-free.polyethylene
    zip-type bags for transport to the  field; new bags are usually
    metal-free.
    2. After sample containers are cleaned, they should be filled
      with metal-free water that has been acidified  to a pH of 2
      with metal-free nitric acid  (about 0.5 mL per  liter) for
      storage until use.
1.  Labware,  sampling apparatus,  and sample containers should be
    rinsed and not rinsed with sample as necessary  to prevent high
    and  low bias of analytical results  because acid-cleaned
    plastic will sorb some  metals from  unacidified  solutions.
    1. Because samples for  the dissolved measurement  are not
      acidified until after filtration, all sampling apparatus,
      sample containers, labware, filter holders,  membrane
      filters,  etc.,  that  contact the  sample before  or during
      filtration should be rinsed with a portion of  the solution
      and then  that portion discarded.
    2. For the total recoverable  measurement, labware, etc., that
      contact the sample only before it is acidified should be
      rinsed with sample,  whereas items that contact the sample.
      after it  is acidified should  not be rinsed.  For example,
      the sampling apparatus  should be rinsed because the sample
      will not  be acidified until it is in a sample  container,
      but the sample container should  not be rinsed  if the sample
      will be acidified in the sample  container.
    3. If  the total recoverable and  dissolved measurements are to
      be  performed on the  same sample  (rather than on two samples
      obtained  at the same time  and place),  all the  apparatus and
      labware,  including the  sample  container,  should be rinsed
      before the  sample  is placed in the sample container; then
      an  unacidified aliquot  should be removed for the total
      recoverable measurement  (and  acidified,  digested,  etc.)  and
      an  unacidified aliquot  should  be removed for the dissolved
      measurement (and filtered,  acidified,  etc.)   (If a
      container is  rinsed  and  filled with sample and an
      unacidified aliquot  is removed for the dissolved
      measurement and then the solution in the container is
      acidified before removal of an aliquot for the total
      recoverable measurement, the  resulting measured total
      recoverable concentration might be biased high because the
      acidification might  desorb metal that  had been sorbed onto
      the  walls of  the sample  container;  the amount of bias will
      depend on the  relative volumes involved and on the amount
      of  sorption and desorption.)
m. Field  samples  should be  collected in a manner that eliminates
   the potential  for  contamination from sampling platforms,

                               102

-------
   probes, etc.  Exhaust from boats and the direction of wind and
   water currents should be taken into account.   The people who
   collect the samples should be specifically trained dh how to
   collect field samples.  After collection, all handling of
   samples in the field that will expose the sample to air should
   be performed in a portable class-100 clean bench or glove box.
n  Samples should be acidified  (after filtration if dissolved
   metal is to be measured) to a pH of less than 2, except that
   the pH should be less than 1 for mercury.  Acidification
   should be done in a clean room or bench, and so it might be
   desirable to wait and acidify samples in a laboratory rather
   than in the field.  If samples are acidified in the field,
   metal-free acid can be transported in plastic bottles and
   poured into a plastic container from which acid can be removed
   and added to ssimples using plastic pipettes.   Alternatively,
   plastic automatic dispensers can be used.
o. Such things as probes and thermometers should not be_put in
   samples that are to be analyzed for metals.  In particular, pH
   electrodes and mercury-in-glass thermometers should not be
   used if mercury is to be measured.  If pH is measured, it
   should be done on a separate aliquot.
p  Sample handling should be minimized.  For example, instead of
   pouring a sample into a graduated cylinder to measure the
   volume, the sample can be weighed after  being poured into a
   tared  container, which  is less likely to be  subject to error
   than weighing the container  from which the sample is poured.
    (For saltwater samples, the  salinity or  density should be
\  taken  into  account if weight is converted to volume.)
q  Each reagent used should be  verified to  be metal-free.   If
   metal-free  reagents  are not  commercially available,  removal of
   metals will probably be necessary.
r  For the total recoverable measurement,  samples  should be
   digested  in a class-100 bench, not  in a  metallic hood.   If
   feasible, digestion  should be done  in the sample container by
   acidification and heating.
s. The longer  the time  between  collection  and analysis  of
   samples,  the  greater the  chance of  contamination,  loss,  etc.
t. Samples should be  stored  in  the dark, preferably between 0  and
   4°C with  no air  space in  the sample container.
 AchievJng low detection limits

 a.  Extraction of the metal from the sample can be extremely
    useful if it simultaneously concentrates the metal and
    eliminates potential matrix interferences.   For example, _
    ammonium 1-pyrrolidinedithiocarbamate and/or diethylammonium
    diethyldithiocarbamate can extract cadmium, copper, lead,
    nickel/ and zinc (Bruland et al. 1979; Nriagu et al.  1993).
 b.  The detection limit should be less than ten percent of the
    lowest concentration that is to be measured.

                                103

-------
 Avoiding interferences

 a. Potential interferences should be assessed for the specific
    instrumental analysis technique used and for each metal to be
    measured.
 b. If direct analysis is used, the salt present in high-salinity
    saltwater samples is likely to cause interference in most
    instrumental techniques.
 c. As stated above, extraction of the metal from the sample is
    particularly useful because it simultaneously concentrates the
    metal and eliminates potential matrix interferences.



 Using blanks to assess contamination

 a. A laboratory (procedural,  method)  blank consists  of filling a
    sample container with analyzed metal-free water and processing
    (filtering,  acidifying, etc.)  the water through the laboratory
    procedure in exactly the  same  way as a sample.  A laboratory
    blank should be included  in each set of ten  or  fewer  samples
    to check for contamination in  the laboratory, and should
    contain less than ten percent  of the lowest  concentration that
    is to be measured.   Separate laboratory blanks  should be
    processed for the total recoverable  and dissolved
    measurements,  if both measurements are performed.
 b.  A field (trip)  blank consists  of filling a sample container
    with  analyzed metal-free water in the  laboratory,  taking the
    container  to the site, processing the  water  through tubing,
    filter,  etc.,  collecting the water in  a sample  container,  and
    acidifying the water the same  as a field sample.  A field
    blank should be processed  for  each sampling  trip.   Separate
    field blanks should  be processed for the total  recoverable
    measurement  and for  the dissolved  measurement,  if filtrations
    are performed at the  site.   Field  blanks should be  processed
    in the laboratory the same  as  laboratory blanks.
Assessing accuracy

a. A calibration curve should be determined for each analytical
   run and the calibration should be checked about every tenth
   sample.  Calibration solutions should be traceable back to a
   certified standard from the U.S. EPA or the National Institute
   of Science and Technology (NIST).
b. A blind standard or a blind calibration solution should be
   included in each group of about twenty samples.
c. At least one of the following should be'included in each group
   of about twenty samples:
   1. A matrix spike (spiked sample;  the method of known
      additions).

                               104

-------
   2  A CRM, if one Is available in a matrix that closely
    '  approximates that of the samples.  Values obtaxned for the
      CRM should be within the published values.
The concentrations in blind standards and solutions, spikes, and
CRMs should not be more than 5 times the median concentration
expected to be present in the samples.
Assessing precision

a  A sampling replicate should be included with each set of
   samples collected at each sampling location.      _
b. If the volume of the sample is large enough, replicate
   analysis of at least one sample should .be performed along with
   each group of about ten samples.



Special ^on a i rift-rat ions concerning the dissolved measurement

Whereas total recoverable measurements are especially subject  to
contamination during digestion,  dissolved measurements are
subject to both  loss and contamination during  filtration.
a Because acid-cleaned plastic  sorbs metal  from  unacidified
   solutions and because samples for the dissolved measurement
   are not acidified before  filtration, all  sampling apparatus,
   sample containers,  labware,  filter holders  and membrane
   filters that  contact  the  sample before or during filtration
   should be  conditioned by  rinsing  with a portion of  the
   solution  and discarding that  portion.                •,„-.:„
b. Filtrations  should be performed using acid-cleaned  Plastic
    filter holders  and acid-cleaned membrane  filters.  Samples
    should not be filtered through glass  fiber  filters,  even if
    the filers have been cleaned with acid.   If  positive-pressure
    filtration is used,  the air or gas should be_passed through a
    0.2-Mtn in-line  filter;  if vacuum  filtration is used,  it  should
      acrinsed and/or dipped between
    filtrations, but they do not have to be soaked between
    filtrations if all the samples contain about the same
    concentrations of metal.  It is best to filter ^P^J^™
    low to high concentrations.  A membrane filter should not be
    used for more than one filtration.  After each filtration, the
    membrane filter should be removed and discarded, and the
    filter Solder should be either rinsed with metal-free_water or
    dilule acid and dipped in a metal-free acid bath or rinsed at
    least twice with metal-free dilute acid; finally, the filter
    holder should be rinsed at least twice with metal-free water.
    For each sample to be filtered, the filter holder and membrane
    filter should be conditioned with the sample, i.e., an initial
    portion of  the sample should be filtered and discarded.
                                 105

-------
 The accuracy and precision of the dissolved measurement should be
 assessed periodically.  A large volume of a buffered solution
 (such as aerated 0.05 N sodium bicarbonate for analyses in fresh
 water and a combination of sodium bicarbonate and sodium chloride
 for analyses in salt water) should be spiked so that the
 concentration of the metal of interest is in the range of the low
 concentrations that are to be measured.  Sufficient samples
 should be taken alternately for (a)  acidification in the same way
 as after filtration in the dissolved method and (b)  filtration
 ^acidification Usin9 the procedures specified in the dissolved
 method until ten samples have been processed in each way   The
 concentration of metal in each of the twenty samples should then
 toe determined using the same analytical procedure.   The means of
 the two groups of ten measurements should be within 10 percent
 and the coefficient of variation for each group of  ten should be
 less than 20 percent.   Any values deleted as outliers should be
 acknowledged.
 Reporting results

 To indicate the quality of the data,  reports  of  results  of
 measurements of the concentrations  of metals  should include  a
 description of the blanks,  spikes,  CRMs,  replicates,  and
 standards that were run,  the  number run,  and  the results
 obtained.   All values  deleted as  outliers should be acknowledged
Additional information

The items presented above are some of the important aspects of
 clean techniques"; some aspects of quality assurance and quality
control are also presented.  This is not a definitive treatment
of these topics; additional information that might be useful is
available in such publications as Patterson and Settle  (1976)
^™fnd Mi1rchell  (1976), Bruland et al. (1979), Moody and Beary
(1982), Moody  (1982), Bruland (1983), Adeloju and Bond  (1985)
Berman and Yeats (1985), Byrd and Andreae (1986), Taylor (1987)
Sakamoto-Arnold (1987), Tramontane et al. (1987), Puls and
Barcelona (1989),  Windom et al.  (1991),  U.S. EPA (1992), Horowitz
et al. (1992), and Nriagu et al. (1993).
                               106

-------
References

Adeloju, S.B., and A.M. Bond.  1985.  Influence of Laboratory
Environment on -the Precision and Accuracy of Trace Element
Analysis.  Anal. Chem. 57:1728-1733.

Herman, S.S., and P.A. Yeats.  1985.  Sampling of Seawater for
Trace Metals.  CRC Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 16:1-14.

Bruland, K.W., R.P. Franks, G.A. Knauer, and J.H. Martin.  1979.
Sampling and Analytical Methods for the Determination of Copper,
Cadmium, Zinc, and Nickel at the Nanogram per Liter Level in Sea
Water.  Anal. Chim. Acta 105:233-245.

Bruland, K.W.  1983.  Trace Elements in Sea-water.  In: Chemical
Oceanography, Vol. 8.   (J.P. Riley and R. Chester, eds.)
Academic Press, New York, NY.  pp. 157-220.

Byrd, J.T., and M.O. Andreae.  1986.  Dissolved and Particulate
Tin in North Atlantic Seawater.  Marine Chem. 19:193-200.

Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg.  1992..  The Effect
of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved Trace Element
Concentrations.  Water Res. 26:753-763.

Moody,  J.R.   1982.  NBS Clean Laboratories  for Trace Element
Analysis.  Anal. Chem. 54:1358A-1376A.

Moody,  J.R.,  and E.S. Beary.  1982.  Purified Reagents for Trace
Metal Analysis.  Talanta  29:1003-1010.

Nriagu,  J.O., G. Lawson,  H.K.T. Wong, and J.M. Azcue.  1993.  A
Protocol for  Minimizing Contamination in the Analysis  of Trace
Metals  in Great Lakes Waters.   J. Great Lakes Res.  19:175-182.

Patterson,  C.C., and  D.M.  Settle.   1976.  The Reduction  in Orders
of Magnitude  Errors  in Lead Analysis of Biological  Materials  and
Natural Waters  by  Evaluating and  Controlling the  Extent  and
Sources of  Industrial  Lead Contamination  Introduced during Sample
Collection  and Processing.   In: Accuracy  in Trace Analysis:
Sampling, Sample Handling,  Analysis.   (P.O. LaFleur,  ed.)
National Bureau of Standards Spec.  Publ.  422, U.S.  Government
Printing Office, Washington,  DC.

Prothro, M.G.  1993.   Memorandum titled "Office  of  Water_Policy
and Technical Guidance on Interpretation  and  Implementation  of
Aquatic Life Metals Criteria".   October 1.

 Puls,  R.W.,  and M.J.  Barcelona.   1989.   Ground Water Sampling for
Metals Analyses.   EPA/540/4-89/001.   National Technical
 Information Service,  Springfield,  VA.


                                107

-------
 Sakamoto-Arnold, C.M., A:K. Hanson, Jr., D.L. Huizenga,  and D.R
 Kester.  1987.  Spatial and Temporal Variability of Cadmium in
 Gulf Stream Warm-core Rings and Associated Waters.   J  Mar  Res
 45:201-230.

 Shiller,  A.M., and E. Boyle.  1985.  Dissolved Zinc in Rivers
 Nature 317:49-52.

 Shiller,  A.M., and E.A. Boyle.   1987.   Variability of Dissolved
 Trace Metals in the Mississippi River.   Geochim.  Cosmochim.  Acta
 51:3273-3277.

 Taylor,  J.K.  1987.  Quality Assurance  of Chemical  Measurements
 Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,  MI.

 Tramontane, J.M., J.R. Scudlark,  and T.M.  Church.   1987.   A
 Method for the Collection,  Handling,  and Analysis of Trace Metals
 in Precipitation.  Environ.  Sci.  Technol.  21:749-753.

 Trefry,  J.H.,  T.A.  Nelsen,  R.P.  Trocine,  S.  Metz.,  and T.W.
 Vetter.   1986.  Trace Metal  Fluxes  through the Mississippi River
 Delta System.   Rapp.  P.-v.  Reun.  Cons.  int.  Explor.  Mer.  186-277-
 288.

 U.S.  EPA.   1983.  Methods for Chemical  Analysis of  Water  and
 Wastes.   EPA-600/4-79-020.   National Technical Information
 Service,  Springfield,  VA.   Sections 4.1.1,  4.1.3, and  4.1.4

 U.S.  EPA.   1991.  Methods for the Determination of  Metals  in
 Environmental  Samples.   EPA-600/4-91-010.   National  Technical
 Information Service,  Springfield, VA.

 U.S.  EPA.   1992.  Evaluation of Trace-Metal  Levels  in Ambient
 Waters and  Tributaries to New York/New  Jersey Harbor for Waste
 Load  Allocation.  Prepared by Battelle  Ocean Sciences under
 Contract No. 68-C8-0105.

 Windom, H.L.,  J.T.  Byrd, R.G. Smith, and F.  Huan.   1991.
 Inadequacy  of  NASQAN Data for Assessing Metals  Trends in the
 Nation's Rivers.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1137-1142.  (Also see
 the comment  and response: Environ.  Sci. Technol. 25:1940-1941.)

 Zief, M., and  J.W.  Mitchell.  1976.  Contamination Control in
 Trace Element  Analysis.  Chemical Analysis Series, Vol  47
Wiley, New York, NY.
                               108

-------
 Appendix D:  Relationships between WERs and the Chemistry and
             Toxicology of Metals


 The aquatic  toxicology of metals is complex in part because_the_
 chemistry of metals in water is complex.   Metals usually exist in
 surface water in various combinations of  particulate and
 dissolved forms, some of which are toxic  and some of which are
 nontoxic.  In addition, all toxic forms of a metal are not
.necessarily equally toxic, and various water quality
 characteristics can affect the relative concentrations and/or
 toxicities of some of the forms.

 The toxicity of a metal has sometimes been reported to be_
 proportional to the concentration or activity of a specific
 species of the metal.  For example, Allen and Hansen (1993)
 summarized reports by several investigators that the toxicity of
 copper is related to the free cupric ion, but other data do not
 support a correlation  (Erickson 1993a).  For example, Borgmann
 (1983), Chapman and McCrady (1977), and French and Hunt  (1986) _
 found that toxicity expressed on the basis of cupric ion activity
 varied greatly with pH, and Cowan et al.   (1986) concluded that at
 least one of the copper hydroxide species is toxic.  Further,
 chloride and sulfate salts of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
 sodium affect the toxicity of the cupric  ion  (Nelson et al.
 1986).  Similarly for aluminum, Wilkinson et al.  (1993) concluded
 that "mortality was best predicted not by the free A13+ activity
 but rather as a function of the sum E ( [A13+] +  [AlF2+] ) " and that
 "no longer can the reduction of Al toxicity in the presence of
 organic acids be interpreted simply as a consequence of the
 decrease in the free A13+  concentration" .

 Until a model has been demonstrated to explain the quantitative
 relationship between chemical and toxicological measurements,
 aquatic life criteria  should be established in an environmentally
 conservative manner with provision for site-specific adjustment.
 Criteria should be expressed in terms of  feasible analytical
 measurements that provide the necessary  conservatism without
 substantially increasing  the cost of  implementation and  site-
 specific adjustment.   Thus current aquatic life criteria for
 metals are expressed in terms of the  total recoverable
 measurement and/or the dissolved measurement,  rather than  a
 measurement that would be more  difficult  to perform and  would
 still  require empirical adjustment.   The  WER  is operationally
 defined  in terms of  chemical and toxicological  measurements to
 allow  site-specific  adjustments that  account  for  differences
 between  the toxicity of a metal in laboratory dilution water  and
 in site  water.
                                 109

-------
 Forms of Metals

 Even if the relationship of toxicity to the forms of metals is
 not understood well enough to allow setting site-specific water
 qualxty criteria without using empirical adjustments,  appropriate
 use and interpretation of WERs requires an understanding of how
 changes_in the relative concentrations of different forms of a
 metal might affect toxicity.  Because WERs are defined on the
 basis of relationships between measurements of toxicity and
 measurements of total recoverable and/or dissolved metal, the
 toxicologically relevant distinction is between the forms of the
 metal that are toxic and nontoxic whereas the chemically relevant
 distinction is between the forms that are dissolved and
 particulate.  "Dissolved metal" is defined here as "metal that
 passes through either a 0.45-^m or a 0.40-jim membrane  filter"  and
 "particulate metal" is defined as "total recoverable metal minus
 dissolved metal".   Metal that is in or on particles that pass
 through the filter is operationally defined as "dissolved".

 In addition, some  species of metal can be converted from one form
 to another.   Some  conversions are the result  of reequilibration
 in response to changes in water quality characteristics whereas
 others are due to  such fate processes as oxidation of  sulfides
 and/or organic matter.   Reequilibration usually occurs faster
 than fate processes and probably results in any rapid  changes
 that are  due to effluent mixing with receiving water or changes
 in pH at  a gill surface.   To account for rapid changes due to
 reequilibration, the terms "labile"  and "refractory" will be used
 herein to denote metal  species that  do and do  not  readily convert
 to other  species when in a nonequilibrium condition, with
 '^readily"  referring to  substantial progression toward  equilibrium
 in less than about  an hour.   Although the toxicity and lability
 of a form of a metal are  not merely  yes/no properties,  but rather
 involve gradations,  a simple classification scheme  such as this
 should be  sufficient to establish the  principles regarding how
 WERs are related to various  operationally defined  forms  of metal
 and how this affects the  determination and use  of WERs.

 Figure Dl presents  the  classification  scheme that results  from
 distinguishing forms of metal  based  on analytical methodology,
 toxicity tests,  and lability,  as  described above.  Metal  that  is
 not  measured by the total  recoverable  measurement is assumed to
 be  sufficiently nontoxic  and refractory that it will not be
 further considered  here.  Allowance  is  made for toxicity due to
particulate  metal because  some data  indicate that particulate
metal might  contribute  to  toxicity and  bioaccumulation, although
 other data imply that little or no toxicity can be ascribed to
particulate metal  (Erickson  1993b).  Even  if the toxicity of
particulate metal is not negligible  in  a particular situation, a
dissolved criterion will not be underprotective if the dissolved
criterion was derived using a dissolved WER (see below) or if
there are sufficient compensating factors.
                               110

-------
Figure Dls A Scheme for Classifying Forms of Metal in Water


     Total recoverable metal
          Dissolved
               Nontoxic
                    Labile
                    Refractory
               Toxic
                    Labile
          Particulate
               Nontoxic
                    Labile
                    Refractory
               Toxic
                    Labile
     Metal not measured by the total recoverable measurement
Not only can some changes in water quality characteristics shift
the relative concentrations of toxic and nontoxic labile species
of a metal, some changes in water quality can also increase or
decrease the toxicities of the toxic species of a metal and/or
the sensitivities of aquatic organisms.  Such changes might be
caused by  (a) a change in ionic  strength that affects the
activity of toxic species of the metal  in water,  (b) a
physiological effect whereby an  ion affects the permeability of a
membrane and thereby alters both uptake and apparent toxicity,
and  (c) toxicological additivity, synergism, or antagonism due to
effects within the  organism.

Another possible complication is that a form of metal that is
toxic to one aquatic organism might not be toxic  to another.
Although such differences between organisms have  not been
demonstrated, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
 The Importance of Lability

 The only common metal measurement that can be validly
 extrapolated from the effluent and the upstream water to the
 downstream water merely by taking dilution into account is the
 total recoverable measurement.  A major reason this measurement
 is so useful is because it is the only measurement that obeys the
 law of mass balance (i.e., it is the only measurement that is
 conservative).  Other metal measurements usually do not obey the
 law of mass balance because they measure some, but not all, of
 the labile species of metals.  A measurement of refractory metal

                                111

-------
 would be conservative in terms of changes in water quality
 characteristics, but not necessarily in regards to fate
 processes; such a measurement has not been developed,  however.

 Permit limits apply to effluents, whereas water quality criteria
 apply to surface waters.  If permit limits and water quality
 crxteria are both expressed in terms of total recoverable metal,
 extrapolations from effluent to surface water only need to take'
 dilution^into account and can be performed as mass balance
 calculations.  If either permit limits or water quality criteria
 or both are expressed in terms of any other metal  measurement,
 lability needs to be taken into account,  even if both are
 expressed in terms of the same measurement.

 Extrapolations concerning labile species  of metals from effluent
 to surface water depend to a large extent on the differences
 between the water quality characteristics of the effluent and
 those of the surface water.   Although equilibrium  models of  the
 speciation of metals can provide insight,  the interactions are
 too complex to be able to make useful nonempirical extrapolations
 from a wide variety of effluents to a wide variety of  surface
 waters of either (a)  the speciation of the metal or (b)  a metal
 measurement other than total recoverable.

 Empirical extrapolations can be performed fairly easily and  the
 most common case will probably occur when permit limits  are  based
 on the total recoverable measurement but  water quality criteria
 are based on the dissolved measurement.   The empirical
 extrapolation is intended to answer the question "What percent of
 the total recoverable metal  in the effluent  becomes dissolved in
 the downstream water?"   This question can be answered by:
 a.  Collecting samples of effluent  and upstream water.
 b.  Measuring total  recoverable metal and  dissolved metal  in  both
    samples.
 c.  Combining aliquots of the two samples  in  the  ratio of  the
    flows  when the samples were obtained and  mixing for an
    appropriate period of time  under appropriate  conditions.
 d.  Measuring total  recoverable metal  and  dissolved metal  in  the
    mixture.
An  example  is  presented  in Figure  D2.  This  percentage cannot be
 extrapolated from one metal  to another or  from one effluent  to
 another.  The  data  needed to calculate the percentage will be
 obtained  each  time  a  WER is  determined using simulated downstream
water  if  both  dissolved  and  total  recoverable metal are measured
 in  the effluent,  upstream water, and  simulated downstream water.

The interpretation  of the percentage  is not necessarily as
straightforward as  might be  assumed.  For example,  some of the
metal that is  dissolved  in the upstream water might sorb onto
particulate matter  in the effluent, which can be viewed as a
detoxification  of the upstream water by the effluent.  Regardless
of the interpretation, the described procedure provides a simple
                               112

-------
way of relating the total recoverable concentration in the
effluent to the concentration of concern in the downstream water.
Because this empirical extrapolation can be used with any
analytical measurement that is chosen as the basis for expression
of aquatic life criteria, use of the total recoverable
measurement to express permit limits on effluents does not place
any restrictions on which analytical measurement can be used to
express criteria.  Further, even if both criteria and permit
limits are expressed in terms of a measurement such as dissolved
metal, an empirical extrapolation would still be necessary
because dissolved metal is not likely to be conservative from
effluent to downstream water.
Merits of Total Recoverable and Dissolved WERs and Criteria

A WER is operationally defined as the value of an endpoint
obtained with a toxicity test using site water divided by the
value of the same endpoint obtained with the same toxicity test
using a laboratory dilution water.  Therefore, just as aquatic
life criteria can be expressed in terms of either the total
recoverable measurement or the dissolved measurement, so can
WERs.  A pair of side-by-side toxicity tests can produce both a
total recoverable WER and a dissolved WER if the metal in the
test solutions in both of the tests is measured using both
methods.  A total recoverable WER is obtained by dividing
endpoints that were calculated on the basis of total recoverable
metal, whereas a dissolved WER is obtained by dividing endpoints
that were calculated on the basis of dissolved metal.  Because of
the way they are determined, a total recoverable WER is used to
calculate a total recoverable site-specific criterion from a
national, state, or recalculated aquatic life criterion that is
expressed using the total recoverable measurement, whereas a
dissolved WER is used to calculate a dissolved site-specific
criterion from a national, state, or recalculated criterion that
is expressed in terms of the dissolved measurement.

In terms of the classification scheme given in Figure Dl, the
basic relationship between a total recoverable national water
quality criterion and a total recoverable WER is:
• A total recoverable criterion treats all the toxic and
      nontoxic metal in the site water as if its average
      toxicity were the same as the average toxicity of all
      the toxic and nontoxic metal in the toxicity tests in
      laboratory dilution water on which the criterion is
      based.
• A total recoverable WER is a measurement of the actual
      ratio of the average toxicities of the total
      recoverable metal and replaces the assumption that
      the ratio is 1.


                               113

-------
 Similarly,  the basic relationship  between a dissolved national
 criterion and a dissolved WER is:
 • A dissolved criterion treats all the  toxic and nontoxic
       dissolved metal in the  site  water as if its average
       toxicity were  the same  as the average toxicity of all
       the toxic and  nontoxic  dissolved  metal in the
       toxicity tests in laboratory dilution water on which
       the criterion  is based.
 • A dissolved WER is a measurement of the actual ratio of
       the average toxicities  of the dissolved metal and
       replaces the assumption that the  ratio is 1.
 In  both  cases,  use of a criterion  without a WER involves
 measurement of toxicity in laboratory dilution water but only
 prediction of toxicity in site water, whereas use of a criterion
 with a WER involves  measurement of toxicity in both laboratory
 dilution water and site water.

 When WERs are used to derive  site-specific criteria, the total
 recoverable and dissolved approaches are inherently consistent.
 They are consistent  because the toxic effects caused by the metal
 in  the toxicity tests do not  depend on  what chemical measurements
 are performed;  the same number of  organisms are killed in the
 acute  lethality tests regardless of what, if any, measurements of
 the concentration of the metal  are  made.  The only difference is
 the chemical  measurement to which  the toxicity is referenced.
 Dissolved WERs  can be derived from the  same pairs of toxicity
 tests  from  which total recoverable WERs are derived, if the metal
 in  the tests  is measured using both the total recoverable and
 dissolved measurements.   Both approaches start at the same place
 (i.e., the  amount of toxicity observed  in laboratory dilution
 water) and  end  at the same place (i.e., the amount of toxicity
 observed in site water).  The  combination of a total recoverable
 criterion and WER accomplish  the same thing as the combination of
 a dissolved criterion and WER.  By  extension,  whenever a
 criterion and a WER  based on  the same measurement of the metal
 are  used together, they will  end up at  the same place.   Because
 use  of a total  recoverable criterion with a total recoverable WER
 ends up  at  exactly the same place as use of a dissolved criterion
 with a dissolved WER.  whenever  one WER  is determined,  both should
 be determined to allow (a) a  check on the analytical chemistry,
 (b)  use  of  the  inherent  internal consistency to check that the
 data are used correctly,  and  (c) the option of using either
 approach in the  derivation of permit limits.

An examination  of how the two approaches (the total recoverable
 approach and  the dissolved approach) address the four relevant
 forms of metal  (toxic  and nontoxic particulate metal and toxic
 and nontoxic  dissolved metal)  in laboratory dilution water and in
 site water  further explains why the two approaches are  inherently
 consistent.   Here, only  the way in which the two approaches
address  each  of  the  four  forms of metal in site water will be
 considered:

                                114

-------
a. Toxic dissolved metal:
      This form contributes to the toxicity of the site water and
      is measured by both chemical measurements.  If this is the
      only form of metal present, the two WERs will be the same.
b. Nontoxic dissolved metal:
      This form does not contribute to the toxicity of the site
      water, but it is measured by both chemical measurements.
      If this is the only form of metal present, the two WERs
      will be the same.  (Nontoxic dissolved metal can be the
      only form present, however, only if all of the nontoxic
      dissolved metal present is refractory.  If any labile
      nontoxic dissolved metal is present, equilibrium will
      require that some toxic dissolved metal also be present.)
c. Toxic particulate metal:
      This form contributes to the toxicological measurement in
      both approaches; it is measured by the total recoverable
      measurement, but not by the dissolved measurement.  Even
      though it is not measured by the dissolved measurement, its
      presence is accounted for in the dissolved approach because
      it increases the toxicity of the site water and thereby
      decreases the dissolved WER.  It is accounted for because
      it makes the dissolved metal appear to be more toxic than
      it is.  Most toxic particulate metal is probably not toxic
      when it is particulate; it becomes toxic when it is
      dissolved at the gill surface or in the digestive system;
      in the surface water, however, it is measured as
      particulate metal.
d. Nontoxic particulate metal:
      This form does not contribute to the toxicity of the site
      water; it is measured by the total recoverable measurement,
      but not by the dissolved measurement.  Because it is
      measured by the total recoverable measurement, but not by
      the dissolved measurement, it causes the total recoverable
      WER to be higher than the dissolved WER.
In addition to dealing with the four forms of metal similarly,
the WERs used in the two approaches comparably take synergism,
antagonism, and additivity  into account.  Synergism and
additivity  in the site water increase its toxicity and therefore
decrease the WER; in contrast, antagonism in the site water
decreases toxicity and increases the WER.

Each of the four forms of metal  is appropriately taken into
account because use of the  WERs makes the two approaches
internally  consistent.   In  addition, although experimental
variation will cause the measured WERs to deviate from the actual
WERs, the measured WERs will be  internally  consistent with the
data from which they were generated.  If  the percent dissolved  is
the same at the test endpoint in the two  waters, the two WERs
will be the same.  If  the percent of the  total  recoverable metal
that is dissolved in laboratory  dilution  water  is less than  100
percent, changing from the  total recoverable measurement to  the
dissolved measurement  will  lower the criterion  but  it will

                               115

-------
 comparably lower the denominator  in  the WER, thus increasing the
 WER.   If the percent of the  total recoverable metal that is
 dissolved in the site water  is  less  than  100 percent, changing
 from  the total  recoverable measurement to the dissolved
 measurement will lower the concentration  in the site water that
 is to be compared with the criterion, but it also lowers the
 numerator in the WER,  thus lowering  the WER.  Thus when WERs are
 used  to  adjust  criteria,  the total recoverable approach and the
 dissolved approach result in the  same interpretations of
 concentrations  in the site water  (see Figure D3) and in the same
 maximum  acceptable concentrations in effluents  (see Figure D4).

 Thus,  if WERs are based on toxicity  tests whose endpoints equal
 the CMC  or CCC  and if both approaches are used correctly, the two
 measurements will produce the same results because each WER is
 based on measurements on the site water and then the WER is used
 to calculate the site-specific  criterion  that applies to the site
 water when the  same chemical measurement  is used to express the
 site-specific criterion.  The equivalency of the two approaches
 applies  if they are based on the  same sample of site water.  When
 they  are applied to multiple samples, the approaches can differ
 depending on how the results from replicate samples are used:
 a. If an appropriate averaging  process is used, the two will be
   equivalent.
 b. If the lowest value is used, the  two approaches will probably
   be equivalent only if  the lowest  dissolved WER and the lowest
   total recoverable WER  were obtained using the same sample of
   site  water.

 There are several advantages to using a dissolved criterion even
 when  a dissolved WER is not  used.  In some situations use of a
 dissolved criterion to interpret  results  of measurements of the
 concentration of dissolved metal  in  site water might demonstrate
 that  there  is no need to  determine either a total recoverable WER
 or a  dissolved WER.   This would occur when so much of the total
 recoverable metal was  nontoxic particulate metal that even though
 the total recoverable  criterion was  exceeded,  the corresponding
 dissolved criterion was not  exceeded.  The particulate metal
 might  come  from  an effluent,   a resuspension event,  or runoff that
washed particulates  into  the  body of water.   In such a situation
 the total recoverable  WER would also show that the site-specific
 criterion was not exceeded,   but there would be no need to
determine a WER  if  the criterion were expressed on the basis of
 the dissolved measurement.   If the variation over time in the
 concentration of  particulate metal is much greater than the
variation in the  concentration of dissolved metal,  both the total
recoverable concentration and the total recoverable WER are
 likely to vary so much over  time that a dissolved criterion would
be much more useful  than  a total recoverable criterion.
                               116

-------
Use of a dissolved criterion without a dissolved WER has three
disadvantages, however:
1. Nontoxic dissolved metal in the site water is treated as if it
   is toxic.
2. Any toxicity due to particulate metal in the site water is
   ignored.
3. Synergism, antagonism, and additivity in the site water are
   not taken into account.
Use of a dissolved criterion with a dissolved WER overcomes all
three problems.  For example, if  (a) the total recoverable
concentration greatly exceeds the total recoverable criterion,
 (b) the dissolved concentration is below the dissolved criterion,
and (c) there is concern about the possibility of toxicity of
particulate metal, the determination of a dissolved WER would
demonstrate whether toxicity due to particulate metal is
measurable.

Similarly, use of a total recoverable criterion without a total
recoverable WER has three comparable disadvantages:
1. Nontoxic dissolved metal in site water is treated as if it is
   toxic.
2. Nontoxic particulate metal in site water is treated as if it
   is toxic.
3. Synergism, antagonism, and additivity in site water are not
   taken into account.
Use of a total recoverable criterion with a total recoverable WER
overcomes all three problems.  For example, determination of a
total recoverable WER would prevent nontoxic particulate metal
 (as well as nontoxic dissolved metal) in the site water from
being treated as if it is toxic.
Relationships between WERs and the Forms of Metals

Probably the best way to understand what WERs can and cannot do
is to understand the relationships between WERs and the forms of
metals.  A WER  is calculated by dividing the concentration of a
metal that corresponds to a toxicity endpoint in a site water by
the concentration of the same metal that corresponds to the same
toxicity endpoint in a laboratory dilution water.  Therefore,
using the classification scheme given in Figure Dl:

                         R~ + Nq + Ts + &NS + ATS
                    WER =  s	
                          RL + NL + TL + A.WL + ATL

The  subscripts  n S"  and "L" denote site water and laboratory
dilution water,  respectively,  and:

R   =  the  concentration of Refractory  metal  in  a water.   (By
       definition, all  refractory metal is  nontoxic metal.)


                                117

-------
 N   «  the  concentration of Nontoxic labile  metal  in a  water.

 T   a  the  concentration of Toxic  labile  metal  in  a  water.

 eJV  *  the  concentration of metal  added during  a WER determination
       that is Jfontoxic  labile  metal after it is added.

 AT  =  the  concentration of metal  added during  a WER determination
       that is Toxic  labile metal  after it is added.

 For  a  total recoverable WER, each of these  five concentrations
 includes both particulate  and  dissolved  metal, if both are
 present; for a dissolved WER only dissolved metal is included.


 Because the two  side-by-side tests use the  same endpoint and  are,
 conducted  under  identical  conditions with comparable test
 organisms,  Ts + ATS =  TL + &TL when the toxic  species  of  the metal
 are  equally toxic in the two waters.   If a  difference  in water
 quality causes one or more of  the toxic  species of  the metal  to
be more toxic in one water than the other,  or  causes a shift  in
 the  ratios  of various toxic species,  we  can define

                             =  Ts + ATS
Thus H is a multiplier  that  accounts  for  a proportional  increase
or decrease in the toxicity  of the toxic  forms in site water as
compared to their toxicities in laboratory dilution water.
Therefore, the general WER equation is:
                        Rr + Nr + A.Wr + (Tr + ATr)
                         JJ   Jj    Li   x  ±1    Li*

Several things are obvious  from this equation:
1. A WER should not be thought of as a simple ratio such as H.
   H is the ratio of the toxicities of the toxic species of the
   metal,  whereas the WER is the ratio of the sum of the toxic
   and the nontoxic species of the metal.  Only under a very
   specific set of conditions will WER = H.  If these conditions
   are satisfied and if, in addition, H = 1, then  WER = 1.
   Although it might seem that all of these conditions will
   rarely be satisfied, it  is not all that rare to find that an
   experimentally determined WER is close to 1.
2. When the concentration of metal in laboratory dilution water
   is negligible, RL = NL = TL = 0 and


                    WER =  *' + »' -
                                    ATL
                               118

-------
   Even though laboratory dilution water is low in TOG and TSS,
   when metals are added to laboratory dilution water in toxicity
   tests,  ions such as hydroxide,  carbonate,  and chloride react
   with some metals to form some particulate species and some
   dissolved species, both of which might be toxic or nontoxic.
   The metal species that are nontoxic contribute to &NL,  whereas
   those that are toxic contribute to *TL.   Hydroxide,  carbonate,
   chloride, TOG, and TSS can increase ANS .   Anything that causes
   ANS to  differ from *NL  will  cause  the  WER  to  differ  from 1.
3.  Refractory metal and nontoxic labile metal in the site water
   above that in the laboratory dilution water will increase the
   WER.  Therefore, if the WER ,is determined in downstream water,
   rather than in upstream water,  the WER will be increased by
   refractory metal and nontoxic labile metal in the effluent.
Thus there are three major reasons why WERs might be larger or
smaller than 1:
a.  The toxic species of the metal might be more toxic in one
   water than in the other, i.e.,  H* 1.
b.  ^N might be higher in one water than  in the other.
c.  R and/or N micfht  be  higher  in  one water than in  the  other.

The last reason might have great practical importance in some
situations.  When a WER is determined in downstream water, if
most of the metal in the effluent is nontoxic, the WER and the
endpoint in site water will correlate with the concentration of
metal in the site water.  In addition, they will depend on the
concentration of metal in the effluent and the concentration of
effluent in the site water.  This correlation will be best for   .
refractory metal because its toxicity cannot be affected by water
quality characteristics; even if the effluent and upstream water
are quite different so that the water quality characteristics  of
the site water depend on the percent effluent, the toxicity of_
the refractory metal will remain constant at zero and the portion
of the WER that is due to refractory metal will be additive.
The Dependence of WERs on the Sensitivity of Toxicitv Tests

It would be desirable if the magnitude of the WER for a site
water were independent of the toxicity test used in the
determination of the WER, so that any convenient toxicity test
could be used.  It can be seen from the general WER equation that
the WER will be independent of the toxicity test only if:
which would  require  that  Rs = Ns = AJVS = RL = NL = ANL = 0 .   (It would
be easy  to assume  that  TL = 0 , but  it can  be misleading in some
situations to  make more simplifications than  are necessary.)
                                119

-------
This is the  simplistic  concept  of a WER that would be
advantageous if  it were true, but which is not likely to be true
very often.   Any situation in which one or more of the terms is
greater than zero can cause the WER to depend on the sensitivity
of the toxicity  test, although  the difference in the WERs might
be small .

Two situations that might  be common can illustrate how the WER
can depend on the sensitivity of the toxicity test .   For these
illustrations, there  is no advantage to assuming that H = 1 , so
H will be retained for  generality.
1. The simplest  situation  is when Rs > o ,  i.e.,  when a
   substantial concentration of refractory metal occurs in the
   site water.   If, for simplification, it is assumed that
   Ns - Atfs = RL = NL = ANL = 0 ,  then:
                     Rs     L    L         a
                        (TL + Ar£)      (TL + ATL)   H •

   The quantity  TL + &.TL obviously changes as the sensitivity of
   the toxicity  test changes .   When  Rs = 0 ,  then WER = H and the
   WER is independent of the sensitivity of the toxicity test .
   When Rs > 0 , then the WER will decrease as the sensitivity of
   the test decreases because  TL + ATL will increase .

2. More complicated situations  occur when (Ng + &NS) > 0.  If, for
   simplification,  it is assumed that Rs = RL = NL = &.NL = o, then:

                     + **   + H(TL + ATL) _  (Na + AJVg)
                                                   H •
                        (TL + AT,)          (TL - A

   a. If  (Ns + A#S) > 0 because the site water contains a
      substantial concentration of a  complexing  agent  that  has an
      affinity for the metal and if complexation converts toxic
      metal into nontoxic metal, the  complexation reaction  will
      control the toxicity of the solution  (Allen 1993) .  A
      complexation curve can be graphed  in  several ways, but  the
      S- shaped curve presented in Figure D5 is most  convenient
      here.  The vertical axis is "%  uncomplexed" , which is
      assumed to correlate with "% toxic".   The  "% complexed" is
      then the "% nontoxic".  The ratio  of  nontoxic  metal to
      toxic metal is :

                    %nontoxic =   % complexed  _ v
                     % toxic     ^uncomplexed

      For the complexed nontoxic metal :

                v _ concentration of nontoxic metal
                     concentration of toxic metal


                               120

-------
In the site water, the concentration of complexed nontoxic
metal is  (Ns + &NS)  and the concentration of toxic metal is
(Tj + Ars) ,  so that:        ,          •

                   (Na + *Na)    (Na + Atfs)
              » o
                   (Ts + ATS)   H(TL

and
                                .     H . B(v,
If the WER is determined using a sensitive toxicity test  so
that the % uncomplexed  (i.e., the % toxic) is  10  %,  then
vs = (90 %)/(:LO %) = 9 ,  whereas if a less sensitive test is
used so that the % uncomplexed is 50 %, then
Vs = (50 %)/{50 %) = 1.   Therefore,  if a portion of the WER  is
due to a complexing agent in the site water, the  magnitude
of the WER can decrease as the sensitivity of  the toxicity
test decreases because the % uncomplexed will  decrease.   In
these situations, the largest WER will be obtained with the
most sensitive toxicity test; progressively smaller WERs
will be obtained with less sensitive toxicity  tests.  The
magnitude of a WER will depend not only on the sensitivity
of the toxicity test but also on the concentration of the
complexing agent and on its binding constant  (complexation
constant, stability constant).  In addition, the  binding
constants of most complexing agents depend on  pH.

If the laboratory dilution water contains a low
concentration of a complexing agent,

                      v -  NL-
                      Zi   rn
and

              + ATJ + H(TL + ATL)  _  VgH + H _ H(VS

          VL(TL + ATL) + (TL + ATL)     VL + 1     V
                                            L
The binding constant of the complexing  agent  in the
laboratory dilution water  is probably different from that
of the complexing agent in the  site water.  Although
changing from a more sensitive  test to  a  less sensitive
test will decrease both Vs and  VL, the amount of effect  is
not likely to be proportional.

If the change from a more  sensitive test  to a less
sensitive test were to decrease VL proportionately more
than Vs, the change could  result  in a larger  WER, rather

                         121

-------
      than a smaller WER, as resulted in the case above when it
      was assumed that the laboratory dilution water did not
      contain any complexing agent.  This is probably most likely
      to occur if H = 1  and  if  Vs < VL, which would mean that
      WER < 1.  Although  this is likely to be a rare situation,
      it does demonstrate again the importance of determining
      WERs using toxicity tests that have endpo-ints in laboratory
      dilution water that are close to the CMC or CCC to which
      the WER is to be applied.

   b. If  (Ns + &NS) > 0  because the  site water contains  a
      substantial concentration of an ion that will precipitate
      the metal of concern and if precipitation converts toxic
      metal into nontoxic metal, the precipitation reaction will
      control the toxicity of the solution.  The "precipitation
      curve" given in Figure D6 is analogous to the "complexation.
      curve" given in Figure D5; in the precipitation curve, the
      vertical axis is "% dissolved", which is assumed to
      correlate with "%  toxic".  If the endpoint for a toxicity
      test is below the  solubility limit of the precipitate,
      (Ns + &NS) = 0,  whereas  if  the endpoint  for  a toxicity test
      is above the solubility limit,  (N3 + ANS) >  0.   If WERs are
      determined with a  series of toxicity tests that have
      increasing endpoints that are above the solubility limit,
      the WER will reach a maximum value and then decrease.  The
      magnitude of the WER will depend not only on the
      sensitivity of the toxicity test but also on the
      concentration of the precipitating agent,  the solubility
      limit, and the solubility of the precipitate.

Thus, depending on the composition of the site water,  a WER
obtained with an insensitive test might be larger, smaller, or
similar to a WER obtained with a sensitive test.  Because of the
range of possibilities that exist, the best toxicity test to use
in the experimental determination of a WER is one whose endpoint
in laboratory dilution water is close to the CMC or CCC that is
to be adjusted.  This is the rationale that was used in the
selection of the toxicity tests that are suggested in Appendix I.

The available data indicate that a less sensitive toxicity test
usually gives a smaller  WER than a more sensitive test (Hansen
1993a).   Thus, use of toxicity tests whose endpoints are higher
than the CMC or CCC probably will not result in underprotection;
in contrast, use of tests whose endpoints are substantially below
the CMC or CCC might result in underprotection.

The factors that cause Rs and (Ns + &NS) to be greater than  zero
are all external to the  test organisms; they are chemical effects
that affect the metal in the water.  The magnitude of the WER is
therefore expected to depend on the toxicity test used only in
regard to the sensitivity of the test.  If the endpoints for two

                               122

-------
different tests occur at the same concentration of the metal, the
magnitude of the WERs obtained with the two tests should be the
same; they should not depend on  (a) the duration of the test, (b)
whether the endpoint is based on a lethal or sublethal effect, or
(c) whether the species is a vertebrate or an invertebrate.

Another interesting consequence of the chemistry of complexation
is that the % uncomplexed will increase if the solution is
diluted (Allen and Hansen 1993) .   The concentration of total
metal will decrease with dilution but the % uncomplexed will
increase.   The increase will not offset the decrease and so the
concentration of uncomplexed metal will decrease.  Thus the
portion of a WER that is due to complexation will not be strictly
additive  (see Appendix G), but the amount of nonadditivity might
be difficult to detect in toxicity studies of additivity.  A
similar effect of dilution will occur for precipitation.

The illustrations presented above were simplified to make it
easier to understand the kinds of effects that can occur.  The
illustrations are qualitatively valid and demonstrate the
direction of the effects, but real-world situations will probably
be so much more complicated that the various effects cannot be
dealt with separately.
Others-Properties of WERs

1. Because of the variety of factors that can affect WERs, no
   rationale exists at present for extrapolating WERs from one
   metalfto another, from one effluent to another, or from one
   surface water to another.  Thus WERs should be individually
   determined for each metal at each site.

2. The most important information that the determination of a WER
   provides is whether simulated and/or actual downstream water
   adversely affects test organisms that are sensitive to the
   metal.  A WER cannot indicate how much metal needs to be
   removed from or how much metal can be added to an effluent.
   a. If the site water already contains sufficient metal that it
      is toxic to the test organisms, a WER cannot be determined
      with a sensitive test and so an insensitive test will have
      to be used.  Even if a WER could be determined with a
      sensitive test, the WER cannot indicate how much metal has
      to be removed.  For example, if a WER indicated that there
      was 20 percent too much metal in an effluent, a 30 percent
      reduction by the discharger would not reduce toxicity if
      only nontoxic metal was removed.  The next WER
      determination would show that the effluent still contained
      too much metal.  Removing metal is useful only if the metal
      removed is toxic metal.  Reducing the total recoverable
      concentration does not necessarily reduce toxicity.

                               123

-------
   b. If the simulated or actual downstream water is not toxic, a
      WER can be determined and used to calculate how much
      additional metal the effluent could contain and still be
      acceptable.  Because an unlimited amount of refractory
      metal can be added to the effluent without affecting the
      organisms, what the WER actually determines is how much
      additional toxic metal can be added to the effluent.

3. The effluent component of nearly all WERs is likely to be due
   mostly to either  (a) a reduction in toxicity of the metal by
   TSS or TOG, or  (b) the presence of refractory metal.  For both
   of these, if the percentage of effluent in the downstream
   water decreases, the magnitude of the WER will usually
   decrease.  If the water quality characteristics of the
   effluent and the upstream water are quite different, it is
   possible that the interaction will not be additive; this can
   affect the portion of the WER that is due to reduced toxicity
   caused by sorption and/or binding, but it cannot affect the
   portion of the WER that is due to refractory metal.

4. Test organisms are fed during some toxicity tests, but not
   during others; it is not clear whether a WER determined in a
   fed test will differ from a WER determined in an unfed test.
   Whether there is a difference is likely to depend on the
   metal, the type and amount of food, and whether a total
   recoverable or dissolved WER is determined.  This can be
   evaluated by determining two WERs using a test in which the
   organisms usually are not fed - one WER with no food added to
   the tests and one with food added to the tests.   Any effect of
   food is probably due to an increase in TOC and/or TSS.  If
   food increases the concentration of nontoxic metal in both the
   laboratory dilution water and the site water, the food will
   probably decrease the WER.  Because complexes of metals are
   usually soluble, complexation is likely to lower both total
   recoverable and dissolved WERs; sorption to solids will
   probably reduce only total recoverable WERs.  The food might
   also affect the acute-chronic ratio.  Any feeding during a
   test should be limited to the minimum necessary.
Ranges of Actual Measured WERs

The acceptable WERs found by Brungs et al.  (1992) were total
recoverable WERs that were determined in relatively clean fresh
water.  These WERs ranged from about 1 to 15 for both copper and
cadmium, whereas they ranged from about 0.7 to 3 for zinc.  The
few WERs that were available for chromium,  lead, and nickel
ranged from about 1 to 6.  Both the total recoverable and
dissolved WERs for copper in New York harbor range from about 0.4
to 4 with most of the WERs being between 1 and 2 (Hansen 1993b).


                               124

-------
Figure D2: An Example  of  the Empirical Extrapolation Process


Assume the following hypothetical effluent and upstream water;

Effluent:
   TE:     100 ug/L
   DB:      10 ug/L    (10 %  dissolved)
   QE:      24 cfs

Upstream water:
   Ta:      40 ug/L
   Djji      38 ug/L    (95 %  dissolved)
   £>£,:      48 cfs

Downstream water:
   TD:      60 ug/L
   DB:      36 ug/L    (60 %  dissolved)
   £>„:      72 cfs
where :

T  = concentration  of  total  recoverable metal.
D  = concentration  of  dissolved metal.
Q  = flow.

The subscripts E, U, and D signify effluent,  upstream water, and
downstream water, respectively.

By conservation  of  flow:   QD = QE + Qa .

By conservation  of  total recoverable metal: TDQD = TBQE + T^2n .

If p  =  the percent of the total recoverable metal in the
        effluent that  becomes dissolved in the downstream water,

                            100 (DDQD -
                                 TBQE

For the data given above,  the percent of the total recoverable
metal in the effluent  that becomes dissolved in the downstream
water is:

         p =  100 [(36 ug/L) (72 cfs)  -  (38 ug/L) (48 cfs) ] = 32 %  -
                        (100 ug/L) (24 cfs)

which is greater than  the  10 % dissolved in the effluent and less
than the 60 %  dissolved in the downstream water.
                                125

-------
Figure D3: The Internal  Consistency of  the Two Approaches


The internal consistency of the total recoverable and dissolved
approaches can be illustrated by considering the use of WERs  to
interpret the total recoverable and dissolved concentrations  of  a
metal in a site water.   For this hypothetical example, it will be
assumed that the national CCCs for the  metal are:
      200 ug/L as total  recoverable metal.
      160 ug/L as dissolved metal.
It will also be assumed  that the concentrations of the metal  in
the site water are:
      300 ug/L as total  recoverable metal.
      120 ug/L as dissolved metal.
The total recoverable concentration in  the site water exceeds the
national CCC, but the dissolved concentration does not.


The following results might be obtained if WERs are determined:

   In Laboratory Dilution Water
      Total recoverable  LC50 = 400 ug/L.
         % of the total  recoverable metal that is dissolved = 80.
             (This is based on the ratio of the national CCCs,
            which were determined in laboratory dilution water.)
      Dissolved LC50 = 320 ug/L.

   In Site Water
      Total recoverable  LC50 =620 ug/L.
         % of the total  recoverable metal that is dissolved = 40.
          (This is based on the data given above for site water).
      Dissolved LC50 = 248 ug/L.

   WERs
      Total recoverable WER = (620 ug/L)/(400 ug/L)  = 1.55
      Dissolved WER = (248 ug/L)/(320 ug/L)  = 0.775


   Checking the Calculations

     Total recoverable WER  _  1.55  _ lab water % dissolved   80
        Dissolved WER       0.775   site water % dissolved  40
                                                           = 2
   Site-specific CCCs (ssCCCs)

      Total recoverable ssCCC = (200 ug/L) (1.55) = 310 ug/L.
      Dissolved ssCCC = (160 ug/L) (0.775) = 124 ug/L.


   Both concentrations in site water are below the respective
   ssCCCs.

                               126

-------
In contrast, the following results might have been obtained when
the WERs were determined:
   In Laboratory Dilution Water
      Total recoverable LC50 = 400 ug/L.
         % of the total recoverable metal that is dissolved
      Dissolved LC50 = 320 ug/L.
                                  =  80
   In Site Water
      Total recoverable LC50 = 580 ug/L.
         % of the total recoverable metal that is dissolved =40
      Dissolved LC50 = 232 ug/L.

   WERs
      Total recoverable WER =  (580 ug/L)/(400 ug/L) =1.45
      Dissolved WER =  (232 ug/L)/(320 ug/L) = 0.725
   Checking the Calculations

     Total recoverable WER _ 1.45
        Dissolved WER
0.725
lab water % dissolved _ 80 _ ~
site water % dissolved   40
   Site-specific CCCs  (ssCCCs)
      Total recoverable ssCCC =  (200 ug/L)(1.45) = 290 ug/L.
      Dissolved ssCCC =  (160 ug/L)(0.725)  =116 ug/L.


   In this case, both concentrations in site water are above  the
   respective ssCCCs.
In each case, both approaches resulted in the same conclusion
concerning whether the concentration in site water exceeds  the
site-specific criterion.
The two key assumptions are:
1. The ratio of total recoverable metal to dissolved metal  in
   laboratory dilution water when the WERs are determined equals
   the ratio of the national CCCs.
2. The ratio of total recoverable metal to dissolved metal  in
   site water when the WERs are determined equals the  ratio of
   the concentrations reported in the site water.
Differences in the ratios that are outside the range of
experimental variation will cause problems for the derivation of
site-specific criteria and, therefore, with the  internal
consistency of the two approaches.
                                127

-------
Figure D4: The Application of the Two Approaches


Hypothetical upstream water and effluent will be used to
demonstrate the equivalence of the total recoverable and
dissolved approaches.  The upstream water and the effluent will
be assumed to have specific properties in order to allow
calculation of the properties of the downstream water, which will
be assumed to be a 1:1 mixture of the upstream water and
effluent.  It will also be assumed that the ratios of the forms
of the metal in the upstream water and in the effluent do not
change when the total recoverable concentration changes.
Upstream water   (Flow = 3 cfs)
   Total recoverable:
      Refractory particulate:
      Toxic dissolved:
400 ug/L
   200 ug/L
   200 ug/L
(50  % dissolved)
Effluent   (Flow = 3 cfs)
   Total recoverable:              440 ug/L
      Refractory particulate:         396 ug/L
      Labile nontoxic particulate:     44 ug/L
      Toxic dissolved:                  0 ug/L   (0 % dissolved)
          (The labile nontoxic particulate, which is 10 % of the
         total recoverable in the effluent, becomes toxic
         dissolved in the downstream water.)
Downstream water   (Flow = 6 cfs)
   Total recoverable:
      Refractory particulate:
      Toxic dissolved:
420 ug/L
   298 ug/L
   122 ug/L
(29  %  dissolved)
   The values for the downstream water are calculated from the
   values for the upstream water and the effluent:
      Total recoverable:       [3(400) + 3(440)1/6  = 420 ug/L
      Dissolved:               [3(200) + 3(44 + 0)1/6 = 122 ug/L
      Refractory particulate:  [3(200) + 3(396)1/6  = 298 ug/L
Assumed National CCC  (nCCC)
   Total recoverable = 300 ug/L
   Dissolved = 240 ug/L
                               128

-------
Upstream site-specific CCC  (ussCCC)

   Assume: Dissolved cccWER =  1.2
      Dissolved ussCCC =  (1.2)(240 ug/L)  =  288  ug/L
   By calculation: TR ussCCC = (288 ug/L)/(0.5)  =  576  ug/L
      Total recoverable cccWER =  (576 ug/L)/(300 ug/L)  =1.92

                          nCCC    cccWER    ussCCC      Cone.
   Total recoverable:   300 ug/L    1.92    576 ug/L    400 ug/L
   Dissolved:           240 ug/L    1.2     288 ug/L    200 ug/L
         % dissolved         80 %    	         50 %        50  %
      Neither concentration exceeds its respective ussCCC.

     Total recoverable WER _ 1.92 _  lab water % dissolved _ 80  _ -j_ 6
        Dissolved WER       1.2    site -water % dissolved   50
Downstream site-specific  CCC (dssCCC)

   Assume: Dissolved  cccWER =1.8
      Dissolved  dssCCC  =  (1.8) (240  ug/L)  = 432  ug/L
   By calculation:  TR dssCCC =
      {(432 ug/L-[(200  ug/L)/2])/O.l}+{(400 ug/L)/2}  = 3520 ug/L
            This calculation determines  the amount of dissolved
            metal  contributed by the effluent,  accounts for the
            fact that ten percent of the total  recoverable metal
            in the effluent becomes dissolved,  and adds the total
            recoverable metal contributed by the upstream flow.
      Total recoverable cccWER  = (3520 ug/L)/(300 ug/L) = 11.73

                           nCCC      cccWER    dssCCC      Cone.
   Total  recoverable:  300 ug/L    11.73   3520 ug/L   420 ug/L
   Dissolved:           240 ug/L    .1.80    432 ug/L   122 ug/L
          % dissolved         80  %    	         12.27 %    29 %
      Neither concentration exceeds its  respective dssCCC.

   Total recoverable WER = 11.73 =   lab water % dissolved _   80  _ & _ 52
      Dissolved WER       1.80   site water % dissolved   12.27
 Calculating the Maximum Acceptable Concentration in the Effluent

    Because neither the total recoverable concentration nor the
    dissolved concentration in the downstream water exceeds its
    respective site-specific CCC,  the concentration of metal in
    the effluent could be increased.  Under the assumption that
    the ratios of the two forms of the metal in the effluent do
    not change when the total recoverable concentration changes,
    the maximum acceptable concentration of total recoverable
    metal in the effluent can be calculated as follows:

                                129

-------
    Starting with the total  recoverable dssCCC of 3520 ug/L

            (6 cfs) (3520 ug/L) - (3 cfs) (400 ucr/L)  fcxn
                           3~cfs - ^-^ = 664°

    Starting with the dissolved dssCCC  of 432 ug/L

          (6 cfs) (432 Uff/L) - (3 cfs) (400 ucr/L) (0.5)    __„„
                       (3 cfs) (0.10) - = 664°
 Checking the Calculations

    Total recoverable:

        (3 cfs) (6640 ug/L)  + (3 cfs) (400 ug/L)   __,_    ,,
                      £— ^- - 2 - = 3520 ug/L .
                      6 cfs

   Dissolved:
        (3 cfs) (6640 ug/L) (0.10) + (3 cfa) (400 ucr/L) (0.50)   „„    ,
                            6 c^s	•	 = 432 ug/L .

   The  value of 0.10 is used because this is the percent of the
   total  recoverable metal in the effluent that becomes  dissolved
   in the downstream water.

   The  values  of 3520 ug/L and 432 ug/L equal the downstream
   site-specific CCCs derived above.



Another Way  to Calculate the Maximum Acceptable Concentration

   The  maximum acceptable concentration of total recoverable
   metal  in  the effluent can also be calculated from the
   dissolved dssCCC  of 432 ug/L using a partition coefficient to
   convert from the  dissolved dssCCC of 432 ug/L to the  total
   recoverable dssCCC of 3520  ug/L:
           [6 cfs} [4^2 "g/* - (3 cfs) (400 ug/L) ]
                   U • J-& £, I                              .
          - 3 cfs - = 6640 ug/L .

   Note that the value used for the partition coefficient in this
   calculation is 0.1227  (the one that applies to the downstream
   water when the total recoverable concentration of metal in the
   effluent is 6640 ug/L), not 0.29 (the one that applies when
   the concentration of metal in the effluent is only 420 ug/L) .
   The three ways of calculating the maximum acceptable
   concentration give  the same result if each is used correctly.
                               130

-------
Figure D5:  A Generalized Complexation Curve



The curve is for a constant concentration of the complexing
ligand and an increasing concentration of the metal.
     100 r-
  O
  Ul
  X
  LLJ
  o
  o
  cf"
           LOG  OF CONCENTRATION OF METAL
                            131

-------
Figure D6: A Generalized Precipitation Curve
The curve is for a constant concentration of the precipitating

ligand and an increasing concentration of the metal.
    100
 Q
 III


 o
 CO
 CO

 5
          LOG  OF CONCENTRATION OF METAL
                          132

-------
References

Allen, H.E.   1993.   Importance of Metal Speciation to Toxicity.
Proceedings  of  the Water  Environment Federation Workshop on
Aquatic Life Criteria  for Metals.  Anaheim, CA.  pp. 55-62.

Allen, H.E.,  and D.J.  Hansen.  1993.   The  Importance of Trace
Metal  Speciation to  Water Quality Criteria.   Paper presented at
Society for  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  Houston,  TX.
'November  15.

Borgmann, U.   1983.  Metal  Speciation  and  Toxicity of Free Metal
Ions  to Aquatic Biota.  IN:  Aquatic Toxicology.   (J.O. Nriagu,
ed.)   Wiley,  New York, NY.

Brungs, W.A., T.S. Holderman,  and M.T. Southerland.   1992.
Synopsis  of  Water-Effect  Ratios  for Heavy  Metals  as Derived  for
Site-Specific Water  Quality Criteria.   U.S. EPA Contract  68-CO-
0070.

Chapman,  G.A.,  and J.K. McCrady.  1977.   Copper Toxicity:  A
Question  of  Form.  In: Recent Advances in Fish Toxicology.  (R.A.
Tubb,  ed.)   EPA-600/3-77-085  or  PB-273  500.  National  Technical
 Information Service, Springfield,  VA.   pp. 132-151.

Erickson, R.  1993a.  Memorandum to C. Stephan.   July 14.

Erickson, R.  1993b.  Memorandum to C. Stephan.   November 12.

 French,  P.,  and D.T.E. Hunt.  1986.   The Effects  of Inorganic
 Complexing upon the Toxicity of Copper to Aquatic Organisms
 (Principally Fish).    IN:  Trace Metal Speciation and Toxicity to
 Aquatic Organisms - A Review.   (D.T.E. Hunt,  ed.)   Report TR 247.
 Water Research Centre, United Kingdom.

 Hansen,  D.J.  1993a.  Memorandum to C.E.  Stephan.  April  29.

 Hansen,  D.J.  1993b.  Memorandum to C.E.  Stephan.  October  6.

 Nelson,  H.,  D. Benoit, R. Erickson, V. Mattson, and J. Lindberg.
 1986   The Effects  of Variable  Hardness,  pH,  Alkalinity,
 Suspended Clay,  and Humics  on the Chemical Speciation and Aquatic
 Toxicity of  Copper.   PB86-171444.  National  Technical Information
 Service, Springfield, VA.

 Wilkinson,  K.J., P.M.  Bertsch,  C.H. Jagoe, and P.G.C._Campbell.
 1993.  Surface  Complexation of  Aluminum on Isolated Fish  Gill
 Cells.   Environ. Sci. Technol.  27:1132-1138.
                                 133

-------
 Appendix E: U.S. EPA Aquatic Life Criteria Documents for Metals
  Metal
EPA Number
                                              NTIS Number
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
EPA 440/5-86-008
EPA 440/5-80-020
EPA 440/5-84-033
EPA 440/5-80-024
EPA 440/5-84-032
EPA 440/5-84-029
EPA 440/5-84-031
EPA 440/5-84-027
EPA 440/5-84-026
EPA 440/5-86-004
EPA 440/5-87-006
EPA 440/5-80-071
EPA 440/5-80-074
EPA 440/5-87-003
                                              PB88-245998

                                              PB81-117319

                                              PB85-227445

                                              PB81-117350

                                              PB85-227031

                                              PB85-227478

                                              PB85-227023

                                              PB85-227437

                                              PB85-227452

                                              PB87-105359

                                              PB88-142237

                                              PB81-117822

                                              PB81-117848

                                              PB87-153581
All are available from:
          National Technical Information Service  (NTIS)
          5285 Port Royal Road
          Springfield, VA 22161
             TEL: 703-487-4650
                               134

-------
Appendix F: Considerations Concerning Multiple-Metal, Multiple-
            Discharge, and Special Flowing-Water Situations


Multiple-Metal Situations

Both Method 1 and Method 2 work well in multiple-metal
situations, although the amount of testing required increases as
the number of metals increases.  The major problem is the same
for both methods: even when addition of two or more metals
individually is acceptable, simultaneous addition of the two or
more metals, each at"its respective maximum acceptable
concentration, might be unacceptable for at least two reasons:
1. Additivity or synergism might occur between metals.
2. More than one of the metals might be detoxified by the same
   complexing agent in the site water.  When WERs are determined
   individually, each metal can utilize all of the complexing
   capacity; when the metals are added together, however, they
   cannot  simultaneously utilize all of the complexing capacity.
Thus a discharger might feel that it is cost-effective to try to
justify the lowest site-specific criterion that is acceptable to
the discharger rather than trying to justify the highest site-
specific criterion that the appropriate regulatory authority
might approve.

There are  two options for dealing with the possibility of
additivity and synergism between metals:
a. WERs could be developed using a mixture of the metals but it
   might be necessary to use several primary toxicity tests
   depending on  the specific metals that are of interest.  Also,
   it might not  be clear what  ratio of the metals should be used
   in the  mixture.
b. If a WER is determined  for  each metal individually, one or
   more additional toxicity tests must be conducted  at the end to
   show that the combination of all metals at their  proposed new
   site-specific criteria  is acceptable.  Acceptability must be
   demonstrated  with  each  toxicity test that was used as a
   primary toxicity test in the determination of the WERs for the
   individual metals.   Thus if a different primary test was used
   for each metal, the  number  of acceptability  tests needed would
   equal  the number of  metals. It is possible  that  a toxicity
   test used  as  the primary test for  one metal  might be more
   sensitive  than  the CMC  (or  CCC) for another  metal and thus _
   might  not be  usable  in  the  combination test  unless antagonism
   occurs. When a primary test cannot be used, an acceptable
   alternative  test must be used.
 The  second option is  preferred because it is more definitive;  it
 provides  data for each metal  individually and  for the mixture.
 The  first option leaves the possibility  that one of  the metals  is
 antagonistic  towards  another  so  that  the toxicity of the mixture
 would increase  if the metal  causing  the  antagonism were  not
 present.

                                135

-------
 Multiple-Discharge Situations

 Because the National Toxics Rule (NTR)  incorporated WERs into the
 aquatic life criteria for some metals,  it might be envisioned
 that more than one criterion could apply to a metal at a site if
 different investigators obtained different WERs for the same
 metal at the site.  In -jurisdictions subnect to the NTR,  as well
 as in all other -Jurisdictions. EPA intends that there should be
 no. more than one criterion for a pollutant at a point in a body
 pf water.  Thus whenever a site-specific criterion is to be
 derived using a WER at a site at which more than one discharger
 has permit limits.for the same metal,  it is important that all
 dischargers work together with the  appropriate regulatory
 authority^to develop a workplan that is designed to derive a
 site-specific criterion that adequately protects the entire site.

 Method 2 is ideally suited for taking into account more than one
 discharger.

 Method 1 is straightforward if the  dischargers are sufficiently
 far downstream of each other that the  stream can be divided into
 a  separate site for each discharger.  Method 1 can also be fairly
 straightforward if the WERs are additive,  but it will be  complex
 if the WERs are not additive.   Deciding whether to use a
 simulated downstream water or an actual downstream water  can be
 difficult in a flowing-water multiple-discharge situation.   Use
 of actual downstream water can be complicated by the  existence of
 multiple mixing zones and plumes and by the  possibility of
 varying discharge schedules;  these  same problems exist, however,
 if effluents from two or more discharges are used to  prepare
 simulated downstream water.   Dealing with a  multiple-discharge
 situation is much easier if the WERs are additive,  and use of
 simulated downstream water is the best  way to determine whether
 the WERs are additive.   Taking into  account  all  effluents  will
 take  into account synergism,  antagonism,  and additivity.   If one
 of the discharges stops  or is  modified  substantially,  however,  it
 will  usually be necessary to  determine  a new WER,  except possibly
 if the metal being discharged is refractory.   Situations
 concerning intermittent  and batch discharges  need  to  be handled
 on a  case-by-case basis.
Special Flowing-Water Situations

Method 1 is intended to apply not only to ordinary rivers and
streams but also to streams that some people might consider
11 special", such as streams whose design flows are zero and
streams that some state and/or federal agencies might refer to as
11 effluent-dependent" , "habitat-creating" ,  "effluent-dominated",
etc.  (Due to differences between agencies,  some streams whose
design flows are zero are not considered "effluent-dependent",

                               136

-------
etc., and some "effluent-dependent" streams have design.flows
that are greater than zero.)  The application of Method 1 to
these kinds of streams has the following implications:
1. If the design flow is zero, at least some WERs ought to be
   determined in 100% effluent.
2. If thunderstorms, etc., occasionally dilute the effluent
   substantially, at least one WER should be determined in
   diluted effluent to assess whether dilution by rainwater might
   result in underprotection by decreasing the WER faster than it
   decreases the concentration of the metal.  This might occur,
   for example, if rainfall reduces hardness, alkalinity, and pH
   substantially.  This might not be a concern if the WER
   demonstrates a substantial margin of safety.
3. If the site-specific criterion is substantially higher than
   the national criterion, there should be increased concern
   about the fate of the metal that has reduced or no toxicity.
   Even if the WER demonstrates a substantial margin of safety
    (e.g., if the site-specific criterion is three times the
   national criterion, but the experimentally determined WER is
   11), it might be desirable to study the fate of the metal.
4. If the stream merges with another body of water and a site-
   specific criterion is desired for the merged waters, another
   WER needs to be determined for the mixture of the waters.
5. Whether WET testing is required is not a WER issue, although
   WET testing might be a condition for determining and/or using.
   a WER.
6. A concern about what species should be present and/or
   protected in a stream is a beneficial-use issue, not a WER
   issue, although resolution of this issue might affect what
   species should be used if a WER is determined.   (If the
   Recalculation Procedure  is used, determining what species
   should be present and/or protected is obviously important.)
7. Human health and wildlife criteria and other issues might
   restrict an effluent more than an aquatic life criterion.
Although there are no scientific reasons why "effluent-
dependent", etc., streams and streams whose design flows are zero
should be sub-j-ect to different guidance than other streams, a
regulatory decision  (for example, see 40 CFR 131) might require
or allow some or all such streams to be subject to different
guidance.  For example, it  might be decided on the basis of a  use
attainability analysis that one or more constructed streams do
not  have to comply with usual aquatic life criteria because it is
decided that the water quality in  such streams does not need to
protect sensitive aiquatic species.  Such a decision might _
eliminate any  further concern  for  site-specific aquatic  life
criteria and/or  for WET testing for such streams.  The water
quality might be unacceptable  for  other reasons, however.

In  addition to its  use with rivers and streams, ,Method 1  is also
appropriate for,  determining cmcWERs that are applicable  to near-
field  effects  of discharges into large bodies  of fresh or  salt
water, such as an ocean or  a  large lake, reservoir, or estuary:

                               137

-------
 a. The near-field effects of a pipe that extends far into a, large
    body of fresh or salt .water that has a current,  such as "an
    ocean, can probably best be treated the same as a single
    discharge into a flowing stream.  For example,  if a mixing
    zone is defined, the concentration of effluent at the edge of
    the mixing zone might be used to define how to prepare a
    simulated site water.  A dye dispersion study (Kilpatrick
    1992)  might be useful, but a dilution model (U.S. EPA 1993)  is
    likely to be a more cost-effective way of obtaining
    information concerning the amount of dilution at the edge of
    the mixing zone.
 b. The near-field effects of a single discharge that is near a
    shore of a large body of fresh or salt water can also probably
    best be treated the same as a single discharge  into a flowing
    stream, especially if there is a definite plume  and a defined
    mixing zone.   The potential point of impact of near-field
    effects will often be an embayment,  bayou,  or estuary that is
    a nursery for fish and invertebrates and/or contains
    commercially important shellfish beds.   Because  of their
    importance,  these areas should receive special consideration
    in the determination and use of a WER,  taking into account
    sources of water and discharges,  mixing patterns,  and currents
    (and tides in coastal areas).   The current  and flushing
    patterns in estuaries can result in increased pollutant
    concentrations in confined embayments  and at the terminal  up-
    gradient portion of the estuary due to poor tidal flushing and
    exchange.   Dye dispersion studies (Kilpatrick 1992)  can be
    used to determine the spatial  concentration of the effluent  in
    the  receiving water,  but  dilution models (U.S. EPA 1993) might
    not  be sufficiently accurate to be useful.   Dye  studies of
    discharges_in near-shore  tidal areas are especially complex.
    Dye  injection into  the discharge  should occur over at  least
    one, and preferably two or three,  complete  tidal  cycles;
    subsequent dispersion patterns should be monitored in  the
    ambient water on consecutive tidal  cycles using  an intensive
    sampling regime  over time,  location, and depth.   Information
    concerning dispersion and the  community at  risk  can  be  used to
    define  the appropriate mixing  zone(s),  which might be used to
    define  how to prepare simulated site water.


References

Kilpatrick, F.A.  1992.   Simulation  of  Soluble Waste Transport
and Buildup in Surface Waters Using  Tracers.  Open-File Report
92-457.  U.S. Geological  Survey,  Books  and  Open-File Reports, Box
25425, Federal Center, Denver,  CO 80225.

U.S. EPA.  1993.  Dilution Models  for Effluent Discharges.
Second Edition.  EPA/600/R-93/139.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.


                               138

-------
Appendix G: Additivity and the Two Components of a WER Determined
            Using Downstream Water


The Concept of Additivitv of WERs

In theory, whenever samples of effluent and upstream water are
taken, determination, of a WER in 100 % effluent would quantify
the effluent WER  (eWER) and determination of a WER in 100 %
upstream water would, quantify the upstream WER  (uWER) ;
determination of WERs in known mixtures of the two samples would
demonstrate whether the eWER and the uWER are additive.  For
example, if eWER =40, uWER =5, and the two WERs are additive,  a
mixture of 20 % effluent and 80 % upstream water would give a WER
of 12, except possibly for experimental variation, because:

      2Q(eWER) + BO(UWER)  =  20(40) + 80(5) = 800  + 400 =  1200  = 12  _
      - 100               100          100      100

Strict additivity  of an eWER and  an uWER will probably be rare
because one or  both WERs will probably consist  of a portion  that
is additive and a  portion that  is not.  The  portions  of  the  eWER
and uWER  that are  due  to refractory metal will  be strictly
additive,  because  a change  in water quality  will not  make the
metal more or less toxic.   In  contrast, metal that  is nontoxic
because it is completed by  a complexing agent such  as EDTA will
not be  strictly additive because  the  % uncomplexed  will  decrease
as the  solution is diluted;  the amount of  change in the  %
uncomplexed will  usually be small and will -depend on the
concentration  and the  binding  constant of  the complexing agent
 (see  Appendix D) .  Whether  the nonrefractory portions of the uWER
and eWER  are additive  will  probably also  depend on  the
differences  between  the water  quality characteristics of the
effluent  and the  upstream water,  because  these  will determine the
water quality  characteristics  of the downstream water.   If,  for
example,  85  %  of  the eWER and 30 % of the uWER are  due to
refractory metal,  the WER obtained in the mixture of 20  %
effluent  and 80 % upstream water could range from 8 to 12.   The
WER of 8  would be obtained if the only portions of  the eWER and
uWER that are additive are those due to refractory metal,
because :

    20(0 85) (eWER)  + 80 (0 . 30) (uWER) = 20(0.85) (40) + 80(0.30) (5) a  Q _
      -  "
                 100
 The WER could be as high as 12 depending on the percentages of
 the other portions of the WERs that are also additive.  Even if
 the eWER and uWER are not strictly additive, the concept of
 additivity of WERs can be useful insofar as. the eWER and uWER are
 partially additive, i.e., insofar as a portion of at least one of
 the WERs is additive.  In the example given above, the WER
 determined using downstream water that consisted of 20 % effluent
                                 139

-------
  and _ 80  % upstream water would be  12  if  the  eWER and uWER were
  SoXfSio   f^r1™^''  thS  downstream WER would be less than 12  if
  the eWER and uWER were  partially  additive.


  The Importance of Additivity
 ,«                  of additivity.of WERs can be demonstrated
 using the effluent and upstream water that were used above   To
 simplify this illustration, the acute-chronic ratio will be
 assumed to be large, and the eWER of 40 and the uWER of 5 will be
 assumed to be cccWERs that will be assumed to be due to
 refractory metal and will therefore be strictly additive   In
 addition, the complete -mix downstream water at design- flow
 conditions will be assumed to be 20 % effluent and 80 % upstream
 Because the eWER and the uWER are cccWERs and are strictly
 additive, _ this metal will cause neither acute nor chronic
 toxicity in downstream water if (a)  the concentration of metal in
 tne effluent is less than 40 times the CCC and (b)  the
 ?SnC^rat*°n^f ""f^1 in the uPstream water is less than 5 times
 the CCC.   As the effluent is diluted by mixing with upstream
 water,  both the eWER and the concentration of metal will be
 diluted simultaneously; proportional dilution of the metal and
 the
-------
of additivity that exists.  It would be more difficult to take
into account the portions of the eWER and uWER that are not
additive.

The concept of additivity becomes unimportant when the ratios,
concentrations of the metals, or WERs are very different.  For
example, if eWER = 40, uWER = 5, and they are additive  a mixture
of 1 % effluent and 99 % upstream water would have a WER of 5.35.
Given the reproducibility of toxicity tests and WERs, it would be
extremely difficult to distinguish a WER of 5 from a WER of 5.35.
In cases of extreme dilution, rather than experimentally _   _  _
determining a WER, it is probably acceptable to use the limiting
WER of 5 or to calculate a WER  if additivity has been
demonstrated.

Traditionally it has been believed that it is environmentally
conservative to use a WER determined in upstream water  (i.e., the
uWER) to derive a site-specific criterion that applies downstream
 (i e   that applies to areas that contain effluent).  This belief
is'probably based on the  assumption that a larger WER would be
obtained in downstream water that contains effluent, but the
belief could also be based on the assumption that the uWER  is
additive   It is possible that  in some cases neither assumption
is true,'which means that using a uWER to derive a  downstream
site-specific criterion might result in underprotection.   It
seems likely, however, that WERs determined using downstream
water will usually be at  least  as large as the uWER.

Several  kinds of  concerns about the use of WERs are actually
concerns about  additivity:                        .    ,,.+..„  <_,_,
1. Do WERs need to be determined at higher flows in addition  to
   being determined  at design  flow?
   Do WERs need to be determined when  two bodies of water  mix? _
   Do WERs need to be determined for each additional effluent in
2

   a multiple-discharge situation.
In each case, the best use of resources might be to test for
additivity of WERs.


Mixing Zones

In the example presented above, there would be no need_for a
regulatory mixing zone with a reduced level of protection if:
1. The eWER  is always 40 and the concentration of the metal in
   100 % effluent is always less than 40 mg/L.
2. The uWER  is always 5 and the concentration of the metal in 100
   % upstream water is always less than 5 mg/L.
3. The WERs  are strictly additive.
If  however, the concentration exceeded 40 mg/L in 100 -s
effluent, but there is some assimilative capacity in the_upstream
water  a regulatory mixing zone would be needed if the discharge
were to be allowed to utilize some or all of the assimilative
                                141

-------
 capacity.  The concept of additivity of WERs can be used to
 calculate the maximum allowed concentration of the metal in the
 effluent if the eWER and the uWER are strictly additive.

 If the concentration of metal in the upstream water never exceeds
 0.8 mg/L, the discharger might want to determine how much above
 40 mg/L the concentration could be in 100 % effluent.  If,  for
 example, the downstream water at the edge of the chronic mixing
 zone under design-flow conditions consists of 70 % effluent and
 30' % upstream water, the WER that would apply at the edge of the
 mixing zone would be:

        7 0 (eWER) + 3 0 (uWER) = 70(40) + 30(5) = 2800 + 150
               100               100           100'

 Therefore,  the maximum concentration allowed at this point  would
 be 29.5 mg/L.   If the concentration of the metal in the upstream
 water was 0.8  mg/L,  the maximum concentration allowed in 100 %
 effluent would be 41.8 mg/L because:

      70(41.8 mg/L) + 30(0.8 mg/L) _ 2926 mg/L + 24 mg/L  on r  .
                 100                     1^0	 =29.5 mg/L .

 Because the^eWER is  40,  if the concentration of the metal in 100
 %  effluent  is  41.8 mg/L,  there would be chronic toxicity inside
 the chronic mixing zone.   If the concentration in 100 % effluent
 is greater  than 41.8 mg/L,  there would be  chronic toxicity  past
 the edge of the chronic mixing zone.   Thus even if the eWER and
 the uWER are taken into account  and  they are assumed to be
 completely  additive, a mixing zone is necessary if the
 assimilative capacity of the upstream water  is  used to allow
 discharge of more metal.

 If the complete-mix  downstream water  consists  of  20 % effluent
 and 80 % upstream water at  design flow,  the  complete-mix  WER
 would be 12  as  calculated above.  The complete-mix approach  to
 determining and using downstream WERs would  allow a maximum
 concentration of  12  mg/L at  the  edge  of  the  chronic mixing  zone,
 whereas  the  alternative  approach resulted  in a  maximum allowed
 concentration of  29.5  mg/L.   The complete-mix approach would
 allow a  maximum concentration of 16.8  mg/L in the  effluent
 because:

      70 (16 . 8 mg/L) +  30(0.8 mg/L) _ 1176 mg/L + 24 mg/L   „ „   ,
                 100                      loo	  = 12 mg/L  •

 In this  example,  the complete-mix approach limits  the
 concentration of  the metal in the effluent to 16.8  mg/L,  even
 though it^is known that as long  as the concentration  in 100  %
 effluent is  less  than  40 mg/L, chronic toxicity will not  occur
 inside or outside the mixing  zone.  If the WER of  12  is used to
derive a site-specific CCC of 12 mg/L  that is applied  to  a site
                               142

-------
that starts at the edge of the chronic mixing zone and extends
all the way across the stream, there would be overprotection at
the edge of the chronic mixing zone  (because the maximum allowed
concentration is 12 mg/L, but a concentration of 29.5 mg/L will
not cause chronic toxicity), whereas there would be
underprotection on the other side of the stream  (because the
maximum allowed concentration is 12 mg/L, but concentrations
above 5 mg/L can cause chronic toxicity.)


The Experimental Determination of Additivitv

Experimental variation makes it difficult to quantify additivity
without determining a large number of WERs, but the advantages of
demonstrating additivity might be sufficient to make it worth the
effort.  It should be possible to decide whether the eWER and
uWER are strictly additive based on  determination of the eWER in
100 % effluent, determination of the uWER in 100 % upstream
water, and determination of WERs in  1:3, 1:1, and 3:1 mixtures of
the effluent and upstream water, i.e., determination of WERs in
100, 75, 50, 25, and  0 % effluent.   Validating models of partial
additivity and/or interactions will  probably require
determination of more WERs and more  sophisticated data analysis
 (see, for example, Broderius  1991).

In some cases chemical measurements  or manipulations might help
demonstrate that at  least  some portion of the eWER and/or the
uWER is additive:
1.  If the difference  between  the dissolved  WER and the total
    recoverable  WER  is explained by the difference between the
    dissolved  and total recoverable concentrations, the difference
    is probably  due  to particulate refractory metal.
2.  If the WERs  in different  samples  of the  effluent  correlate
    with the  concentration of  metal  in the effluent,  all, or
    nearly  all,  of the metal  in the effluent is probably  nontoxic.
3.  A WER that  remains constant as  the pH is lowered  to  6.5  and
    raised  to  9.0 is probably additive.
The concentration of refractory metal is likely  to be  low  in
upstream water except during events  that increase TSS  and/or TOG;
 the concentration of refractory metal is more  likely to  be
 substantial  in effluents.   Chemical  measurements might  help
 identify the percentages of the eWER and the uWER that  are  due to
 refractory metal,  but again experimental variation will  limit the
 usefulness of chemical measurements  when concentrations  are low.


 Summary

, The distinction between the two components of a WER determined
 using downstream water has the following implications:
 1. The magnitude of a WER determined using downstream water will
    usually depend on the percent effluent in the sample.
                                143

-------
    Insofar as  the eWER and uWER are  additive,  the magnitude  of  a
    downstream  WER can be  calculated  from  the eWER, the uWER,  and
    the  ratio of effluent  and upstream water in the downstream
    water.
    The  derivation and implementation of site-specific criteria
    should  ensure that each component is applied only where it
    occurs.
    a. Underprotection will occur if, for  example, any portion of
      the  eWER is applied to an area of a stream where the
      effluent does not occur.
    b. Overprotection  will occur if,  for example, an unnecessarily
      small  portion of the eWER is applied to  an area of a stream
      where  the effluent  occurs.
    Even though the concentration of  metal might be higher than  a
    criterion in both  a regulatory mixing  zone  and a plume, a
    reduced level of protection  is allowed in a mixing zone,
    whereas a reduced  level of protection  is not allowed in the
    portion of  a plume that is not inside  a mixing zone.
    Regulatory  mixing  zones are  necessary  if, and only if, a
    discharger  wants to make use  of the assimilative capacity  of
    the  upstream water.
    It might  be cost-effective to  quantify the  eWER and uWER,
    determine the extent of additivity,  study variability over
    time, and then decide  how to  regulate the metal in the
    effluent.
Reference

Broderius, S.J.  1991.  Modeling the Joint Toxicity of
Xenobiotics to Aquatic Organisms: Basic Concepts and Approaches.
In: Aquatic Toxicology and Risk Assessment: Fourteenth Volume.
(M.A. Mayes and M.G. Barren, eds.)   ASTM STP 1124.  American
Society for Testing and Materials,  Philadelphia, PA.  pp.  107-
127.
                               144

-------
Appendix H: Special Considerations Concerning the Determination
            of WERs with Saltwater Species


1  The test organisms should be compatible with the salinity of
   the site water, and the salinity of the laboratory dilution
   water should match that of the site water.  Low-salinity
   stenohaline organisms should not be tested in high-salinity
   water, whereas high-salinity stenohaline organisms should not
   be tested in low-salinity water; it is not known, however,
   whether an incompatibility will affect the WER.  If the   _
   community to be protected principally consists of euryhaline
   species, the primary and secondary toxicity tests should use
   the euryhaline species suggested in Appendix I  (or
   taxonomically related species) whenever possible, although the
   range of tolerance of the organisms should be checked.
   a  When Method 1 is used to determine cmcWERs at saltwater
      sites, the selection of test organisms is complicated by
      the fact that most effluents are freshwater and they are
      discharged into salt waters having a wide range of
      salinities.  Some state water quality  standards require a
      permittee to meet an LC50 or other toxicity limit at the
      end of the pipe using a freshwater species.  However,  the
      intent of the site-specific and national water quality
      criteria program is to protect the communities that are at
      risk,  Therefore, freshwater species should not be used
      when WERs are determined for saltwater sites unless such
      freshwater  species  (or closely related species) are in the
      community at risk.  The addition of a  small amount of  brine
      and  the use of  salt-tolerant freshwater  species is
      inappropriate for the same  reason.  The  addition of a  large
      amount of brine and the use of saltwater species that_  _
      require high salinity should also be avoided when  salinity
      is likely to affect the toxicity of the  metal.  Salinities
      that  are acceptable for testing euryhaline  species can be
      produced by dilution of effluent with  sea water and/or
      addition of a  commercial  sea  salt or a brine  that  is
      prepared by evaporating  site water; small  increases  in
       salinity  are  acceptable because the effluent  will  be
      diluted with salt  water wherever  the communities at  risk
       are exposed in the  real world.  Only as  a  last resort
       should freshwater species  that  tolerate  low levels of
       salinity and are sensitive to  metals,  such as Daphnia  magna
       and Hyalella azteca,  be  used.
    b. When Method 2  is used to  determine  cccWERs at saltwater
       ^ i t s s *
       1) If'the site water is  low-salinity but all the  sensitive
          test organisms are high-salinity stenohaline  organisms,
          a commercial sea salt or a brine that is prepared by
          evaporating site water may be added in order to increase
          the salinity to the minimum level that is acceptable to
          the test organisms;  it should be determined whether the

                                145

-------
                                                       I
       salt or brine reduces the toxicity of the metal and thereby
       increases the WER.                                         *
       2)  If the site water is high-salinity,  selecting test
          organisms should not be difficult because many  of the
          sensitive test organisms are compatible with high-
          salinity water.

 2.  It  is  especially important to consider the availability of
    test organisms when saltwater species are  to be used,  because
    •many of the commonly used saltwater species are not cultured
    and are only available seasonally.

 3.  Many standard published methodologies for  tests with  saltwater
    species recommend filtration of dilution water,  effluent,
    and/or test solutions  through a 37-jim sieve or  screen  to
    remove predators.   Site water should be  filtered only  if
    predators  are observed in the sample of  the water  because
    filtration might  affect toxicity.   Although recommended in
    some test  methodologies,  ultraviolet treatment  is  often not
    needed and generally should  be avoided.

4.  If  a natural  salt  water is to be used as the  laboratory
    dilution water, the  samples  should  probably be  collected at
    slack  high tide  (± 2 hours).   Unless  there is stratification,
    samples should probably be taken at  mid-depth;  however, if a
    water  quality characteristic,  such  as  salinity  or TSS,  is
    important,  the vertical  and  horizontal definition of the point
    of  sampling might  be important.  A  conductivity meter,
    salinometer,  and/or transmissometer might be useful for
    determining where  and at what  depth  to collect the laboratory
    dilution water; any measurement of turbidity will probably
    correlate with TSS.

5. The salinity of the laboratory dilution water should be within
   ±<10 percent or 2 mg/L  (whichever is higher) of that of the
   site water.
                               146

-------
Appendix I: Suggested Toxicity Tests for Determining WERs for
            Metals


Selecting primary and secondary toxicity tests for determining
WERs for metals should take into account the following:
1. WERs determined with more sensitive tests are likely to be
   larger than WERs determined with less sensitive tests  (see
   Appendix D).  Criteria are derived to protect sensitive
   species and so WERs should be derived to be appropriate for
   sensitive species.  The appropriate regulatory authority will
   probably accept WERs derived with less sensitive tests because
   such WERs are likely to provide at least as much protection as
   WERs determined with more sensitive tests.
2. The species used in the primary and secondary tests must be in
   different orders and should include a vertebrate and an
   invertebrate.
3. The test organism  (i.e., species and life stage) should be
   readily available throughout the testing period.
4. The chances of the test being successful should be high.
5. The relative sensitivities of test organisms vary
   substantially from metal to metal.
6. The sensitivity of a species to a metal usually depends on
   both the life stage and kind of test used.
7. Water quality characteristics might affect chronic toxicity
   differently than'they affect acute toxicity  (Spehar and
   Carlson 1984; Chapman, unpublished; Voyer and McGovern 1991).
8. The endpoint of the primary test in laboratory dilution water
   should be as close as possible  (but must not be below) the CMC
   or CCC to which the WER is to be applied; the endpoint of the
   secondary test should be as close as possible  (and should not
   be below) the CMC or CCC.
9. Designation of tests as acute and chronic has no bearing on
   whether they may be used to determine a cmcWER or a cccWER.
The  suggested toxicity tests should be considered, but the actual
selection should depend on the specific circumstances that apply
to a particular WER determination.

Regardless of whether test solutions are renewed when tests are
conducted for other purposes, if the concentrations of dissolved
metal and dissolved oxygen remain  acceptable when determining
WERs, tests whose duration is not  longer than 48 hours may be
static tests, whereas tests whose  duration is longer than 48
hours must be renewal tests.  If the concentration of dissolved
metal and/or  the concentration of  dissolved oxygen does not
remain acceptable, the test solutions must be renewed every 24
hours.   If one test  in a pair of side-by-side tests is a  renewal
test, both of the tests must be renewed on the  same schedule.

Appendix H should be  read  if WERs  are to be determined with
saltwater  species.


                               147

-------
      Suggested Tests1 for Determining cmcWERs and cccWERs2
         (Concentrations are to be measured in all tests.)
  Metal
Water3
   cmcWERs4
                                                   cccWERs4
Aluminum

Arsenic(III)


Cadmium


Chrom(III)
 FW

 FW
 SW

 FW
 SW

 FW
DA

DA
BM

DA
MY

GM
   X

   GM
   CR

SL5  or  FM
   CR

SL or DA
CDC

CDC
MYC

CDC
MYC

FMC
 X

FMC
BM

FMC
 X

CDC
Chrom(VI)

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Silver

Zinc

FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
DA
MY
DA
BM
DA
BM
DA
MY
DA
MY
Y
CR
DA
BM
DA
BM
GM
NE
FM or GM
AR
GM
MYC
GM
BM
FX
BM
Y
MYC
FMC
CR
FM
MY
CDC
MYC
CDC
BMC
CDC
MYC
Y
Y
CDC
MYC
Y
MYC
CDC
MYC
CDC
MYC
GM
NEC
FM
AR
X
X
Y
Y
FMC
BMC
Y
X
l
FMC
BMC
FMC
BMC
   The  description of a test specifies  not  only the  test  species
   and  the duration of the test  but  also  the  life  stage of  the
   species and the adverse effect(s)  on which the  endpoint  is to
   be based.

   Some tests  that are sensitive and are  used in criteria
   documents are  not suggested here  because the chances of  the
   test organisms being available and the test being successful
   might be low.   Such tests may be  used  if desired.
                               148

-------
3   FW = Fresh Water; SW = Salt Water.

4   Two-letter codes are used for acute tests, whereas codes for
   chronic tests contain three letters and end in "C".  One-
   letter codes are used for comments.

5   In acute tests on cadmium with salmonids, substantial numbers
   of fish usually die after 72 hours.  Also, the fish are
   sensitive to disturbance, and it is sometimes difficult to
   determine whether a fish is dead or immobilized.
ACUTE TESTS

AR. A 48-hr EC50 based on mortality and abnormal development from
    a static test with embryos and larvae of sea urchins of a
    species in the genus Arbacia  (ASTM 1993a) or of the species
    Stronavlocentrotus purpuratus  (Chapman 1992).

BM. A 48-hr EC50 based on mortality and abnormal larval
    development from  a static test with embryos and larvae of  a
    species in one of four genera  (Crassostrea, Mulinia, Mytilus,
    Mercenaria) of bivalve molluscs  (ASTM 1993b).

CR A 48-hr EC50  (or  LC50 if there is no immobilization) from  a
    static test with  Acartia or larvae of a.  saltwater  crustacean;
    if molting does not occur within the first 48  hours, renew at
    48 hours and continue the test to 96 hours  (ASTM 1993a).

DA. A 48-hr EC50  (or  LC50 if there is no immobilization) from  a
    static test with  a species in  one of three genera'
     (Ceriodaphnia. IJaphnia, Simocephalus) in the family Daphnidae
     (U.S. EPA 1993a;  ASTM 1993a) .

FM A 48-hr LC50 from a  static test  at 25°C  with fathead minnow
     (Pimephales promelas) larvae  that are 1  to  24  hours old  (ASTM
    1993a; U.S. EPA  1993a).  The  embryos must be hatched  in  the
    laboratory  dilution  water, except that organisms to be used
    in  the site water may be hatched in  the  site water.   The
    larvae must not  be  fed  before or during  the  test and  at  least
    90  percent must  survive in  laboratory dilution water  for at
    least six days after hatch.
        Note:  The  following  48-hr LCSOs were  obtained at a
              hardness of 50 mg/L with fathead minnow larvae  that
              were  1  to  24  hours  old.   The metal was measured
              using the  total recoverable procedure (Peltier
              1993) :
                           Metal               LC50
                          Cadmium                13.87
                          Copper                  6.33
                          Zinc                  100.95

                                149

-------
 FX.  A^96-hr LC50 from a renewal test (renew at 48 hours)  at 25°C
     with fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)  larvae that are 1
     to 24 hours old (ASTM 1993a;  U.S.  EPA 1993a).  The embryos
     must be hatched in the laboratory dilution water,  except that
     organisms to be used in the site water may be hatched in the
     site water.  The larvae must not be fed before or during the
     test and at least 90 percent must survive  in. laboratory
     dilution water for at least six days after hatch.
        Note: A 96-hr LC50 of 188.14 /xg/L was obtained  at  a
              hardness of 50 mg/L in a test on  nickel with fathead,
              minnow larvae that were 1 to 24 hours old.   The
              metal was measured using the total recoverable
              procedure (Peltier 1993).   A 96-hr LC50 is used for
              nickel because substantial mortality occurred after
              48 hours in the test on nickel, but  not in the tests
              on cadmium,  copper,  and zinc.

 GM.  A 96-hr EC50 (or LC50 if there is  no immobilization)  from a
     renewal test (renew at 48 hours)  with a species in the genus
     Qammarus (ASTM 1993a).

 MY.  A 96-hr EC50 (or LC50 if there is  no immobilization)  from a
     renewal test (renew at 48 hours) with a species in one of two
     genera  (Mvsidopsis.  Holmesimysis [nee Acanthomysis 1 )  in the
     family  Mysidae (U.S.  EPA 1993a;  ASTM 1993a).   Feeding is
     required during all  acute and chronic tests with mysids;  for
     determining WERs,  mysids should be  fed four hours  before the
     renewal at  48  hours  and minimally  on the non-renewal  days.
                                            i   . i" "     |i.
NE.  A 96-hr LC50 from a  renewal test (renew at 48  hours)  using
     juvenile or adult  polychaetes in the genus Nereidae (ASTM
     1993a).

SL.  A 96-hr EC50 (or LC50  if there is no immobilization)  from a
     renewal  test (renew  at  48  hours) with a species  in one  of two
     genera  (Oncorhynchus,  Salmo)  in  the  family Salmonidae  (ASTM
     1993a).
CHRONIC TESTS

BMC. A 7-day IC25 from a survival and development renewal test
     (renew every 48 hours) with a species of bivalve mollusc,
     such as a species in the genus Mulinia.  One such test has
     been described by Burgess et al. 1992.   [Note: When
     determining WERs, sediment must not be in the test chamber.]
     [Note: This test has not been widely used.]

CDC. A 7-day IC25 based on reduction in survival and/or
     reproduction in a renewal test with a species in the genus
     Ceriodaphnia in the family Daphnidae  (U.S. EPA 1993b).  The

                               150

-------
     test solutions must be renewed every 48 hours.  (A 21-day
     life-cycle test with Daphnia maana is also acceptable.)

FMC. A 7-day IC25 from a survival and growth renewal test (renew
     every 48 hours) with larvae (s 48-hr old) of the fathead
     minnow  (Pimephales promelas) (U.S. EPA 1993b).  When
     determining WERs, the fish must be fed four hours before
     each renewal and minimally during the non-renewal days.

MYC. A 7-day IC25 based on reduction in survival, growth, and/or
     reproduction in a renewal test with a species in one of two
     genera  (Mysidopsis. Holmesimysis  [nee Acanthomysis]) in the
     family Mysidae  (U.S. EPA 1993c).   Mysids must be fed during
     all acute and chronic tests; when determining WERs-, they
     must be fed four hours before each renewal.   The test
     solutions must be renewed every 24 hours.

NEC. A 20-day IC25 from a survival and growth renewal test  (renew
     every 48 hours) with a species in the genus Neanthes (Johns
     et al. 1991).   [Note: When determining WERs, sediment must
     not be in the test chamber.]   [Note: This test has not been
     widely used.]
COMMENTS

X. Another sensitive test cannot be identified at this time, and
   so other tests used in the criteria document should be
   considered.

Y. Because neither the CCCs for mercury nor the freshwater
   criterion for selenium is based on laboratory data concerning
   toxicity to aquatic life, they cannot be adjusted using a WER,
REFERENCES

ASTM.   1993a.  Guide  for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with
Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.  Standard E729.
American Society  for  Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM.   1993b.  Guide  for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests
Starting with  Embryos of Four  Species of Saltwater Bivalve
Molluscs.   Standard E724.  American Society for Testing and
Materials,  Philadelphia, PA.

Burgess, R., G. Morrison,  and  S. Rego.  1992.  Standard Operating
Procedure  for  7-day Static Sublethal Toxicity  Tests  for Mulinia
lateralis.  U.S.  EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Narragansett,  RI.

                                151

-------
 Chapman,  G.A.   1992.   Sea Urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus)
 Fertilization Test Method.  U.S. EPA,  Newport,  OR.

 Johns,  D.M.,  R.A.  Pastorok,  and T.C.  Ginn.   1991.   A Sublethal
 Sediment  Toxicity Test using Juvenile Neanthes  sp.
 (PolychaetarNereidae).  In:  Aquatic Toxicology  and  Risk
 Assessment:  Fourteenth Volume.   ASTM STP 1124.   (M.A.  Mayes and
 M.G.  Barren,  eds.)  American Society for Testing and Materials,
 Philadelphia,  PA.   pp. 280-293.

 Peltier,  W.H.   1993.   Memorandum to C.E.  Stephan.   October 19.

 Spehar, R.L.,  and  A.R. Carlson.   1984.   Derivation  of  Site-
 Specific  Water Quality Criteria  for Cadmium  and the St. Louis
 River Basin, Duluth, Minnesota.   Environ. Toxicol.  Chem.  3:651-
 665.

 U.S.  EPA.  1993a.   Methods for Measuring the Acute  Toxicity of
 Effluents and  Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
 Organisms.  Fourth Edition.   EPA/600/4-90/027F.  National
 Technical Information  Service, Springfield,  VA.

 U.S.  EPA.  1993b.   Short-term Methods  for Estimating the Chronic
 Toxicity  of Effluents  and Receiving Waters to Freshwater
 Organisms.  Third  Edition.   EPA/600/4-91/002.  National Technical
 Information Service, Springfield, VA.

 U.S.  EPA.  1993c.   Short-term Methods  for Estimating the Chronic
 Toxicity  of Effluents  and Receiving Waters to Marine and
 Estuarine Organisms.   Second Edition.  EPA/600/4-91/003.
National  Technical  Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Voyer, R.A.,  and D.G.  McGovern.   1991.  Influence of Constant and
Fluctuating Salinity on Responses of Mvsidopsis bahia Exposed to
Cadmium in a Life-Cycle Test.  Aquatic Toxicol.  19:215-230.
                               152

-------
Appendix J: Recommended Salts of Metals


The following  salts  are recommended for use when determining a
WER for the metal  listed.   If available,  a salt that meets
American Chemical  Society (ACS)  specifications for reagent-grade
should be used.


Aluminum
*Aluminum chloride 6-hydrate: A1C13«6H2O
 Aluminum sulfate  18-hydrate: A12 (SO4) 3»18H2O
 Aluminum potassium  sulfate 12-hydrate: A1K(SO4) 2»12H2O

Arsenic(III)
*Sodium arsenite:  NaAsO2

Arsenic(V)
 Sodium arsenate 7-hydrate,  dibasic: Na2HAs04»7H20

Cadmium
 Cadmium chloride  2. E>-hydrate: CdCl2»2.5H2O
 Cadmium sulfate hydrate:  3CdSO4«8H20

Chromium(III)
*Chromic chloride  6-hydrate  (Chromium chloride): CrCl3«6H2O
*Chromic nitrate 9-hydrate (Chromium nitrate): Cr (NO3) 3»9H2O
 Chromium potassium  sulfate 12-hydrate: CrK(SO4) 2*12H2O

Chromium(VI)
 Potassium  chromate:  K2CrO4
 Potassium  dichromate:   K2Cr2O7
*Sodium chromate 4-hydrate:  Na2CrO4«4H2O
 Sodium dichromate 2-hydrate:  Na2Cr207»2H2O

Copper
*Cupric chloride 2-hydrate (Copper chloride): CuCl2»2H20
 Cupric nitrate 2.5-hydrate  (Copper nitrate): Cu(NO3) 2»2.5H2O
 Cupric sulfate 5-hydrate (Copper sulfate): CuSO4»5H2O

Lead
*Lead chloride: PbCl2
 Lead nitrate: Pb(NO3)2

Mercury
 Mercuric chloride:  HgCl2
 Mercuric nitrate  monohydrate: Hg(NO3)2«H2O
 Mercuric sulfate: HgSO4
                                153

-------
Nickel
*Nickelous  chloride 6-hydrate (Nickel chloride) :  NiCl2«6H2O
*Nickelous  nitrate 6-hydrate (Nickel nitrate):  Ni (NO3) 2*6H20
 Nickelous  sulfate 6-hydrate (Nickel sulfate):  NiS04»6H2O

Selenium(IV)
*Sodium selenite  5-hydrate:  Na2SeO3«5H2O

Selenium(VI)
*Sodium selenate  10-hydrate:  Na2SeO4»10H2O

Silver
 Silver nitrate:  AgNO3
    (Even if acidified,  standards and samples containing silver
   must be  in  amber containers.)

Zinc
 Zinc chloride: ZnCl2
*Zinc nitrate  6-hydrate:  Zn(NO3) 2«6H2O
 Zinc sulfate  7-hydrate:  ZnSO4»7H2O


*Note: ACS  reagent-grade  specifications  might not be available
       for  this salt.
No salt should be used until  information  concerning the safety
and handling of that  salt has been  read.
                               154

-------
        APPENDIX M
             Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




          SECOND EDITION

-------
,'*> I	'ti'ivi'1* (	11   M" f ?«
   • ••:•' ";|:   •••'«	' i •: ! ii1;,"     fi"'	s;{s»"	w
  	 I''!-.1. •*;,:,-;:-,,'!,,!« ill!  .iiiisl  1  KJ--'l::n	;;;„	ill  it'llii

-------
          APPENDIX N
     Integrated Risk Information System
           Background Paper                j>

                                        X
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------



-------
      Integrated Risk Information System
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
     Office of Research and Development
FEBRUARY, 1993
VERSION 1.0

-------

-------
                  IRIS Background Paper
     On February 25, 1993, a FEDERAL REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490) was
published on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This background paper is
a companion piece to that notice.
                           Table of Contents

      Introduction	1

      General Background 	1

      Data Base Contents	3
           Noncancer Health Effects Information  	3
           Cancer Effects Health Information	4
           Scientific Contacts	4
           Bibliographies 	5
           Supplementary Information	5

      Use and Development of Health Hazard Information	5

      Management	6

      Oversight  	6

      Information Development Process	6
           CRAVE	6
           RfD/RfC  	8

      Methods and Guidelines	10

      Public Involvement	11

                                    fs

                 For further information on IRIS, please contact:

                           IRIS User Support
                 (Operated by Computer Sciences Corporation)
                    26 W. Martin Luther King Drive (MS-190)
                            Cincinnati, OH 45268

               Telephone (513) 569-7254  Facsimile (513) 569-7916

-------

-------
Introduction

      This background paper provides the history, purposes, and goals of the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and a detailed description of the current
processes used by the two Agency scientific work groups responsible for developing
the health hazard information in IRIS.  This background will help interested persons to
better understand the focus and contents of the companion FEDERAL REGISTER
notice.

      The February 25, 1993  FEDERAL REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490): (1)
announces the availability of this paper that describes IRIS, its contents, and the
current processes used by the two Agency work groups responsible for developing
IRIS information; (2) discusses an Agency activity to review IRIS processes and solicits
comments on this review; (3) highlights points in the current process where public
input, including information submissions, is encouraged; (4) describes how to access
IRIS; and (5) announces a new process to publish regularly a list of the substances
scheduled for IRIS work group review and to solicit pertinent data, studies, and
comments on these substances.
General Background

      IRIS is an EPA data base, updated monthly, containing Agency consensus
positions on the potential adverse human health effects of approximately 500 specific
substances.  It contains summaries of EPA qualitative and quantitative human health
information that support two of the four major steps of the risk assessment process
outlined in the National Research Council's (NRC) 1983 publication, "Risk Assessment
in the Federal Government: Managing the Process."

      The risk assessment process described in the 1983 NRC publication consists of
four major steps: hazard identification, dose-response evaluation, exposure
assessment,  and risk characterization. IRIS includes information in support of the first
two of those  steps, hazard identification and dose-response evaluation.  Hazard
identification  is the qualitative determination of how likely it is that a substance will
increase the  incidence  and/or severity of an adverse health effect. Dose-response
evaluation is  the quantitative relationship between the magnitude of the effect and the
dose inducing such an effect.  IRIS information supporting risk characterization
consists of brief statements on the quality of data and very general statements on
confidence in the dose-response evaluation.  IRIS consensus information does not
include exposure assessment information.  Combined with specific situational
exposure assessment information, the summary health  hazard information in IRIS may
be used as one source in evaluating potential public health risks of or from
environmental contaminants.

-------
        Many EPA program offices and program support offices, including the Office
 of Research and Development, both at Headquarters and in EPA's ten Regional
 offices, are involved in assessment activities in support of various legislative mandates.
 In the 1980s, as health risk assessment became a more widespread practice across
 Agency programs, the need became clear for greater consensus and consistency in
 the areas of hazard identification and dose-response assessment. It was determined
 that an internal process should be established for reaching  an Agency-wide judgment
 on the potential health effects of substances of common interest" to these offices, and
 a system .developed for communicating that Agency judgment to EPA risk assessors
 and risk managers.  These would provide the needed consistency and coordination.
 In 1986, two EPA work groups with representation from program offices involved in
 risk assessment were convened to carry out such an internal process to reach
 consensus Agency positions on a chemical-by-chemical basis.  In 1986, the IRIS data
 base was created for EPA staff as the official repository of that consensus information.

       On June 2, 1988, a FEDERAL REGISTER notice  (53 FR 20162-20164) of public
 availability of IRIS was published.  That notice described IRIS, the types of risk
 information it contains, and how to get access to the system.  It informed the public
 about the establishment of the IRIS Information Submission  Desk.  The submission
 desk was intended to provide opportunity for public input. The notice explained the
 procedures for submission of data or comments by interested parties on substances
 either on IRIS or scheduled for review by the work groups.  As stated in the June 1988
 notice, a list of the substances scheduled for work group review has been a separate
file on IRIS since it became publicly available.  It was hoped that users would submit
 pertinent information to the IRIS Information Submission Desk.  In fact, few users have
taken advantage of the opportunity to  submit data and comments.

      Therefore, data submission procedures are reiterated in the FEDERAL
 REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490) related to this paper and a list of the substances
scheduled for review by specific work groups is included. The data submission
procedures will be reprinted in the FEDERAL REGISTER every 6 months with a new or
revised list of substances scheduled for work group review.  For the latest status of
the substances scheduled for review, interested persons should first check the IRIS
data base itself or contact:

      IRIS User Support (Operated by Computer Sciences Corporation)
      U.S. EPA
      26 W. Martin Luther King Drive (MS-190)
      Cincinnati, OH 45268
      Telephone: (513) 569-7254 Facsimile: (513) 569-7916

-------
Data Base Contents

      The core of IRIS is the three consensus health hazard information summary
sections: the reference dose for noncancer health effects resulting from oral
exposure, the reference concentration for noncancer health effects resulting from
inhalation exposure, and the carcinogen assessment for both oral and inhalation
exposure. All of these terms are commonly used for judging the effects of lifetime
exposure to a given substance or  mixture.  Citations for the scientific methodologies
that are the basis for the consensus health hazard sections on IRIS are included on
page 10 of this paper.

      In addition, an IRIS substance file  may include supplemental information such
as summaries of health advisories, regulatory actions, and physical/chemical
properties.

Noncancer Health Effects Information

      An oral  reference dose (RfD)  is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps
an  order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is believed likely to be without an appreciable risk of certain
deleterious effects during a lifetime ("Reference Dose [RfD]; Description and Use in
Health Risk Assessment" Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 8:471-486, 1988).
RfDs are developed by an assessment method that assumes that there is a dose
threshold below which adverse effects will not occur.  An RfD,  which is expressed in
milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), is based on the  determination of a
critical effect from a review of all toxicity  data and a judgment of the necessary
uncertainty and modifying factors  based on a review of available data.  IRIS substance
files contain the following information pertaining to the oral RfD:  reference dose
summary tables, principal and supporting studies, uncertainty  and modifying factors
used in calculating the RfD, a statement of confidence in the RfD, EPA documentation
and review, EPA scientific contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.

       The inhalation reference concentration (RfC) is analogous to the oral RfD
 (Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation Concentrations, EPA/600/8-90/066A).
 It is also based on the assumption that thresholds exist for noncancer toxic effects.
The RfC considers toxic effects for both the respiratory system (portal-of-entry) and for
 effects peripheral to the respiratory  system (extra-respiratory). The inhalation RfC is
 expressed in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/cu.m). The RfC method departs from
 that used to determine the oral RfD primarily by the integration of the  anatomical and
 physiological dynamics of the respiratory system (i.e.,  portal-of-entry)  with the
 physicochemical properties of the substance or substances entering the system.
 Different dosimetric adjustments are made according to whether the substance is a
 particle or gas and whether the observed toxicity is respiratory or extra-respiratory.
 These  adjustments scale the concentration of the substance that causes an observed
 effect in laboratory animals (or in humans, when available from occupational
 epidemiology studies) to a human equivalent concentration for ambient exposures.

-------
 IRIS substance files contain the following inhalation RfC information: reference
 concentration summary tables, description of dosimetric adjustment, principal and
 supporting studies, uncertainty and modifying factors used to calculate the RfC, a
 statement of confidence in the RfC, EPA documentation  and review, EPA scientific
 contacts, and complete bibliographies for  references cited.

 Cancer Health Effects Information

       The carcinogen assessment of an IRIS substance file contains health hazard
 identification and dose-response assessments developed from procedures outlined in
 the EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992-43003, September
 24,1986). Each cancer assessment, as a rule,  is based on an Agency document that
 has received external peer review. The  hazard identification involves a judgment in the
 form of a weight-of-evidence classification  of the likelihood that the substance is a
 human carcinogen.  It includes the type of data used as  the basis of the classification.
 This judgment is made independently of considerations of the strength of the possible
 response. The dose-response assessment is a quantitative estimate of the potential
 activity or magnitude of a substance's carcinogenic effect, usually expressed as a
 cancer unit risk. A cancer unit risk is an upper-bound  estimate on the increased
 likelihood that an individual will develop cancer when exposed to a substance over a
 lifetime at a concentration of either 1  microgram per liter  (1 //g/L) in drinking water for
 oral exposure or 1 microgram  per cubic meter (1 //g/cu.m) in air for continuous
 inhalation exposure. Generally, a slope factor for dietary use is also given.  It is an
 upper-bound estimate of cancer risk for  humans per milligram of agent per kilogram of
 body weight per day.

       IRIS contains the following information in the cancer assessment section: EPA
 weight-of-evidence classification and its basis, a  summary of human carcinogenicity
 studies when available, a summary of animal carcinogenicity studies, a summary of
 other data supporting the classification, oral and/or inhalation quantitative estimates,
 dose-response data used to derive these estimates and the method of calculation,
 statements of confidence in magnitude of unit risk, documentation and review, EPA
 scientific contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.

 Scientific Contacts

       ft is important to note that in each of the three sections described above, EPA
 staff names and telephone numbers are  included as scientific contacts for further
 information. The Agency believes that the  inclusion of Agency scientific contacts able
to discuss the basis for the Agency's  position, has been very valuable. These
 individuals play a major role in  providing  public access to IRIS and a conduit for
valued public comment.

-------
Bibliographies

      IRIS contains full bibliographic citations for each substance file, directing the
user to the primary cited studies and pertinent scientific literature.  One of the major
intents of IRIS was to encourage users to evaluate the primary literature used to
develop the IRIS information in light of the assumptions and uncertainties underlying
the risk assessment process.

Supplementary Information

      In addition to the RfD, RfC, and carcinogenicity sections, IRIS substance files
may contain one or more of three supplementary information sections: a summary of
an Office of Water's Drinking Water Health Advisory, a summary of EPA regulatory
actions, and a summary of physical/chemical properties. The only purpose of these
supplemental sections is to serve as accessory information to the consensus health
hazard information. Since the primary intent of the IRIS data base is to communicate
EPA consensus health hazard information, these other sections are only included as
auxiliary material to provides a broader  profile of a substance and are never added until
at least one of the consensus health hazard sections described above (namely, the
RfD section, RfC section, or carcinogenicity section) is prepared and approved for final
inclusion on the data  base. These supplemental sections should not be used as the
sole or primary source of information on the current status of EPA substance-specific
regulations.
Use and Development of Health Hazard Information

      The type of substance-specific consensus health hazard information on IRIS
may become part of the supporting materials used to develop site-specific EPA health
hazard assessments. These assessments may in turn lead to EPA risk management
decisions, generally resulting in the formal Agency rulemaking process. This
rulemaking process often includes FEDERAL REGISTER publication of a proposed rule
where the public is encouraged to comment. These comments may be directed at
both the proposed  rule and the scientific basis of the decision, including information
obtained from IRIS  and thus offer a further opportunity for comment on the risk
information in the context of its use.

      The area of human health risk assessment has evolved over the past several
years.  As the risk assessment community has grown and the field itself has matured,
new approaches to the assessment and use of human health risk information have
been developed. The evolving nature of risk assessment has also resulted in changes
to IRIS. The development of methodologies such as those for the inhalation RfC
determination illustrates the ability of the IRIS information development process to
grow with the changing science. Areas of future growth may include  less-than-lifetime
risk information and developmental toxicity risk information and other  endpoint-specific
health hazard information.  Also, on several occasions, the information in IRIS has

-------
 been reevaluated and modified to reflect new information and approaches. New
 studies on individual substances are continually being conducted by Federal, private,
 and academic institutions and may have significant impact on IRIS information.  In
 those cases, the IRIS substance information is reevaluated in light of the new data;
 any changes resulting from that reevaluation are included on the system.
 Management of the Data Base

      The IRIS data base is managed and maintained by the Office of Health and
 Environmental Assessment (OHEA), Office of Research and Development (ORD).  IRIS
 is an Agency system primarily funded by OHEA with additional significant support from
 EPA program offices.
Oversight

      Oversight activities for IRIS are conducted by the IRIS Oversight Committee, a
subgroup of the Agency's Risk Assessment Council.  Committee membership consists
of senior Agency risk assessors. The main purpose of the IRIS Oversight Committee
is to serve as a forum for discussion and advice on significant scientific or science
policy issues involving IRIS.  The Council, which is  chaired by EPA's Deputy
Administrator, receives periodic status reports on IRIS and related work group
activities.
Information Development Process

      There are two EPA work groups, the Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification
Endeavor (CRAVE) and the Oral Reference Dose/Inhalation Reference Concentration
(RfD/RfC) Work Group, that develop consensus health hazard information for IRIS.
Each group consists of EPA scientists from a mix of pertinent disciplines and
represents intra-Agency membership. The work groups serve as the Agency's final
review for EPA risk assessment information.  When the work groups reach consensus
on the health effects information and the dose-response assessment for a particular
substance, the descriptive summary is added to IRIS.

CRAVE:  Information Development Procedures

      The goals of the CRAVE are to reach Agency consensus on Agency carcinogen
risk assessments;  to arrive at a unified view on potential cancer risk from exposure to
specific substances across Agency programs; and to identify, discuss, and resolve
general issues associated with methods used to estimate carcinogenic risks for
specific agents.  The major outputs of the work group are summaries of risk

-------
information that have been previously developed and documented by scientific experts
in Agency program and program support offices, and results of discussions of general
issues in carcinogen risk assessment.

      Scientists are selected by executive appointment from respective member
offices.  Membership is open to all major Agency program and regional offices, ORD,
and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE). Substances are discussed
at the request of Agency offices or regions according to an established timetable.  The
CRAVE priorities are determined by the member offices. The office requesting review
prepares a summary describing both a judgment on the weight-of-evidence for
potential health hazard effects and any dose-response information for the substances
according to an established format.  Literature files on the substances including critical
studies, pertinent EPA documents, and other relevant supporting  documentation are
made available to work group members in advance of the meeting.  Generally, the
judgment and the dose-response assessment are expected to have appeared in a
publicly available document of some sort.

      The CRAVE usually meets bimonthly for two days.  Work group members
normally receive draft summaries for pre-meeting review at least one week prior to the
scheduled meeting.  At the meeting, data and documentation are examined, and there
is discussion of the basis for the risk information and the  methods by which it was
derived.  In addition, the nature and extent of previous internal and external peer
review, including the comments received, are reviewed by the work group. The
summary is revised by the office originating the review to  reflect the meeting
discussion and accurately express the consensus view of the work group. After the
process of revision is completed, the summary is circulated again to the work group
for final approval prior to its  inclusion on IRIS.

      Consensus means that no member office is aware either of information that
would conflict with the final carcinogenicity summary, or of analyses that would
suggest that a different vtew is more credible. Such  assurance rests on the
capabilities of the individuals who represent their offices; thus, every effort is made to
seek scientists who are both expert in the area of human  health assessment and who
can represent their office.

       Peer review has generally been part of the  IRIS information development
processes from the beginning of the system.  In the  preparation of summaries,
emphasis has been placed on the use of peer-reviewed EPA assessments. These
have included Office of Pesticide Programs assessments  that have received both
program office peer review and Science Advisory Panel review. Other EPA
documentation includes assessments  prepared by OHEA such as Health Assessment
Documents, Health and Environmental Effects Documents, and Health Effects
Assessments.  These documents receive OHEA review and program office review and
some receive Science Advisory Board (SAB) or other external review. Assessments
developed by or for the Office of Ground Water and  Drinking Water and incorporated

-------
 }n either Drinking Water or Ambient Water Criteria Documents, or in Drinking Water
 Hearth Advisories generally receive extensive Agency review and SAB review prior to
 discussion by CRAVE.

       On occasion, risk assessments that were contained in draft documents have
 been discussed by CRAVE.  In these instances, results of the work group
 deliberations have been incorporated into the document development process at the
 program office or program support office level.  Loading of the information on IRIS is
 delayed pending completion of the document.

       tf consensus is not reached at the meeting it is generally because an issue is
 raised that requires resolution. Work group deliberations continue until consensus is
 achieved.  In the case of substance-specific issues, the substance is referred back to
 the member office that initiated the review for more information and clarification.  In
 some instances, it has been necessary for more than one program office to engage in
 a dialogue to resolve the issue.

       For general issues, CRAVE practice has  been to form a subcommittee to
 prepare an issue paper that is subsequently discussed at a special meeting.  As
 examples of this process, issue papers have been developed for (1) issues relating to
 accuracy and precision of quantitative dose-response information,  (2) factors involving
 confidence in quantitative estimates, and (3) use of split classifications and combining
 estimates.

      When consensus is  not achieved on a particular substance  at a meeting of the
 CRAVE, it is considered to have "under review"  status.  If after three months, there is
 no further activity to bring the substance back to the work group for additional review,
 the substance loses its "under review" status. The substance is then dropped from
 the work group review list after notifying the responsible office.  Any office may
 resubmit the substance for further discussion at any time.

 Reference Dose fRfDVReference Concentration (RiCY Information Development
 Procedures

      The purpose of the RfD/RfC Work Group  is to reach consensus on oral RfDs and
 inhalation RfCs for noncancer chronic human health effects developed by or in support
 of program offices  and the  regions. The work group also works to resolve inconsistent
 RfDs or RfCs among program offices and to identify, discuss, and resolve generic issues
 associated  with methods used to estimate RfDs and RfCs.

      Scientists are selected by executive appointment from respective member offices.
 Membership is open to all major Agency program and regional offices.  There are two
work group co-chairs.  In addition, scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
 Disease Registry and the  Food  and Drug  Administration are  invited to work group
meetings as observers to assist the Agency in the information gathering process. Their


                                       8

-------
involvement fosters  better communication and coordination among federal  agencies
regarding assessment approaches and data evaluation.  Members reflect a variety of
pertinent scientific disciplines including expertise in the fields of general and inhalation
human toxicology.

      Member offices schedule substances for discussion through the work group co-
chairs for specific meetings., usually one or two months in advance.  Regional requests
for specific substance discussions are routed through the co-chairs, who then either
schedule these substances in the usual manner or, if the region has not prepared a file,
requests an appropriate office to undertake that task.

      The RfD/RfC Work Group usually meets once a month for two days. Substances
are discussed at the request of any Agency office or region.  The requesting office
generally prepares a file that consists of a summary sheet, a copy of the critical study and
supporting documentation, and  distributes these  to work group members prior to the
meeting.

      Consensus generally means that no member office is aware either of information
that would conflict with the RfD or RfC, or of analyses that would suggest a different value
that is  more credible.  Such assurance rests on the capabilities of the individuals who
represent their offices; thus, a large effort is conducted biannually to seek scientists who
are both expert in this area of assessment and can represent their offices.

      RfD or RfC summaries  are not  always based  on existing EPA assessment
documents but may be based on assessments prepared specifically for the work group.
This is a fundamental difference between the usual processes of the RfD/RfC Work Group
and those of CRAVE.  As stated previously, the  general rule has been  that for a
substance to be brought to the CRAVE Work Group for  review there  should be an
existing peer-reviewed Agency health effects document. However, for RfDs there may or
may not be an existing EPA document on which to  base work group deliberations and
in the  case  of  RfCs, there have not, to date, been  any existing peer-reviewed EPA
documents.   Thus,  RfC  deliberations are based  on extensive assessment summaries
prepared expressly  for the work group.   Therefore,  when an  Agency  peer-reviewed
document is not available, as with RfCs and some RfDs, extensive assessment summaries
are included  on IRIS once the work group has completed verification  and reached
consensus.

      The work group co-chairs assure that the final summary accurately expresses the
consensus view of the group at the meeting as specified in the meeting notes. Once
unanimous consensus is reached, the substance-specific summary for either an RfD or
RfC is prepared for inclusion on IRIS.  In some cases, the work  group agrees that
adequate information is not available to derive an RfD or RfC. A message is then put on
IRIS to that  effect and the reasons for the "not verifiable"  status.   In most cases the
message states that the health effects data for a specific substance were reviewed by the
work group and determined to be inadequate for derivation of an RfD or RfC.

-------
       Conflicts that arise during a meeting regarding a given RfD or RfC generally are
 resolved outside the meeting by scientists from the appropriate offices, and then brought
 back to the work group for clarification and subsequent consensus.  Conflicts that arise
 regarding the methods by which RfDs or RfCs are estimated, or the incorporation of new
 methods, are generally taken up at separately scheduled meetings of the work group, for
 which the sponsoring office prepares the appropriate material for review.

      While, as discussed  above,  the RfD/RfC Work Group  process  is somewhat
 different from that of the  CRAVE, they  both  use generally  the same  consensus
 procedures.  Other procedural similarities are discussed in the following paragraphs.

      On occasion, scientific issues on individual substances, methods, or on a general
 question cannot be resolved at the work  group  level.  In the event that an issue is
 unresolvable in the work group processes, the issue is referred to the Risk Assessment
 Council.  In some  cases, the issue is brought to the IRIS Oversight Subcommittee for
 review and discussion, prior to consideration by the full Council.  If an issue is raised to
 the Council,  it may  be referred  by the Council  to the Risk Assessment Forum for
 consultation.

      Both the  CRAVE  and  RfD/RfC Work Groups, through the IRIS Information
 Submission Desk, discussed  in  the companion FEDERAL REGISTER  notice,  have
 received comments and studies from interested parties outside of the Agency that were
 either pertinent to the work group's initial review or resulted in reconsideration  of a
 particular substance assessment. Further, the work groups often contact the authors of
 a  primary study if clarifications are necessary, and consult with  outside experts on
 scientific issues that require expertise that is not present in the work group. Also, through
 professional societies and other  private sector organizations, the work  groups  have
 fostered discussions and exchanges regarding new and innovative approaches to human
 health assessment methodologies.
Methods and Guidelines

      Both Agency work groups responsible for the development of the health hazard
information on IRIS use Agency scientific methods documents and EPA's risk assessment
guidelines as the basis for their work.  These guidelines and methodologies used to
develop the RfD or RfC have been peer reviewed by the SAB.

      Summaries of methods used for development of oral RfDs and carcinogenicity
information on IRIS are contained in IRIS background documents that are available on the
system. A paper copy of the oral RfD and CRAVE background documents, "Reference
Dose (RfD); Description and Use in Health Risk Assessment" (Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology 8:471-486, 1988) and The U.S.  EPA Approach for Assessing the Risks
Associated with Chronic Exposures to Carcinogens,  respectively, is also available from
IRIS User Support by calling:  (513) 569-7254.

                                      10

-------
      The draft methods (document, Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation
Concentrations (EPA/600/8-90/066A), is the basis for the inhalation RfCs.  A copy of the
document is available from the Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) by
calling: (513) 569-7562. Please cite the EPA document number (EPA/600/8-90/066A)
when requesting a copy.  A revised RfC methodology document based on SAB peer-
review comments will undergo a second SAB review and will be available later this year.

      The CRAVE  background document is based on EPA's 1986 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992-34003). A copy of the EPA risk assessment
guidelines (EPA/600/8-87/045) is also available by calling CERI.

Public Involvement

      The section in the companion FEDERAL REGISTER notice (February 25, 1993,
58 FR 11490) on Current Opportunities for Public Involvement in the IRIS Process
elaborates on opportunities for public input and dialogue.
                                     11

-------

-------
        APPENDIX O
             Reserved




                                   !tl
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




         SECOND EDITION

-------
iiiiiii1) i   ii in ill ill i in i|	'    ii> i  i "i!   ni'iin'i    I'll  i1111111 in i  iiiiiiii1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiB

-------
          APPENDIX P
              List of 126
          CWA Section 307(a)
         Priority Toxic Pollutants

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
           SECOND EDITION

-------
•MKf i nr'!•;).'"
SIB	iCi!	i!'!!"'!'1'	iPBiF1!	tmvfta	i	fsm
                                                                                                                     igtiV'iijiiit        	i lif





                                                                                                  iiliillili'iiffilKiK            	I'lItMliHIIICai
                        I 111 I
                                      „ (il ;:>;;, il;!,;; jiiiiH:	!'4, ii L: iiU

-------
                     126 Priority Pollutants
A. Chlorinated Benzenes
     Chlorobenzene
     1,2-dichlorobenzene
     1,3-dichlorobenzene
     1,4-dichlorobenzene
     1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
     Hexachlorobenzene

B. Chlorinated Ethanes
     Chloroethane
     1,1-dichloroethane
     1,2-dichloroethane
     1,1,1-trichloroethane
     1,1,2-trichloroethane
     1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
     Hexachloroethane

C. Chlorinated Phenols
     2-chlorophenol
     2,4-dichlorophenol
     2,4,6-trichlorophenol
     Parametachlorocresol (4-chloro-3-methyl phenol)

D. Other Chlorinated Organics
     Chloroform  (trichloromethane)
     Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
     Bi s(2-chlor oethoxy)methane
     Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
     2-chloroethyl vinyl ether  (mixed)
     2-chloronaphthalene
     3,3-dichlorobenzidine
     1,1-dichloroethylene
     1,2-trans-dtichloroethylene
     1,2-dichloropropane
     1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
     Tetrachloroethylene
     Trichloroethylene
     Vinyl chloride  (chloroethylene)
     Hexachlorobutadiene
     Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
     2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin  (TCDD)

E. Haloethers
     4-chlorophenyl  phenyl ether
     2-bromopheriyl phenyl ether
     Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether

F. Halomethanes
     Methylene chloride  (dichloromethane)
     Methyl chloride (chloromethane)

-------
     Methyl Bromide (bromomethane)
     Bromoform (tribromomethane)
     Dichlorobromomethane
     Chlorodibromomethane

G. Nitrosamines
     N-nitrosodimethy1amine
     N-nitro sodiphenylamine
     N-nitro sodi-n-propy1amine

H. Phenols (other than chlorinated)
     2-nitrophenol
     4-nitrophenol
     2,4-dinitrophenol
     4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol)
     Pentachlorophenol
     Phenol
     2,4-dimethylphenol

I. Phthalate Esters
     Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
     Butyl benzyl phthalate
     Di-N-butyl phthalate
     Di-n-octyl phthalate
     Diethyl phthalate
     Dimethyl phthalate

J. Polnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
     Acenaphthene
     1,2-benzanthracene (benzo(a) anthracene)
     Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)
     3,4-benzofluoranthene (benzo(b) fluoranthene)
     11,12-benzofluoranthene (benzo(k) fluoranthene)
     Chrysene
     Ac enaphtha1ene
     Anthracene
     1,12-benzoperylene (bonze(ghi) perylene)
     Fluorene
     Fluoranthene
     Phenanthrene
     1,2,5,6-bibenzanthracene (dibenzo(ah) anthracene)
     Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
     Pyrene

K. Pesticides and Metabolites
     Aldrin
     Dieldrin
     Chlordane (technical mixture and metobolites)
     Alpha-endosulfan
     Beta-endosulfan
     Endosulfan sulfate
     Endrin
     Endrin aldehyde
     Heptachlor
     Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)

-------
     Alpha-BHC
     Beta-BHC
     Gamma-BBC (Lindane)
     Delta-BHC
     Toxaphene

L. DDT and Metabolites
     4,4-DDT
     4,4-DDE (p.p-DDX)
     4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)

M. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
     PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
     PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
     PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
     PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
     PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
     PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
     PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)

N. Other Organics
     Acrolein
     Acrylonitrile
     Benzene
     Benzidine
     2,4-dinitrotoluene
     2,6-dinitrotoluene
     1,2-diphenylhydrazine
     Ethylbenzene
     Isophorones
     Naphthalene
     Ni trobenzesne
     Toluene

O. Inorganics
     Antimony
     Arsenic
     Asbestos
     Beryllium
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Copper
     Cyanide, total
     Lead
     Mercury
     Nickel
     Selenium
     Silver
     Thallium
     Zinc

-------

-------
          APPENDIX Q
       Wetlands and 401 Certification:
      Opportunities and Guidelines for
      States and Eligible Indian Tribes
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
           SECOND EDITION
                                           o

-------
,!i!"i<; I	I11!"' f  	.">.   •   II!1! i' I'	Ililllill1 IT U J" • t	i .II'ITS! ill"	!»< II!!; '< II I'li"1;} I, 'E, IISK
                                    aill '
                                                                                                                  iBIfn

                                                                                                                                                                          IB
                                    ii    i':
                                    'HI!!   "H

                                    'liKli I    •!
                                    iiMiiii;


                                    VIHi
                                    Ililiiii
                 ft /!
                              .JrT


                             .ill:
                                                                                              'liilliiiih'i,".



                                                                                            .. .'PI..!!!!'
                                                                                 If'ilfliH                       	HiillllfB


                                                                   ~l;bii!«llia«
                                                                                        III'VIIIHIIIIH^^^^^^^^^^^                           	Slij-IEIM^^
                                                                                                                                                    ii i ii n i n inn  11  P  I
                                                                                                                               	Ill Ii  III'11111| ill  IIVIIIIH          (nl

                                                                                                                               	ill III	Ill"  II	Ill  I'llIIIilililflllllllll
                                                                                                                                   lllilllllli	lllilllllli	|i llllllllllll'llllllllM^^

                                                                                                                             II lllilllllli "I	II11	ill  ill I lilWINIIiillliiH
                                     iii n
                                    lllilllllli
         III       III      II          I   II   Mil  I    III I 111 IIII  I II II   111 II Hill  111 I 111
illiillli II ill I lllilllllli II11 ill	Iliilliill	ill lilil lllilllllli illlllill iiiillH               	
  Ill III III Illllll lllilllllli III I 111 1111  lllilllllli  II III	
	I y| ggigggiiiig jiii igiigg llllillil I 111 •
   111 I 111 III1||11111H

-------
&EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
            Office of Water
            (A-104F)
April 1989
Wetlands And
401 Certification

Opportunities And
Guidelines For States
And Eligible Indian Tribes

-------

-------
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
                                  WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                         28 1989
                                                                         OFFICE OF
                                                                          WATER
NOTE TO THE
      I am pleased to introduce this handbook, "Wetlands and 401 Certification,"
developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection.  This document examines the
Section 401 State water quality certification process and how it applies to wetlands.  We
strongly encourage States to use this handbook as one reference when establishing a
wetlands protection program or improving wetlands protection tools.

      Protection of wetland resources has become an important national priority as
evidenced by President Bush's 1990 Budget statement calling for "no net loss" of
wetlands. In addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum included a recommendation
in their 1988 report which says that States should "make more aggressive use of their
certification authorities under Section 401 of the  Clean Water Act, to protect wetlands
from chemical and other types of alterations".  This handbook is intended to help States
do just that

      EPA would like to work with States who wish to delve into 401 certification for
wetlands. You will find EPA Regional contacts listed in Appendix A of the document
The Office of Wetlands Protection plans to provide additional technical support
including guidance focused on wetland-specific water quality standards.

       It is very important to begin now to address the loss and degradation of this
nation's wetlands. That is why 401 certification is a perfect tool, already in place, for
States just getting started.  It can also help States fill some gaps in their own statutory
authorities protecting wetlands.  States can make great strides using their existing 401
certification authorities, while developing the capability and the complementary
programs to provide more comprehensive  protection for wetlands in the future.
                                                     cere
                                                  Director
                                                  Office of Wetlands Protection

-------

-------
                         ENDNOTES
1. The state water quality certification process is authorized by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341.

2. A Tribe is eligible for treatment as a State if it meets the
following criteria: 1) it is federally recognized; 2) it carries
out substantial government duties and powers over a Federal
Indian Reservation; 3) it has appropriate regulatory authority
over surface waters of the reservation; and 4) it is reasonably
expected to be capable of administering the relevant Clean Water
Act program.  EPA is.currently developing regulations to
implement Section 518(e) for programs including Section 401
certification which will provide further explanation of the
process tribes must go through to achieve state status.  In
addition, the term "state" also includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

3.   The National Wetlands Policy Forum, chaired by Governor Kean
of New Jersey, represents a very diverse group of perspectives
concerned with policy issues to protect and manage the nation's
wetland resources.  The goal of the Forum was to develop sound,
broadly supported recommendations to improve federal, state, and
local wetlands policy.  The Forum released its recommendations in
a report, "Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda" which
can be obtained from The Conservation Foundation, 1250 24th
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037.

4. 33 U.S.C. §4.1313  (c)(2)(A).

5. Section 301(b)(1)(c) of the Clean Water Act.

6. If the applicant is a federal agency, however, at least one
federal court has ruled that the state's certification decision
may be reviewed by the federal courts.

7. 33 C.F.R. §328.3 (Corps regulations); 40 C.F.R. §232.2(q)  (EPA
regulations).

8. For instance, except for wetlands designated as having unusual
local importance, New York's freshwater wetlands law regulates
only those wetlands over 12.4 acres in size.

9.  Alaska Administrative Code, Title 6, Chapter 50.

-------
10. Kentucky Environmental Protection Act, KRS 224.005(28).

11. Tennessee Water Quality Control Act, §69-3-103(29).

12. Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26.

13. K.R.S. 224.005(28)(Kentucky enabling legislation defining
waters of the state);  401 K.A.R. 5:029(1)(bb)(Kentucky water
quality standards defining surface waters); Ohio Water Pollution
Control Act, §6111.01(H)(enabling legislation defining waters of
the state); Ohio Administrative Code, §3745-1-02(DDD) (water
quality standards defining surface waters of the state).

14. Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26 (enabling
legislation defining waters of the state); 314 Code of Mass.
Regs. 4.01(5)(water quality standards defining surface waters).

15. Ohio Administrative Code, 3745-32-01(N).

16. 40 C.F.R. §131.

17. A use attainability analysis (40 C.F.R. §131.10(g)) must show
at least one of six factors in order to justify not meeting the
minimum "fishable/swimmable" designated uses or to remove such a
designated use.  The analysis must show that attaining a use is
not feasible because of: naturally occurring pollutant
concentrations; natural flow conditions or water levels that
cannot be made up by effluent discharges without violating state
water conservation requirements; human caused pollution that
cannot be remedied or  that would cause more environmental damage
if corrected; hydrologic modifications, if it is not feasible to
restore the water to its original conditions or operate the
modification to attain the use; natural non-water quality
physical conditions precluding attainment of aquatic life
protection uses; or controls more stringent than those required
by §301(b) and §306 would result in substantial and widespread
economic and social impact.

18. Questions and Answers on Antidegradation  (EPA, 1985).  this
document is designated as Appendix A of Chapter 2 of EPA's Water
Quality Standards Handbook.

19. The regulations implementing Section 404(b)(l) of the Clean
Water Act are known as the "(b) (1) Guidelines'* and are located at
40 C.F.R. §230.

20. 40 C.F.R. §230.l(d)

21. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(0).

22. Code of Maryland Regulations Title 10, §10.50.01.02(8)(2)(a).


                                ii

-------
23. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0170.  The rule states in full:

        The waters of the state may, in a state of nature,
     have some characteristics or properties approaching or
     exceeding the limits specified in the water quality
     standards.  The standards shall be construed as
     limiting the addition of pollutants of human activity
     to those of natural origin, where such be present, so
     that in total the specified limiting concentrations
     will not be exceeded in the waters by reason of such
     controllable additions.  Where the background level of
     the natural origin is reasonably definable and
     normality is higher than the specified standards the
     natural level may be used as the standard for
     controlling the addition of pollutants of human
     activity which are comparable in nature and
     significance with those of natural origin.  The natural
     background level may be used instead of the specified
     water quality standard as a maximum limit of the
     addition of pollutants, in those instances where the
     natural level is lower than the specified standard and
     reasonable justification exists for preserving the
     quality to that found in a state of nature.

24.  No. 83-1352-1  (Chancery Court, 7th Division, Davidson
County, 1984)(unpublished opinion).

25. These criteria are at 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §2(4) and §4(1) (c),
respectively.

26. Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-32-05.

27. Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-1-05(C).

28. Copies of Ohio's review guidelines are available from Ohio
EPA, 401 Coordinator, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149.

29. 40 CFR §131.12.

30. 48 Fed. Reg. 51,400, 51,403 (1983)(preamble).

31. Kentucky Water Quality Standards, Title 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §7,

32. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 7.

33. 314 Code of Massachusetts Regulation, §4.04(4).

34. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 9.

35. H.R. Rep. No. 91-127, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 6  (1969).


                                iii

-------
36. 115 Cong. Rec. H9030  (April  15,  1969) (House debate) ;  115
Cong. Rec. S28958-59  (Oct.  7,  1969) (Senate debate).

37.  C.F.R.  §323. 2 (d) .  However,  in  Reid v.  Marsh,  a case
predating these regulations, the U.S.  District Court for  the
Northern Corps District of  Ohio  ruled  that "even minimal
discharges of dredged material are not exempt from  Section 404
review14.  In this district, the  Corps  treats all dredging
projects under Section 404.

38., West Virginia Code, §47-5A-l (emphasis added).

39. Clean Water Act,  §401(a)(2).

40. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(a).

41. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(d).

42. Arnold Irrigation District v. Department of Environmental
Quality. 717 Pac.Rptr.2d  1274  (Or.App.  1986).

43. Harmac Corporation V. Department of Natural Resources  of the
State of West Virginia. C.A. No.  CA-81-1792  (Cir. Ct. , Kanawha
County 1982).

44. 33 U.S. C. §1313 (c) (2) (A).

45. West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-9.3 (a).

46. Unpublished paper by  Dr. Paul Hill of  West Virginia's
Department of Natural Resources.  Prepared for EPA-sponsored
December 1987 workshop on "The Role  of Section 401 Certification
in Wetlands  Protection11.

47. 33 C.F.R. §325.2(b)(ii).

48. 18 C.F.R. §4.38(6) (2).

49. 40 C.F.R. §124. 53 (c) (3).

50. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR  299.04.

51. West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-4.3.

52.
53. 40 C.F.R. §121.2.  EPA's regulations  implementing Section 401
were issued under the 1970 Water Pollution Control Act,  (not the
later Clean Water Act) and thus, may have some anomalies as a
result.
                                IV

-------
54. This is a reference to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act.

55. Ohio Admin. Code,, §3745-32-05.

56. See, e.g.. P. Adamus, Wetland Evaluation Technique  (WET),
Volume ±1: Methodology Y-87(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987); L. Cowardin,
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats  of the United
States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979).  See also  Lonard
and Clairain, Identification of Wetland Functions  and Values,  in
Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium (Chester,  VT:
Association of State Wetland Managers, 1986)(list  of twenty  five
methodologies).


57. See, e.g.. R. Tiner, Wetlands of the United States;  Current
Status and Recent Trends  (U.S. Govt. Printing Office
1984)(National Wetlands Inventory).  The National  Wetlands
Inventory has mapped approximately 45 percent of the lower forty
eight states and 12 percent of Alaska. A number of regional  and
state reports may be obtained from the National Wetlands
Inventory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Newton Corner,
MA.   Region 5 maps can also be ordered from the U.S. Geological.
Survey's National Cartographic Information Center  in Reston, VA.

58. The new joint Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
.Turisdictional Wetlands. can be obtained from the  U.S. Government
Printing Office 1989).


59. See, e.g.. Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission, Guidance
Paper No. 3, Guidelines for Protecting Non-Tidal Wetlands in the
Critical Area  (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, April
1987).

60.   For information on the Wetlands Values Data Base contact:
Data  Base Administrator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Energy Center, 2627 Redwing Road, Creekside One, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80526.  Phone:  (303) 226-9411.

61. For example, Florida's Section 380 process designates "Areas
of Critical State Concern11 which often include wetlands.  Florida
Statutes §380.05.

62. 40 C.F.R. §230.80  (1987).


63. 16 U.S.C. §1452(3)  (1980).  See also. U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers, Regulator:/ Guidance Letter No. 10  (1986).

-------
64. See D. Burke, Technical and Programmatic .Support for 401
Certification in Maryland,  (Maryland  Department  of  Natural
Resources, Water Resources Administration, December
1987) (unpublished) ; A. Lam, Geographic  Information  Systems  for
River Corridor and Wetland Management in River Corridor Handbook
(N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation) (J. Kusler and  E.
Meyers eds., 1988).

      The system described by Burke is called MIPS  (Map  and  Image
Processing System) and is capable of  translating a  myriad of
information to the scale specified by the user.

65. see, e.g. . [multiple authors], "Ecological Considerations in
Wetlands' Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters , "  (Van  Nostrand
Reinhold Co. , New York, 1985) ; E. Stockdale, "The Use of Wetlands
for Stormwater Management and Nonpoint  Pollution Control:   A
Review of the Literature,"  (Dept. of  Ecology, state of  Washington
1986) ; "Viability of Freshwater Wetlands for Urban  Surface  Water
Management and Nonpoint Pollution: An Annotated  Bibliography,"
prepared by The Resource Planning Section of King County,
Washington Department of Planning and Community  Development
(July, 1986).

66. The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands  Protection  Act of  1984,  Fla.
Stat. §403.91 - 403.938, required the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation to establish specific criteria for
wetlands that receive and treat domestic wastewater treated to
secondary standards.  The rule is at  Fla. Admin. Code,  §17-6.

67. Maximization of sheet flow.

68. Hydrologic loading and retention  rates.
69. Ifl. ;  See alafi I>. Schwartz, Criteria for Wastewater Discharge
to Florida Wetlands,  (Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation) (Dec. 1987) (unpublished report) .

70.  Copies of the draft, "Use. of Advance  Identification
Authorities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Guidance
for Regional Offices", can be obtained from the Regulatory
Actitivities Division of the Office of Wetlands Protection  (A-
104F), EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,  D.C. 20460.
                                VI

-------
Acknowledgements:

This document was prepared by Katherine Ransel of the Environmental Law
Institute, and Dianne Fish of EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection, Wetlands
Strategies and State Programs Division. Many thanks to the reviewers of the
draft handbook, and to those States who gave us information on their programs.

For additional copies contact:

      Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division
      Office of Wetlands Protection A-104F
      Environmental Protection Agency
      401 M Street, SW
      Washington, D.C  20460

      Phone: (202) 382-5043

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                    Page

I.     INTRODUCTION	,		5

H    WHAT IS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION &
      HOW DOES rr WORK?		8

IDL   401 CERTIFICATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO
      PROTECT WETLANDS	9
IV.   THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE
      CERTIFICATION PROCESS

      A.    Wetlands Should be Specifically Designated as
            Surface Waters of the States	10

      B.    General Requirements of EPA's Water Quality
            Standards Regulations	12

      C    Applying Water Quality Standards to Wetlands
            - What States are Doing Now	.	14

            1.    Using Narrative Criteria	.	15
           2.    Highest Tier of Protection - Wetlands as
                 Outstanding Resource Waters	.	.	18

V.    USING 401 CERTIFICATION

      A.   The Permits/Licenses Covered &
           the Scope of Review	„	.	20

           1.    Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to

-------
     B.    Conditioning 401 Certifications for
           Wetland Protection ------------------------------------ . ------------------------ ........................... 23

           1.    What are Appropriate Conditions? ---------- . ------- . --------------- . ------------ 23

           2.    The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification ............... 25

           3.    The Role of Other State Laws ------------------------ .............................. 25

      C.   Special  Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits:
           Nationwide arid After-the-Fact Permits ......................................... ------- ...27

            1.    Nationwide Permits ... -------------------------------------------- . ------------------------ 27

           2.    After-tlae-Fact Permits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 29


VL   DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING
      REGULATIONS: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS -------------------------------- 30

      A.    Review Timelrame and "Complete" Applications --------------------------------- 31

      B.    Requirements for the Applicant ..........~.................................. — ..... — ...32

      v*»    Jr CnXUl Jt* CCS • >••
      D.    Basis for Certification Decisions [[[ 33
VIL  EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401
      CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS	35
Vffl.  SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED	37

      A.    Steps States Can Take Right Away	38


-------
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:    State and Federal Contacts for 401
                 Certification	42

APPENDIX B:    Federal Definitions: Waters of the U.S. & Wetlands	50

APPENDIX C:    Scope of Project Review: Pennsylvania Dam
                 Proposal Example	.	51

APPENDIX D:    Examples of Certification Conditions from
                 Maryland, West Virginia, and Alaska	54


APPENDIX E:    Example Conditions to Minimize Impacts from
                 Section 404(b)(l)Guidelines	62




ENDNOTES ..—..	„	„	.	i

-------
I.  INTRODUCTION

      This handbook has been developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection ' •
(OWP) to highlight the potential of the State water quality certification process for
protecting wetlands, and to provide information and guidance to the States.1
Throughout this document, the term "State" includes those Indian Tribes which qualify
for treatment as States under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 518(e).2 We
encourage Tribes  who are interested in expanding their protection of wetlands and
other waters under this new provision of the CWA to examine water quality
certification as a readily available tool to begin their programs.

      One of OWP's key mandates is to broaden EPA's wetlands protection efforts in
areas which complement our authority under the Clean Water Act Section 404
regulatory  program.  Thus, we are  exploring and working with other laws,  regulations,
and  nonregulatory approaches to enhance their implementation to protect wetlands.  In
addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum has recommended in its report issued in
November 1988, that States "make more aggressive use of their certification authorities
under Section 401 of the CWA, to protect their wetlands from chemical and other types
of alterations."3

       In light of these directives, we have examined the role of the Section 401 State
water quality certification process and are working with States to improve  its application
to wetlands.  This process offers the opportunity to fulfill  many goals for wetland
protection because:

       *     It is a cooperative federal/State program and it increases the role of
             States  in decisions regarding the protection  of natural resources;

       *     It gives States extremely broad authority to review proposed activities in
             and/or affecting State waters (including wetlands) and, in effect, to deny
             or place conditions on federal permits or licenses that authorize such
             activities;

       *     It is an existing program which can be vastly improved to protect
             wetlands without major legislative  initiatives;

       *     Its  proper implementation for wetlands should integrate many State
             programs related to wetlands, water quality, and aquatic resource
             preservation and enhancement, to ensure consistency of activities with
             these State requirements.  Examples of such programs include coastal
             zone management, floodplain management,  and nonpoint source
             programs.

-------
      The issues discussed in this handbook were identified through discussions with
State 401 certification program personnel and through a workshop held in December
1987 with many of the States who actively apply 401 certification to wetlands.  The '
handbook includes examples of how some States have successfully approached the
issues discussed.  Because the water quality certification process is continually evolving,
we do not attempt to address all the issues here.  This handbook is a first step towards
clarifying how 401 certification applies to wetlands, and helping States use this tool
more effectively.

      EPA would like to work with the States to  ensure that their authority under
Section 401 is exercised in a manner that achieves the goals of the Clean Water Act
and reflects the State role at the forefront in administering water quality programs.
Clearly, the integrity of waters of the U.S. cannot  be protected by an exclusive focus on
wastewater effluents in open waters.  While the federal Section 404 program addresses
many discharges into wetlands, and other federal agencies have environmental review
programs which benefit wetlands, these do not substitute for a State's responsibilities
under Section 401.  A State's authority under Section 401 includes consideration of a
broad range of chemical, physical, and biological impacts.  The State's responsibility
includes acting upon the recognition that wetlands are critical components of healthy,
functioning aquatic systems.
      To help States implement the guidance provided in this handbook and to foster
communication on 401 issues, you will find a list of State 401 certification contacts and
federal EPA contacts in Appendix A  In order to keep this and other wetland contact
lists current, EPA has asked the Council of State Governments to establish a
computerized database of State wetland programs and contacts (See Appendix A for
details.)   EPA is also refining a list of Tribal contacts to foster communication with
interested Tribes.

-------
                      SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED

The following is a summary of the activities needed to make 401 certification a
more effective tool to protect wetlands.  States can undertake many of these
activities right away, while also  taking other actions which lay the groundwork for
improving future 401 certification decisions.  Tribes, who primarily are just
beginning to develop wetlands programs, should consider these actions (along
with developing water quality standards) as first steps to becoming more involved
in wetlands regulatory efforts.  The actions below are discussed throughout the
handbook.

    * •   All states should begin by including wetlands in their definitions of
                   .                  -;::-::••••:! ,v:-->::-: :V:':.;'^.^l'x.:>>:^v:>':v:''^-:^'^:'""-:"'"';"'" •'"' .- -:; •" ••"" :>':''
          state waters.               •-•'•'-• '.;.../;':.;  "-..;;v

    *    States should develop or-modify their existing 401 certification and
          water quality standard regulations and guidelines to accomodate
        ;• -' special wetland considerations.
    -. ",< *  v *  "~  *          ~   \   "  „  :
    *     States should make more effective use of their existing narrative water
          quality standards (including the antidegradation policy) to protect the
     ,:- >  ,  integrity of wetlands.                      /  <
       /•  V                                 f  f     ,

    *     States should initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their
          wetland resources.
                      •-    .
        ~             f    v
    *    :. States  should designate uses1 for these wetlands based on wetland
           functions associated with  each wetland type, ^ich estimated uses
       :,   could be verified when needed for Iridividuai applications with an
          , assessment twl such as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique, or Habitat
           Evaluation Procedure, or region-specific evaiuation methods.
              "" >S f. V  S                                    /'.-..••
    *     States shpulci tap into the potential of the outstanding resource waters
          - designation of the antidegradation policy for their wetlands.

    *     States should incorporate 401 certification for wetlands into their water
           quality manaigement planning process.  This process can  integrate
           wetland resource information with different water management
           programs affecting wetlands  (including coastal zone management,
           nonpoint source and wastewater programs).

-------
 H.    WHAT IS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND HOW DOES IT WORK?

       States may grant or deny "certification" for a federally permitted or licensed
 activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States, if it is the
 State where the discharge will originate.  The decision to grant or deny certification is
 based on a State's determination from data submitted by an applicant (and any other
 information available to the State) whether the  proposed activity will comply with the
 requirements of certain sections of the dean Water Act enumerated in Section
 401(a)(l).  These requirements address effluent limitations for conventional and
 nonconventional pollutants, water quality standards, new source performance standards,
 and toxic pollutants (Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307). Also included are
 requirements of State law or regulation more stringent than those sections or their
 federal implementing regulations.

       States adopt surface water  quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the Clean
 Water Act  and have broad authority to base those standards on the waters' use and
 value for "public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes,
 and ... other purposes."4 All permits must include effluent limitations at least as
 stringent as needed to maintain established beneficial uses and to attain the quality of
 water designated by States for their waters.5  Thus, the States' water quality standards
 are a critical concern of the 401 certification process.

       If a  State grants water quality certification to an applicant for a federal license
 or permit, it is in  effect saying that the proposed activity will comply with State water
 quality standards (and the other CWA and State law provisions enumerated above).
 The State may thus deny certification because the applicant has not demonstrated that
 the project will comply with those requirements.  Or it may place whatever limitations
 or conditions on the certification it determines are necessary to assure compliance with
 those provisions, and with any other "appropriate" requirements of State law.

       If a State denies certification, the federal permitting or licensing agency is
 prohibited from issuing a permit or license. While the procedure varies from State to
 State, a State's decision to grant or deny certification is ordinarily subject to an
 administrative appeal, with review in the State courts designated for appeals of agency
 decisions. Court review is typically limited to the question of whether the State
 agency's decision is supported by the record and is not arbitrary or capricious.  The
 courts generally presume regularity in agency  procedures and defer to agency expertise
 in their review.6

      States may also waive water quality certification, either affirmatively or
involuntarily.  Under Section 401(a)(l), if the State fails  to act on a certification request
                                         8

-------
"within a reasonable time (which shall not exceed one year)" after the receipt of an
application, it forfeits its authority to grant conditionally or to deny certification.

      The most important regulatory tools for the implementation of 401 certification
are the States' water quality standards regulations and their 401 certification
implementing regulations and guidelines. While all of the States have some form of
water quality standards, not: all States have standards which can be easily applied to
wetlands. Most Tribes do not yet have water quality standards, and developing them
would be a first step prior  to having the authority to conduct water quality  certification.
Also, many States have not adopted regulations implementing their authority to grant,
deny and condition water quality certification.  The remainder of this handbook
discusses specific approaches, and elements of water quality standards and 401
certification regulations that OWP views as effective to implement the States' water
quality certification authority, both generally, and specifically with regard to wetlands.
       401 CERTIFICATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO PROTECT
       WETLANDS

       In States without a wetlands regulatory program, the water quality certification
 process may be the only way in which a State can exert any direct control over projects
 in or affecting wetlands. It is thus critical for these States to develop a program that
 fully includes wetlands in their water quality certification process.

       But even in States which have their own wetlands regulatory programs, the water
 quality certification process! can be an extremely valuable tool to protect wetlands.
 First, most State wetland regulatory laws are more limited in the wetlands that are
 subject to regulation than iis the Clean Water Act  The Clean Water Act covers all
 interstate wetlands; wetlands adjacent to other regulated waters; and all other wetlands,
 the use, degradation or destruction of which  could affect interstate or foreign
 commerce.7  This definition is extremely broad and one would be hard pressed to find a
 wetland for which it could be shown that its  use or destruction  clearly would not affect
 interstate commerce. Federal jurisdiction extends beyond that of States which regulate
 only coastal  and/or shoreline wetlands, for instance.  And in States that regulate  inland
 wetlands, often size limitations prevent States from regulating wetlands that are subject
 to  federal jurisdiction.8

       Even if State jurisdiction is as encompassing or more so than federal jurisdiction,
 however, water quality  certification may still  be a valuable and  essential wetlands
 protection device. In the State of Massachusetts, for instance, a 401 certification is not
 simply "rubber stamped" o:n the permitting decisions made pursuant to the
 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act  The State has denied certification to proposed
 projects requiring a federal permit even  though the State wetlands permitting authority

-------
 (in Massachusetts, permits are granted by local "conservation commissions") has granted
 authorization for a project.

       There may be a number of reasons that a proposed activity may receive
 authorization under a State wetland regulatory program, but fail to pass muster under a
 401 certification review. The most commonly cited reason, however, is that water
 quality personnel have a specialized understanding of the requirements and
 implementation of the State's water quality standards and the ways in which certain
 activities may interfere with their attainment

       It is important, however, to keep in mind the limitations of 401 certification
 when considering  a comprehensive  approach to protecting your wetland resources.  The
 primary limitation is that if 401 certification is the only tool a State has to protect
 wetlands, it cannot place limits on activities which do not require a federal license or
 permit  Some activities such as drainage or groundwater pumping, can have severe
 impacts on the viability of wetlands, but may not require a permit or license.  Ideally,
 401 certification should be combined with other programs in the State offering wetlands
 protection opportunities (such as coastal management and floodplain management).
 For example, Alaska has integrated its 401 certification and coastal management
 consistency review processes so that the provisions of each program augment the other
 to provide more comprehensive protection.  This approach not only strengthens
 protection, it reduces duplication of State efforts and coordinates permit review for
 applicants.9
 IV.    THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE CERTIFICATION
       PROCESS

       A.    Wetlands Should be Specifically Designated as Surface Waters of the
             States

       In order to bring wetlands fully into the State water quality certification process,
 a first step is to include the term "wetlands14 in the State water quality standards'
 definition of surface waters. EPA will be working with all States through the triennial
 review process of State standards to ensure that their definitions are at least as.
 comprehensive as the federal definitions for waters (see Appendix B for federal
 definitions of "Waters of the U.S." and the term "wetlands").

       It may seem minor, but from every standpoint, it is important to have wetlands
specifically designated as surface waters in State water quality standards.  First, it
precludes any arguments that somehow wetlands are not covered by water quality
standards. Second, it predisposes decision makers (from 401 certification program
managers, to the  head  of the agency or a water quality board, all the way to the judges

                                        10

-------
on the courts that may review these decisions) to consider the importance of wetlands
as part of the aquatic ecosystem.  Third, it makes it clear that wetlands are to be
treated as waters in and of themselves for purposes of compliance with water quality
standards and not just as they relate to other surface waters.

       The third point is critical and bears further explanation. When States include
wetlands in the definition of surface waters covered by their water quality standards,
they clarify that activities in or affecting wetlands are subject to the same analysis in the
certification decision as are projects affecting lakes, rivers, or streams.  This is not to
say that a wetland project's effects on adjacent or downstream waters are not also part
of the water quality certification analysis.  Rather, it is to say that wetlands, either
adjacent to or isolated from  other waters, are waterbodies in and of themselves and an
applicant for water quality certification must show that a proposed project will not
violate water quality standards in  those wetlands, as well as in other waters.

       The States currently have a variety of definitions of "waters of the State" in the
legislation  that enables water quality standards (e.g., multi-media environmental
protection acts, water quality acts, and the like). Only three States currently have the
term "wetlands" explicitly listed as one of the types of waters in this enabling legislation
(Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia).  These States need only to repeat that
definition in their water quiility standards and their 401 certification implementing
regulations.

       While most States do not have the term "wetlands" in their enabling legislation,
many use the term "marshes" in a list of different types of waters to illustrate "waters of
the State"  in their enabling legislation.  Kentucky, for example, defines waters of the
State as:

       ... any and all rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs,
       springs, wells, marshes, and att other bodies of surface or underground water,
       natural or artificial, situated wholfy or parity within or bordering upon the
       Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction.10

       When  used in this way, the term "marshes" is typically understood to be generic
in nature rather than being descriptive of a type of wetland, and can therefore be
considered as the equivalent of the term "wetlands". In these States, however, in order
to ensure that the term "marshes" is interpreted as the equivalent of wetlands, the best
approach is to include the item "wetlands" in the definition of surface waters used in
the State's water quality standards and in the 401 certification implementing  regulations.

       There  is another group of States that has neither the term "wetlands" or
"marshes"  in the enabling legislation's definition of waters of the State. These
definitions typically contain language that describes in some generic manner, however,

                                          11

-------
all waters that exist in the State.  They may not specifically designate any particular
type of water body, as, for instance, Tennessee's Water Quality Control Act:

       . . . any and all water, public or private, on or beneath the surface of the
       ground, which [is] contained within, flowfsj through, or border[s] upon
       Tennessee or any portion thereof. . . .n

       Or they may specify some types of surface waters  and then generically include all
others, with a clause such as  "and all other water bodies"  or "without limitation", as  does
Massachusetts:

       All waters within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, including, without
       limitation, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, springs, impoundments, estuaries, and
       coastal waters and groundwaters.12

       In these States, as in  the States with "marshes" in  the enabling legislation's
definition of waters, regulators should clarify that wetlands are part of the surface
waters of the State subject to the States' water quality standards by including that term,
and any others they deem appropriate, in a definition of  surface waters in their water
quality standards and in their 401 certification implementing regulations.

       Both Kentucky and Ohio, for instance, which have the term "marshes," but not
the term "wetlands" in their  enabling legislation, have  included the term "wetlands" in
their surface water quality standards' definition of waters.13 Massachusetts, which does
not have the term "wetlands" or "marshes" in its enabling legislation, has put the term
"wetlands" into its water quality standards also.14 Additionally, Ohio's 401 certification
implementing regulations include the term "wetlands" in the definition of waters covered
by those regulations and specifically address activities affecting the integrity of
wetlands.15
       B.    General Requirements of EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulations.16

       When the States review their water quality standards for applicability to projects
affecting wetlands, it is important to have in mind the basic concepts and requirements
of water quality standards generally.  Congress has given the States broad authority to
adopt water quality standards, directing only that the States designate water uses that
protect the public health  and welfare and that take into account use of State waters for
drinking water, the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, and agricultural,
industrial and other purposes.
                                         12

-------
      EPA's water quality standards regulations require States to adopt water quality
standards which have three basic components:  use designations,  criteria to protect • •
those uses, and an antidegradation policy.

      EPA directs that, where attainable, designated uses must include, at a minimum,
uses necessary to protect the goals of the CWA for the protection and  propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the waters.  This
baseline is commonly referred to as the "fishable/swimmable" designation. If the State
does not designate  these minimum uses, or wishes to remove such a designated use, it
must justify it through a use attainability analysis based on at least one  of six factors.17
In no event, however, may a beneficial existing use (any use which is actually attained
in the water body on or after November 28,  1975)  be removed from a water body or
segment

       Criteria, either pollutant-specific numerical criteria or narrative criteria, must
protect the designated and existing uses.  Many of  the existing numeric criteria are not
specifically adapted to the characteristics of wetlands (see last section of handbook for
steps in this direction). However, almost all States have some form of  the narrative
standards (commonly known as the "free froms") which say that all waters shall be free
from substances that:  settle to form objectionable deposits; float  as debris, scum, oil or
other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;
injure, or are toxic,or  produce adverse physiological responses in  humans, animals, or
plants;  or produce  undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.  States have also used other
narrative criteria to protect wetland quality.  The use of criteria to protect wetlands is
discussed in the following section.

       In addition, EPA also requires  that all States adopt an antidegradation policy.
Several States have used their antidegradation policy effectively to protect the quality of
their wetland resources. At a minimum, a State's antidegradation policy must be
consistent with the following provisions:

(1)    Existing uses and the level of water quality  necessary to protect existing uses in
       all segments of a waiter body must be maintained;

(2)    if the quality of the water is higher than that necessary to support propagation
       of fish, shellfish, and; wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, that quality
       shall be maintained and protected, unless the State finds  that lowering the water
       quality is justified by overriding economic or social needs determined after full
       public involvement  In no event, however, may water quality fall below that
       necessary to protect the existing beneficial uses;

(3)    if the waters have  been designated as outstanding resource waters (ORWs) no
       degradation (except temporary) of water quality is allowed.

                                         13

-------
       In the case of wetland fills, however, EPA allows a slightly different
 interpretation of the antidegradation policy.18  Because on the federal level, the
 Congress has anticipated the issuance of at least some permits by virtue of Section 404,
 it is EPA's policy that, except in the case of ORWs, the "existing use" requirements of
 the antidegradation policy are met if the wetland fill does not cause or contribute to
 "significant degradation" of the aquatic environment as defined by Section 230.10(c) of
 the Section 404(b)(l)  Guidelines.19

       These Guidelines lay  a substantial foundation for protecting wetlands and other
 special aquatic sires from degradation or destruction.  The purpose section of the
 Guidelines states that:

 "... from a national perspective, the degradation or destruction of special aquatic sites,
 such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe
 environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines. The guiding principal should be
 that degradation or destruction of special sites may represent an irreversible loss of
 valuable aquatic resources."29

       The Guidelines also state that the following  effects contribute to significant
 degradation, either individually or collectively:

 "... significant adverse effects on (1) human health or welfare, including effects on
 municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites
 (e*, wetlands); (2) on the life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
 aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration or spread of pollutants or
 their byproducts beyond the site through biological, physical, or chemical process;  (3)
 on ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, including loss of fish and wildlife
 habitat or loss of the  capacity of a wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water or
 reduce wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values."21

       The Guidelines may be used by the States to determine "significant degradation"
 for wetland fills. Of course, the  States are free to adopt stricter requirements for
 wetland  fills  in their own antidegradation policies, just  as they may adopt more stringent
 requirements than federal law requires for then- water quality standards in general.
       C    Applying Water Quality Standards Regulations to Wetlands • What States
             are Doing Now

       Some States have taken the lead in using 401 certification as a wetlands
protection tool to protect them for their water quality and other irreplaceable functions,
such as storage places for flood waters, erosion control, foodchain support and habitat
                                         14

-------
for a wide variety of plants and animals. These States have taken several different
approaches to wetlands protection in their water quality certification process.
             1. Using Narrative Criteria

       States have applied a variety of narrative criteria to projects in or affecting
wetlands in the 401 certification determination.  For example, Maryland's water quality
standards contain a narrative directive, which the agency relied upon to deny
certification for a non-tidal wetland fill. The standard provides that "[a]ll waters of this
State shall be protected for the basic uses of water contact recreation,  fish, other
aquatic life, wildlife, and water supply."22  In its denial, Maryland stated:

       Storm waters are relieved of much of their sediment loads via overbanking
       into the adjacent wetland and a resultant decrease in nutrient and sediment
       loading to downstream receiving waters is occurring. To permit the fill of this
       area would eliminate these benefits and in the future, would leave the
       waterway susceptible to adverse increased volumes of storm waters and their
       associated pollutants. It is our determination that fa specified waterway]...
       requires protection of these wetland areas to assure that the waters of this
       State are protected for the basic uses offish, other aquatic life, wildlife and
       water supply.

       Because wetlands vary tremendously in background levels of certain parameters
measured by the traditional numerical/chemical criteria applied to  surface waters, some
States have relied on "natural water quality" criteria to protect wetlands in the 401
certification process.  Minnesota, for instance, has taken this approach in denying
certification for a flood control project because of the State's "primary concern ... that
the project would likely change Little Diann Lake from an acid bog to a fresh-
circumneutral water chemistty type of wetland."  The agency was concerned that
"introduction  of lake water :into the closed acid system of Little Diann  Lake would
completely destroy  the character of this natural resource." It relied on a provision of its
water quality standards allowing the State to limit the addition of pollutants according
to background  levels instead of to the levels specified by criteria for that class of waters
generally. The denial letter pointed out that this rule "States that the  natural
background level may be used instead of the specified water quality standards, where
reasonable justification exists for preserving the quality found in the State of nature."
According to the denial letter, because of the clear potential for impacts to the bog, the
State was invoking  that particular provision.23

       Tennessee has relied on broad prohibitory language in its water quality standards
to deny water quality certification for wetland fill projects and has been upheld hi court.
Hoffis v. Tennessee Water Quality  Control  Board24 was brought by a 401 certification

                                           15

-------
 applicant who proposed to place fill along the southeastern shoreline of a natural
 swamp lake. The court upheld the denial of 401 certification, explaining:

       Reelfoot Lake is classified for fish and aquatic life, recreation, and livestock
       watering and wildlife uses.  The [Water Quality] Board has established
       various standards for the waters in each classification.  Among other things,
       these standards pertain to dissolved oxygen, pH,  temperature, toxic  substances,
       and other pollutants.  The Permit Hearing Panel found the petitioner's
       activity will violate the "other pollutants" standard in each classification.
       Collectivefy, these ["other pollutants"] standards provide that other pollutants
       shall not be added to the water that will be detrimental to fish or aquatic
       life,  to recreation, and to livestock watering and wildlife.

       The court found that while there was no evidence that the project in and of
 itself would "kfll" Reelfoot Lake, there was evidence that the shoreline was important to
 recreation because tourists visit Reelfoot to view its natural beauty and the lacustrine
 wetlands function as a spawning ground for fish and produce food for both fish and
 wildlife.  It found that although the evidence in the record did not quantify the damage
 to fish and aquatic life, recreation, and wildlife that would result from the proposed fill,
 the opinion of the State's expert that the activity would be detrimental  to these uses
 was sufficient to uphold the denial of certification.

       Kentucky has also relied on narrative criteria.  It denied an application to place
 spoil from underground mine construction  in a wetland area because wetlands are
 protected from pollution as "Waters of the Commonwealth" and because placing spoil
 or any fin material (pollutants under KRS  224:005(28)) in a wetland specifically violated
 at least two water quality criteria. One of Kentucky's criteria, applicable to all surface
 waters, provides that the waters "shall not be aesthetically or otherwise degraded by
 substances that... fijnjure,  [are] toxic to or produce adverse physiological or behavioral
 responses in humans, animals, fish and other aquatic life."

       The other criterion, applicable to warm water  aquatic habitat, provides that
 "[f]low shall not be altered to a degree which will adversely affect the aquatic
 community."25 This second criterion which addresses  hydrological changes is a
 particularly important but often overlooked component to include in water quality
 standards to help maintain wetland quality.  Changes  in flow can severely alter the
 plant and animal species composition of a wetland, and destroy the entire wetland
 system if the change is great enough.

       Ohio has adopted 401 certification regulations  applicable to wetlands (and other
 waters) that, together with internal review guidelines,  result in an approach to the 401
.certification decision similar to that of the 404(b)(l) Guidelines. Its 401 certification
 regulations first direct that no certification may be issued unless the applicant has

                                          16

-------
demonstrated that activities permitted by Section 404 or by Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act (RHA) will not:

       (1) prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water
       quality standards;

       (2) result in a violation of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 or 307 of the CWA;
       additionally, the agency may deny a request notwithstanding the applicant's
     .  demonstration of the above if it concludes that the activity "will result in adverse
       long or short term  impacts on water quality."26

       Ohio has placed all oi; its wetlands as a class in the category of "State resource
waters." For these waters, Ohio has  proposed amendments to its standards to say that
"[p]resent ambient water quality and  uses shall be maintained and protected without
exception." **  The proposed standards also require that point source discharges to
State resource waters be regulated according to Ohio's biological criteria for aquatic
life.

       However, Ohio has not yet developed biological indices specifically for wetlands.
Thus, for projects affecting wetlands, it bases its certification decisions on internal
review guidelines that are similar to the federal Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. Ohio's
guidelines are structured by type of activity.  For instance, for fills, their requirements
are as follows:

       (a) if the project is not water dependent, certification is denied;

        (b) if the project is water dependent,  certification is denied if there is a viable
       alternative (e.g.t available upland nearby is viable alternative);

        (c) if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to wetland cannot be made acceptable
       through conditions on certification (e.g., fish movement criteria, creation of
       floodways  to bypass oxbows, flow  through criteria), certification is denied.

 Ohio's internal review guidelines also call for (1) an historical overview and ecological
 evaluation of the site (including biota inventory and existing bioaccumulation studies);
 (2) a sediment physical  characterization (to predict  contaminant levels) and (3)  a
 sediment analysis.28

        Using these guidelines, Ohio frequently conditions or denies certification for
 projects that eliminate wetteind uses.  For  instance,  Ohio has issued a proposed denial
 of an application to fill  a three acre wetland area adjacent to Lake Erie for a
                                            17

-------
 recreational and picnic area for a lakefront marina based on its classification of
 wetlands as "State resource waters:"

       Wetlands serve a vital ecological junction including food chain production, provision
       of spawning, nursery and resting habitats for various aquatic species, natural
       filtration of surface water runoff, ground water recharge, and erosion and flood
       abatement.  The O^LC. Section 3745-1-05(C) includes wetlands [in the] State
       Resource Waters category and allows no further water quality degradation  which
       would interfere with or become injurious to the easting uses.  The addition of fill
       material to the wetland would cause severe adverse effects to the wetland.   This fill
       would eliminate valuable wetland habitat, thereby degrading the existing use.

       The justification for this denial, according to Ohio program managers, was not
 only that the project would interfere with existing uses, but in addition, the project was
 not water dependent as called for in Ohio's internal guidelines.  Ohio 401 certification
 program personnel note that these review guidelines present the general approach to
 certification, but with regard  to projects that are determined to be of public necessity,
 this approach may give way to other public interest concerns.  For example, a  highway
 is not water dependent per se;  if, however, safety and financial considerations point to a
 certain route that necessitates filling wetlands, the agency may allow it  In that event,
 however, mitigation by wetland creation and/or restoration would be sought by the
 agency as a condition of certification.
              2.     Highest Her of Protection: Wetlands as Outstanding Resource
                    Waters

       One extremely promising approach taken by some of the States has been to
 designate wetlands as outstanding resource waters (ORW), in which water quality must
 be maintained and protected according to EPA's regulations on antidegradation (i.e., no
 degradation for any purposes is allowed, except for short term changes which have no
 long term consequences).29 This approach provides wetlands with significant protection
 if the States' antidegradation policies are at least as protective as that of EPA.  EPA
 designed this classification not only for the highest quality waters, but also for water
 bodies which are "important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but whose water quality
 as measured by the traditional parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, etc.) may not be
 particularly high or whose character cannot be adequately described by these
 parameters.'50   This description is particularly apt for many wetland systems.

      The designation of wetlands as outstanding resource waters has occurred in
 different ways in different States. Minnesota, for instance, has designated some of its
rare, calcareous fens as ORWs and intends to deny fills in these fens.
                                         18

-------
      Ohio has issued for comment, proposed revised water quality standards that
include a newly created "outstanding State resource waters" category. Ohio intends- to
prohibit all point source discharges to these waters.  Of fourteen specific water bodies
proposed to be included in this category by the Ohio EPA at this time, ten are
wetlands: four  fens; three bogs; and three marshes.

      Because the designation of wetlands as ORWs is such an appropriate
classification for many wetland systems, it would behoove the States to adopt
regulations which maximize the ability of State agencies and  citizens to have wetlands
and other waters placed in this category.   The State of Kentucky has set out
procedures for the designation of these waters in its water quality standards. Certain
categories  of waters automatically included as ORWs are: waters designated under the
Kentucky Wild Rivers Act or the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; waters within a
formally dedicated nature preserve or published in the registry of natural areas and
concurred upon by the cabinet; and waters that  support federally recognized
endangered or threatened species.  In  addition, Kentucky's water quality standards
include a provision allowing; anyone to propose waters for the ORW classification.31

       Minnesota has a section in its water quality standards that could be called an
"emergency" provision for the designation of outstanding resource waters.   Normally it
 is necessary under Minnesota's water quality standards for the  agency to provide an
 opportunity for a hearing before identifying and establishing outstanding resource waters
 and before prohibiting or .restricting any discharges to those waters. The "emergency"
 provision allows the agency to prohibit new or expanded discharges for unlisted waters
 'to the extent... necessary to preserve the existing high quality, or to preserve the
 wilderness, scientific, recreational, or other special characteristics that make the water an
 outstanding resource value water."32  This provision allows the agency to protect the
 waterbody while completing the listing process which could take several years.

       Moreover, some States have improved on the formulation of the ORW
 classification by spelling out the protection provided by that designation more
 specifically than do EPA's regulations. For instance, Massachusetts' water quality
 standards state that for "National Resource Waters:"

        Waters  so designated may not be degraded and are not subject to a variance,
       procedure.  New discharges of pollutants to such waters are prohibited.
       Existing discharges shall be eliminated unless the discharger is able to
       demonstrate that: (a) Alternative means of disposal are not reasonably
       available or feasible; and (b)  The discharge will not affect the quality of the
        water as a national resource.33
                                           19

-------
  This provision explicitly outlines how the State intends to maintain and protect the
  water quality of ORWs. Another provision which Minnesota uses to control discharges
  to waters that flow into ORWs for their effect on ORWs is that:

        The agency shall require new or expanded discharges that flow into
        outstanding resource value waters [to] be controlled so as to assure no
        deterioration in the quality of the downstream outstanding resource value
        water.34
 V.     USING 401 CERTIFICATION

        A. The Permits/Licenses Covered and the Scope of Review

        The language of Section 401(a)(l) is written very broadly with respect to the
 activities it covers.  "[A]ny activity, including, but not limited to, the construction or
 operation of facilities, which may result in anv discharge" requires water aualitv
 certification.                                                        i   J
 v               9°ngress first enacted ^ water quality certification provision in 1970,
 it spoke of the "wide variety of licenses and permits . . . issued by various Federal
 agencies,  which "involve activities or operations potentially affecting water quality"*
 The purpose of the water quality certification requirement, the Congress said, was to
 ensure that no license or permit would be issued "for an activity that through
 inadequate planning or otherwise could in fact become a source of pollution."36


              L Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to Certification

       The first consideration is which federal permits or licenses are subject to 401
 certification.  OWP has identified five federal permits and/or licenses which authorize
 activities which may result in a discharge to the waters. These are: permits for point
 source discharges under Section 402 and discharges of dredged and fill material under
 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for activities in navigable waters which
 may affect navigation under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers  and  Harbors Act (RHA);
 and licenses required for hydroelectric projects issued under the Federal Power Act '

       There are likely other federal permits and licenses, such as permits for activities
 on public lands, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses, which may result in a
 discharge and thus require 401 certification. Each State should work with EPA and the
federal agencies active in its State to determine whether 401  certification is in fact
applicable.
                                        20

-------
      Indeed, it is not always clear when 401 certification should apply.  For instance,
there remains some confusion under Sections 9 and 10 of RHA concerning which  ..
projects may involve or result in a discharge, and thus require State certification. In
many cases there is an overlap between Section 404 CWA and Sections 9 and 10 RHA.
Where these permits overlap, 401  certification always applies. Under the Section 404
regulations, the question of whether dredging involves a discharge and is therefore
subject to Section 404, depends on whether there is more than "de minimis, incidental
soil movement occurring duiing normal dredging operations".37

      Where only a Section 9 or  10 permit is required, 401 certification would apply if
the activity may lead to a discharge. For example, in the case of pilings, which the
Corps sometimes considers subject to Section 10 only, a 401 certification would be
required for the Section 10 permit if structures on top of the pilings may result in a
discharge.

       States should notify the regional office of federal permitting or licensing agencies
of their authority to review these permits and licenses (e.g., the Corps of Engineers for
Section 404 in nonauthorized States, and Sections 9 and 10 of the RHA; EPA for
Section 402 permits in nonauthorized States; and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) for hydropower licenses).  In thek 401 certification implementing
regulations, States should also give notice to applicants for these  particular federal
permits and licenses, and for all other permits and licenses that may result in a
discharge to waters of the State, of their obligation to obtain 401 certification from the
State.

       West Virginia's 401 certification implementing regulations, for instance, state
 that:

       1.1.  Scope.. .. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that any
       applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity which will or
       may discharge into waters of the United States (as defined in the Clean
       Water Act) must present the federal authority with a certification from the
       appropriate State agency. Federal permits and licenses issued by the federal
       government requiring certification include permits issued by the United States
       Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33
       U.S.C 1344 and licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
       Commission under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 1791 et seq.38

       Because West  Virginia has been authorized to administer the NPDES permitting
 program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, applicants for NPDES permits do
 not have to apply for water quality certification separately.  In addition, West Virginia
 has not specifically designated Rivers and Harbors Act permits in the above regulation.
 However, because the regulation States that such permits or licenses include Section

                                          21

-------
  404 and FERC licenses, those and all other permits not specifically designated but
  which may result in a discharge to the waters would be covered by the regulation's-
  language.  The better approach would be to enumerate all such licenses and permits
  that are known to the State and include a phrase for all others generically.


              2. Scope of Review Under Section 401

        An additional issue is the scope of the States' review under Section 401
  Congress intended for the States to use the water quality certification process to ensure
  that no federal license or permits would be issued that would violate State standards or
  become a source of pollution  in the future.  Also, because the States' certification of a
  construction permit or license also operates as certification for an operating permit
  (except for in certain instances specified in Section 401(a)(3)), it is imperative for a
  State review to consider all potential water quality impacts of the project, both direct
  and indirect, over the life of the project

     .- A.secpnd component of the scope of the review is when an activity requiring 401
  certification m one State (Le. the State in which the discharge originates) will  have an
  impact on the water quality of another Stated The statute provides that after receiving
  notice of application from a federal permitting or licensing agency, EPA will notify any
  States whose water quality may be affected. Such States have the right to submit their
  objections  and request a hearing. EPA may also submit its evaluation and
  recommendations. If the use of conditions cannot insure compliance with the affected
  States water quality requirements, the federal permitting or licensing agency shall not
  issue such  permit or license.                                           *

        The following example of 401 certification denial by the Pennsylvania
 Department of Environmental Resources (DER) for a proposed FERC hydroelectric
 project illustrates the breadth of the scope of review under Section 401 (see Appendix
 C for full description of project and impacts addressed). The City of Harrisburg,
 Pennsylvania proposed to construct a hydroelectric power project on the Susquehanna
 River.  The Pennsylvania DER considered a full range of potential impacts on the
 aquatic system in its review.  The impacts included those on State waters located  at the
 dam site, as well as those downstream and upstream from the site.  The impacts
 considered  were not just from the discharge initiating the certification review, but water
 quality impacts from the entire project  Thus,  potential impacts such as flooding,
 changes in dissolved oxygen, loss of wetlands, and  changes in groundwater, both from
 construction and future operation of the project, were all considered in the State's
 decision.

       The concerns expressed  by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources are not necessarily all those that a State should consider in a dam

                                        22

-------
certification review; each project will have its own specific impacts and potential water
quality problems. The point of the illustration is to show that all of the potential
effects of a proposed activity on water quality ~ direct and indirect, short and long
term, upstream and downstream, construction and operation - should be part of a
State's certification review.
       B.    Conditioning 401 Certifications for Wetland Protection

       In 401(d), the Congress has given the States the authority to place any conditions
on a water quality certification that are necessary to assure that the  applicant will
comply with effluent limitations, water quality standards, standards of performance or
pretreatment standards; with any State law provisions or regulations more stringent than
those sections; and with "any other appropriate requirement of State law."

       The legislative histoiy of the subsection indicates that the Congress meant for the
States to impose whatever conditions on the certification are necessary to ensure that
an applicant complies with all State requirements that are related to water quality
 concerns.

              1.     What are Appropriate Conditions?

      '  There are any number of possible conditions that could be placed on a
 certification that have as their purpose preventing water quality deterioration.

        By way of example, the State of Maryland issued a certification with conditions
 for placement of fill to construct a 35-foot earthen dam located 200 feet downstream of
 an existing dam.  Maryland used some general conditions  applicable to many of the
 proposed projects it considers, along with specific conditions tailored to  the proposed
 project  Examples  of the conditions placed on this particular certification include:

        The applicant shall obtain and certify compliance with a grading and sediment
        control plan  which has been approved by the [county] Soil Conservation District.
        The approved plan shall be available at the project site during  all phases of
        construction.

        Stormwater runoff p-om impervious surfaces shatt be controlled to prevent the
        washing of debris into the waterway. The natural vegetation shall be maintained
        and restored when disturbed or eroded.  Stormwater  drainage facilities shall be
        designed,  implemented,  operated, and maintained in accordance  with the
        requirements of the applicable approving authority.


                                          23

-------
        The applicant is required to provide a mixing tower release structure to achieve in-
        stream compliance with Class III trout temperature (20[degrees] C) and dissolved
        oxygen (5.0 mg/liter), standards prior to the Piney Run/Church Creek confluence.
        The design of this structure shall be approved by the Maryland Department of the
        Environment (MDE).

        The applicant is required to provide a watershed management plan to minimize
        pollutant loadings into the reservoir.  This plan shall be reviewed and approved by
        MDE prior to operation of the new dam facility. In conjunction with this plan's
        development any sources of pollutant loading identified during field surveys shall be
        eliminated or minimized to the extent possible given available technology.

        The applicant is required to provide to MDE an operating and maintenance plan for
        the dam assuring minimum downstream flows in accordance with the requirements
        of the DNR and assuring removal of accumulated sediments with subsequent
        approved disposal of the materials removed.

        The applicant is to provide  mitigation for the wetlands lost as a result of the
        construction of this project and its subsequent operation.  Wetland recreation should
        be located in the newly created headwaters areas to: a) assure adequate filtration of
        runoff prior to its entry into the reservoir and b) replace the aquatic resource being
        lost on an acre for acre basis.
                          .x
        See Appendix D for the fall list of conditions placed  on this certification. While
 few of these conditions are based directly on traditional water quality standards, all are
 valid and relate to the maintenance of water quality  or the designated use of the waters
 in some way. Some  of the conditions are clearly requirements of State or local law
 related to water quality other than those promulgated pursuant to the CWA sections
 enumerated in Section 401(a)(l).  Other conditions were designed to minimize the
 project's  adverse effects on water quality over the life of the project

       In addition,  Appendix D contains a list of conditions which West Virginia and
 Alaska placed on the certification of some Section 404 nationwide permits. Many of
 the West Virginia conditions are typical of ones it uses on individual proposals as well.
 For any particular project, West Virginia wffl include more specific conditions designed
 to address the potential adverse effects of the project in addition to those enumerated
 in Appendix D. The conditions from Alaska are used on a nationwide permit  (#26)
regarding isolated waters and waters above headwaters. These conditions are discussed
in Section V. C(l).
                                         24

-------
             2.     The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification

      Many States are trying to determine the role that mitigation should play in 40l
certification decisions.  We cannot answer this question definitively for each State, but
offer as a guide EPA's general framework for mitigation under the Section 404(b)(l)
Guidelines used to evaluate applications for Section 404 permits.  In assuring
compliance of a project with the Guidelines, EPA's approach  is to first, consider
avoidance of adverse impacts, next, determine ways to minimize the impacts, and
finally, require appropriate and practicable compensation for unavoidable impacts.

      The Guidelines provide for avoiding adverse impacts by selecting the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In addition, wetlands are "special
aquatic sites."  For such siites, if the proposed activity is not "water dependent,"
practicable alternatives with less adverse environmental impacts are presumed to be
available unless the applicant clearly demonstrates otherwise.40

       The Guidelines also require an applicant to take "appropriate and practicable"
steps to minimize the impacts of the least environmentally damaging alternative
selected.41  Examples  in the Guidelines for minimizing impacts through project
modifications and best management practices are provided in Appendix E.

       After these two steps are" complete, appropriate compensation is required for the
remaining unavoidable adverse impacts.  Compensation would consist of restoration of
previously altered wetlands or creation of wetlands from upland sites.  In most cases,
compensation on or adjacent to the project site is preferred over off-site locations.  The
restoration or creation should be functionally equivalent to the values which are lost
Finally,  compensating with the same type of wetland lost is preferred to using another
wetland type.

       The States may choose to adopt mitigation policies which require additional
 replacement to help account for the uncertainty in the science of wetland, creation and
 restoration. What is impoirtant from EPA's perspective is that mitigation not be used as
 a trade-off for avoidable losses of wetlands, and that mitigation compensate, to the
 fullest extent possible, for the functional values provided to the local ecosystem by the
 wetlands unavoidably lost by the project
              3.    The Role of Other State Laws

       Another question that has been asked is-what State law or other requirements
 are appropriately used to condition a 401 certification.  The legislative history of
 Section 401(d) indicates that Congress meant for the States to condition certifications
 on compliance with any State and local law requirements related to water quality

                                          25

-------
 preservation. The courts that have touched on the issue have also indicated that
 conditions that relate in any way to water quality maintenance are appropriate. Each
 State will have to make these determinations  for itself, of course; there are any number
 of State and local programs that have components related to water quality preservation
 and enhancement.

       One issue that has arisen in two court  cases is whether a State may use State
 law requirements, other than those that are more stringent than the provisions of
 Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the CWA(401(a)(l)),  to deny water quality
 certification.  An Oregon State court has ruled that a State  may, and indeed must,
 include conditions on certifications reflecting State law requirements "to the extent that
 they have any relationship to water quality." "Only to the extent that [a State law
 requirement] has absolutely no relationship to water quality," the court said,  "would it
 not be an 'other appropriate requirement of State law."142  State agencies must act in
 accord with State law, of course, and thus the decision to grant certification carries with
 it the obligation to condition certification to ensure compliance with such  State
 requirements.

       This State court decision struck down a State agency's denial of certification
 because it was based on the applicant's failure to certify compliance with  a county's
 comprehensive plan and land use ordinances.  The court held that such "other
 appropriate requirement[s] of State law" could not be the basis for denying certification.
 However, the court held that the agency should determine which of the provisions of
 the land use ordinances had any relation  to the maintenance and preservation of water
 quality.  Any such provisions, the court said, could and should be the basis for
 conditions placed on a certification.

       Another State court, however, this one in West Virginia, has upheld the State's
 denial of certification on the basis of State law requirements  unrelated to  the
 implementation of the CWA provisions enumerated in Section 401(a)(l).43 The court
 simply issued an order upholding the State's denial, however, and did not  write an
 opinion on the subject The questions raised by these two opinions are thorny.  If
 States may not deny certification based on State law requirements other than those
 implementing the CWA, yet want to address related requirements of State law, they
 must walk a thin line between their State requirements and the limitations of their
 certification authority under federal law.

       One way to avoid these difficulties and to ensure that  401  certification may
properly be used to deny certification where the State has determined that the activity
cannot be conditioned in such a way as to ensure compliance with State water quality
related requirements, is to adopt water quality standards that include  all State
provisions related to water quality preservation. Congress has given the States great
latitude to adopt water quality standards that take into consideration the waters' use for

                                        26

-------
such things as "the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and . . . other
purposes."44  Because of the broad authority granted by the Congress to the States to
adopt water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the CWA, and because
compliance with Section 303 is clearly one of the bases on which a State can deny
certification,  the States  can  avoid the difficulty of the deny/condition dilemma by
adopting water standards that include all the water quality related considerations it
wishes to include in the 401 certification review.

       For example, the State of Washington has included State water right permit flow
requirements in its conditions for certification of a dam project  This is one means of
helping to ensure that hydrological changes do not adversely affect the  quality of a
waterbody.  However, a more direct approach is to  include a narrative  criterion in the
State's water quality standards that requires maintenance of base flow necessary to
protect the wetland's (or other waterbody's) living resources. The State of Kentucky has
such a criterion in its water quality standards (see previous section IV.  D(l) on "Using
Narrative Criteria").  Placing the provision directly in the State standards might better
serve the State if a certification is challenged because the requirement  would be an
explicit consideration of 401 certification.
       C     Special Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits: Nationwide and
              After-the-Fact Permits

              1.  Nationwide Permits.

       Pursuant to Section  404(e) of the CWA, the Corps may issue general permits,
 after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, on a State, regional or
 nationwide basis for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged or fill
 material, where such activities are similar in nature and will cause only minimal adverse
 environmental effects both individually and cumulatively.  These permits may remain in
 effect for 5 years, after wliich they must be reissued with notice and an opportunity for
 a hearing.  If the activities; authorized by general permits may result in a discharge, the
 permits are subject to the State water quality certification requirement when they are
 first proposed and when piroposed for reissuance. States may either grant certification
 with appropriate conditions or deny certification of these permits.

       Under the Corps' regulations, if a State has denied certification of any particular
 general permit, any person proposing to do work pursuant to such  a permit must first
 obtain State water quality certification.  If a State .has conditioned the grant of
 certification upon some requirement of State review prior to the activity's commencing,
 such conditions] must be satisfied before work can begin.
                                          27

-------
       Some States have reported that for general permits for which they have denied
 water quality certification or on which they have imposed some condition of review,.
 they are having difficulties ensuring that parties performing activities pursuant to these
 permits are applying to the State for water quality certification or otherwise fulfilling
 the conditions placed on the certification prior to the commencement of work under
 these permits.

       At least one State is grappling with the problem through its 401 certification
 implementing regulations. The State of West Virginia denied certification for some
 nationwide permits issued by the  Corps and conditioned the granting of certification for
 others.  One of the conditions that West Virginia has imposed on those certifications
 that it granted (which thus apply  to all nationwide permits in the  State) is compliance
 with its 401. certification implementing regulations. The regulations in turn require that
 any person authorized to conduct an activity under a nationwide permit must, prior to
 conducting any activity authorized by a Corps general permit, publish a Class I legal
 advertisement in a qualified newspaper in the county where the activity is proposed to
 take place.  The notice must describe the activity, advise the public of the scope of the
 conditionally granted certification, the public's right to comment on the proposed
 activity and its right to request a  hearing.  The applicant must  forward a certificate of
 publication of this notice to the State agency prior to conducting any such activity.45

       The regulation further provides that any person whose property, interest in
 property or "other constitutionally protected interest under [the West Virginia
 Constitution] [is] directly affected by the Department's certification" may request a
 hearing within 15 days of the publication of  the notice  given by the applicant The
 agency wfll then decide whether to "uphold,  modify or withdraw certification for the
 individual activity.14

       West Virginia program officers have described the reasons  for this procedure:

       Because of a long-standing concern ... that untracked dredge and fill
       activities could prove disastrous on both individual and cumulative bases,  the
       regulations require an authorized permittee funder federal law] to forward
       proof of publication and a copy of the  newspaper advertisement.  The
       information on the notice is logged into a computer system and a site specific
       inspection sheet is generated. Inspectors then may visit the site to determine
       compliance with permit conditions and to evaluate cumulative impacts.46

       Without such notice and a  tracking system of activities performed under these
permits, such as that adopted by West Virginia, it will be difficult  for a State to
evaluate whether or not to grant or deny water quality certification for these permits
when they come up for reissuance by the Corps or to condition them in such  a way as
to avoid adverse impacts peculiar  to each of these general permits. It is advisable for

                                         28

-------
the States, regardless of whether they have granted or denied certification, to adopt as
part of their 401 certification implementing regulations, provisions addressing these •.
concerns for general permits.

       Another way in which some States are attempting to minimize the potential
environmental impact of nationwide permits  is by stringently conditioning their
certification. Alaska, for instance, placed conditions on nationwide permit 26 regarding
isolated waters and waters above the headwaters. One of the conditions Alaska used
excludes isolated or headwater wetlands of known or suspected high value.  When there
is uncertainty about a particular wetland, the Corps is required to send pre-discharge
notification to designated State officials for a determination.  (See Appendix D for a
full description of conditions on nationwide permit 26).
       2. Section 404 After-the-Fact Permits

       The Corps of Engineers' regulations implementing Section 404 provide for the
 acceptance of after-the-fact permit applications for unauthorized discharges except
 under certain circumstances.  Several States have expressed concern with after-the-fact
 permits, including the belief that once the discharges have taken place, the water
 quality certification process is moot Because of that belief, many States report that
 they waive certification for after-the-fact permits. Such ah approach frustrates law
 enforcement efforts generally and the water quality certification process in particular
 because it encourages illegal activity.

       The evaluation of aifter-the-fact permit applications should be no different than
 for normal applications.  Because the burden should be on the applicant to show
 compliance with water quality standards and other CWA requirements, rather than
 waiving certification, States could deny certification if the applicant cannot show from
 baseline data prior to its activity that the activity did not violate water quality standards.
 If data exist to determine compliance with water quality standards,  the States' analysis
 should be no different merely because the work has already been partially performed or
 completed.  Arkansas denied after-the-fact water quality certification of a wetland fill as
 follows:

        [a certain slough] is currently classified as a warmwater fishery ....
       Draining and clearing of [its associated] wetlands wul significantfy alter the
        existing use by drastically reducing or eliminating  the fishery habitat and
       spawning areas. This physical alteration of the lake will prevent it from being
        "water which is suitable for the propagation of indigenous warmwater species
        offishn which is the definition of a warmwater fishery. Thus,  the ... project
        [violates] Section 3 (A) of the Arkansas Water Quality Standards,  "Existing
        instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the

                                          29

-------
       existing uses shall be maintained and protected."  The Department
       recommends the area be restored to as near original contours as possible.

       With after-the-fact permits, just as with any other permit application, if the State
 denies certification, the Corps is prohibited from granting  a permit.  If the applicant
 refuses to restore the area and does not have a permit, the applicant is subject to a
 potential enforcement action for restoration and substantial penalties for the
 unpennitted discharge of pollutants by the EPA, the Corps, a citizen under the citizen
 suit provision of the CWA, or by the State, if the activity violates a prohibition of State
 law.

       If the State determines that it will get a better environmental result by
 conditioning certification, it may choose to take that approach. The condition might
 require mitigation for the filled area (where restoration may cause more environmental
 harm than benefit, for instance) with restoration or creation of a potentially more
 valuable wetland area.

       In any event, a State should not waive certification of an after-the-fact permit
 application simply because it is after-the-fact.
 VL   DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS:
       ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

       A comprehensive set of 401 certification implementing regulations would have
 both procedural and substantive provisions which mammire the State agency's control
 over the process and which make its decisions defensible in court.  The very fact of
 having 401 certification regulations goes a long way in providing the State agency that
 implements 401 certification with credibility in the courts. Currently, no State has "ideal"
 401 certification implementing regulations, and many do not have them at all.  When
 401 certification regulations are carefully considered, they can be very effective not only
 in conserving the quality of the State's waters, but in providing the regulated sectors
 with some predictability of State actions, and  in minimising the State's financial and
 human resource requirements as well.

       Everything in this handbook relates in some way to the development of sound
water quality standards and 401 certification implementing regulations that will enhance
wetland protection. This section addresses some very basic procedural considerations of
401 certification implementing regulations which have not been treated elsewhere.
These include provisions concerning the contents of an application for certification; the
agency's timeframe for review; and the requirements placed on the applicant in the
certification process.

                                        30

-------
      A.    Review Timef rame and "Complete" Applications

      Under Section 401(a,)(l) a State will be deemed to have waived certification if it
fails to act within "a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after
receipt of such request"  Program  managers should keep in mind that the federal
permitting or license agency may have regulations of its own which provide a time limit
for the State's certification decision.  For instance, Corps regulations say that a waiver
"will be deemed to  occur if the certifying agency fails or refuses to act on a request for
certification within sixty days after  receipt... unless the district engineer determines a
shorter or longer period is reasonable	ll47  FERC rules state that a certifying
agency "is deemed to have waived  the certification requirements if ... [it] has not
denied or granted certification by one year after the date the certifying agency received
the request".48 EPA regulations for Section 402 in non-authorized States set a limit of
60 days unless the Regional Administrator finds that unusual circumstances require a
longer time.49

       States should coordinate closely with the appropriate federal agency on timing
issues.  For example, Alaska negotiated joint EPA/State procedures for coastal NPDES
permit review. The agreement takes into account and coordinates EPA, Coastal Zone
Management, and 401 certification time frames.

       It  is  also advisable for the States to adopt  rules which reasonably protect against
an unintended waiver due, for example, to  insufficient information to make a
certification decision or because project plans have  changed enough to warrant a
reevaluation of the impacts on water quality. Thus, after taking the federal agencies'
regulations  into account, the State's 401 certification regulations should link the  timing
for review to  what is considered receipt of a complete application.

       Wisconsin, for instance, requires the applicant to submit a  complete application
for certification before the official agency review  time begins. The State's regulations
define the major components of a complete application, including the existing physical
environment at  the site, the size of the area affected, all environmental impact
assessment information provided to the licensing  or permitting agency, and the like.
The rules State that the agency will review the application for completeness within 30
days of its receipt and notify the applicant of any additional materials reasonably
necessary for review.  Although the  application will be deemed "complete" for purposes
of review time if the agency does  not request  additional materials within 40 days of
receipt of the application, the agency reserves the right to request additional
information during the review process.50
                                         31

-------
       In the case of FERC projects, West Virginia has taken additional precautions
 with regard to time for review:

       Jf the project application is altered or modified during the FERC licensing
       process prior to FERC's final decision, the applicant shall inform the
       Department of such changes. The Department may review such alterations or
       modifications and, if the changes are deemed significant by the Director, the
       Department may require a new application for certification. The Department
       will have ninety (90) days to review such changes or'until the end of the year
       review period..., whichever is longer, to determine whether to require a
       new application or to alter its original certification decision. If the
       department requires a new application because of a significant application
       modification,  then the Department will have six (6) months to issue its
       certification decision from the date of submission of the application.51


       B.     Requirements for the Applicant

       It is very important, in particular for conserving the agency's resources and
 ensuring that there is sufficient information to determine that water quality standards
 and other provisions of the CWA will not be violated by the activity, to clarify that it is
 the applicant who is responsible for providing or proving particular facts or
 requirements.

       For instance, Section 401(a)(l) requires that a State "establish procedures for
 public notice in the case of all applications for certification."  West Virginia requires
 applicants for FERC licenses to be responsible for this notice. In the case of Section
 404 permits, West Virginia has a joint notice process with the Corps to issue public
 notices for 404 applications which also notify the public of the State certification
 process. Thus, there is no need for West Virginia to require the applicant to do so for
 these permits.52

       A second consideration is that States should require  the applicant to demonstrate
 the project's compliance with applicable federal and State law and  regulation. EPA's
 401  certification regulations name the sources of information a State should use.as that
 contained in the application and other information "furnished  by the applicant"
sufficient to allow the agency to make a statement that water quality standards will not
be violated.53  Of course in addition, the regulations also refer to other information the
agency may choose to examine which is not furnished by the applicant.
                                         32

-------
       Ohio, for instance, has written a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate
compliance  into its 401 certification implementing regulations:

       (A) The director shall not issue a Section 401 water quality certification
       unless he determines that the applicant has demonstrated that the discharge
       of dredged or fill material to waters of the state or the creation of any
       obstruction or alteration in waters of the state wilk54  (1) Not prevent or
       interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality
       standards; (2) Not result in a  violation of any applicable provision of the
       following sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [301, 302,  303,
       306 and 307].

       (B) 'Notwithstanding an applicant's demonstration of the criteria in paragraph
       (A) . .. the director may deny an application for a Section 401 water quality
       certification if the director concludes that the discharge of dredged or fill
       material or obstructions or alterations in waters of the state will result in
       adverse long or short term  impact on water quality.55
       C    Permit Fees

       A very significant concern for all States who plan to initiate or expand their 401
 certification program is the availability of funding.  Application fee requirements are a
 potential funding source to supplement State program budgets.  The State of
 California's Regional Water Quality Control Boards require filing fees for 401
 certification applications unless a Board determines that certification is not required.
 The fee structure is spelled out in the California Water Code.  The money collected
 from the fees goes into the State agency's general fund.  The Regional Boards may
 recover some portion of the fees through the budget request process.  The State of
 Ohio also  has a fee structure for 401 certification applicants. In Ohio, however, fees go
 into the State's general fund, rather than back into the State agency.  Neither State
 collects fees sufficient to  support the  401 certification program fully.  Despite these
 potential barriers, application fees could provide a much needed funding source which
 States should explore.
       D.     Basis for Certification Decisions

       The regulations should also set out the grounds on which the decision to grant or
 deny certification will be based, the scope of the State's review, and the bases for
 conditioning a certification.  If a State has denied water quality certification  for a
 general permit or has conditioned such  a permit on some requirement of State review,
 the State's 401 certification implementing regulations might also outline the  obligations

                                          33

-------
 of a person proposing to accomplish work under such a permit.  The following is a
 hypothetical example of regulatory language a State might use to define the grounds for
 the State's decision to grant, condition, or deny certification:
       In order to obtain certification of any proposed activity that may result in a
       discharge to waters of the United States, an applicant must demonstrate  that
       the entire activity over its lifetime will not violate or interfere with the
       attainment of any limitations or standards contained in Section 301, 302,  303,
       306, and 307, the federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and. any
       provisions of state law or regulation adopted pursuant to, or which are more
       stringent than, those provisions of the dean Water Act
         «

       The agency may condition certification on any requirements consistent with
       ensuring the applicant's compliance with the provisions tested above, or with
       any other requirements of state law related to the maintenance, preservation,
       or enhancement of water quality.
 This sample regulatory language provides the grounds for the certification decision, sets
 the scope of review (lifetime effects of the entire activity') and clearly States that the
 applicant must demonstrate compliance. For purposes of conditioning the certification
 in the event it is granted, the same standards can be applied, with the addition of any
 other requirements of State law that are related to water quality.

       Regulations are not project specific.  They must be generally applicable to all
 projects subject to 401 certification review, while at the same time providing reasonable
 notice to an applicant regarding the general standards employed by the agency in the
 certification process. (A State may choose to adopt h'cense/permit-speciflc regulations
 for 401 certification, but such regulations wffl still have to be applicable to all activities
 that may occur pursuant to that license or permit).

       There are other considerations that should be addressed in 401 certification
 implementing regulations, some of which have been  mentioned in other parts of this
 handbook. These include provisions which require applicants for federal licenses  and
 permits which may result in a discharge to apply for water quality certification;
provisions which define waters of the State to include wetlands and which define other
pertinent terms; and provisions addressing general permits.
                                        34

-------
VH.  EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401
      CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS

      According  to a number of State program managers, more data on wetland
functions, or "uses," would greatly assist the certification process.  Wetland ecosystems
not only perform  a wide variety of functions but do so in varying  degrees. Public
agencies and private applicants currently employ a number of assessment methods such
as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique and the Habitat Evaluation Procedure to
determine what functions or uses exist in a_ particular wetland system.56  In many States,
however, water quality certification reviewers lack the resources to perform even a
simple assessment of a wetland's boundaries, values and functions.  Information about
the location and types of wetland systems,  and  of the functions  they may perform (such
as flood storage, habitat, pollution attenuation,  nutrient uptake, and sediment fixing)
would aid standard writers in developing appropriate uses and criteria for wetlands, and
allow 401 certification officials to conduct a more thorough review.

      Several States already have extensive knowledge of their wetland resources, and
data gathering efforts are also being undertaken by EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and other agencies.57 Although these efforts to inventory and classify wetlands
have  not been closely tied to the 401 certification process in the past, these existing
data can be valuable sources of information for 401 certification reviewers.  It is
important to remember, however, that wetland boundaries for regulatory purposes may
differ from those identified by National Wetland Inventory maps for general inventory
purposes. The EPA, Corps of Engineers, Fish  and Wildlife Service, and Soil
Conservation Service have adopted a joint manual for  identifying  and delineating
wetlands in the United States. The manual will be available in June, 1989.58

      There are several programs that offer technical  support for 401 certification
decisions. For example, approximately forty States have  worked with the Nature
Conservancy to establish "natural heritage programs," which identify the most critical
species, habitats,  plant communities, and other natural features within a State's
territorial boundaries.  Most States now have a State natural heritage office to
coordinate this identification program.  Inventory efforts  such as the natural  heritage
program could give 401 certification managers  some of the information they need to
limit  or prohibit adverse water quality impacts  in important wetland areas.  Specifically,
the inventory process can identify existing wetland uses in order to maintain them. The
information may also be used in identifying wetlands for  Outstanding Resource  Waters
designation.59

      The Fish and Wildlife Service  maintains a Wetlands Values Data Base which
may be very useful in identifying wetland functions and in designating wetland uses for
water quality standards. The data base is  on computer and contains an annotated
bibliography of scientific literature on wetland functions and values.60 Several States

                                        35

-------
have established critical area programs to identify and protect unique and highly
sensitive land and water resources. These programs can provide data to the State
water quality certification office and thereby strengthen the scientific basis for 401
certification decision making.61

      Another potential source of information which might identify wetlands
appropriate for designation as Outstanding Resource Waters are the wetland plans
which each State is required to develop to comply with the 1986 Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act  Beginning in fiscal year 1988, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plans (SCORP) must now contain" a Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan
approved by the Department of Interior.  Although these plans are primarily focused
on wetlands for acquisition, they are a potential source of data on wetland locations
and functions.  The wetlands identified may also be suitable for special  protection under
the Outstanding Resource Waters provisions of the  antidegradation policy.

      The Advance Identification program (ADHD), conducted by EPA and the
permitting authority, may also furnish a considerable amount of useful information.
EPA's 404(b)(l) Guidelines contain a procedure for identifying in advance areas that
are generally suitable or unsuitable for the deposit of dredged or fill material.62  In
recent years, EPA has made greater use of this authority.  ADID is  often used in
wetland areas that are experiencing significant development or other conversion
pressures.  Many ADID efforts generate substantial data on the location and functions
of wetlands within the study area such as  wetland maps, and habitat, water quality, or
hydrological studies.

      Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) are another planning process which
may yield useful information.  SAMPs refer to a process authorized by the 1980
amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act, which provides grants
to States to develop comprehensive plans for natural resource protection and
"reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth."63  The SAMP process implicitly
recognizes the State water quality certification process, directing all relevant local, State,
and federal authorities to coordinate permit programs in carrying out the completed
SAMP.  The Corps of Engineers has supported and initiated several of these processes.
Li addition, other SAMPs have been completed by several States.

      Much of these data can be collected, combined, and used in decision making
with the aid of geographic-based computer systems that  can store, analyze, and present
data related to wetlands in graphic and written forms.64  A reviewing official can quickly
access and overlay a range of different existing information bases such as flora and
fauna inventories, soil surveys, remote sensing data,  watershed and wetland maps,
existing  uses and criteria, and project proposal information.
                                        36

-------
      Finally, data is presently emerging on the use of wetlands as treatment areas for
wastewater, stormwater, and non-point discharges.65  Florida, for instance, has adopted
a rule on wastewater releases into wetlands.66  Florida prohibits wastewater discharges
into the following kinds of wetlands: those designated as outstanding waters of the
State; wetlands within potable water supplies; shellfish propagation or harvesting waters;
wetlands in areas of critical State concern; wetlands where herbaceous ground cover
constitutes more than thirty percent of the uppermost stratum (unless seventy-five
percent is cattail); and others.  Wastewater discharges are permitted in certain wetlands
dominated by woody vegetation, certain hydrologically altered wetlands, and artificially
created wetlands; however, the State applies special effluent limitations to take account
of a wetland's ability to assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus. It  also applies qualitative67
and quantitative68 design criteria.

      The rule establishes four "wetland biological quality" standards. First, the flora
and fauna of the wetland cannot be changed so as to impair the wetland's ability to
function in the propagation and maintenance of fish and wildlife populations or
substantially  reduce its effectiveness in wastewater treatment Second, the Shannon-
Weaver diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrates cannot be reduced below fifty
percent of background levels. Third,  fish populations must be monitored and
maintained, and an annual survey of each species must be conducted. Fourth, the
"importance  value" of any dominant plant species in the canopy and subcanopy at any
monitoring station cannot be reduced by more than fifty percent, and the average
"importance  value" of any dominant plant species cannot be reduced  by more than
twenty-five percent69

       These types of efforts, constantly being adjusted to take account of new
information in a field where knowledge is rapidly expanding, are fertile sources of
information for wetland standaird writers and 401 certification decision makers.
      SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED

       This handbook has only scratched the surface of issues surrounding effective use
 of 401 certification to protect wetlands. The preceding discussion and examples from
 active States have highlighted possible approaches for all States to incorporate into their
 401 certification programs.  The handbook shows that there are many things that a
 State can act on right away to improve the effectiveness of 401 certification to protect
 the  integrity of its wetlands.  At the same time, there are improvements to water quality
 standards for wetlands which will have to take place within a longer timeframe.
                                         37

-------
              Steps States Can Take Right Away
       All states should begin by explicitly incorporating wetlands into their
       definitions of state waters in both state water quality standards regulations,
       and in state 401 certifications regulations.

       States should develop or modify their regulations and guidelines for 401
       certification and water quality standards to clarify their programs, codify
       their decision process, and to incorporate special wetlands considerations into
       the more traditional water quality approaches.
    *   States should make more effective use of their existing narrative water quality
        standards (including the antidegradation policy) to protect wetlands.

    *   States should initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their wetland
        resources...;.:- ,,:v--   ' •    •     '         '

    *   States should designate uses for their wetlands based on estimates of wetland
        functions typically associated with given wetland types*  Such potential uses:
        could be verified for individual applications with an assessment tool such as
        the Wetlands Evaluation Technique or Aibitat Evaluation Pit>cedure.
   .  =•;;  :--  /-\:;/:^i>-™^                                 ^..^V^.  s.;rV:
    *   States should tap into the potential of the outstanding resource waters tier of
        the antidegradation policy for wetlands. It may not be an appropriate
        designation for all of a state's wetlands, but it can provide excellent
        protection to particularity valuable or ecologically sensitive wetlands from both
        physical and chemical degradation, '^*^*              '
           •                        *       -.: '.';"• V'^ ::-j>"y *• "
                                                                                 .
       States should incorporate wetlands and 401 certification into their other water
       quality management processes*  Integrating this tool with other mechanisms
       such as coastal zone management programs^ point and iaonpoiht source
       programs, and water quality management plans will help fill the gaps of each
       individual tool and allow better protection of wetlands systems from the
       whole host of physical, chemical, and biological impacts.
       Time and the courts may be needed to resolve some of the more complicated
and contentious issues surrounding 401 certification such as which federal permits and
.licenses require 401 certification. EPA intends to support States in resolving such
issues.
                                         38

-------
      OWP, in cooperation with the Office of Water Regulations and Standards  •.
(OWRS), will build on this 401 certification handbook by developing guidance in FY
89-90 on water quality standards for wetlands. The guidance will provide the
framework for States to incorporate wetlands into their water quality standards.  The
guidance will: require States to include wetlands as "waters of the State;" provide
methods to designate wetland uses that recognize differences in wetland types and
functions;  address some chemical-specific and narrative biological criteria for wetlands;
and discuss implementation of State antidegradation policies.
      B:     Laying the Groundwork for Future Decisions

      Many States are successfully applying their existing narrative and, to a lesser
extent, numeric water quality criteria to their wetland resources.  Nevertheless, more
work is needed to test the overall adequacy and applicability of these standards for
wetlands, and to develop additional criteria where needed.

      For example, existing criteria related to- pH do not account for the extreme
natural  acidity of many peat bogs nor the extreme alkalinity of certain fens. Also, many
existing criteria focus too extensively on the chemical quality of the water column
without adequately protecting the other physical and biological components which are
an integral part of wetland aquatic systems.  Some numeric criteria for chemicals may
not be protective enough of species (particularly bird species) which feed, breed, and/or
spend a portion of their life cycle in wetlands.  Hydrological changes can have severe
impacts on wetland quality, but these changes are rarefy addressed in traditional water
quality standards.

      Research of interest to State programs is being sponsored by the  Wetlands
Research Program of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).  Research
covers three areas:  Cumulative Effects, Water Quality, and Mitigation.  Although these
efforts will be developed over several years, interim products will be distributed to the
States.  States may find these products of use when developing criteria and standards,
when identifying and designating wetlands as outstanding resource waters, and when
making 401 certification decisions.
Cumulative Effects:

      EPA's research on cumulative effects of wetlands takes a regional perspective.
Through a series of regional! pilot studies involving landscape analyses, ORD is
correlating water quality conditions at the outlets of major watersheds with the
percentage of wetlands in these watersheds. The types of wetlands, their position, and

                                         39

-------
 non-wetland factors are also being analyzed.  The results will allow water quality
 managers in these regions to specify the optimal percentage and combination of various
 types of wetlands needed to maintain water quality of lakes and rivers. Such watershed
 criteria could be used to guide efforts to create or restore wetlands for the purpose of
 intercepting and improving the quality of nonpoint runoff.

       The pilot studies will also determine which wetland features can be used to
 predict wetland functions.  Once differences among wetlands can be identified based on
 their functions, it will be possible to classify particular wetlands with regard to specific
 designated uses.

       The cumulative effects program is using the results of the pilot studies as
 technical support for  developing a "Synoptic Assessment Method". This method has
 already been used to  rank watersheds within certain regions, according to the likely
 cumulative benefits of their wetlands. Also, sources of information useful for
 designating uses of individual wetlands were described by ORD in EPA's draft guidance
 for Advance Identification Appendix D.70  Information on regionally rare or declining
 wetland wfldlife, which could be used as one basis for establishing "special aquatic
 areas" in selected wetlands,  is also available from the ORD Wetlands Research Team
 at the Corvallis EPA  Lab.
Water Quality:

       Another ORD study, being implemented through the Duluth Lab, is examining
impacts to the water quality and biota of 30 wetlands, before and after regional
development This study wffl be useful, as part of 401 certification, for developing
performance standards for activities which may affect wetland water quality.

       Several research projects being proposed by the Wetland Research Program
could produce information very useful to water quality managers. These are described
in ORD's publication, "Wetlands and Water Quality:  A Research and Monitoring
Implementation Plan for the Years 1989-1994". Many of these proposals are planned,
but will hinge upon funding decisions in future budget years. Those which drew the
most support from a 1988 EPA workshop of scientists and State program administrators
were as follows:

o     Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wetland Function. Existing quality criteria for
      surface waters would be reviewed for applicability to wetlands.  Methods for
      biological and chemical monitoring of wetlands would be refined, and a field
      manual produced.
                                        40

-------
      Ecological Status and Trends of the Wetland Resource.  A nationwide network
      would be established to monitor the wetland resource.  Field surveys would -.
      define the expected range of numerical values within each region for particular
      chemicals and especially, for biological community metrics, across a gradient of
      sites ranging from nearly-pristine to severely disturbed.

      Waste Assimilative limits of Wetlands.  Observable features which determine
      the long-term ability of wetlands to retain contaminants and nutrients would be
      tested.  "Safe" loading limits for various substances would be proposed for
      specific wetland types or regions. Similar kinds of information would also
      become available from a research effort focused specifically on artificial wetlands
      and coordinated by EPA-Cincinnati, in cooperation with the Corvallis and Duluth
      Labs.  That study would recommend engineering design factors essential in
      wetlands constructed by municipalities for tertiary wastewater treatment
Mitigation:

      Information useful to 401 certification will also originate from ORD'S mitigation
research.  This research aims to determine if created and restored wetlands replace
functions lost by wetland destruction permitted under Section 404.  The research is
organized to (1) synthesize current knowledge on wetland creation and restoration, (2)
compile 404 permit information on created and restored wetlands, and (3) compare
created and naturally occuning wetlands.  Research results will be incorporated into a
"Mitigation Handbook" useful for designing and evaluating mitigation projects.  A
literature synthesis being developed as a Provisional Guidance Document will be
available in 1989.  A provisional version of the handbook will be produced in 1990.
This will assist States in identifying areas at greatest risk due to 404 permit activities
and thus help target 401 certification and water quality standards activities.
                                         41

-------
                              APPENDIX A

      Provided below are State 401 certifictation contacts and
who can provide assistance in applying 401 to wetlands.
                  wetlands contacts
      EPA has asked the Council of State Governments (CS6) to maintain a database
of State wetland contacts and programs.  In order to help keep the database up to
date, please contact CS6 when you have changes in your program or staff contacts, or
if you come across inaccuracies in other State programs. You can access this database
using virtually any computer with a modem. In order to obtain your free usemame
and password contact:

            The Council of State Governments
            P.O. Box 11910, Iron Works Pike
            Lexington, Kentucky 40578
            phone: (606) 252-2291
FEDERAL 401 CERTIFICATION CONTACTS FOR WETLANDS

EPA Headquarters;
Dianne Fish
Wetlands Strategies Team
(A-104F)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C 20460
Phone: (202) 382-7071
Jeanne Melanson
Outreach and State Programs Staff
(A-104F)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C  20460
Phone: (202) 475-6745
EPA Region Contacts:

EPA Region I
Doug Thompson, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section (WPP-
1900)
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617) 565-4421
EPA Region n
Mario del Vicario, Chief
Marine/Wetlands Prot Branch (2WM-
MWP)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-5170
                                     42

-------
EPA Region III
Barbara De Angelo, Chief
Marine & Wetlands Policy Sect. (3ES42)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107
(215)597-1181

EPA Region IV
Tom Welborn, Acting Chief
Wetlands Section (4WM-MEB)
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2126

EPA Region V
Doug Ehorn, Deputy Chief
Water Quality Branch (5WQ-TUB8)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
(312) 886-0139

EPA Region VI
Jerry Saunders, Chief
Technical Assistance Sect (6E-FT)
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 655-2260
EPA Region
B. Katherine Biggs, Chief
Environmental Review Branch (ENVR)
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 6610].
(913) 236-2823
 EPA Region VIE
 Gene Reetz, Chief
 Water Quality Requirements Sect.
 One Denver Place
 Suite 1300
 999 18th Street
 Denver, Colorado  80202
 (303)293-1568

 EPA Region IX
 Phil Oshida, Chief
 Wetlands Section (W-7)
 215 Fremont Street
 San Francisco, California  94105
 (415) 974-7429

 EPA Region X
 Bill Rfley, Chief
 Water Resources Assessment (WD-138)
 1200 Sixth Avenue
 Seattle, Washington  98101
 (206) 442-1412

 CD. Robison, Jr.
 Alaska Operations Office, Region X
 Federal Building Room E551
 701 C Street, Box 19
 Anchorage, Alaska  99513

 EPA Wetlands Research
 Eric Preston
 Environmental Research Lab
 Corvallis/ORD
 200 S.W. 35 Street
 Corvallis,OR  97333
 (503) 757-4666

BillSanville
Environmental Research
Laboratory/ORD
6201 Congdon Blvd
Duluth, MN 55804
(218) 720-5723
                                      43

-------
 State 401 CERTUb'lCATION CONTACTS

 Brad Gane
 Field Operation Division
 Dept. of Enviromental Management
 2204 Perimeter Road
 Mobile, Alabama  36615
 (205)479-2236

 Walter Tatum
 Field Operation Division
 Dept. of Enviromental Management
 2204 Perimeter Road
 Mobile, Alabama  36615
 (205) 968-7576

 Doug Redburn
 Dept of Enviromental Conservation
 3220 Hospital Drive
 Juneau, Alaska 99811
 (907) 465-2653

 Mr. Dick Stokes
 Southeast Office
 Department of Environmental
 Conservation
 P.O. Box 2420
 9000 Old Glacier Highway
 Juneau, Alaska 99803
 (907) 789-3151

 Mr. Tim Rumfelt
 Southcentral Office
 Department of Environmental
 Conservation
437 E Street, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska  99501
(907) 274-2533
 Mr. Paul Bateman
 Northern Office (Arctic)
 Department of Environmental
 Conservation
 1001 Noble Street, Suite 350
 Fairbanks,  Alaska  99701
 (907) 452-1714

 Ms. Joyce Beelman
 Northern Office (Interior)
 Department of Environmental
 Conservation
 1001 Noble Street, Suite 350
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
 (907) 452-1714

 Steve Drown
 Dept of Pollution Control and Ecology
 8001 National Drive
 Little Rock, Arkansas  72207
 (501) 652-7444

 Jack Hodges
 State Water Resources Control Board
 P.O. Box 100
 Sacramento, California  95801-0100
 (916) 322-0207

 Jon Scherschligt
 Water Quality Control Division
 4210 E. llth Avenue
 Denver, Colorado  80220
 (303) 320-8333

Douglas E.  Cooper
Wetlands Management Section
Dept of Env.  Prpt Water Resources
Room 203,  State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut   06106
(203) 566-7280
                                      44

-------
William F. Moyer
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 King's Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware  19903
(302) 736-4691

Richmond Williams
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Legal Office
89 King's Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
(302) 736-4691

Randall L. Armstrong
Division of Environmental Permitting
Dept. of Env. Regulation
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida  32399
(904) 488-0130

Mike Creason
Environmental Protection Division
Dept. of Natural Resources.
205 Butler Street S.E.
Floyd Towers East
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-4887

James K. Ikeda
Environmental Protection & Health
Services Division
Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801-9984
(808) 548-6455
John Winters
Water Quality and Standards Branch
Dept. of Env. Management
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
(317) 243-5028

Al Keller
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-0610

Bruce Yurdin
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-0610

Jerry Yoder
Bureau of Water Quality
Division of Environmental Quality
450 West State Street
Boise, Idaho  83720
(208) 334-5860

Ralph Turkic
Department of Natural Resources
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa  50319
(515) 281-7025

Lavoy Haage
Department of Natural Resources
900 East Grand Avenue
Henry A. Wallace Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa  50319
(515) 281-8877
                                        45

-------
 Larry Hess
 Dept. of Health and Environment
 Building 740
 Forbes Field
 Topeka, Kansas  66620
 (913) 862-9360

 Paul Beckley
 Division of Water
 Dept. of Natural Resources
 Fort Boone Plaza
 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
 (502) 564-310, ext 495

 Dale Givens
 Water Pollution Control
 P.O. Box 44091
 Baton Rouge, Louisiana  70804
 (504) 342-6363

 Donald T. Witherfll
 Dept of Env. Protection
 Division of Licensing
 Augusta, Maine  04333
 (207) 289-2111

 Mary Jo Games
 Division of Standards
 Department of the Environment
 201 West Preston Street
 Baltimore, Maryland  21201
 (301) 225-6293

 Jo Ann Watson
 Division of Standards
 Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland  21201
(301) 225-6293
 Ken Chrest
 Water Quality Bureau
 Cogswell Building
 Helena, Montana  59620
 (406) 444-2406

 Bill Gaughan
 Div. of Water Pollution
 Dept. of Env. Quality Engineering
 1 Winter Street
 Boston, Massachusetts  02108
 (617) 292-5658

 Judy Perry
 Regulatory Branch Div. of Water
 Pollution
 Dept. of Env. Quality Engineering
 1 Winter Street
 Boston, Massachusetts 02108
 (617) 292-5655

 Les Thomas
 Land and Water Management Div.
 Dept of Natural Resources
 P.O. Box 30028
 Lansing, Michigan  48909
 (517) 373-9244

 Robert Seyfarth
 Bureau  of Pollution Control
 Dept of Natural Resources
 Box 10385
 Jackson, Mississippi 39209
 (601) 961-5171

 Charles  Chisolm
 Bureau of Pollution control
Dept of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
 (601) 961-5171
                                       46

-------
Jim Morris
Water Quality Management Section
Dept of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
(601) 961-5151

Louis Flynn
MPLA
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
(612) 296-7355

Laurie K. Collerot
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire  03301
(603) 271-2358

FredElkind
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Dept of Env. Services
Hazen  Drive
P.O. Box 95
 Concord, New Hampshire  03301.
 (603) 271-2358

 Ray Carter
 Water  Supply and Pollution Control
 Hazen Drive
 P.O. Box 95
 Concord, New Hampshire  03301
 (603) 271-2358

 George Danskin
 Div. of Regulatory Affairs
 Dept of Env. Conservation
 50 Wolf Road
 Albany, New York 12233
 (518) 457-2224
William Clarke
Div. of Regulatory Affairs
Dept of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York  12233
(518)  457-2224

U. Gale Hutton
Water Quality Division
Dept of Env. Control
P.O. Box 94877
State  House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska  68509-4877
(402)471-2186

George Horzepa
Division of Water Resources
Dept of Env. Protection
CN029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 633-7021

Barry Chalofsky
Division of Water Resources
Dept of Env. Protection
CN029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609)633-7021

Robert Piel
Div. of Coastal Resources
Dept of Env. Protection
 CN401
Trenton, New Jersey  08625
 (609)633-7021

 David Tague
 Env. Improvement Division
 P.O. Box 968
 Sante Fe, New Mexico  87504-0968
 (505) 827-2822
                                        47

-------
 Michael T. Sauer
 State Dept of Health
 1200 Missouri avenue
 Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
 (701) 224-2354

 Paul Wilms
 Div. of Env. Management
 Department of Natural Resources
 and Community Development
 P.O. Box 27687
 Raleigh,-North Carolina  27611
 (919) 733-7015

 Bill Mills
 Water Quality Section
 Department of Natural Resources
 P.O. Box 27687
 Raleigh, North Carolina  27611
 (919) 733-5083

 Colleen Crook
 Div. of Water Quality and
 Ohio EPA
 1800 Watermark Drive
 P.O. Box 1049
 Columbus, Ohio  43266-0149
 (614) 981-7130

 Brooks Kirlin
 Water Resource Board
 P.O. Box 53585
 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73152
 (405) 271-2541

 Glen Carter
Dept. of Env. Quality
P.O. Box 1760
Portland, Oregon  97207
(503) 229-5358
 Louis W. Bercheni
 Bureau of Water Quality
 Dept. of Env. Resources
 P.O. Box 2063
 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
 (717) 787-2666

 Peter Slack
 Bureau of Water Quality
 Dept. of Env. Resources
 P.O. Box 2063
 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
 (717) 787-2666

 Edward S. Szymanski
 Dept of Env. Management
 Division of Water Resources
 291 Promenade Street
 Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5767
 (401) 277-3961

 Carolyn Weymouth
 Office of Environmental Coordination
 Department of Environmental
 Management
 83 Park Street
 Providence, Rhode Island 02903
 (401) 277-3434

 Chester E. Salisbury
 Division of Water Quality
 Dept of Health and Env. Control
 2600 Bull Street
 Columbia, South Carolina 29201
 (803) 758-5496

Larry Bowers
Div. of Water Pollution Control
Dept of Health and Env.
150 Ninth North Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(615) 741-7883
                                      48

-------
Robert Sileus
Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas  78711
(512) 463-8202

Dr. Donald Hilden
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145
(801) 533-6146

Carl Pagel
Agency of Natural Resources
Dept of Environmental Conservation
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont  05676
(802) 244-6951

Steve Syz
Agency of Natural Resources
Dept of Env. Conservation
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont  05676
(802)244-6951

Jean Gregory
Office of Water Resources Management
Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia  23230
(804) 367-6985

Mike Carnavale
Water Quality Division
State Dept of Env. Quality
Herschler Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82202
(307) 777-7781
Mike Palko
Dept. of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington  98504
(206) 459-6289

John Schmidt
Water Resources Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, West Virginia  25311
(304) 348-2108

Jim Rawson
Wildlife Division
Dept of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 67
Elkins, West Virginia  26241
(304) 636-1767

Scott Hausmann
Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning
Dept of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
(608) 266-7360
                                       49

-------

-------
                                   APPENDIX B
                             FEDERAL DEFINITIONS

The federal definition of "waiters of the United States" is (40 CFR Section 232.2 (q)):

(1)   All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible
      to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject
      to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2)   All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3)   All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
      streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
      playa lakes,  or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which would
      or could affect interstate or  foreign commerce including any such waters:

       (i)    Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
             recreational or other  purposes; or
       (ii)    From which fish or shellfish could be taken and sold in interstate or
             foreign commerce;
       (iii)   Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in
             interstate commerce;*

 (4)    All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States
       under this definition;
 (5)    Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1-4.
 (6)    The territorial sea;
 (7)    Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
       identified in 1-6; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons
       designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined
       in 40 CFR  § 423.11(m) which also meet criteria in this definition) are not waters
       of the United States.

   (*   Note: EPA has clarified that waters of the U.S. under the commerce connection
       in (3) above also include, for example, waters:
             Which are or would  be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory
             Bird Treaties or migratory birds which cross State lines;
             Which are or would  be used as habitat for endangered species;
             Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce.)

 The federal definition of "wetlands" (40 CFR § 232.2(r)). Those areas that are
 inundated or saturated by surface  or ground water at a frequency and duration
 sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
 vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands generally
 include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar  areas.

                                          50

-------

-------
                                  APPENDIX C

  SCOPE OF PROJECT REVIEW: PENNSYLVANIA DAM PROPOSAL EXAMPLE

      The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was to be 3,000 feet long and 17
feet high.  The dam was to consist of 32 bottom hinged flap gates.  The  dam would
have created an impoundment with a surface area of 3,800 acres, a total storage
capacity of 35,000 acre feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet The backwater would
have extended approximately eight miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
approximately three miles upstream on the Conodoguinet Creek.

      The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility, using the head difference
created by the dam to create electricity.  Maximum turbine flow would have been
10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12.5) and minimum flow would have been  2,000 cfs. Under
normal conditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed through the turbines.

      The public notice  denying 401 certification for this project stated as follows:

1.     The construction and operation of the project will result in the  significant loss of
       wetlands and related aquatic habitat and acreage.  More specifically:

       a.     The destruction of the wetlands will have an adverse impact on the local
             river ecosystem because of the integral role wetlands play in maintaining
             that ecosystem.

       b.     The destruction of the wetlands will cause the loss of beds of emergent
             aquatic vegetation that serve as habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this
             habitat will adversely affect the relative abundance of juvenile and adult
             fish (especially smallmouth bass).

       c.     The wetlands which will be lost are  critical habitat for, among other
             species, the yellow crowned night heron, black crowned  night heron,
             marsh wren and great egret.  In addition, the yellow crowned night heron
             is a proposed State threatened species, and the marsh wren and gr.eat
             egret are candidate species of special concern.

       d.     All affected wetlands areas are important and, to the extent that the loss
             of these wetlands can be mitigated,  the applicant has failed to
             demonstrate that the mitigation proposed is adequate.   To the extent that
             adequate mitigation  is possible, mitigation must include  replacement  in the
             river system.
                                         51

-------
e.
              Proposed riprapping of the shoreline could further reduce wetland
              acreage. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an
              adverse water quality and related habitat impact resulting from riprapping.

       f.     Based upon information received by the Department, the applicant has
              underestimated the total wetland acreage affected.

 Z    The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water
       quality impacts from increased groundwater levels resulting  from the project.
       The ground water model used by the applicant is not acceptable due to
       erroneous assumptions and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The applicant has
       not provided sufficient information concerning the impact of increased
       groundwater levels on existing sites of subsurface contamination, adequacy of
       subsurface sewage system replacement areas and the impact of potential
       increased surface flooding.  Additionally, information was not provided to
       adequately assess the effect of raised  groundwater on sewer system laterals,
       effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation measures and potential  for increased flows at
       the Hanisburg wastewater plant

 3.    The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there wfll not be a dissolved oxygen
       problem as a result of the impoundment  Present information indicates the
       existing river system in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved  oxygen
       fluctuation.  Sufficient information was not provided to allow the Department to
       conclude that dissolved oxygen standards wfll be met in the pool area.
       Additionally, the applicant failed to adequately address the issue of anticipated
       dissolved oxygen levels below the dam.

 4.     The proposed impoundment wfll create a backwater on the lower three miles of
       the Conodoguinet Creek. Water quality in the Creek is currently adversely
       affected by nutrient problems.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
       there wfll not be water quality degradation as a result of the impoundment

 5.     The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there wfll not be an adverse water
       quality impact resulting from combined sewer overflows.

 6.     The applicant has fafled to demonstrate that there wfll not be an adverse water
       quality impact to the 150 acre area downstream of the proposed dam and
       upstream from the existing Dock Street dam.

7.    The applicant has fafled to demonstrate that the construction and operation of
      the proposed dam wfll not have an adverse impact on the aquatic resources
      upstream from the proposed impoundment For example, the suitability of the
      impoundment for smallmouth bass spawning relative to the frequency of turbid

                                       52

-------
      conditions during spawning was not adequately addressed and construction of the
      dam and impoundment will result in a decrease in the diversity and density of
      the macroinvertebrate community in the impoundment area.

8.     Construction of the dam will have an adverse impact on upstream and
      downstream migration of migratory fish (especially shad). Even with the
      construction of fish passageways for upstream and downstream migration,
      significant declines in the numbers of fish successfully negotiating the obstruction
      are anticipated.

9.    The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water
      quality impact related to sedimentation within the pool area.
                                         53

-------

-------
                               APPENDIX D

                 EXAJiPLES OF CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS

"MARYLAND**

      Maryland certified with conditions the fill/alteration of 6.66 acres of non-tidal
wetlands as part of the (construction of an 18 hole golf course and a residential
subdivision.  Approximately three-fourths of the entire site of 200 acres had been
cleared for cattle grazing and agricultural activities in the past  As a result, a stream on
the east side of the property with no buffer had been severely degraded.  An
unbuffered tractor crossing had also degraded the stream. A palustrine forested
wetland area on the southeast side of the property received stormwater runoff from a
highway bordering the property and served as a flood storage and ground water
recharge area.  Filling this area for construction of a fairway would eliminate some 4.5
acres of wetlands. Additionally, other smaller wetland areas on the property, principally
around an old farm pond that was to be fashioned into  four separate ponds  for water
traps, were proposed  to be altered or lost as a result of the development

       The Corps did not exercise its discretionary authority to require an individual
permit and thus the project was permitted under a nationwide permit (26).  The State
decided to grant certification, conditioned on a number  of things that it believed would
improve the water quality of the stream in the long  run.

       The filled wetland areas had to be replaced on an acre-for-acre basis on the
property and in particular, the 4.5 acre forested palustrine wetland had to be replaced
onsite with a wetland area serving the same functions regarding stormwater runoff from
the highway.

       Some of the other conditions placed on the certification were as follows:

        1.    The applicant must obtain and certify  compliance with  a grading and
             sediment control plan approved by the [name of county] Soil Conservation
             District;

       2.    Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces shall be controlled to prevent
             the washing of debris into the waterway.  Stormwater drainage facilities
             shall be designed, implemented, operated and maintained in accordance
             with the requirements  of the [applicable county authority];
                                         54

-------
3.    The applicant shall ensure that fish species are stocked .in the ponds upon
      completion of the construction phase in accordance with the requirements
      of the [fisheries division of the natural resources department of the State];

4.    The applicant shall ensure that all mitigation areas are inspected annually
      by a wetlands scientist to ensure that all wetlands are functioning
      properly,

5.    A vegetated buffer shall be established around the existing stream and
      proposed ponds;

6.    Biological control methods for weed, insects and other undesirable species
      are to be employed whenever possible on the greens, tees, and fairways
      located within or in close proximity to the wetland or waterways;

7.    Fertilizers are to be used on greens, tees, and fairways only. From the
      second year of operation, all applications of fertilizers at the golf course
      shall be in the lower range dosage rates [specified].  The use of slow
      release compounds such as sulfur-coated urea is required. There shall be
      no application of fertilizers within two weeks of verticutting, coring or
      spiking operations.
                                  55

-------
** WEST VIRGINIA **

  THE FOLLOWING GE!
-------
9.    No instream work is permissible during the fish spawning season April through
      June.

10.   Removal of mature riparian vegetation not directly associated with project
      construction is prohibited.

11.   Instream equipment operation is to be minimized and should be accomplished
      during low flow periods.

12.   Nationwide permits are not applicable for activities on Wild and Scenic Rivers or
      study streams, streams on the Natural Streams Preservation List or the New
      River Gorge National River.  These streams include New River (confluence with
      Gauley to mouth of Greenbrier); Greenbrier River (mouth to Knapps Creek),
      Birch River (mouth to Cora Brown Barge in Nicholas County), Anthony Creek,
      Cranberry Run, Bluestone River, Gauley River, and Meadow River.

13.   Each permittee shall follow the notice requirements contained in Section 9 of the
      Department of Natural Resources  Regulations for State Certification of
      Activities Requiring Federal Licenses  and Permits. Chapter 20-1, Series XIX
      (1984).

14.   Each permittee shall, if he does not understand or is not aware of applicable
      Nationwide Permit conditions, contact the Corps of Engineers prior to
      conducting any activity authorized by a nationwide permit in order to be advised
      of applicable conditions.
                                        57

-------
** ALASKA**   ,

       EXAMPLES OF CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR
                  NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26 FROM ALASKA

      (26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters listed in subparagraph
(i) and (ii) of this paragraph which do not cause the loss or substantial adverse
modification of 10 acres or more of waters of the United States, including wetlands.
For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 1 to 10 acres
of such waters, including wetlands, notification of the District Engineer is required in
accordance with 330.7 of titiis part (see Section 2 of this Public Notice).

      (i) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including
adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters.

      (ii) Other non-tidal waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, that
are not part of the surface tributary system to interstate waters  or navigable waters of
the United States (i.e., isolated waters).

REGIONAL CONDITION H: Work in a designated anadromous fish stream is subject
to authorization from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.  (No change from
REGIONAL CONDITION H previously published in.SPN 84-7.)

REGIONAL CONDITION J:

a. If, during review of the pre-discharge notification, the Corps of Engineers or the
designated State of Alaska reviewing officials determine that the proposed activity
would occur in any of the following areas, the applicant will be  advised that an
individual 404 permit will lie required. Where uncertainty exists, the Corps will send
pre-discharge notification to the designated State officials for a determination.

      1.   National Wildlife Refuges
      2.   National Parks and Preserves
      3.   National Conservation Areas
      4.   National Wild and Scenic Rivers
      5.   National Experimental Areas
      6.   State Critical Habitat AReas
      7.   State Sanctuaries
      8.   State Ranges and Refuges
      9.   State Eagle Preserves
      10.  State Ecological Reserves and Experimental Areas
      11.  State Recreation Areas

                                      58

-------
       12.  Wetlands contiguous with designated anadromous fish
           streams
       13.  Headwaters and isolated wetlands in designated public
           water supply watersheds of Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg,
           Anchorage, Cordova, Seldovia and Kodiak
       14.  Sitka Area:  Wetlands in the Swan Lake Area Meriting
           Special Attention (AMSA) in the district Coastal
           Management Plan
       IS.  Anchorage area: Designated Preservation and
           Conservation Wetlands in the Wetlands Management Plan
       16.  Bethel area: Designated Significant  Wetlands in the
           district Coastal Management Plan not covered under
           General Permit 83-4
       17.  Hydaburg area:  The six AMSA's of the district Coastal
           Management Plan
       18.  Bering Strait area:   All designated conservation AMSA's
           of the district Coastal Management Plan
       19.  Juneau area: Designated Sensitive Wetlands of the
           district Coastal Management Plan
       20.  NANA: Designated Special Use Areas and Restricted/
           Sensitive areas in the district Coastal Management
           Plan
       21.  Tanana Basin Area Plan:  type A-l wetlands in the
           Alaska Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study
       22.  Susitna Area Plan:  type A-l wetlands in the Alaska
           Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study
       23.  High value headwaters and isolated wetlands identified
           once the ongoing Wetlands Management Plans or Guides
           listed in b-5 (below) are completed
       24.  Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor designated type A
           and B wetlands
       25.  Headwaters and isolated waters which  include identified
           bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and trumpeter swan nesting
           areas
       26.  ADF&G identified waterfowl use areas of statewide
           significance
       27.  Designated caribou calving areas.

Any individual permit issued in locations covered by district coastal management plans,
State or Federal regional wetlands plans or local wetlands plans (numbers 14 through
23 above) will be consistent with the plan provisions for the specific wetland type and
may require adding stipulations.
                                        59

-------
Oil and gas activities in the North Slope Borough which involve the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters including wetlands are not covered by the previous
nationwide permit under 33 CFR 330.4(a) and (b) and are not covered under the
nationwide permit 26. These activities require individual 404 permits or other general
permits.  These activities were previously excluded by the Corps of Engineers Special
Public Notice 84-3 dated March 9,  1984.

b. Pre-discharge notification received by the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material in the following areas will be provided to designated State
agencies which include (1) the appropriate ADEC Regional Environmental Supervisor,
(2) the appropriate  ADF&G Regional Habitat Supervisor, (3) the appropriate DGC
regional contact point, and (4) the  appropriate DNR regional contact  (should DNR
indicate interest in receiving notices).

       1.  Headwater tributaries of designated anadromous fish
          streams and their adjacent contiguous wetlands
       2.  Open water areais of isolated wetlands greater  than 10
          acres and lakes greater than 10 acres  above the
          headwaters
       3.  North Slope Borough wet and moist tundra areas not
          already covered by AFP  process
       4.  Wet and  moist tundra areas outside the North Slope
          Borough
       5.  High value headwaters and isolated wetlands identified
          in the following ongoing  State or Federal wetland
          management guides or plans:  Mat-Su, Kenai Borough,
          Valdez, North Star Borough Yukon Delta and Copper
          River Basin
       6.  Headwater or isolated wetlands within local CZM district
          boundaries or tbie identified coastal zone boundary,
          whichever is geographically smaller (not withstanding
          the  requirements under "a." 14.20 (above))
       7.  Anchorage Area: designated Special Study areas in the
          Wetlands Management Plan
       8.  Tanana Basin Area Plan: areas designated A-2, B-l, B-2
          in the Alaska River Cooperative State/Federal Study
       9.  Susitna Area Plain: areas designated A-2, A-3, A-4 in
          the  Alaska River Cooperative State/Federal Study

The designated officials of the State of Alaska, and the Corps will evaluate the
notifications received for the areas listed "b." above under the provisions set forth in 33
CFR 330.7 (see Section 2 of this Public  Notice) which includes an evaluation of the
                                        60

-------
environmental effects using the guidelines set forth in Section 404(b)(l) of the Clean
Water Act  Notices shall be screened against the nationwide conditions under 330.5(b)
(See Section 4 of the Public Notice) using available resource information.  Conditions
330.5(b)(l), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) and (9) will be focused on during the State
review.

The State's review of these areas under "b."  above will encompass the following:

      1.  After receiving pre-discharge notification from the Corps, the State of Alaska
shall comment verbally, and/or if time permits, in writing to the Corps District Engineer
through a single State agency concerning the need for an individual permit review.

      2.  Existing fish  and wildlife atlases and field knowledge shall be used to evaluate
notices.  If significant resource values are not identified for the area in question or if
insufficient resource information exists, State agencies will not request an individual
permit unless:

      (a) An on-site field evaluation will be conducted, weather
permitting, during the extended review provided under the individual permit, or;

      (b) Federal resource agencies plan a similar field evaluation that could provide
identical information to State resource  agencies.

Should either the State review or the Corps  review determine that the nationwide
permit is not applicable, an individual 404 permit will be required.

New categories may be added at a later date should either the Corps or the State of
Alaska recognize a need.  These changes will be made available for public review
through a public notice and comment period at the appropriate time.

This REGIONAL CONDITION shall be effective for the period of time that
nationwide permit 26 is in effect unless the REGIONAL CONDITION is sooner
revoked by the Department of the Army .with prior coordination with the State of
Alaska.
                                        61

-------
                                   APPENDIX E
Fadatal Ratistaf /  Vol. 45. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24. 1980 / Rulai and Regulations  85335
                             tub*
                                        an MB? WHOM wfakk csa
                            b»uadttUkntoiMpoaattoia03.10Id)to
                            attain tb* «dvm.
                            dndfid or BO material. SOBM of IhtM.
                            fiaiqMd by tm of «etMijr. am UsMd to Ais
                            |830.7t
                              The effects of the discharge M" be
                            minimized by the choice of the disposal
                            site. Some of the waya to accomplish
                            this are or
                              (a) Locating and confining the
                                                     rii«or
                            ofganiina;
                              (b) OM^nini KM diachuii to ovoid •
                            disniptfoa of periodic water inundation
                            patterns:
                              (c) Soloctini • disposal site that has
                            bairn aaod previously for dradftd
                            malarial diachaifa:
                              (drSolocUas a disposal site at which
                            tha substraU'is composed of material
                            similar to that bsinj dlseharfsd. such as
                            discharging sand on sand or mud OB
                            mud:
                                            62

-------
                                                            •jr. i^ecemuef
                                                                              tuou  /  MJICS ana Regulations
    M Sheeting the disposal site. tht
  discharge point and the method of .
  dischiirge to minimize the extent of uny
  plum*;
    (f) Designing th« discharge of dredged
  or fill material lo minimize or prtvint
  thi creation of standing bodies of watt r
  in areas of normally fluctuating wafer
  levnli. and minimize or pravini the
  druinage of areas subject to such
  fluctuation!.

  1 330.71  Actten* o+noernkte. the material
   The effects of a diicharte can be
 minimized by treatment of. or
 limitations on the material itself, such
 as:
   (a) Disposal of dredged materiel in
 such A manner that phyaiochemical
 conditions art maintained and the
 potency and availability of pollutants
 are reduced.
   (b) Limiting the solid, liquid, and
 gaseous components of material to be
 discharged at • particular sits:
   (c) Adding treatment substance* to
 the discharge materiel:
   (d) Utilizing chemical floeeulants to
 enhance the deposition of suspended
 paniculate* la diked disposal areas.

 I2M.71 AatJona eanti essng Ihe sMteriel
   The effects of the dredged or fin
 material after discharge may be
 coo trolled by.
   (a) Selecting discharge methods and
 disposal sites where the potential for
 erosion, slumping or leaching of
 materials into the surrounding aquatic
 ecosystem will be reduced. These sits*
 or methods Include, but are not United
 to:
   tt) Using containment levees, sediment
 hasins. and cover crop* to reduce
 erosion:
   (2) Using lined containment areas to
 reduce) leaching where Issrhing of
 chesaical constituent* from tha
 discharged outsrial is expected to ba a
 problem:
   (b) Capping ifl-pUoa contaminated
 material with dean auterial er
 Selectively Mmi*»*fmm (he Boat
 contaminated material first to be capped
 with the remaining sJMtariaJ:
   (c) Maintaining eneleaatiaming
 discharged material ft upnlj to prevent
 point and BOflpolnt eoevcaa of pollution:
   (d) Timing toe discharge) to ™!*!••<••
 impact for instance during periods of
 unusual high water flows, wind. wave.
and tidal actions.

1230.73  AMMne effecting the method e*
   (a) Where environmentally desirable.
 distributing the dredged material widely
 in a thin layer at the disposal site lo
 maintain natural substrate contours and
 elevation:
   (b) Orienting a dredged or Till material
 mound to minimize undesirable
 obstruction to the water current or
 circulation pattern, and utilizing natural
 bottom contours to minimize the size of
 the mound:
   (c) Using silt screens or other
 appropriate methods to confine
 suspended particulate/turbidity to a
 small area where settling or removal can
 occur
   (d) Making use of currents and
 circulation patterns to mix. disperse and
 dilute the discharge:
   (e) Minimizing wain column turbidity
 by using a submerged diffuser system. A
 similar effect can be eccomplished by
 submerging pipeline discharge* or
 otherwise releasing materials near tha.
 bottom:
   (f) Selecting sites or managing
 discharges to confine and «"'"«"ftflprnenl or machinery, inclodteg
adequate training, staffing, and working

  (c) Using machinery and techniq
  The effects of a discharge can ba
minimized by tha manner in which it is
dispersed, such as:
that an especially designed to
damage to wetlands. This may indftde
machine* equipped with devices that
scatter rather than mound excavated
materials, machines with specially
designed wheels or tracks, and the use
of mate under heavy machines to reduce
wetland surface compaction and rutting:
  (d) Designing access roads and
channel spanning structures using
culverts, open channels, and diversions
that will pass both low and high water
flows, accommodate fluctuating water
levels, and maintain circulation and
faunal movement:
                                          (e) Employing appropriate machinery
                                        and methods of transport of the mstensl
                                        for discharge.

                                        f 230.71  Action* srleetinfl stem end

                                          Minimization of adverse effects on
                                        population* of plants and animals can
                                        be achieved  by:
                                          (a) Avoiding chenges in weter current
                                        and circulation patterns which would
                                        interfere with the movement of animals:
                                          (b) Selecting sites or managing
                                        discharges to prevent or svoid creeling
                                        habitat conducive to the development of
                                        undesirable predators or species which
                                        have e competitive edge ecologically
                                        over indigenous plants or animals:
                                          (c) Avoiding sites having unique
                                        habitat or other velue. including habitat
                                        of threatened or endangered species:
                                          (d) Using planning and construction
                                        practices to institute habitat
                                        development and restoration to produce
                                        a new or modified environmental stele
                                        of higher ecological value by
                                        displacement of some or all of Ihe
                                        existing environmental characteristics.
                                        Habitat development and restoration
                                        techniques can be used to minimiae
                                        adverse impacts and to compensate for
                                        destroyed habitat. Use techniques that
                                        have bean demonstrated to ba effective
                                        indrcametences similar to these under
                                        consideration wherever possible. Where
                                        proposed development and restoration
                                        techniques have not yet advanced to the
                                        pilot demonstration stage, initiate their
                                        use on a small scale to auow corrective
                                        action if unanticipated adverse impacts
                                         (a) Tuning discharge to avoid
                                       spawning or migration seasons snd
                                       other biologically critical lima periods:
                                        -(0 Avoiding tha destruction of
                                       remnant natural sites within areas
                                       already effected by development
                                         Minimization of advene effects on
                                       human use potential may be achieved

                                         (a) Selecting discharge sites and
                                       following discharge procedures to
                                       prevent or minimize any potential
                                       damage to tha aesthetically phasing
                                       features of tha aquatic site (e.g.
                                       viewscapes). particularly with respect to
                                       water quality.
                                         (b) Selecting disposal sites which are
                                       not valuable as natural aquatic areas:
                                         (c) Timing tha discharge to avoid tha
                                       seasons or periods whan human
                                       recreational activity associated with tha
                                       aquatic site Is most important
                                         (d) Following discharge procedures
                                       which avoid or •>l"<*'8»" the disturbance
                                       of aesthetic features of an aquatic site or
                                       ecosystem.
                                                      63

-------
        Federal Register / Vol. 43. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24. IMP / Rules and Regulation  85357
  (e> Selecting tills that will not b«
detrimental or increase incompatible
human activity, or require the need for
frequent dredge or fill maintenance
activity in remote fish and wildlife
areas:
  (f) Locating the disposal site outside
of the vicinity of a public water supply
intake.

1330.77 Other actions.
  (a) In the case of fills, controlling
runoff and other discharges from
activities to be conducted on the fill:
  (b) In the case of dams, designing
water releases to accommodate the
needs of fish and wildlife.
  (c) In dredging projects funded by
Federal agencies other than tho Corps of
Engineers, maintain desired water
quality of the return discharge through
agreement with the Federal funding
authority on scientifically defensible
pollutant concentration levels in
addition to any applicable water quality
standards.
  (d) When • significant ecological
change in the aquaUe environment to
proposed by the discharge of dredged or
fill material the permitting authority
should consider the ecosystem that wiB
be leal as well aa the environmental
benefits of the new system.
                                                         64

-------

-------
          APPENDIX R
           Policy on the Use of
    Biological Assessments and Criteria in         >
        the Water Quality Program             hg
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
                                          ih ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iill 111 iiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiii mi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiB nil in iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            lllll .............. •
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               'I) 'll    lip   II    III III 111

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1 1  I1    1        1 1 1  1
                                                                                                                                                              in ii in
                                                                                                                                                              ii  In
ill 111 IlllllliiilliillliUllilll'lll 11(1  11II ill  11  111 liillill I  illiilH

                                                                                                                                                              	I"   ii
IIIlllilii	I	IPIIII1   '("IN  lilllliil'l	hi	I1MDI1IIH
IIIIIII Illllil'ill  iililill'lll Illll III1   i Mill 111  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1II 111 II Illllilllllliil'lllilililllllllllllli l Illllllllllllllllll'l I IH
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	I	II
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         l1  11  11 III II
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	Ill  (
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	Ill1"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          i     111 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ill	Ill	|	Iiiiiii
           'i              	^^^^^^^
ii 11	(i
in i n   in ...... iiiiH ..... 111 iiiiiin  'i ..... i1 in ii i iiiiiiv MI ..... i w ..... fim\tm ill mmmm • III


-------
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                U 9 199!
                                                         OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM                                                WATCB

SUBJECT:    Transmittal of Final(policy)on Biological
            Assessments and Criteria    L--^

FROM:       Tudor T. Davies, Director/*^* '
            Office of Science and Technology  (WH-551)

TO:         Water Management Division Directors
            Regions I-X


    Attached is EPA's  "Policy on the Use of Biological
Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program"
(Attachment A).  This  policy is a significant step toward
addressing all pollution problems within a watershed.  It is a
natural outgrowth of our greater understanding of the range of
problems affecting watersheds from toxic chemicals to physical
habitat alteration,  and reflects the need to consider the whole
picture in developing  watershed pollution control strategies.

    This policy is the product of a brpad-Tsased workgroup chaired
by Jim Flafkin and Chris Faulkner of the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds.   The workgroup was composed of
representatives from seven EPA Headquarters offices, four EPA
Research Laboratories,  all 10 EPA Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.  Forest Service,  and the States of New York and
North Carolina (see Attachment B).   This policy also reflects
review comments to the draft policy statement issued in March of
1990.  Comments were received from three EPA Headquarters
offices, three EPA Research Laboratories,  five EPA Regions and
two States.  The following sections of this memorandum provide a
brief history of tha policy development and additional
information on relevant guidance.

Background

    The Ecopolicy Workgroup was formed in  response to several
converging initiatives in EPA's national water program.  In
September 1987, a maijor management study entitled "Surface Water
Monitoring:  A Framework for Change" strongly emphasized the need
to "accelerate development and application of promising
biological monitoring techniques" in State and EPA monitoring
programs.  Soon thereafter, in December 1907. a National Workshop
on Instream Biological Monitorinq and Criteria  reiterated this

-------
 reccnunenaation cut  also  poin-ea  cut -he -.Tportar.ee c f integraf ng
 zhe biological criteria  and assessment methoas with traditional
 chemical/physical methods  (see Final Proceedings,  EPA-905/9-
 89/003).   Finally,  at  the  June 1988 National Symposium on  Water
 Quality Assessment,  a  workgroup  of  State and Federal
 representatives unanimously recommended the  development of a
 national  bioassessment policy that  encouraged the  expanded use of
 the new biological  tools and directed their  implementation across
 the water quality program.

     Guided by  these recommendations,  the workgroup held three
 workshop-style meetings  between  July and December  1988.  Two
 major questions emerged  from the lengthy discussions  as issues of
 general concern:

     ISSUE 1 -     How hard should EPA push for formal adoption of
                  biological criteria (biocriteria) in State
                  water quality standards?

     ISSUE 2 -     Despite the many beneficial uses of
                  biomonitoring information,  how do we guard
                  against potentially inappropriate uses of such
                  data in the permitting process?

     Issue  1 turns on the means and  relative  priority  of having
biological criteria formally incorporated in State  water quality
standards.  Because biological criteria must be  related to  local
conditions, the development  of quantitative  national  biological
criteria  is not ecologically appropriate.  Therefore, the primary
concern is how biological criteria  should be promoted and
integrated into State water  quality standards.

     Issue*2 addresses the question  of how to reconcile  potential
apparent conflicts in the results obtained from  different
assessment methods  (i.e., chemical-specific  analyses, toxicity
testing, and biosurveys) in  a permitting situation.   Should the
relevance of each be judged  strictly on a case-by-case basis?
Should each method be applied independently?

    These issues were discussed  at  the  policy workgroup's last
meeting in November 1988, and consensus recommendations were then
presented to the Acting Assistant Administrator  of Water on
December 16,  1988.  For Issue 1,  it was determined that adapting
biological criteria to State standards  has significant
advantages, and adoption of biological  criteria  should be
strongly encouraged.  Therefore,  the current  Agency Operating
Guidance establishes the State adaptation of  basic narrative
biological criteria as a program priority.

    With respect to Issue 2, the policy reflects a position of
"independent application."   Independent application means that
any one of the three types of assessment  information  (i.e.,
chemistry, toxicity testing results, and  ecological assessment)
provides conclusive evidence of nonattainment of water quality

-------
standards regardless of the results- from other types of
assessment information.  Each type of assessment is sensitive to
different types of water quality impact.  Although rare,  apparent
conflicts in the results from different approaches can occur.
These apparent conflicts occur when one assessment approach
detects a problem to which the other approaches are not
sensitive.  This policy establishes that a demonstration of water
quality standards nonattainment using one assessment method does
not require confirmation with a second method and that the
failure of a second method to confirm impact does not negate the
results of the initial assessment.

Review of Draft Pellev

    The draft was circulated to the Regions and States on
March 23, 1990.  The comments were mostly supportive and most of
the suggested changes have been incorporated.  Objections were
raised by one State that using ecological measures would increase
the magnitude of the pollution control workload.  We expect that
this will be one result of this policy but that our mandate under
the Clean Water Act to ensure physical, chemical, and biological*
integrity requires that we adopt this policy.  Another State
objected to the independent application policy.  EPA has
carefully considered the merits of various approaches to
integrating data in light of the available data, and we have
concluded that independent application is the most appropriate
policy at this time.  Where there are concerns that the results
from one approach are inaccurate, there may be opportunities to
develop more refined information that would provide a more
accurate conclusion (e.g., better monitoring or more
sophisticated wasteload allocation modelling).

    Additional discussion on this policy occurred at the Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century Symposium in December,
1990.

What Actions Should States Take

    This policy does not require specific actions on the part of
the States or the regulated community.  As indicated under the
Fiscal Year 1991 Agency Operating Guidance, States are required
to adopt narrative biocriteria at a minimum during the 1991 to
1993 triennial review.  More specific program guidance on
developing biological criteria is scheduled to be issued within
the next few months.  Technical guidance documents on developing
narrative and numerical biological criteria for different types
of aquatic systems are also under development.

Relevant Guidance

    There are several existing EPA documents which pertain to
biological assessments and several others that are currently
under development.  Selected references that are likely to be
important in implementing this policy are listed in Attachment C.

-------
    Please share this policy statement with your States and work
with them to institute its provisions.  If you have any
questions, please call me at (FTS) 382-5400 or have your staff
contact Geoffrey Grubbs of the Office of Wetlands,  Oceans and
Watersheds at (FTS)  382-7040 or Bill Diamond of the Office of
Science and Technology at (FTS) 475-7301.

Attachments

cc: OW Office Directors
    Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I-X

-------
                                               Attachment A
Policy on the Use of Biological  Assessments and Criteria
             in Ithe Water Quality  Program
                         May 1991

-------
Contents

Statement of Policy
Definitions
Background
      Context of Policy
      Rationale for Conducting Biological Assessments
Conduct of Biological  Surveys
Integration of Methods and  Regulatory Application
      Site-specific Considerations
      Independent  Application
Biological Criteria
Statutory Basis
      Section  303(c)
      Section  304(a)
State/EPA  Roles in Policy Implementation
      State Implementation
      EPA  Guidance  and Technical  Support

-------
Statement  of Policy

      To help restore and  maintain the  biological integrity of the Nation's
waters  it is  the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that
biological surveys  shall be fully  integrated with  toxicity and chemical-specific
assessment methods in State water quality programs.   EPA recognizes  that
biological surveys  should be  used  together with  whole-effluent and  ambient
toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analyses to assess  attainmcnt/nonattamment
of designated aquatic life uses in  State  water quality  standards.  EPA also
recognizes  that each  of these three methods can provide a valid  assessment of
designated aquatic life use impairment.   Thus,  if any one  of the three assessment
methods demonstrate  that water quality  standards arc not attained, it  is EPA's
policy that appropriate  action should  be taken  to achieve  attainment, including
use of regulatory  authority.

       It is also EPA's  policy that States should designate aquatic  life  uses that
appropriately address biological  integrity and adopt biological criteria  necessary  to
protect those uses.   Information concerning attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt  of  standards
should  be used to establish  priorities, evaluate  the effectiveness of  controls, and
make  regulatory  decisions.

       Close  cooperation among the States and  EPA  will  be needed to carry  out
this policy.   EPA will provide  national guidance and  technical  assistance to the
States- however,  specific assessment methods and biological criteria should  be
adopted on  a State-by-State basis.  EPA, in its oversight  role, will work with the
States to ensure that assessment  procedures  and  biological criteria  reflect
important ecological  and geographical differences among the Nation's waters yet
retain national consistency with the Clean Water Act.

-------
 Definitions

 Ambient Toxicitv: Is  measured  by a toxicity test on a sample  collected  from a
 waterbody.

 Aquatic Community:   An  association of interacting populations of aquatic
 organisms in a given  waterbody or habitat.

 Aquatic Life Use:  Is the water quality objective assigned  to a watcrbody  to
 ensure  the  protection  and  propagation  of a balanced, indigenous aquatic
 community.

 Biological Assessment:  An evaluation  of the biological condition of a waterbody
 using biological surveys and other  direct measurements of resident  biota in
 surface waters.

 Biological Criteria' (or Biocriteria):   Numerical values or  narrative expressions that
 describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting  waters
 of a given  designated aquatic life use.

 Biological Integrity:   Functionally defined as the condition  of the aquatic
 community  inhabiting unimpaired waterbodics of a specified  habitat as measured
 by community structure and function.

 Biological Monitoring:  Use of a biological entity as a detector and its  response
 as a measure to determine  environmental conditions.  Toxicity  tests and
 biosurveys are common biomonitoring methods.

 Biological Survey  (or  Biosurvcv):  Consists of collecting,  processing,  and analyzing
 a representative portion of the resident aquatic  community to determine the
 community  structure and function.

 Community Component:   Any portion  of a biological community.  The
 community  component may pertain  to  the taxonomic group (fish, invertebrates,
 algae), the  taxonomic  category (phylum, order,  family, genus, species), the feeding
 strategy (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), or organizational level  (individual,
 population,  community association) of a biological entity  within  the  aquatic
 community.

 Habitat  Assessment:  An  evaluation  of the physical characteristics and condition
 of a waterbody (example parameters include  the variety and  quality of substrate,
 hydrological regime, key environmental  parameters and surrounding land use.)

Toxicitv Test:  Is a procedure to determine the toxicity of a chemical or an
effluent using living organisms.   A toxicity" test  measures the" degree of response
of exposed  test organisms to a specific chemical or Affluent.

-------
Whole-effluent Toxicitv:   Is the total toxic  effect of an effluent  measured  directly
with  a  toxicity  test.


Background

Policy context

      Monitoring data are applied  toward  water quality  program  needs such as
identifying water  quality problems,  assessing their severity, and setting  planning
and  management priorities for remediation.  Monitoring data should  also  be used
to help make regulatory decisions, develop  appropriate  controls,  and  evaluate the
effectiveness  of controls once  they are implemented.  This policy focuses on the
use of a  particular type of monitoring information that is derived from ambient
biosurveys, and its  proper integration with  chemical-specific  analyses, toxicity
testing methods, and  biological criteria in State  water quality  programs.

      The distinction between biological  surveys, assessments and  criteria  is an
important one.   Biological surveys,  as stated  in  the section  above, consist of the
collection  and  analysis of the resident aquatic community data and  the
subsequent determination  of  the  aquatic  community's structure and function.  A
biological  assessment  is an evaluation of the  biological  condition of a waterbody
using data gathered  from biological  surveys or other direct  measures  of the biota.
Finally, biological criteria are the numerical values or narrative  expressions  used
to describe the  expected structure and function  of the  aquatic community.
Rationale for Conducting Biological Assessments

      To more fully protect aquatic habitats and  provide more  comprehensive
assessments of aquatic life use  attainment/nonattainmcnt, EPA expects  States to
fully  integrate chemical-specific  techniques, toxicity testing, biological surveys and
biological criteria into  their water  quality programs.   To date, EPA's  activities
have  focused  on the interim goal of the Clean Water Act (the Act), stated in
Section 101(a)(2):  To achieve;  "...wherever attainable, an interim goal  of water
quality which provides for protection  and  propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and  on the water....*   However, the
ultimate objective of the  Act, stated in Section 101 (a), goes  further.  Section
101 (a) states:  The objective of this  Act is to restore and maintain  the chemical,
physical,  and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."  Taken together,
chemical, physical, and biological integrity define  the overall ecological  integrity of
an aquatic  ecosystem.   Because biological integrity is a  strong indicator of overall
ecological integrity,  it can serve as both a meaningful goal and  a useful measure
of environmental status  that relates directly  to the comprehensive objective of the
Act.

-------
       Deviations from, and threats  to, biological integrity can be  estimated
 indirectly or directly.  Traditional measures, such  as  chemical-specific analyses
 and  toxicity  tests, are indirect estimators of biological conditions.  They assess
 the suitability of the waters to support  a healthy  community, but they do  not
 directly assess the community itself.  Biosurveys arc  used to  directly  evaluate the
 overall structural and/or  functional characteristics of  the  aquatic community.
 Water quality programs should use  both direct and indirect methods to assess
 biological conditions and  to determine attainmcnt/nonattainment  of designated
 aquatic life  uses.

       Adopting  an integrated  approach  to  assessing aquatic life  use
 attainmcnt/nonattainment represents  the  next logical step  in the  evolution of the
 water quality program.   Historically, water quality programs  have focused on
 evaluating the impacts of specific  chemicals discharged  from discreet  point
 sources.  In  1984, the program scope was  significantly  broadened  to  include a
 combination of chemical-specific and  whole-effluent toxicity testing methods  to
 evaluate  and predict the  biological impacts of potentially  toxic mixtures in
 wastewater and  surface waters.  Integration of these  two indirect  measures  of
 biological impact into  a  unified assessment approach  has  been discussed in  detail
 in  national policy (49  FR 9016) and guidance  (EPA-440/4-85-032).  This
 approach has proven to be an effective  means  of  assessing and  controlling  toxic
 pollutants and whole-effluent toxicity originating from point sources.
 Additionally, direct measures  of biological impacts,  such as biosurvcy and
 bioassessment techniques, can  be  useful  for regulating point sources.  However,
 where pollutants  and pollutant sources are  difficult to characterize or aggregate
 impacts are  difficult to assess  (e.g., where discharges  arc  multiple, complex, and
 variable;  where point and nonpoint sources arc both  potentially  important;  where
 physical habitat  is potentially  limiting), direct measures  of ambient biological
 conditions are also  needed.

       BiosurVeys and biological criteria add this needed dimension to assessment
 programs because they focus on the resident community.   The effects of multiple
 stresses and  pollution sources on  the numerous biological  components of resident
 communities are integrated  over a relatively long period of time.   The community
 thus  provides  a  useful indicator of both  aggregate  ecological impact and overall
 temporal trends  in the condition of an aquatic  ecosystem.  Furthermore,
 biosurveys can detect aquatic life  impacts that  other  available assessment methods
 may  miss.  Biosurveys detect impacts caused  by:   (1) pollutants that are difficult
 to identify chemically or  characterize lexicologically (e.g.,  rare or unusual  toxics
 [although biosurveys cannot themselves identify  specific  toxicants causing toxic
 impact], "clean" sediment, or nutrients); (2) complex or  unanticipated  exposures
 (e.g.;  combined point and non-point source loadings, storm events, spills); and
 perhaps  most importantly, (3)  habitat degradation  (e.g., channelization,
sedimentation, historical contamination), which  disrupt the interactive  balance
among community components.

-------
      Biosurveys and  biological  criteria provide important information  for a  wide
variety of water quality program needs.  This data  could he used to:

      o     Refine use classifications among  different  types  of  aquatic ecosystems
            (e.g.,  rivers;,  streams, wetlands, lakes,  estuaries, coastal  and marine
            waters) and  within  a given type of use category such as warmwater
            fisheries;

      o     Define and protect  existing aquatic life uses and classify Outstanding
            National  Resource Waters  under State antidcgradation  policies as
            required by  the  Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
            131.12);

      o     Identify  where site-specific criteria  modifications may be needed  to
            effectively protect a waterbody;

      o     Improve use-attainability studies;

      o     Fulfill requirements under  Clean Water Act Sections 303(c),  303(d),
            304(1), 305(b), 314, and  319;

      o     Assess impacts  of certain nonpoint sources  and, together with
            chemical-specific and  toxicity methods, evaluate the effectiveness of
            nonpoint source controls;

      o     Develop management plans  and  conduct  monitoring  in estuaries of
            national significance under Section 320;

      o     Monitor the overall ecological effects  of regulatory actions under
            Sections 401, 402, and  301 (h);

      o     Identify acceptable  sites  for  disposal of dredge  and fill  material
            under Section 404  and  determine the effects of that, disposal;

      o     Conduct  assessments  mandated by other  statutes (e.g.,
            CERCLA/RCRA) that pertain  to  the integrity  of  surface waters;
            and

      o     Evaluate the effectiveness  and document  the instrcam biological
            benefits of pollution controls.


Conduct  of  Biological Surveys

      As is the case  with all types of water quality  monitoring programs,
biosurveys should have clear data quality objectives, use standardized, validated

-------
laboratory and  field  methods, and  include appropriate quality  assurance and
quality control  practices.  Biosurveys should be tailored  to the particular type of
watcrbody being assessed  (e.g., wetland, lake, stream, river, estuary, coastal  or
marine water) and should focus on  community components and  attributes that
are both  representative of the larger community and  arc  practical to measure.
Biosurveys should be routinely coupled with basic physicochcmical measurements
and an objective assessment of habitat quality.  Due to the  importance of the
monitoring design and the intricate  relationship between  the  biosurvey and  the
habitat assessment, well-trained and experienced biologists arc essential  to
conducting an effective biosurvey program.
Integration of Assessment Methods  and  Regulatory  Application

Site-specific Considerations

      Although biosurveys provide  direct information for assessing biological
integrity,  they  may  not always provide the most  accurate or practical measure of
water quality standards attainment/nonattainmcnt.  For  example,  biosurveys and
measures  of biological  integrity do  not directly assess nonaquatic  life uses,  such
as agricultural, industrial, or drinking  water uses, and may not predict  potential
impacts from pollutants that accumulate in sediments or tissues.  These
pollutants may pose a  significant long-term threat to aquatic organisms  or to
huma.ns and wildlife that consume  these organisms,  but  may only minimally  alter
the structure and  function of the ambient community.   Furthermore, biosurveys
can only  indicate  the presence of an impact; they cannot directly identify the
stress agents causing that impact.   Because chemical-specific and  toxicity methods
are designed to detect  specific stressors, they  arc  particularly useful for  diagnosing
the causes of impact and for developing source controls.  Where  a specific
chemical or toxicity is  likely to impact standards  attainment/nonattainmcnt,
assessment methods that measure these stresses directly arc often  needed.

Independent Application

      Because  biosurvey, chemical-specific, and  toxicity testing  methods  have
unique as well as overlapping attributes, sensitivities, and program applications,
no single  approach  for  detecting impact should be considered uniformly superior
to any other approach.  EPA recognizes that each  method  can provide valid  and
independently sufficient evidence of aquatic life use  impairment, irrespective of
any evidence, or lack of it, derived from the other two  approaches.  The failure
of one method to confirm  an impact  identified by another  method  would not
negate the results of the initial assessment.  This policy, therefore, states that
appropriate  action should be taken when any  one of the three types of
assessment determines that the standard is  not attained.   States arc encouraged
to implement and integrate all three approaches into their water  quality programs
and apply them in  combination or independently  as site-specific conditions and

-------
assessment objectives dictate.

      In cases where an assessment  result is suspected  to  be inaccurate, the
assessment may be  repeated  using  more  intensive and/or accurate methods.
Examples of more  intensive assessment methods  are dynamic  modelling  instead of
steady state modelling,, site specific criteria, dissolved metals  analysis,  and a more
complete biosurvey  protocol.


Biological Criteria

      To better protect the integrity of aquatic communities, it is EPA's policy
that States should  develop and implement biological  criteria  in  their water quality
standards.

      Biological criteria are numerical  measures  or narrative descriptions of
biological integrity.   Designated aquatic life use  classifications can also  function
as narrative biological  criteria.  When  formally adopted  into  State standards,
biological criteria and  aquatic  life  use  designations serve as direct, legal  endpoints
for determining aquatic life use attainment/nonattainmcnt.   Per Section
131.11(b)(2) of the  Water Quality  Standards Regulation  (40 CFR Part  131),
biological criteria can supplement existing chemical-specific criteria and  provide an
alternative to  chemicalrspccific criteria  where such  criteria  cannot be established.

      Biological criteria can  be quantitatively developed  by identifying unimpaired
or least-impacted reference waters  that operationally  represent best  attainable
conditions.  EPA recommends States use the ccoregion  concept when establishing
a  list of reference  waters.   Once candidate references arc  identified, integrated
assessments are conducted  to substantiate  the  unimpaired  nature  of the  reference
and to  characterize the resident community.  Biosurycys cannot fully characterize
the entire  aquatic  community  and  all  its attributes.  Therefore, State standards
should  contain biological criteria that consider various components (e.g., algae,
invertebrates,  fish) and attributes (measures of structure and/or function) of the
larger aquatic community.   In  order to  provide  maximum protection  of surface
water quality, States should  continue to develop water  quality standards
integrating all three assessment methods.
 Statutory  Basis

 Section 303(c)

       The primary statutory basis  for this policy derives from  Section  303 of the
 Clean Water Act.  Section 303  requires that States adopt standards  for their
 waters and  review and revise these standards  as appropriate, or  at least once
 every  three  years.  The Water Quality Standards  Regulation (40 CFR 131)

-------
 requires that such  standards consist of the designated  uses  of the waters
 involved, criteria based  upon such  uses, and  an  antidcgradation  policy.

       Each State develops its own use classification  system based on  the  generic
 uses cited in the Act (e.g.,  protection  and  propagation of fish, shellfish, and
 wildlife).  States may also subcategorize types of uses  within  the Act's general
 use categories.   For  example,  aquatic  life  uses  may be subcategorizcd  on  the
 basis of attainable habitat (e.g., cold-  versus  warm-water habitat), innate
 differences  in community structure  and function  (e.g., high versus low species
 richness or productivity), or fundamental differences  in important community
 components (e.g., warm-water  fish communities naturally dominated  by bass
 versus catfish).  Special uses may also be designated to protect particularly
 unique, sensitive  or valuable aquatic species,  communities, or  habitats.

       Each  State  is required to "specify appropriate  water uses to  be achieved
 and protected*  (40 CFR 131.10).   If an aquatic  life use is  formally adopted for
 a waterbody, that designation  becomes a formal  component of the  water  quality
 standards.  Furthermore, nonattainment of the use, as determined with either
 biomonitoring or chemical-specific assessment  methods,  legally  constitutes
 nonattainment of the standard.  Therefore, the more refined the  use designation,
 the more precise  the  biological  criteria (i.e., the more detailed the description of
 desired  biological attributes), and the more complete  the chemical-specific  criteria
 for aquatic life, the more  objective  the assessment  of standards
 attainment/nonattainment.

Section  304fa)

      Section 304(a)  requires EPA  to  develop and  publish  criteria and other
scientific information  regarding  a number of watcr-quality-rclatcd  matters,
including:

      o      Effects of pollutants on aquatic community components ("Plankton,
             fish,  shellfish, wildlife,  plant life...") and  community  attributes
             ('diversity, productivity, and stability...");

      o      Factors necessary  *to restore and  maintain the chemical, physical, .
             biological integrity  of all  navigable waters...", and "for  protection and
             propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for  classes and  categories
            of  receiving waters...";

      o     Appropriate "methods for  establishing and  measuring water quality
            criteria for toxic pollutants on other  bases than pollutant-by-pollutant
            criteria, including biological monitoring and assessment  methods."


      This section  of  the Act has been historically  cited as  the basis for

-------
publishing national guidance on chemical-specific criteria for aquatic  life, but is
equally applicable to the development and use of biological monitoring and
assessment methods and biological criteria.
State/EPA  Roles in  Policy Implementation

State Implementation

      Because there are important  qualitative differences among  aquatic
ecosystems (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal and marine waters),
and  there is significant geographical variation even among  systems of a given
type, no single set of assessment methods  or  numeric biological criteria  is fully
applicable nationwide.  Therefore, States must take the primary  responsibility for
adopting their own standard  biosurvey  methods, integrating them with other
techniques  at  the  program  level, and applying them  in  appropriate combinations
on a case-by-case  basis.  Similarly, States  should develop their own biological-
criteria  and implement them  appropriately in  their water quality standards.

EPA Guidance and Technical Support

      EPA  will provide the States  with national guidance  on performing
technically  sound  biosurveys,  and developing and integrating biological criteria
into  a comprehensive water quality program.   EPA  will also supply guidance to
the States on  how to  apply ecorcgional concepts to  reference site selection.   In
addition, EPA Regional Administrators  will ensure that each Region has the
capability to conduct fully  integrated assessments and to provide technical
assistance to the  States.

-------
gjgjgsgjgjgigg
P3 t*3 W   W P9 H W W
                 w CA
                 PI n
                 •«•«
                     W
                        eee
                        WWW

                        333
                             cccec
9 » 50
vo a r
      t>
JOJOMfTWOWOW

        \o n •  X •
    OH»  \   W
CD W C   W >O W SO M

x-S'g'w0   S«
2 w rt < w-» m   w

's^SSS0
.-»3       i   «
CD        U»   K)
  §M   3E  U   K>
  K)   i|   cn   M

w    rt
•D
      ~s
      =T8
                  <*
                 ; »


                 'I

              c-2


              4i?
                ?0
                Ul H>
                CD
                in*
               r  \
                t 50 SB
               0» «
               H-O «Q
               3 • •

                 \0 N)


               $x
               0 I
               1 U
       in

       'P


        ?
        i

        »
           •*>
       §500 O
       • X *
       a m «
       .  «OB

     S1*^

     •Pw0?
       tn-» i
     «jom<
  eeeeee<
  M CA CA W (A M I
  M W W M W M |

  >>>>»

  O 50 O Q H 50

  n r* > « en
                                                       050
                                                       X •
                                                       m*o
     > r > •
      m<
                                    (•> O"
                                    W«
                                    Cf> "0

                                    — PJ
                                       u>
                                       w
                                       ^
                                               in
                                                  *
                                MO
                                u
                                K) *
                                XS-'JQ
                                ~ t w»^
                                  Ul I —

                                  ZSs
                                                       u> O
                                                       00 I
                                                                       90
 VO
    Ch tJ
    Ki •

    O O
        X
        o
 •-•O

 CDS'
 ft O
 M 3
 rt C
 I rr
 A
 A 03
 rt •-
 •  <
   Q.

 in
    O t»
    O O
    3 X
    a
    iQ M
    O -J
    3 ff>
     CO
    CD -O
    —
    <
    Q.
i O O
i CJ hrf



:f?
 ft
I3»M
• •  ft
   •
 09


'vQ
        n   M
            sss
              M M

            ?33
            a •  •
            ft
            < (A CA
            ** ft ft

            2'  '-
              W CA
            CA X X
            ft
            "I
            n
            s

     A 50

     32
     A a
*
•« * M
•  o »
O M*
    m

  ?»
    o
M W B
  ft B
VO •
e*   >

§££

0   I
    n
      * * w
      O O U
      M k>> 9k


      23 CA
      CA CA D
      ft ft M
      •  •  B
          n
      CA CA sr

      **CA
                                      £
                                                    KJ I 4k M >
                                                    J* o o K> a
                                                      O M O O
                                                    «i a   o »
                                                    c crs   n
                                                    3 "I •  O» W
                                                    O »-•   rt w
                                                    ft aw 3"
                                                    o 
                                                          <
                                                    5B > W ft
                                                    O < S 3
                                                    a «   c
                                                    a 3   A
                                                      c
A

I
^
      99
      »
3 M- •-• M M-
         ^fl^
i a
-  n
  M
n-o
o 3-
CD
O TJ
to >
O
K)
> G
 rt
	Z3_. xx>z
Q.»3I»A»»MA
  BABMaaCTC
D) S3* O %F ^* mf mT 9 &
0 M-,-**-3 MW. 3 o
33»*3«Q33')
     o ^
CD  O
W  O  OK)
-J K) U) K> K) O K)

  O  O M « O


  ^  CT* OJ O Cf*
 K) itk
 K> in
CA m
• Q.
3 M-
  a
rtj o
1 3



D Z
D)
n


•°o
  •j
n CD
> K)
  CD


(£
        °| |f

        < a A 3*

        M B B 3
                               M

                               M- O

                               OJ M.
                               «  rt
                                rt
                              C1O
                           3'3>
                           C. H-

                           33
                           iOifi
                           rtrt
                           OO
                                            3'3'0
                                            H>M-»

                                            33«fl
                                            vOifiO
                                            rtrt-
                                            OO
                                                   MB
                                                   *W

                                                   BB
                                                      B D" rt
                                                      O»-rt

                                                      33'-
                                                  a>


                                                  i
                                 w o
                              N>
                               N)
                                            O
                                            C«
                                       K>
                                       O
                              -J O>
                              W cn
                              LJ w

                              w O
                                   «JOiC
                                   vfi   Cf>
                                   C   C
                                             O O

                                             **
                                             ^f^
                                             O O
                                                       CD  
                                                       OS  CD
                                                       W  M

                                                       
-------
                                   Attachment C

              Relevant Guidance
Chemical-specific evaluations

     Guidance for Deriving National Water Quality
     Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
     and Their Uses (45 FR 79342,, November 28, 1990,  as
     amended at 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985)

     Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (EPA 440/5-86-001,
     May 1, 1987)

Toxic ity testing

     Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
     Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
     Freshwater Organisms, Second Edition  (EPA/600-4-
     89-001) , March 1989)

     Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
     Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
     Marine and Estuarine Organisms (EPA/600-4-87/028,
     May 1988)

     Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents
     to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA/ 600-4 -8 5-
     013, March 1985)

Biosurveys and integrated assessments

     Technical Support Manual:  Waterbody Surveys and
     Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
     Analyses:  Volumes I-III (Office of Water
     Regulations and Standards, November 1983-1984)

     Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
     Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90/001, March 1991)

     Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Streams and
     Rivers:  Benthic Macro- invertebrates and Fish
     (EPA/444-4-89-001, May 1989)

     Hughes, Robert M. and David P. Larsen.  1988.
     Ecoregions:  An Approach to Surface Water
     Protection.  Journal of the Water Pollution
     Control Federation 60, No. 4:  486-93.

     Omerik, J.M. 1987.  Ecoregions of the Coterminous
     United States.  Annals of the Association of
     American Geographers 77, No. 1: 118-25.

-------
          Regionalization as a Tool for Managing
          Environmental Resources (EPA/600-3-89-060,  July
          1989)

          EPA Biological Criteria - National Program
          Guidance for Surface Waters (EPA/440-5-90-004,
          April 1990)
Deeimenfca beina develooed
          Technical Guidance on the Development of
          Biological Criteria

          State Development of Biological Criteria (case
          studies of State implementation)

          Monitoring Program Guidance

          Sediment Classification Methods Compendium

          Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Manual for
          Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
          Waters

          Fish Field and Laboratory Manual for Determining
          the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters

-------
        APPENDIX S
            Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




         SECOND EDITION
                                   w

-------
                                                                                                      	li Li;	l,ii	ii	;
                                                                                                       "
                                                                                                                                                               '*)
                                                                                                                                                              "i1",:,",!,!
                                                                                                                                                               '	!:!II,L
                                                                                                                                                              ''	:|:i
                                                                                                                                                              "I '"I,	'hi
                                                                                                      a!	:!i	
                                                                                                                                              •::•!	;	i-*	-!
                                                                                                                                             ; i,', '• '!|ii,': r !*li"!:|k'" "•!•:. „ , • ,  (!i''|i|| i;iii!i




                                                                                                                                              ^ viil?  :l/''  )-$i
                                                                                                      	II
                                                                                                                                             	L$C	'$.	'M
i'l lli'i llWIIIIIIilllllMilllllli III iJIIBinr'MUillPTIIIIII "I1.!!|i:i:ii<|||||
                                                                                                      	iiiH
 i  I	ill
  '"! !
                                                                                                                                               .mf  •••*•••£•:	i
                                                                                                                                                i'":;1 ':;i':,i'.   i1'  ,'  ''  ;.',!
                                                                                                                                               M.*,r.   '•••••'^
                                                                                                                                                             -iiliiii!;
                                                                                                                                                 H|i;:	::	ti;	L±W
                                                                                                                                                 i	ii	sun
	,i! 	   	i:	
	••*	iii	>
                                                                                                                                                               	!!
                                                                                                                                                ,,,,
                                                                                                                                               i!l,,:,f i!' li! is'I
                                                                                                                                                 1	|iP!!t:	;	f	
                                                                                                                                     -L	_:	;	>mm	:	;„;	=,;,;,;	k&a

-------
         APPENDIX T
        Use Attainability Analysis
             Case Studies
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ""!	in	I	ii
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           i     ii  in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	in	i
•I • mi 11  in i ill in 111 in     11 ill 111111I1 iiiiiiiii in  i iiiiiii 11 n in i n iiiiiii ill in n iiiiiiB i  iiiiiiii ill iiiiiii
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,1	liiiiii'ij,   in,;	ii)'

-------
             CASE STUDIES

Introduction
     The Water  Body  Survey and Assessment Guidance  for  Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses  provides guidance  on the  factors  that  may be
examined to determine  if  an aquatic life  protection use is attainable
in a given stream  or  river system.  The  guidance  proposed that States
perform  physical,  chemical  and  biological   evaluations  in  order  to
determine  the  existing  and  potential   uses of  a  water   body.    The
analyses suggested within  this  guidance  represent  the type of analyses
EPA  believes  are  sufficient  for  States  to justify  changes  in  uses
designated  in  a  water  quality  standard  and  to   show  in  Advanced
Treatment Project Justifications that the  uses  are attainable.   States
are also  encouraged  to use  alternative  analyses  as long  as  they are
scientifically and technically  supportable.   Furthermore,  the guidance
also  encourages the  use  of  existing data  to  perform the  physical,
chemical and biological evaluations and whenever possible States should
consider  grouping  water  bodies having  simi Tar  physical  and  chemical
characteristics to treat  several  water bodies or  segments  as  a single
unit.

     Using  the  framework  provided  by  this  guidance,  studies  were
conducted  to   (1)   test   the  applicability  of  the   guidance,  (2)
familiarize State  and  Regional personnel  with  the  procedures  and (3)
identify situations  where additional  guidance is  needed.   The results
of these  case  studies, which are  summarized in  this Handbook, pointed
out the following:

(1) The Water Body Surveys and Assessment guidance  can  be applied and
    provides  a  good   framework  for   conducting  use  attainability
    analyses;
(2)  The guidance  provides  sufficient  flexibility  to  the States  in
    conducting such analyses; and,
(3) The case  studies  show that EPA and  States  can cooperatively agree
    to  the data  and  analyses  needed  to   evaluate  the  existing  and
    potential  uses.

     Upon completion of the case studies, several  States requested that
EPA provide additional  technical  guidance on the  techniques  mentioned
in the guidance document.   In  order to fulfill  thesa requests, EPA has
developed  a  technical  support  manual   on  conducting  attainability
analyses and is continuing research to develop new cost effective tools
for conducting such analyses.   EPA is striving to  develop a partnership
with States to  improve  the scientific  and technical  bases  of  the water
quality standards  decision-making  process  and will continue to provide
technical assistance.

     The  summaries  of the  case  studies  provided   in  this  Handbook
illustrate  the  different  methods  States  used  in  determining  the
existing  and  potential  uses.   As  can be  seen, the specific analyses
used  were dictated  by  (1) the  characteristics  of  the  site,  (2) the

                                  D-l

-------
States capabilities  and technical expertise  using  certain methods  and
(3) the availability of data.   EPA is  providing  these  summaries  to show
how  use  attainability  analyses  can  be  conducted.    States  will  find
these  case  studies  informative on   the  technical   aspects   of  use
attainability  analyses  and will  provide them with  alternate views  on
how such analyses may be conducted.
                                 D-2

-------
                    WATER  BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                      Assabet  River,  Massachusetts
 I.    INTRODUCTION
A.    Site Description

      The drainage  basin  of  the  Assabet  River comprises  175 square miles
located  in  twenty  towns in  East-Central  Massachusetts.   The  Assabet
River begins   as   the   outflow  from   a   small   wildlife  preservation
impoundment  in  the Town  of Westborough and  flows  northeast  through  the
urban centers  of   Northborough,  Hudson,  Maynard  and  Concord  to  its
confluence with the Sudbury River, forming the Concord River.   Between
these urbanized centers, the  river is bordered  by stretches of  rural
and  undeveloped land.   Similarly, the vast majority  of the drainage
basin is characterized  by  rural  development.    Figure  1  presents  a
schematic diagram  of the drainage basin.

      The Assabet River  provides  the  opportunity  to  study a  repeating
sequence of water  quality degradation and  recovery.   One  industrial  and
six   domestic   wastewater   treatment   plants  (WWTP)  discharge   their
effluents into  this 31-mile  long river.   All  of the treatment  plants
presently provide  secondary  or  advanced  secondary treatment, although
many  of  them  are not performing  to their  design  specifications.  Most
of  the  treatment   plants  are  scheduled  to  be   upgraded in  the near
future.

      Interspersed  among  the WWTP discharges  are  six  low dams, all  but
one  of  which   were built  at  least   a half century  ago.   All   are
"run-of-the-river"  structures varying  in  height  from  three to  eleven
feet.  The  last dam built  on the  river was  a  flood  control  structure
completed in 1980.

      The headwaters of  the  Assabet River  are  formed  by the  discharge
from  a wildlife preservation  impoundment, and  are relatively  "clean"
except for low  dissolved oxygen  (DO) and high biochemical  oxygen  demand
(BOD)  during winter and  summer.   Water is  discharged from the preserve
through the foot of the  dam that forms the impoundment,  and  therefore,
tends  to  be  low in DO.   DO and BOD  problems  in  the  impoundment  are
attributed to winter ice cover  and  peak algal growth  in  summer.  After
the   discharge   of   effluents  from  the  Westborough  and   Shrewsbury
municipal  wastewater treatment  plants,  the  river  enters  its   first
degradation/recovery  cycle.    The cycle   is  repeated   as   the   river
receives effluent  from  the  four remaining  domestic  treatment plants.
Water  quality  problems   in  the  river  are  magnified when the  effluents
are discharged  into the  head .of  an impoundment.   However, the flow of
water  over the  dams also serves  as  a primary  means  of reaeration  in  the
river, and thus,  the dams  also  become  a major  factor  in the recovery
segment of the  cycle.   Water quality surveys performed  in 1979 showed
violations of   the  fecal coliform, phosphorus,  and  dissolved  oxygen
criteria throughout the  river.
                                  D-3

-------
D-4

-------
     At present,  the  entire length of  the  Assabet River is.  classified
B,  which  is  designated for  the protection  and  propagation  of  fish,
other  aquatic  life  and  wildlife,  and   for   primary  and   secondary
recreation.   Two different uses  have been designated  for  the  Assabet
River--from  river mile  31.8  to  12.4 the  designated use  is  "aquatic
life" and from river mile 12.4 to the confluence with the Sudbury  River
the designated use is a  "warm water fishery".  The difference  in  these
designated  uses   is  that maintenance  of a  warm  water  fishery  has a
maximum temperature  criterion  of 83 degrees  F,  and a minimum DO of 5
mg/1.   There are no temperature  or DO  criteria   associated  with  the
aquatic life use.   These designations  seem  contrary to  the  existing
data, which  document  violations of both  criteria  in  the lower  reaches
of the river where warm water fishery is  the  designated  use.

B.  Problem Definition

     The  Assabet  River  was  managed as  a  put  and take trout  fishery
prior to the early 1970s when the practice  was stopped on advisement  of
the MDWPC because of poor water  quality  conditions  in the river.   While
the  majority of  the water  quality problems  are   attributable  to  the
wastewater treatment plant  discharges,  the  naturally  low velocities  in
the river, compounded by its  impoundment in several places, led to  the
examination  of  both  factors  as  contributors  to the   impairment   of
aquatic life  uses.   This combination of irreversible physical  factors
and wastewater  treatment plant-induced  water quality problems led  to
the selection of  the Assabet River  for this water  body survey.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability Analysis

     Assessment  of  the  Assabet  River  is  based on   the   previously
mentioned  site visits  and  discussions  among  representatives  of  the
Massachusetts  Division   of  Water Pollution  Control  (MDWPC);  the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);  and the  Massachusetts Fish  and
Wildlife Division.  This assessment is  also based  in  part upon  findings
reported  in  the  field  and laboratory analyses on  the Assabet River  in
early June,  1979,  and  again in  early August,  1979.   These  surveys  are
part of the  on-going MDWPC monitoring  program,  which included  similar
water quality assessments  of  the Assabet in  1969  and 1974.   The  water
quality  monitoring  includes extensive  information  on the   chemical
characteristics of the Assabet River.

Analyses Conducted

     A  review of physical,  chemical   and  biological information  was
conducted  to determine  which  aquatic  life  use  designations  would  be
appropriate.

A.  Physical Factors

     The  low  flow condition of  the river during the  summer months  may
have  an   impact  on the  ability of  certain  fish   species  to  survive.
Various  percentages  of  average annual  flow  (AAF)  have been  used  to
describe  stream  regimens for critical  fisheries flow.   As  reported  in
                                  D-5

-------
 Cortell  (1977), studies  conducted  by Tennant  indicate  that 10%,  30%,
 and  60% of  AAF describe  the range  of  fisheries  flows from  absolute
 minimum  (10% AAF) to  optimum (60% of AAF).  The average annual  flow of
 the  Assabet  River,  as  calculated  from  39  years of  record  at the  USGS
 gauge  at river rnile 7.7,  is 183 cfs.   Flow  measurements taken  at  the
 USGS gauge on  four  consecutive  days  in  early  August,  1979,  were  43,  34,
 27,  and 33  cfs.   These  flows  average about  19  percent   of  the  AAF
 indicating that some impairment  of  the  protection of fish  species  may
 occur  due  to low flow  in the  river.   The 7-day  10-year low flow  for
 this reach of  the river is approximately 18 to  20  cfs.

     The outstanding physical  features  of the Assabet  River  are  the
 dams,  which  have a  significant influence  on the aquatic  life  of  the
 river.   Most fish are incapable  of migrating  upstream of the dams,  thus
 limiting their  ability to  find  suitable (sufficient)  habitats  when
 critical  water  quality conditions  occur.   The  low  flow  conditions
 downstream of  the dams during  dry  periods  also  result in  high water
 temperatures,  further limiting  fish  survival  in the  river.
1*1 i U i LU i   nuuci   ijuu.il L^  \_.uilu i u i UNO
downstream  of  the dams  during  dry
temperatures, further limiting fish

B.   Biological Factors
     As  with data  on the  physical  parameters  for  the Assabet  River,
biological  data  are  sparse.   The last fish survey of the Assabet River
was  conducted  by the Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Division  in 1952.
Yellow perch,  hluegills,  pickerel,  sunfish, and  bass were all  observed.
The  Assabet River was  sampled by the  MDWPC  for macroinvertebrates  at
five  locations in June,  1979, as  part  of an  intensive water  quality
survey.

     The data were  reviewed  and  analyses  performed to determine whether
conditions  preclude  macroinvertebrate  habitats.    The results  were
inconclusive.

C.  Chemical Factors

     Of  all  the  chemical  constituents measured in the June  and  August,
1979, water quality  surveys,  dissolved oxygen,  ammonia nitrogen,  and
temperature  have  the  greatest   potential  to  limit  the  survival   of
aquatic  life.    Ammonia  toxicity was  investigated using  the  criteria
outlined in  Water Quality Criteria  1972.   The results of this  analysis
indicate that  the  concentration  of un-ionized ammonia would need  to  be
increased  approximately  three  times  before  acute  mortality  in  the
species  of  fish listed  would  occur.    Therefore,  ammonia  is  not  a
problem.

     Temperatures in  the  lower reaches  of  the Assabet frequently exceed
the maximum temperature  criteria  (83  degrees F) for  maintenance of  a
warm water  fishery.   However,  temperature readings were taken  in  early
and  late  afternoon  and are  believed  to be surface water measurements.
They are short-term  localized  observations and should not preclude  the
maintenance of a warm water  fishery in  those  reaches.  Dissolved oxygen
concentrations above Maynard are  unsuitable for  supporting cold  or warm
water fisheries, but  are sufficient  to  support a fishery  below this
point.
                                  D-6

-------
    .The impoundments may exhibit water  quality  problems  in  the  form of
high surface temperatures and low bottom DO.  Surface temperatures  have
been found to  be  similar to those in the  remainder  of  the river.  The
only depth sample was at 13 feet in the wildlife  impoundment, where the
temperature was 63 degrees  F, while 83 degrees F  at  the surface.  While
such bottom temperatures are. likely  to be sufficient to  support  a  cold
water  fishery,  it  is  likely  that  the  DO at the  bottom   of  the
impoundments  will  be  near  zero  due to  benthic  demands and  lack of
surface aeration, which would preclude the  survival  of any fish.

Findings

     The data,  observations,  and analyses  as presented  herein  lead to
the  conclusion that  there  are four  possible   uses for  the Assabet:
aquatic life, warm water fishery, cold water  fishery, and  seasonal  cold
water fishery.  The  seasonal  fishery would  be managed  by stocking the
river during the spring.

     These  uses were  analyzed under 'three water  quality  conditions:
existing, existing without  the  wastewater discharges,  and inclusion of
the  wastewater  effluent  discharges  with  treatment  at   the   levels
stipulated in the 1981 Suasco Basin Water Quality Management Plan.  The
no discharge  condition is  included  as a  baseline  that  represents the
quality under "natural" conditions.

A.  Existing Uses

     A  limited  number of warm water  fish species  predominate  in the
Assabet River  under  existing  conditions.   The   species  should  not be
different from  those  observed  during  the 1952 survey.   The  combination
of numerous  low-level dams  and wastewater  treatment  plants  with low
flow   conditions    in  the   summer   results   in  dissolved    oxygen
concentrations  and  temperatures  which   place   severe  stress   on  the
metabolism of the fish.

     The observed temperatures  are most conducive to support the  growth
of  coarse  fish,  Including   pike,   perch,  walleye,   smallmouth  and
largemouth bass, sauger, bluegill and crappie.

     The minimum  observed  DO  concentrations are  unacceptable  for the
protection of any  fish.   Water Quality Criteria   establishes the  values
6.8, 5.6,  and 4.2 rng/1  of DO  for high,  moderate,  and  low levels of
protection of  fish  for rivers  with the  temperature  characteristics of
the  Assabet.    The  Draft  National  Criteria for Dissolved  Oxygen in
Freshwater establishes criteria as 3.0 mg/1  for   survival, 4.0 mg/1 for
moderate production impairment, 5.0 mg/1 for  slight  impairment,  and 6.0
for no production impairment.   The  upper reaches will  not even  support
a warm  water  fishery  at  the survival  level,  except in  the uppermost
reach.  On the  other hand,  the lower reaches can support a warm water
fishery under existing conditions.
                                  D-7

-------
B.  Potential Uses

     The  potential  aquatic  life uses  of the  Assabet  River  would  be
restricted  by temperature  and low flow,  and  by physical  barriers that
would  exist  even  if  water  quality  (measured  in  terms  of  DO  and
bacteria) is significantly improved.  Despite an overall improvement in
treated effluent quality, the river would be suitable for aquatic life,
as it is currently, and would continue to be too warm to support a cold
water fishery  in the summertime.   The possibility  of  maintaining  the
cold water  species  in  tributaries during the  summer was  investigated,
but there  are no  data  on which to draw conclusions.    Water quality
observations  in  the only  tributary  indicate temperatures  similar  to
those in  the mainstem.   Therefore,  the  maintenance of  a  cold  water
fishery in the Assabet is considered unfeasible.

     The attainable uses in  the  river  without discharges  or at planned
levels  of  treatment are  warm water  fishery  and  seasonal  cold  water
fishery.  These  uses are both  attainable  throughout the basin, but  may
be impaired  in  Reach  1, as the  water  naturally entering  Reach  1  from
the wildlife preservation impoundment  is  low  in DO.  The  seasonal  cold
water   fishery   is   attainable   because   the  discharge   limits   are
established to maintain a DO of  5 mg/1 under 7Q10  conditions.   If  the
DO is 5 mg/1 under  summer  low flow conditions, it  will certainly  be 6
mg/1 or greater  during  the colder,  higher flow spring stocking period,
and a seasonal cold water fishery would be attainable.

     According to^the  Fish  and  Wildlife  Division,  the  impoundments  of
the  Assabet River  have the  potential to  be  a  valuable warm  water
fishery.   The  reaches   of  the river that have a  non-vegetated  gravel
bottom  also have  a high potential  to support a  significant fishery
because these  habitats  allow  the benthic invertebrates  that  comprise
the food  supply  for the fish  to flourish.   It was  further  suggested
that if the  dissolved oxygen  concentration  could  be maintained above 5
mg/1, the river could again be stocked  as a  put and take  trout fishery
in the spring.

Summary and Conclusions

     The  low  flow  conditions   of   the  Assabet   River   have   been
exacerbated  by  the low dams  which  span its  course.   In the  summer
months, the flow in the river is   slowed as the river passes through its
impoundments and  flow  below the dams  is often  reduced to  a  relative
trickle.    When  flow is  reduced,  temperatures in  the  shallow  river
(easily walkable in many  places) can  exceed the  maximum  temperature
criterion  for  protection  and propagation  of  a  warm  water  fishery.
Additionally, the dams limit the mobility of fish.  At present, most of
the  river  reaches  also  undergo extensive  degradation  due  to  the
discharge of wastewater treatment plant effluent which is  manifest  in
low dissolved oxygen concentrations.   All of these factors  impair  the
aquatic life potential  of the Assabet River.


                                  D-8

-------
     Three  use  levels  corresponding  with  three  alternative  actions
related to the wastewater  discharges  are possible in the Assabet.  The
no  action  alternative  would  result  in   very   low dissolved  oxygen
concentrations in  many  reaches which are  appropriate  only for the use
designation of aquatic  life  and  warm  water fishery.  In this scenario,
fish would only  survive in the  lowest  river  reaches,  and aquatic life
would be limited to sludge worms and  similar  invertebrates in the upper
reaches.   The  remaining  two alternatives   are  related  to  upgrading
treatment  plants  in  the  basin.     If the   discharges   are  improved
sufficiently  ,,to  raise  the' instream  DO   to 5  mg/1  throughout,  as
stipulated  in the 1981  Water  Quality Management Plan,  it will  be
suitable as  a warm water  or  seasonal  cold water fishery.   Should the
discharge be  eliminted  altogether, the  same uses would be  attainable.

     The  treatment   plant  discharges  inhibit  the   protection  and
propagation   of  aquatic  life.    Most   of  the   treatment plants  are
scheduled to  be  upgraded  in  the near future, which would relieve the
existing dissolved oxygen  problems.   Even if the  river  is returned to
relatively pristine conditions,  the type of fish  that  would be able to
propagate  there  would  not  change,   due  to  the existing  physical
conditions.    However,  the  extent   of   their   distribution,   their
abundance, and the health  of  the biota  would  be likely to  increase.

     The present  use  designations of the  Assabet River  are sufficient
to characterize the aquatic  life use 'it  is capable  of supporting, while
physical  barriers  prevent  the  year-round  attainment  of a  "higher"
aquatic  life  use.    The  potential   aquatic  life  uses   could  include
extension  of  the  warm  water  and  seasonal   cold   water  fishery
classifications  to  the  entire length of the  river, should the planned
improvements  to the wastewater treatment plants be  implemented.
                                  D-9

-------
                      WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                              Blackwater River
                             Franklin, Virginia


I.  INTRODUCTION

A.  Site Description

The area  of the Blackwater River  which was chosen  for  this study  extends
from Joyner's  Bridge  (Southampton  County, Route  611)  to Cobb's Wharf  near
its confluence with the Nottoway River  (Table  1 and  Figure  1).  In  addition,
data from the US6S gaging  station  near  Burdette  (river mile 24.57)  provided
information on some physical characteristics of the system.


                                  TABLE 1

      Sampling Locations for Blackwater River Use Attainability  Survey

        Station                                                       River
          No.      	Location	    Mi le

           1       Vicinity Joyner's Bridge, Route 611                20.90
           2       Below Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant  Discharge     13.77
           3       Vicinity Cobb's  Wharf, Route 687                    2.59
The mean annual  rainfall  is 48 inches, much of which occurs in the  summer
in  the  form  of  thunderstorms. The  SCS has  concluded  that  approximately
41,000  tons  of  soil  are  transported to  streams  in the  watershed due to
rainfall induced erosion.  Seventy  (70) percent  of this  originates  from
croplands, causing  a  potential pollution problem from pesticides  and  from
fertilizer based nutrients. In addition, 114,000 pounds  of animal  waste are
produced annually,  constituting  the only  other major  source of  non-point
pollution.

There are two primary point source discharges  on  the Blackwater River. The
Franklin Sewage  Treatment  Plant  at  Station 2 discharges an average  of 1.9
mgd of municipal effluent. The discharge volume exceeds  NPDES  permit  levels
due  to  inflow  and  infiltration  problems.  The  plant  has applied  for  a
federal grant to upgrade treatment.  The second discharge is from Union  Camp
Corporation,  an  integrated  kraft  mill  that produces  bleached  paper  and
bleached board  products.  The  primary  by-products are  crude  tall oil  and
crude sulfate turpentine.  Union  Camp operates at 36.6 mgd but retains its
treated waste in lagoons until the winter months when  it is discharged. The
                                  D-10

-------
                                                          USGS Gaging
                                                          Stati on
                                                     Station 1
                                                     Joyners Bridge
                                                     (Rt. 611)
                                                      Station 2
                                                      Franklin
Figure 1.
Map of Study Area
Southampton Co., VA
Scale 1:5000
                     Virginia
                                                      Station 3
                                                      Cobb's Wharf
                                                      (Rt. 687)
                  North Carolina
                                 D-ll

-------
Union  Camp  discharge  point  is  downstream  from Station  3 just above  the
North Carolina State line at river mile 0.70.

The topography surrounding the Blackwater River is  essentially flat and  the
riparian zone is primarily hardwood wetlands. There is a good surface water
supply  from several  swamps.  At  the  US6S  gaging   station near  Burdette,
Virginia, the discharge for calendar year 1980 averaged 430 cfs.

The Blackwater River from Joyner's  Bridge  (Station  1)  to Franklin  is clas-
sified by the State Water Control Board  (SWCB)  as  a Class III free flowing
stream. This classification  requires  a minimum dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion of 4.0 mg/1 and a daily  average of 5.0 mg/1.  Other applicable stan-
dards  are maintenance  of pH from  6.0 to 8.5 and a  maximum  temperature of
32°C.  The  riparian zone is  heavily wooded wetlands with numerous channel
obstructions. Near  Franklin  the  canopy begins to open  and there  is an  in-
creasing presence of lily pads and other macrophytes. The water is dark, as
is characteristic of tannic acid water found"in swamplands.

Below  Franklin  the Blackwater River  is  dredged and channelized to permit
barge  traffic to reach Union  Camp.  The channel is  approximately  40m wide
and from 5m to 8m in depth. This reach of  stream is classified by  the SWCB
as a Class  II  estuarine system  requiring the  same  dissolved  oxygen and pH
limitation as in Class III but without a temperature requirement.

B.  Problem Definition

The study area  on the Blackwater River  includes a Class  III  free-flowing
stream and  a  Class II  estuarine river.  Part of the Class III section is a
freshwater  cypress  swamp.  The  water  is  turbid,   nutrient  enriched  and
slightly acidic due to tannins.

In response to the EPA  request for  Virginia's  involvement in  the  pilot  Use
Attainability studies,  the  State Water Control Board chose to  examine  the
Blackwater River  in the vicinity of Franklin,  Virginia. There were several
reasons for this  choice. First,  the major  stress to the system is  low dis-
solved oxygen  (DO)  concentrations which occur  from May  through  November.
Surveys conducted by SWCB staff, and officials from Union Camp in  Franklin,
found  that  during certain periods  "natural"  Background  concentrations  of
dissolved oxygen  fell  below the water quality standard  of 4.0 mg/1. This
has  raised  questions as  to  whether  the current  standard is appropriate.
Virginia's water  quality standards  contain  a  swamp  water designation which
recognizes  that  DO and  pH  may  be  substantially different  in some swamp
waters and  provides for  specific  standards to  be set  on a case  by case
basis. However,  no  site specific standards  have been developed in  Virginia
to date. One  of the goals of  this  project  was  to  gather information which
could  lead  to possible  development of  a  site specific  standard  for  the
Blackwater River. Second, the  Franklin STP  has  applied  for a federal grant
to provide for improved BOD 'removals from its effluent.
                                 D-12

-------
C.  Approach to Use Attainability

On 20  April,  1982, staff of  the SWCB met with  several  EPA officials  and
their consultant. After visiting the study area on the Blackwater River  and
reviewing the  available  information, it was  determined  that further data
should be collected, primarily a description  of the  aquatic  community.  The
SWCB  staff  has scheduled four  quarterly surveys  from June 1982,  through
March 1983, to collect physical, chemical, and biological  information.  In-
terim results are reported herein to.summarize data  from the first  collec-
tion. Final conclusions will  not be  drawn until the  data has been compiled
for all four quarters.


II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

A.  Physical Analysis

Data  on  the  physical  characteristics of the  Blackwater River were  derived
primarily from existing  information  and  from  general  observations.  The  en-
tire  reach of the Blackwater River from Joyner's Bridge to  Cpbb's Wharf  was
traveled by boat  to observe channel and  riparian  characteristics.  A  sedi-
ment  sample was collected at each station for partical size analysis.

B.  Chemical Analysis

Water samples were  collected  at  Stations  1-3  for  analysis  of pH, alkalini-
ty,  solids, hardness,  nutrients,  five-day  BOD,  chemical  oxygen  demand,
total organic  carbon,  phenols,  pesticides, and heavy metals. In  addition,
previous data on  dissolved oxygen concentrations  collected by the SWCB  and
Union  Camp  were  used  to examine oxygen  profiles in  the  river. The US6S
Water Resources  Data  for Virginia  (1981)  provided some chemical data  for
the Blackwater River near Burdette.

C.  Biological Analysis

Periphyton sampling for  chlorophyll-a, biomass, and  autotrophic  index  de-
termination was  conducted using  floating  plexiglass  samplers anchored by a
cement weight. The  samplers were placed  in the field  in  triplicate  and  re-
mained  in  the river  for 14  days.  They were  located in  run areas in  the
stream. At the end of this two-week period, the samplers were retrieved  and
the slides removed for biomass determinations and chlorophyll analysis.

Both  a  cursory and a  quantitative  survey of  macroinvertebrates  were con-
ducted  at  each  station.  The  purpose of  the  cursory study  was  to  rapidly
identify the general water  quality  of each station by surveying  the  pres-
ence  of aquatic  insects,, molluscs, crustaceans and  worms and  classifying
them  according  to  their pollution  tolerance. A  record  was kept  of  all
organisms found  and these were  classified to  the  family  level as dominant,
abundant, common, few  or present.  The cursory survey was  completed with a
qualitative evaluation  of the density and diversity  of  aquatic organisms.
                                      n-13

-------
General knowledge of  the  pollution  tolerance of various genera was used to
classify  the  water  quality at each station.  The benthic macroinvertebrate
samples were  collected  with Hester-Dendy multiplate artificial substrates.
The  substrates  were attached to metal  fence posts and  held  vertically at
least 15  cm above the stream bottom.  The substrates were left in place for
six weeks to  allow  for  colonization by macroinvertebrate organisms. In the
laboratory the organisms were identified to the generic level whenever pos-
sible. Counts were made of  the number  of taxa identified and the number of
individuals within each taxon.

Fish -populations were surveyed at each station by electrofishing. Each sta-
tion was  shocked for 1,000 seconds:  800 seconds at the  shoreline and 200
seconds at  midstream.  Fish collected  were  identified  to species  and the
total length  of each  fish was recorded.  In  addition,  general observations
were made about  the health  status of the fish by observing  lesions, hemor-
rhaging, and the presence of external parasites.

Diversity of  species  was  calculated using the  Shannon-Weaver index.  Addi-
tionally, the  fish  communities were evaluated  using an  index  proposed by
Karr (1981) which classifies biotic integrity based on 12 parameters of the
fish community.


III.  FINDINGS

There are few  physical  factors which  limit  aquatic  life  uses.  The habitat
is  characteristic  of a hardwood  wetland with  few alterations.  The  major
alteration is  dredging  and channelization below  Franklin which eliminates
much  of the  macrophyte community  and the  habitat  it provides  for  other
organisms. The substrate at each station was composed mostly of sand with a
high moisture  content.  This is characteristic of a  swamp but is not ideal
habitat for colonization by periphyton and macroinvertebrates.

DO concentrations are typically below  the Virginia water quality standards
during the months of May through November. This is true upstream as well as
downstream from  the Franklin  STP and  appears to occur  even  without the im-
pact of BOD loadings  from  Franklin. This phenomenon may  be  typical  of en-
riched  freshwater wetlands. However, during the winter  months, DO concen-
trations may exceed 10  mg/1.  Another survey conducted  by SWCB  showed that
there were only small changes in DO concentration with  depth.

Representatives from 17 families of macroinvertebrates  were observed during
a cursory investigation. These included mayflies, scuds, midges, operculate
and  non-operculate  snails, crayfish,  flatworms, and a  freshwater sponge.
The majority of  these organisms were facultative at Stations 1 and 2. How-
ever, there were a few  pollution sensitive  forms at Station  1, and Station
3 was dominated by pollution sensitive varieties.

Twelve  (12) species  from  seven families  of  fish were  observed  during the
June 1982 study.  Several  top predators were  present including  the bowfin,
                                      D-14

-------
chain pickerel, largemouth bass and longnose gar. Other fish collected were
the American eel, shiners, pirate  perch, yellow  perch, and five species of
sunfish. None of the species are especially pollution sensitive. Results of
the fish population survey are presented in Table 2.


                                    TABLE 2

       Results of Fish Population Survey in Blackwater River, 9 June 1982


                       Number     No. of    Diversity        Proportion of	
	Station	   Collected   Species       d        Omnivores   Carnivores

1.  Joyner's Bridge       19         7        2.30         .000         .157
2.  Franklin STP          51         6        2.35         .000         .098
3.  Cobb's Wharf          44         6        2.35         .000         .114
Based on  the  EPA 304(a) criteria, low  seasonal  00 concentrations measured
in the  river  should  present  a significant stress  to  the biotic community.
Large fish  tend to be  less  resistant  to low DO yet  large  species  such as
the  largemouth  bass, American eel  and some  sunfishes  were present  in an
apparently healthy condition. The explanation for  this  is unclear.  The low
dissolved oxygen  concentrations  are  near the  physiological  limit  for many
species. Fish may be able to acclimate to low DO to a limited extent if the
change  in oxygen concentration  occurs gradually.  The  fact that  fish are
present in a  healthy condition suggests that there is a  lack of other sig-
nificant  stressors in  the  system which might  interact  with  low DO  stress.
It is worth noting that spawning  probably occurs in most species before the
summer months when dissolved oxygen concentration become critically low.

The  autotrophic  index  determinations  show the Joyner's  Bridge  and Franklin
STP  stations  as having relatively healthy periphyton communities.  In each
case over 80 percent of the periphytic community was autotrophic in nature.
Based on the  autotrophic index,  both  of these statio.ns  were in better bio-
logical health  than  the most downstream station, Cobb's Wharf.  At Cobb's
Wharf the autotrophic   index  characterized  an autotrophic  community  which
was experiencing a slight decline in biological integrity (74 percent auto-
trophic as compared to  greater than 80 percent upstream).

Chemical  analyses conducted  on  water  from  the Blackwater  River  did not
reveal  any  alarming  concentration of toxicants when  compared  to EPA Water
Quality Criteria Documents, although  the zinc concentration  at  Station  1
was slightly  above the  24-hour average recommended by EPA.  One sample col-
lected  by  the USGS had a  zinc  concentration which was  twice  this  number.
The source of this zinc  is unknown.  Any impact which  exists  from this pro-
blem  should  be  sublethal,  affecting  growth   and reproduction  of primarily
                                      D-15

-------
 the most  sensitive species. The  actual impact  of  zinc concentrations  at
 Joyner's Bridge is unknown.

 Analyses of the periphyton data as  wel|l as the water chemistry  data  indi-
 cate that the Blackwater River is nutrient  enriched.  Some  of this nutrient
 load comes from inadequately protected  crop  lands and from domestic  animal
 wastes. The  Franklin STP  also contributes  to  higher nutrient  concentra-
 tions. Additionally, an SWCB report estimated that  between river mile 20.0
 and 6.0, 1,600 Ib  per day  of non-point  source  carbonaceous BOD  (ultimate)
 are added  to the  river.  Consequently, these  point and non-point  sources
 appear to  be  contributing  to both  organic  enrichment and  lower dissolved
 oxygen concentrations.


 IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 The Blackwater River from  river mile  2.59 to 20.90 has  been characterized
 as a nutrient enriched coastal river much of which  is bordered by hardwood
 wetlands. Periphytic, macroinvertebrate,  and fish communities are  healthy
 with fair to good  abundance and diversity.  The major  limitation  to  aquatic
 life appears to be low  DO  concentrations which  are enhanced by  point  and
 non-point sources  of nutrients and BOD. A secondary  limitation may  be ele-
 vated  zinc concentrations  at Joyner's  Bridge.

 The primary difficulty in assessing the attainability of aquatic life uses
 is locating a suitable reference reach  to  serve  as  an example of an  unaf-
 fected  aquatic  community.  Originally,  Joyner's Bridge   (Station  1)  was
 selected for this  purpose, but few major differences occur between  popula-
 tions  at all  three stations.  However,  the widespread non-point pollution in
 Southeastern  Virginia makes the location of  an undisturbed reference  reach
 impossible. The only alternative, then, is to make  the best possible  judg-
 ment as  to what  organisms might  reasonably be  expected   to inhabit  the
 Blackwater.

 In reference  to the Blackwater  River,  it is  probable that most fish  species
 are present that  should  reasonably be  expected  to  inhabit the  river,  al-
 though possibly in lower numbers. (No attempt  has yet been made  to  assess
 this with regard to algal and invertebrate communities.) However, based on
 the 304(a)  criteria, the  low  DO  concentrations represent a  significant
 stress  of the ecosystem and the introduction of additional  stressors  could
 be destructive.  It is also probable that higher oxygen concentrations dur-
 ing winter months  play a major role in  reducing the  impact of this  stress.
 Removal of point  and  non-point source  inputs may alleviate  some problems.
 However, DO concentrations may still  remain low. The  increased  effect  of
 oxygen concentrations  should  be an  increase  in  fish  abundance and increased
 size of individuals. Diversity would probably be unaffected.  Nevertheless,
 no attempt has  been made to estimate the magnitude of  these changes.

 Cairns (1977)  has  suggested a method for estimating  the potential of  a body
•of water to recover from  pollutional stress.  Although this  analysis  is only
                                       D-16

-------
semi-quantitative and  subjective, it  suggests that  the  chances of  rapid
recovery following a disturbance in the Blackwater River are poor.

The absence of  an undisturbed reference reach and the  difficulty  in  quan-
tifying changes  in  dissolved  oxygen, population structure,  and  population
abundance make a definite statement regarding attainability of aquatic life
uses difficult. However, to summarize, several points stand out.  First, the
aquatic communities in the Blackwater River are generally healthy with fair
to good abundance and distribution. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are low
for about  half  of  the  year which causes  a significant stress  to  aquatic
organisms. Oxygen concentrations are higher during the reproductive periods
of many fishes.  Because  of  these  stresses  and the physical characteristics
of the river, the system does not have much resiliency or capacity  to with-
stand  additional stress. Although a quantitative statement of  changes  in
the aquatic community with the amelioration of DO stress has not been made,
it  is  probable  that additional stresses would degrade  the present  aquatic
community.

The occurrence  of  low dissolved  oxygen concentrations  throughout  much  of
the Blackwater  is, in part,  a "natural" phenomenon and could argue  for a
reduction in the DO standard.  However, if this standard were  reduced on a
year round basis it is  probable that  the  aquatic  community would  steadily
degrade.  This  may  result  in a  contravention of  the General Standard  of
Virginia  State  Law  which requires that  all waters  support the propagation
and growth of all aquatic  life which can reasonably be  expected  to inhabit
these waters. Because of the  lack of resiliency in the system, a year round
standards change could irreversibly  alter the aquatic community.
                                      D-17

-------
                      WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                               Cuckels Brook
                      Bridgewater Township, New Jersey


 I.  INTRODUCTION

 A.  Site Description

 Cuckels Brook,  a  small  tributary  of the  Raritan River, is located entirely
 Within Bridgewater Township in Somerset  County, New Jersey.  It is a peren-
 nial  stream  approximately  four miles long, having  a watershed  area  of ap-
 proximately three square miles. The entire brook is classified as FW-2 Non-
 trout in current  New  Jersey Department  of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
 Surface Water Quality Standards.

 Decades  ago, the downstream  section of  Cuckels  Brook (below  the Raritan
 Valley Line  RaiIroad, Figure  1),  was relocated into an artificial channel.
 This  channelized  section  of  Cuckels Brook consists  of  an upstream subsec-
 tion approximately 2,000 feet in length and a downstream subsection approx-
 imately  6,000  feet in  length, with  the Somerset-Raritan Valley Sewerage
 Authority  (SRVSA)  municipal  discharge being  the point of demarcation be-
 tween the  two.  The downstream  channelized subsection (hereinafter referred
 to as "Lower Cuckels  Brook")  is  used primarily to convey wastewater to the
 Raritan  River  from SRVSA  and the  American  Cyanamid  Company, which  dis-
 charges approximately 200  feet downstream of  SRVSA. At  its confluence with
 the Raritan River, flow in Lower Cuckels  Brook is  conveyed into Calco Dam,
 a dispersion dam  which  distributes  the flow  across  the Raritan River. Ex-
 cept  for  railroad and  pipeline  rights-of-way, all the  land  along  Lower
 Cuckels Brook  is  owned by the American  Cyanamid Company. Land use  in the
 Cuckels Brook watershed above the SRVSA discharge is primarily suburban but
 includes major highways.

 B.  Problem Definition

 Lower Cuckels  Brook  receives  two of the major  discharges  in  the  Raritan
 River Basin.  SRVSA  is  a  municipal  secondary wastewater treatment  plant
which had  an average  flow  in  1982  of 8.8 mgd (design  capacity =  10  mgd).
The American Cyanamid  wastewater discharge is  a  mixture of  process  water
from organic chemical manufacturing, cooling  water, storm water,  and  sani-
tary  wastes.  This mixed  waste  receives secondary  treatment  followed  by
activated  carbon  treatment.  In  1982 American  Cyanamid's  average  flow was
7.0 mgd (design capacity 20 mgd).  These two discharges  totally dominate the
character of Lower Cuckels  Brook.

Over 90 percent of the  flow  in Cuckels  Brook is wastewater  (except  after
heavy rainfall).  The  mean  depth  is  estimated  to  be between  1  and 2  feet,
and the channel bottom  at  observed  locations  is  covered with  deposits  of
                                     D-18-

-------
D-19

-------
 black sludge, apparently derived from solids in the SRVSA and Cyanamid dis-
 charges (primarily the SRVSA discharge).  In  contrast, the channelized sub-
 section of  Cuckels Brook  above the SRVSA  discharge is  often  only  inches
 deep with a bottom of bedrock, rubble, gravel and silt.

 Cuckels Brook  (including  Lower Cuckels Brook)  is  classified as FW-2 Non-
 trout in the NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards. The FW-2 classification
 provides for the following uses:

     1.  Potable water supply after  such treatment  as shall  be  required  by
         law or regulation;

     2.  Maintenance, migration, and propagation of natural  and  established
         biota (not including  trout);

     3.  Primary contact  recreation;

     4.  Industrial and agricultural water  supply; and

     5.  Any other reasonable  uses.

 The attainment of these  uses  is currently  prevented by  the strength and
 volume of wastewaters currently discharged  to Cuckels  Brook.  The  size of
 the stream also limits primary  contact  recreation and other  water uses, and
 physical barriers currently prevent the migration  of fish  between Cuckels
 Brook and  the Raritan  River.

 C.   Approach  to Use Attainability

 In  response  to an  inquiry  from EPA, Criteria  and  Standards Division, the
 State of New Jersey offered  to participate  in  a  demonstration Water Body
 Survey and Assessment. The  water body survey  of Cuckels Brook was conducted
 by  the New Jersey  Department of Environmental Protection,  Bureau of Systems
 Analysis and  Wasteload Allocation;  with assistance from  the EPA Region II
 Edison Laboratory.

 The assessment  is  based  primarily  on the  results of  a field sampling pro-
 gram  designed  and  conducted  jointly  by  NJDEP  and EPA-Edison  in  October
 1982.  Additional   sources  of  information  include  self-monitoring  reports
 furnished by the dischargers, and earlier  studies conducted by the NJDEP on
 Cuckels Brook and  the  Raritan River. Based on this  assessment, NJDEP deve-
 loped  a report  entitled  "Lower Cuckels  Brook Water Body  Survey  and Use
 Attainability Analysis, 1983."

 II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

A.  Chemical Analysis

The major impact of the SRVSA  discharge is  attributed  to un-ionized  ammonia
and TRC  levels, whose  concentrations at  Station 4,  100 feet  below the dis-
charge  point were  0.173  and 1.8 mg/1 respectively, which  are 3.5  and 600


                                     D-20

-------
times higher than the  State  criteria.  The un-ionized ammonia concentration
of the Cyanamid  effluent  was low, but stream  concentrations  at  Stations 6
and 7 were relatively high (though below the State criterion of 0.05 mg/1).

The Cyanamid discharge  contained  0.8 mg/1 TRC. Concentrations at both Sta-
tions 6  and 7  were 0.3  mg/1  TRC, lower  than  at Station 4  but  still  100
times the State criterion of 0.003 mg/1.  The  other major impact  of the Cy-
anamid effluent  was on  instream  filterable residue levels. Concentrations
at Stations 6 and 7  exceeded 1,100 mg/1, over three times the State crite-
rion  (133 percent of background).

the  effluents apparently  buffered the pH  of  Lower Cuckels Brook which was
approximately  pH 7  at Stations  4,  6 and 7,  and  the pH  of  the upstream
reference  stations  was markedly  alkaline. Dissolved oxygen  concentrations
decreased  in  the downstream direction despite  low BOD5 concentrations both
in the effluents  and instream. This suggests  an appreciable  sediment oxygen
demand in  Lower Cuckels Brook. Dissolved oxygen  levels were greater in the
two  effluents than  in  the stream  at  Stations  6 and 7. The dissolved oxygen
concentration at Station  7  of  4.1 mg/1 nearly  violated the  State  criterion
of 4.0 mg/1;  this suggests  the potential  for  unsatisfactory dissolved oxy-
gen  conditions during  the summer.

The  results  of  the  water body survey  are generally in good agreement with
other available  data sources.  Recent self-monitoring  data for both American
Cyanamid and  SRVSA agree well with  the  data  collected  in this  survey.  In
particular  they  show  consistently high  TRC  concentrations in both efflu-
ents. High  average  dissolved solids  (filterable residue)  concentrations  are
 reported for the Cyanamid  effluent.  Total ammonia  levels as high as 33.5
mg/1 NH3 (27.6  mg/1 N) were reported for  the SRVSA effluent. The  pH of  the
Cyanamid and  SRVSA  effluents is  sometimes more alkaline  than the  water body
 survey  values indicating that toxic  un-ionized  ammonia  concentrations  may
 sometimes  be  higher than  measured during the  water body  survey.

 B.   Biological  Analysis

 Fish and macroinvertebrate  surveys were conducted in the  channelized  sub-
 section  of Cuckels  Brook  above the SRVSA discharge. Only three fish  species
 were found: the  banded killifish, the  creek  chub and the  blacknose  dace.
 One  hundred and  eighty-six  (186) out of  the  total  194  specimens collected
 were banded killifish. Killifish are very hardy  and  are  common  in both  es-
 tuarine and freshwater systems.  The  largest  fish found, a  creek chub,  was
 146 mm  long.

 The  results of  the macroinvertebrate survey  are discussed in detail in a
 separate report  (NJDEP, 1982). Four replicate  surber samples ,;were collected
 at Stations 1  and  2 above the SRVSA discharge.  Diversity indices indicate
 the  presence of similar well-balanced communities at both stations. Species
 diversity and equitability were  3.9 and 0.7  respectively at Station 1,  and
 4.3  and 0.7 respectively at Station 2. Productivity at Stations  1 and 2 was


                                       D-21

-------
 low, with mean densities of 59 and  89  individuals  per  square  foot,  respec-
 tively. The majority of species found  at both  stations  have organic  pollu-
 tion tolerance classifications of tolerant (dominant at Station 1)  or  fac-
 ultative (dominant at Station  2).

 Overall, the biological data indicate that  the upstream channelized  subsec-
 tion of Cuckels Brook  supports a  limited fish  community and a limited  mac-
 roinvertebrate community of generally  tolerant  species. The  water  quality
 data indicates nothing that would  limit  the  community. One possible  limi-
 ting factor is that, as a result of  channelization, the substrate consists
 of unconsolidated gravel and rubble on bedrock, which might easily  be  dis-
 turbed  by high flow conditions.

 Both the chemical  data and visual  observations  at various  locations  suggest
 that virtually no aquatic life exists  along  Lower Cuckels Brook: not  even
 algae were seen.  The discharges have seriously degraded water quality. Un-
 ionized ammonia  concentrations  at  Station  4 were close to  acute   lethal
 levels, while  concentrations of TRC were above acute levels at Stations 4,
 6  and 7 (EPA,  1976).  The sludge deposits which  apparently  cover most of the
 bottom  of lower Cuckels Brook could exert negative physical (i.e. smother-
 ing) and chemical  (i.e. possible  toxics) effects on any benthic organisms.
 No biological  survey of the  lower brook was  made  because  of  concern about
 potential  hazards  to  sampling  personnel. Supplemental .sampling of the sedi-
 ments is planned to  ascertain  levels  of toxics accumulation.

 As  part of their  self-monitoring  requirements, American Cyanamid performs
 weekly  96-hour modified flow-through bioassays with  fathead  minnows using
 unchlorinated  effluent. Of  63 bioassays conducted  between 1  May, 1981 and
 31  August, 1982,  results from  eight  bioassays had 96-hour LC50  values at
 concentrations  of  effluent  less than 100 percent (i.e.  26 percent, 58 per-
 cent, 77  percent,  83.5 percent, 88 percent, 92 percent, and 95.5 percent).
 These results  suggest that the American Cyanamid effluent  would not  be ex-
 tremely toxic  if it were reasonably diluted by its  receiving waters.  Within
 Lower Cuckels  Brook, however, the effluent receives  only  approximately 50
 percent dilution and  the potential  exists  for toxic effects on any aquatic
 life that may  be present. These effects would be in addition to the toxici-
 ty  anticipated  from  the TRC  concentrations  which result from the chlorina-
 tion  of the effluent.

 III.  FINDINGS

 Practically none of the currently designated uses are now being achieved in
Lower Cuckels  Brook. The principal  current  use of Lower  Cuckels  Brook is
the  conveyance of treated wastewater and  upstream runoff to  the  Raritan
River.  Judging  from  the indirect  evidence of chemical  data  and visual  ob-
servations, virtually  no aquatic  life  is maintained or  propagated  in Lower
Cuckels   Brook.  It  has been well  documented  that  fish avoid chlorinated
waters  (Cherry  and Cairns,  1982;  Fava and Tsai ,  1976).  Any  aquatic  life
that  does  reside in  Lower Cuckels  Brook would be sparse and stressed. Mig-
 ration  of aquatic  life  through Lower  Cuckels  Brook  would probably  only oc-
cur during periods of high storm water flow when some flow occurs  over the


                                      D-22

-------
un-named dam  (Figure 1) which  is designed to  direct  the flow of  Cuckels
Brook toward Calco Dam. Calco Dam and  its  associated structures,  including
the un-named  dam,  normally prevent the  migration of fish between  Cuckels
Brook and the Raritan River.

Lower Cuckels  Brook currently  does  not support  any primary  or  secondary
contact recreation. No water is currently diverted from Lower Cuckels Brook
for potable water  supply,  industrial  or agricultural water  supply, or any
other purpose.

Because Lower  Cuckels  Brook receives  large volumes of wastewater  and be-
cause  there is  practically no  dilution,  water  quality  in  Lower  Cuckels
Brook has been degraded to  the  quality of  wastewater.  Moreover, the bottom
of Lower Cuckels Brook has been  covered at observed locations with waste-
water solids. As a  result,  Lower  Cuckels Brook  is currently unfit for aqua-
tic  life,  recreation,  and  most other  water uses. The  technology-based ef-
fluent  limits  required  by  the  Clean Water  Act  are  not  adequate to protect
the currently  designated water uses in  Lower  Cuckels  Brook. SRVSA already
provides secondary treatment (except  for  bypassed flows  in  wet  weather) ,
and  American  Cyanamid  already  provides advanced  treatment  with  activated
carbon.  Because the  Raritan River  provides far  more  dilution  than does
Cuckels Brook, effluent  limits  which  may be developed to protect the Rari-
tan River  would  not be adequate  to protect the currently designated water
uses  in Lower Cuckels Brook. The only practical  way to restore water qua-
 lity  in Lower Cuckels  Brook would be  to remove the wastewater discharges.
However, there are  several  factors that would  limit  the achievement of cur-
 rently  designated  uses even  if the wastewater discharges were  completely
 separated  from natural  flow.

 If it were assumed that the wastewater  discharges and  sludge were  absent,
 and that the  seepage of contaminated groundwater  from the  American  Cyanamid
 property was  insignificant or  absent, then the following statements  could
 be made about attainable uses  in  Lower Cuckels  Brook:

     Aquatic Life - The restoration of aquatic  life in Lower  Cuckels  Brook
     would  be  limited to some extent by the small  size and  lower flow of the
     stream, by channelization, and by contaminants  in suburban and  highway
     runoff from  the upstream watershed.  Lower  Cuckels Brook  could support  a
     limited macroinvertebrate community of generally tolerant species, and
     some  small fish as were  found in the  reference channelized  subsection
     above  the SRVSA discharge (Stations 1  and  2). Unless  it  were  altered  or
     removed, the  Calco Dam complex would  continue  to  prevent fish  migra-
     tion.

     Wildlife typical of narrow stream corridors could inhabit the generally
     narrow strips of  land  between Lower Cuckels Brook and  nearby  railroad
     tracks and waste  lagoons.  Restoration  of  aquatic  life in Lower Cuckels
     Brook  would be expected to  have  little impact on aquatic life  in the
     Raritan River.
                                       D-23

-------
      Recreation - Lower Cuckels Brook would be too shallow for swimming
      or boating,  and  its small fish  could not  support  sport  fishing.
      The  industrial  surroundings  of  Lower  Cuckels  Brook,  including
      waste lagoons and  active manufacturing  facilities  and  railroads,
      severely reduces the  potential  for other  recreational  activities
      such as  streamside trails and  picnic areas,  wading, and  nature
      appreciation.   As  Lower  Cuckels  Brook  is  on private  industrial
      property, trespassing along this brook and in the surrounding area
      is discouraged.

      It would appear  unlikely that  any  of  the landowners,  or  any
      government agency,  would  develop   recreational  facilities  along
      lower Cuckels Brook or even remove  some of the brush which impairs
      access  to most of  the Brook.   Recreation  along Lower Cuckels  Brook
      would be limited,  occasional,  and informal.

      Other Water Uses -  Although water  quality in Lower  Cuckels  Brook
      would generally  meet FW-2 Nontrout  criteria, the  volume  of natural
      flow in  Lower Cuckels  Brook  would  be  insufficient  for  potable
      water supply  or  for industrial  or agricultural  water use.

 In  general,  Lower  Cuckels  Brook  would  become  a  small  channelized
 tributary  segment  flowing through a  heavily industrialized area,  free
 of  gross pollution and  capable of supporting a modest  aquatic community
 and very limited recreational  use..

 IV. SUMMARY  AND CONCLUSIONS

 This  use-attainability analysis  has discussed  the  present  impairment  of
 the currently  designated uses  of  Lower  Cuckels  Brook,  the  role  of
 wastewater discharges  in such  impairment, and   the  extent  to  which
 currently  designated  water  uses might  be  achieved if  the wastewater
 discharges were  removed.  Further analysis, outside  the scope of -this
 survey, will  be required:   to document the  costs  of removing SRVSA and
 American  Cyanamid  effluent from Lower  Cuckels Brook, and  to  evaluate
 the impact of  the  SRVSA  and American Cyanamid  discharges on the  Raritan
 River.   These analyses  may  lead to  the development  of site-specific
 water  quality  standards  for  Lower   Cuckels   Brook   (designated  uses
 limited  to   the   conveyance   of wastewater  and  the  prevention   of
 nuisances),  or to  the removal of the  wastewater  discharges from  Lower
 Cuckels Brook.  In either case,  effluent limits would  be established  to
protect water  quality in the  Raritan River.
                                 D-24

-------
                      WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                         Deep Creek And Canal Creek
                       Scotland Neck, North Carolina
I.  INTRODUCTION

A.  Site Description

The Town of Scotland Neck is located in Halifax County in the lower coastal
plain of North Carolina. The Town's wastewater, made  up  mostly  of domestic
waste with  a small  amount  of textile  waste, is treated  in an  oxidation
ditch of 0.6 mgd design capacity. The treatment plant  is  located two-tenths
of a mile southwest of Scotland Neck off U.S.  Highway 258,  as seen in Fig-
ure 1. The effluent  (0.323  mgd average)  is  discharged to Canal  Creek which
is a tributary to Deep Creek.

Canal Creek  is  a channelized  stream  which  passes through  an  agricultural
watershed, but also receives some urban runoff from the western  sections of
Scotland Neck.  It  is a Class C  stream  with a drainage area of  2.4 square
miles, an average stream flow  of 3.3  cfs , and a 7Q10  of 0.0 cfs. The Creek
retains definite banks for  about  900  feet below the outfall at  which point
it  splits   into  numerous  shifting channels  and flows  800 to  1400  feet
through a cypress swamp before reaching  Deep  Creek. During  dry  periods the
braided channels of  Canal Creek  can  be  visually traced to Deep  Creek. Dur-
ing wet periods Canal Creek overflows into the surrounding wetland and flow
is no longer restricted to the channels.

Deep Creek is a typical tannin colored  Inner  Coastal  Plain  stream that has
a  heavily  wooded  paludal flood  plain.  The  main channel is  not  deeply en-
trenched.  In  some  sections  streamflow passes  through braided channels, or
may be  conveyed  through  the wetland by  sheetflow.  During  dry weather flow
periods the  main  channel is  fairly distinct  and  the adjacent  wetland is
saturated, but  not  inundated.  During wet weather periods  the main channel
is  less  distinct,  adjacent areas  become flooded  and previously  dry areas
become saturated.

B.  Problem Definition

The Town of  Scotland  Neck  is  unable to meet  its final NPDES Permit limits
and  is  operating  with a  Special Order by  Consent which  specifies interim
limits. The Town is  requesting a 201 Step III grant to upgrade treatment by
increasing hydraulic capacity to 0.675 mgd with an additional clarifier, an
aerobic digestor, tertiary  filters,  a chlorine contact  chamber, post aera-
tion and additional  sludge  drying beds. The treated effluent from Scotland
Neck is discharged  into  Canal  Creek. The lower reaches  of  Canal Creek are
part of the  swamp through which Deep Creek  passes.
                                      D-25

-------
  3330 lit HVf     v^o
ISCOTLAHO NECK! 1!  "••:-  ii* :• «
    v,"'vfeiit/-  I


    Figure 1.   Study Area,  Deep Creek
                and Canal  Creek
                        D-26

-------
Deep Creek carries a "C" classification, but due to naturally low dissolved
oxygen and other  conditions  imposed by the  surrounding  swamp, it  is  felt
that reclassification to "C-Swamp"  should  be  considered.  Deep Creek should
be classified C-Swamp because its physical characteristics meet the C-Swamp
classification of  the North  Carolina  Administrative Code  for Classifica-
tions and Water Quality Standards. The Code states: Swamp waters shall  mean
those waters which  are  so  designated by the  Environmental  Management  Com-
mission and which are topographically  located  so  as  to  generally  have  very
low velocities  and  certain other characteristics which  are different  from
adjacent  streams  draining   steeper  topograpy.  The  C-Swamp classification
provides for  a  minimum  pH  of 4.3 (compared to a  range of  pH 6.0  to pH 8.5
for C waters), and allows for low (unspecified) DO values if caused by  nat-
ural  conditions.  DO  concentrations in Deep  Creek  are  usually  below 4.0
mg/1.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability Analysis

    1. Data Avai Table

       1. Self Monitoring Reports from Scotland Neck.
       2. Plant inspections by the Field Office.
       3. Intensive Water  Quality Survey  of Canal Creek and  Deep Creek at
          Scotland  Neck  in  September, 1979.  Study  consisted  of time-of-
          travel dye work and water quality sampling.

    2. Additional Routine Data Collected

       Water quality survey  of Canal Creek and Deep  Creek at Scotland  Neck
       in June 1982. Water quality data was collected to support a biologi-
       cal survey of these creeks. The study included grab samples and  flow
       measurements.

       Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected  from sites on Canal Creek
       and Deep Creek.  Qualitative collection methods  were used.  A  two-
       member team spent one hour per site collecting from as many habitats
       as possible. It is felt that this collection method is more reliable
       than quantitative collection methods  (kicks,  Surbers, ponars, etc.)
       in  this  type  of  habitat. Taxa are  recorded  as  rare,  common, and
       abundant.

II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

A.  Physical Factors

Sampling sites were chosen to correspond with sites previously sampled  in a
water quality survey of Canal and Deep Creeks. Three stations were selected
on  Canal  Creek. SN-1 is  located 40 feet  above  the  Town of  Scotland  Neck
Wastewater Treatment  Plant outfall. This  site serves as a reference  sta-
tion. The  width  at  SN-1 is  7.0  feet  and  the average discharge (two flows
were  recorded  in  the September  1979  survey  and one flow in  the  June  1982

                                      D-27

-------
 survey) is 0.65 cubic  feet  per second. Canal Creek at SN-1  has  been  chan-
 nelized and has a substrate composed of  sand  and silt. SN-4 is  located  on
 Canal Creek 900 feet below the discharge  point.  This  section  of Canal  Creek
 has an  average  cross-sectional area of  11.8  feet and an  average flow  of
 1.33 cubic feet per second. The stream in  this  section is  also channelized
 and also has  a  substrate  composed of sand and  silt.  There is  a  canopy  of
 large cypress at SN-.4  below  the plant, while the canopy above SN-1 is  re-
 duced to a narrow buffer zone. The potential  uses of  Deep Creek are  limited
 by its inaccessability  in  these areas.

 A third station (SN-5)  was selected on one of the lower channels of  Canal
 Creek at  the confluence with Deep Creek  3200  feet   upstream  of the U.S.
 Highway 258  bridge.  Discharge measurements could not be  accomplished  at
 this site  during  this  survey  because  of the swampy  nature  of the stream
 with many ill-defined,  shallow, slow moving courses.  Benthic macroinverte-
 brates were collected from this site.

 Three stations were chosen on Deep Creek. SN-6  is  approximately 300 feet
 upstream of SN-5 on Canal Creek at its confluence with Deep  Creek and is a
 reference site.  SN-7 is located at the  U.S. Highway 258 bridge and SN-8  is
 located  further downstream at  the  SR 1100  bridge. SN-7 and SN-8  are  below
 Canal  Creek.  There are  some differences in habitat variability among  these
 three  sites.  The substrate at both SN-6 and  SN-7 is  composed  mostly of a
 deep layer of fine particulate  matter. Usable and productive benthic hab-
 itats  in  this  area are  reduced because of the  fine particulate  layer.  It is
 possible  that  the  source of this  sediment  is  from frequent overbank  flows
 and  from upstream  sources.  Productive benthic  habitats include  areas  of
 macrophyte  growth, snags, and  submerged tree trunks. Discharge measurements
 were not  taken at any of these  three sites  during this survey.

 B.   Chemical Factors

 Chemical  data  from two  water quality surveys show that the dissolved oxygen
 in Canal  Creek is depressed while BOD   solids and nutrient levels are ele-
 vated. The  1982  study indicates, however, that the water  quality is better
 than it was during the  1979  survey. Such  water quality improvements may be
 due  to the  addition  of chlorination equipment and other  physical improve-
ments as well as to the efforts of a new plant operator.

 Both above  and below its confluence with Canal Creek, Deep Creek shows poor
water quality which may be attributed to natural conditions, but not to any
 influence from the waste load  carried by Canal Creek.  Canal  Creek exhibited
higher DO levels than Deep Creek.

C.  Biological Factors

The impact  of the effluent on  the fauna of  Canal  Creek is clear.  A 63  per-
cent  reduction  in  taxa  richness from 35  at SN-1 to only 13  at  SN-4  indi-
cates severe stress as measured against  criteria developed by biologists  of
the Water Quality Section. The overwhelming dominance  of Chironomus at  SN-4


                                      D-28

-------
is indicative of a  low  DO  level  and  high concentrations of organic matter.
To what extent this condition is attributable to the effluent or to natural
swamp conditions is  not clear.  No impact to the  benthos  of Deep Creek was
discerned which could be attributed to the effluent.

III.  FINDINGS

Deep Creek is currently designated as a  class  C warm water fishery but due
to naturally low dissolved oxygen concentrations may not be able to satisfy
the class C dissolved oxygen criteria. The  DO  criterion for class C waters
stipulates a minimum value of 4  ppm, yet the DO in Deep Creek, in both the
1979 and the 1982 studies, was less than 4 ppm. Thus from the standpoint of
aquatic life uses, Deep Creek may not be able to support the forms of aqua-
tic  life  which are  intended  for protection under the class  C standards.
Because  of prevailing  natural  conditions,  there are  no  higher potential
uses of Deep Creek than now exist; yet because  of  prevailing natural condi-
tions  and  in  light  of  the results  of this water body  assessment, the C-
swamp  use  designation   appears to  be a  more appropriate  designation under
existing North Carolina Water Quality Standards.

Canal Creek  is  degraded by the effluent  from  the Scotland Neck wastewater
treatment  plant. The BOD   fecal coliform,  solids and nutrient levels are
elevated  while the  DO  concentration is  depressed. The  reach immediately
below the outfall is affected by an  accumulation of organic solids, by dis-
coloration and by odors associated with  the wastewater.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The water  body survey  of Deep Creek  and Canal  Creek included a considera-
tion of  physical, chemical  and  biological  factors. The  focus of  interest
was  those factors responsible for  water quality  in  Deep Creek, including
possible deliterious effects of  the  Scotland Neck wastewater on this water
body.  The analyses  indicate that  the effluent does not  appear  to affect
Deep Creek.  Instead, the  water  quality of Deep Creek reflects natural con-
ditions imposed by seasonal  low flow and high temperature,  and reflects the
nutrient  and  organic contribution  of the surrounding farmland and wetland.
It  is  concluded that  the  C-Swamp designation  more  correctly reflects the
uses of Deep Creek than does the C designation.

In  contrast  to Deep Creek, Canal Creek  is  clearly affected by the treated
effluent.  Further  examination would  be required to determine the extent of
recovery  that  might be expected in  Canal Creek if the  plant  were .to meet
current  permit requirements or  if  the  proposed  changes  to the plant were
incorporated  into  the  treatment  process.
                                      D-29

-------
              WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                        Malheur River
                   Malheur County, Oregon
INTRODUCTION
A.  Site Description

    The Malheur River,  in  southeastern Oregon,  flows  eastward to
    the Snake  River which separates  Oregon  from Idaho.   Most of
    Malheur County  is under  some  form of agricultural  production.
    With an average annual  precipitation of less than  10 inches,
    the delivery of  irrigation water  is  essential  to maintain the
    high agricultural productivity of the area.

    The Malheur River system serves as a major source of water for
    the area's  irrigation  requirements (out of  basin  transfer of
    water  from Owyhee  Reservoir  augments  the  Malheur  supply).
    Reservoirs,  dams,  and   diversions  have  been   built  on  the
    Malheur and its  tributaries to  supply  the  irrigation network.
    The  first   major withdrawal  occurs  at the Namorf  Dam  and
    Diversion,   at  Malheur River  Mile 69.   Figure 1  presents  a
    schematic of the study area.

    Irrigation   water  is  delivered  to  individual  farms  by  a
    complicated system  of  canals  and  laterals.   Additional  water
    is obtained from  drainage  canals  and groundwater sources.  An
    integral part of  the water distribution  system  is the use and
    reuse of irrigation  return flows  five or  six  times before it
    is finally discharged to the Snake River.

B.  Problem Definition

    The Malheur River above Namorf  Dam  and Diversion  is managed
    primarily as a  trout fishery,  and from Namorf to the mouth as
    a warm-water fishery.   The upper  portion  of the river system
    is appropriately  classified.   Below Namorf  Dam, however, the
    river is inappropriately classified  as supporting a cold-water
    fishery, and therefore  was selected for review.   This review
    was  conducted   as  part   of  the U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency's  field  test  of the  draft  "Water   Body   Survey  and
    Assessment  Guidance"  for  conducting  a   use  attainability
    analysis.  The  guidance  document  supports  the proposed rule to
    revise  and  consolidate  the existing  regulation governing the
    development, review,  and approval of  water  quality  standards
    under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability Analysis

    Assessment  of the Malheur River is based on  a site  visit which
    included meetings  with   representatives  of the  Malheur County
    Citizen's   Water   Resources    Committee,    the    USDA-Soil
    Conservation Service,  the Oregon  Department of Environmental
                                 D-30

-------
       MIDDLE FORK OF
       MALHEUR RIVER

       WARM SPRINGS
       RESERVOIR

       SOUTH FORK
       MALHEUR RIVER
        BEULAH
        RESERVOIR

>JUNTURA | NORTH FORK
       MALHEUR RIVER
                               -POLE CREEK
             MALHEUR
             RIVER
               HARPER
               SOUTHSIDE
               CANAL

        COTTONWOOD
        CREEK
  OWYHEIt
    RIVEH
               LITTLE
               VALLEY
               CANAL
             J-HCANAL
               NEVADA
               CANAL
   NAMORF
   DIVERSION
                   CLOVER
                   CREEK
VALE-
OREGON
CANAL
                                .  WILLOW 1 CREEK
                           SELLERMAN-FROMAN
                           CANAL
           SNAKE RIVER
     SIMPLIFIED FLOW SCHEMATIC

MALHEUR RIVER  IRRIGATION SYSTEM
               - FIGURE  I -
                   D-31

-------
         Quality  (ODEQ),  the Oregon  Department of  Fish arid  Wildlife
         (ODFW),  and  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA);
         and upon the findings reported in two studies:

             Final Report,  Two  Year  Sampling  Program,  Malheur  County
             Water Quality  Management  Plan,MaiheurCountyPlanning
             Office,  Vale, Oregon, 1981.

             Bowers,   Hosford  and Moore,  Stream Surveys  of the  Lower
             Owyhee and Malheur Rivers, A Report to  the  Maiheur  County
             Water Resources  Committee,  Oregon  Department of  Fish  and
             Wildlife, January,  1979.

         The first report,  prepared under amendments to  Section  208  of
         the Clean  Water Act,  contains  extensive  information  on  the
         quantity,  quality   and   disposition  of  the   areas'   water
         resources.   The second  document  gives  the fish  populations
         found  in the  lower 69  miles  of the Malheur River  during June
         and  July,   1978.      Information  in   the   ODFW   report   is
         incorporated  in   the   208  report.     Additional   fisheries
         information  supplied by ODFW was also considered.

         A  representative  of  ODEO,  Portland,  and  the  Water  Quality
         Standards Coordinator,  EPA  Region  X,  Seattle,  Washington,
         agreed  that  the  data   and analyses  contained  in  these  two
         reports were sufficient to re-examine existing  designated uses
         of the Malheur River.

II   ANALYSES CONDUCTED

     Physical,    chemical,   and   biological   data   were  reviewed   to
     determine:   (1)  whether the attainment of  a  salmonid  fishery was
     feasible  in  the  lower  Malheur;  and  (2)  whether  some  other
     designated  use  would  be  more appropriate to  this  reach.   The
     elements of this review follow:

     A.  Physical Factors

         Historically,  salmonid fish  probably  used  the  lower Malheur
         (lower  50 miles) mainly as a migration route,  because  of the
         warm water  and poor habitat.   The first barrier  to  upstream
         fish migration was the Nevada Dam near Vale,   constructed  in
         1880.   Construction of the Warm Springs Dam in  1918, ended the
         anadromous  fish   runs  in  the  Middle  Fork  Malheur.     The
         construction  of  Beulah Dam in  1931,  befell the  remainder  of
         anadromous fish  runs on  the  North  Fork Malheur.   Finally, the
         construction of  Brownlee Reservoir in  1958  completely blocked
         salmonid migrants  destined for the upper Snake  River System.
                                      D-32

-------
    With the construction  of the  major irrigation  reservoirs  on
    the Malheur  River  and  its  tributaries,  the  natural  flow
    characteristics in the  lower  river have changed.   Instead  of
    high early summer flows, low  summer  and  fall  flows and steady
    winter flow,  the peak  flows  may occur in spring,  if  and when
    the upstream reservoirs  spill.  Also,  a high  sustained flow
    exists all  summer  as  water  is released  from  the  dams  for
    irrigation.   A significant change  limiting  fish  production  in
    the Malheur River  below Namorf  is  the extreme  low  flow that
    occurs when  the  reservoirs  store  water during  the  fall  and
    winter for the  next irrigation season.

    Two  other  physical   conditions  affect  the  maintenance  of
    salmonids in the  lower  Malheur.   One  is  the  high  suspended
    solids load carried to the river by  irrigation  return flows.
    High suspended  solids  also occur during  wet  weather when high
    flows  erode the stream bank  and re-suspend  bottom sediments.
    The seasonal  range of  suspended  solids  content  is pronounced,
    with  the  highest  concentrations  occurring  during irrigation
    season and during  periods  of wet weather.   Observed  peaks  in
    lower reaches  of the  river,  measured during  the two-year 208
    Program,   reached  1300  mg/1,  while  background  levels rarely
    dropped below  50 mg/1.  A high  suspended  solids  load in the
    river adversely affects the ability of sight-feeding salmonids
    to  forage,  and  may  limit  the  size  of  macroinvertebrate
    populations and algae  production  which  are  important  to the
    salmonid  food  chain.    A second factor  is  high  summer water
    temperature  which   severely   stresses  salmonids.    The  high
    temperatures result  from  the  suspended particles  absorbing
    solar radiation.

B.  Biological Factors

    The  biological profile  of   the  river  is   mainly  based  on
    fisheries  information,  with  some  macroinvertebrate  samples
    gathered by the Oregon Department  of Fish  and Wildlife  (ODFW)
    in  1978.    During  the  site  visit,  the participants agreed
    additional  information  on  macroinvertebrates  and periphyton
    would  not  be  needed  because the  aquatic  insect  numbers and
    diversity  were  significantly   greater   in  the  intensively
    irrigated reach of  the  river  than for  the  upper river where
    agricultural  activity  is sparse.

    Although the Malheur River from Namorf to the mouth is managed
    as a warm water fishery, ODFW  has expended little  time and few
    resources on this, stretch of  the  river because  it  is  not  a
    productive fish  habitat.   Survey  results  in summer  of 1978
    showed a  low ratio  of  game fish to  rough  fish  over the  lower
    69 miles of the Malheur River.
                                D-33

-------
         In  the  section  between   Namorf   and   the  Gellerman-Froman
         Diversion  Dam  there  was  little  change  in  water  quality
         although water  temperatures were elevated.   Only  three  game
         fish  were  captured  but  non-game  fish  sight-feeders  were
         common.   Low winter  flows  over a  streambed having  few  deep
         pools for overwinter survival  appears to limit fish production
         in this reach of river.

         In  the stretch  from  the  Gellerman-Froman  Diversion to  the
         mouth,  the   river   flows   through   a   region   of  intensive
         cultivation.  The river carries a high silt load which affects
         sight-feeding   fish.     Low   flows  immediately   below   the
         Gellerman-Froman Dam also limit  fish  production  in this area.

     C.  Chemical Factors

         A considerable  amount  of chemical  data, exist on  the Malheur
         River.  However, since the  existing and  potential  uses of the
         river are dictated  largely  by  physical  constraints, dissolved
         oxygen  was   the only  chemical   parameter  considered  in  the
         assessment.

         The  Dissolved  Oxygen  Standard  established  for  the  Malheur
         River Basin  calls for a minimum of 75 percent of saturation at
         the  seasonal  low and  95 percent   of  saturation  in  spawning
         areas or during spawning, hatching,  and fry stages of salmonid
         fishes.   One  sample  collected  at  Namorf  fell  below  the
         standard to 75  percent of saturation  or  8.3 mg/1 in November,
         1978.  All  other samples were  above this content, reaching as
         high  as  170 percent  of  saturation during  the   summer  due to
         algae.  Data collected by the ODEO from Malheur River near the
         mouth  between  1976 and  1979  showed  the  dissolved  oxygen
         content  ranged  from  78  to  174   percent  saturation.    The
         dissolved  oxygen  content  in  the  lower  Malheur  River  is
         adequate to  support a warm-water fishery.
Ill  FINDINGS
     A.  Existing Uses

         The lower Malheur River  is  currently  designated  as a salmonid
         fishery, but it is managed  as a warm  water  fishery.   Due to a
         number of physical constraints on  the lower river, conditions
         are  generally  unfavorable  for  game  fish,  so  rough  fish
         predominate.  In practice, the lower Malheur River serves as a
         source and  a sink;  for irrigation  water.    This  type  of  use
         contributes to water  quality  conditions  which  are unfavorable
         to salmonids.
                                     D-34

-------
     B.   Potential  Uses

         Salmon-id   spawning  and  rearing  areas  generally  require  the
         highest  criteria of all  the  established  beneficial  uses.   It
         would  be  impractical,  if  not impossible  in  some  areas,  to
         improve  water  quality to  the  level  required  by  salmonids.
         However,   even  if  this  could be  accomplished,  high  summer
         temperatures  and   seasonal  low  flows  would  still  prevail.
         While  salmonids historically  moved  through the Malheur  River
         to spawn  in  the   headwater  areas,  year-round  resident  fish
         populations  probably did not  exist  in  some of these  areas at
         the time.

         The Malheur River  basin  can be divided into  areas,  based upon
         differing  major uses.   Suggested  divisions are:   (1) headwater
         areas  above  the reservoirs; (2)  reservoirs;  (3)  reaches  below
         the reservoirs  and above the  intensively  irrigated  areas;  (4)
         intensively  irrigated  areas;  and  (5) the  Snake River.

         In intensively  irrigated areas, criteria  should reflect  the
         primary  use  of  the water.  Higher levels  of certain  parameters
         (i.e., suspended solids, nutrients, temperature, .etc.) should
         be  allowed   in   these  areas   since  intensively   irrigated
         agriculture,  even  under  ideal   conditions,  will  unavoidably
         contribute higher levels  of  these  parameters.    Criteria,
         therefore, should  be based on the conditions  that  exist  after
         Best Management Practices have been  implemented.

IV   SUMMARY AND  CONCLUSIONS

     Malheur River flows  have  been  extensively   altered  through  the
     construction of  several dams and  diversion structures  designed to
     store and distribute water for agricultural  uses.   These  dams, as
     well  as   others  on  the  Snake  River,  to  which  the  Malheur  is
     tributary, block natural  fish  migrations  in  the  river  and,  thus,
     have  permanently  altered  the  river's  fisheries.   In  addition,
     water  quality below   Namorf Dam  has  been  affected,   primarily
     through agricultural practices, in a way which  severely restricts
     the type  of  fish  that can successfully inhabit  the water.   One
     important factor which affects fish populations below  Namorf is
     the  high  suspended  solids  loading  which   effectively  selects
     against  sight-feeding species.    Other  conditions  which  could
     affect the types  and survival of fish species below Namorf include
     low  flow  during  the   fall  and  winter  when  reservoirs are  being
     filled in preparation for the coming  irrigation season,  as well
     as  high suspended  solids,  and  high  temperatures  during  the summer
     irrigation season.

     Realistically, the Malheur  River could not  be  returned to  its
     natural state unless  a large number of hydraulic  structures were
     removed.  Removal  of  these  structures would  result  in  the demise
     of  agriculture  in the  region,  which  is   the   mainstay  of  the


                                     D-35

-------
county's economy.  Furthermore,  removal  of  these  structures  Is  out
of  the question  due  to the  legal  water  rights  which  have been
established  in  the  region.     These  water  rights  can  only   be
satisfied  through the system of  dams,  reservoirs, and  diversions
which  have  been  constructed  in  the  river system.    Thus,  the
changes in the Malheur River Basin  are  irrevocable.

Physical barriers to fish  migration coupled with  the effects  of
high  sediment  loads  and the  hydraulics of  the  system  have  for
years  established the  uses  of   the river.   Given  the  existing
conditions  and   uses  of   the   Malheur  River  below  the   Namorf
Diversion,  classification   of  this  river  each should be changed
from  a  salmonid  fishery,  a  use   that  cannot  be  achieved,   to
achievable  uses   which  are  based  on the  existing  resident fish
populations  and  aquatic life to reflect the  present  and highest
future uses of the river.   Such  a change in designated  beneficial
uses would not  further  jeopardize  existing  aquatic  life  in  the
river, nor would  it result  in any  degradation in  water quality.
                                D-36

-------
                   WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                              Pecan Bclyou
                           Brownwood, Texas
I.  INTRODUCTION
A.  Site Description

     Segment 1417 of the  Colorado  River Basin (Pecan Bayou) originates
below the  Lake Brownwood Dam  and  extends"  approximately  57.0  miles  to
the Colorado River (Figure 1).  The Lake Brownwood Dam was  completed  in
1933.  Malfunction of  the dam's outlet  apparatus  led to its  permanent
closure in 1934.  Since  that  time, discharges from the reservoir  occur
only infrequently during  periods of prolonged high runoff conditions  in
the  watershed.   Dam  seepage  provides the  base  flow  to  Pecan  Bayou
(Segment 1417).   The reservoir is  operated for flood control  and  water
supply.  The  Brown  County WID transports  water  from the reservoir via
aqueduct to  Brownwood  for  industrial  distribution,  domestic  treated
water  distribution  to  the   Cities  of  Brownwood  and  Bangs   and the
Brookesmith Water System, and  irrigation distribution.  Some irrigation
water is diverted from the aqueduct before  reaching  Brownwood.

     Pecan Bayou  meanders about nine  miles  from Lake Brownwood to the
City of Brownwood.  Two small  dams impound  water within this reach, and
Brown County WID operates an auxilliary  pumping  station in  this  area  to
supply their system during periods of  high  demand.

     Two tributaries  normally  provide inflow to  Pecan  Bayou.    Adams
Branch  enters  Pecan Bayou  in  Brownwood.    The  base flow   consists  of
leaks  and  overflow  in  the  Brown  County  WID  storage  reservoir and
distribution system.   Willis  Creek enters  Pecan Bayou below Brownwood.
The  base flow  in  Willis  Creek  is  usually provided by seepage  through a
soil conservation dam,.

     The main  Brownwood  sewage treatment  plant  discharges   effluent  to
Willis  Creek  one  mile  above  its  confluence with  Pecan  Bayou.   Sulfur
Draw,  which   carries  brine  from  an  artesian  salt  water  well and
wastewater from the Atchison,  Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Co., enters
Willis  Creek   about  1,700 feet  below  the  Brownwood  sewage  treatment
plant.   Below the Willis Creek  confluence, Pecan Bayou meanders  about
42.6  miles to the  Colorado  River,  and receives  no additional  inflow
during  dry weather  conditions.   Agricultural  water  withdrawals for
irrigation may significantly  reduce the streamflow  during  the  growing
season.

     The Pecan Bayou drainage basin  is composed primarily  of  range and
croplands.    The  stream  banks,  however,   are  densely  vegetated  with
trees,  shrubs  and grasses.  The bayou  is typically 10-65  feet  wide,  2-3
feet  deep,  and  is  generally sluggish  in  nature  with  soft  organic
sediments.
                                   D-37

-------

-------
        Figure 1
PECAN BAYOU SEGMENT MAP
                        D-37A

-------
 B.   Problem Definition

      The designated  water  uses  for  Pecan  Bayou  include  noncontact
 recreation, propagation of  fish and wildlife,  and  domestic  raw  water
 supply.     Criteria  for  dissolved  oxygen  (minimum   of   5.0   mg/1),
 chlorides,  sulfates,  and total  dissolved solids (annual  averages not to
 exeed 250,  200,  and 1000 mg/1,  respectively),  pH (range  of  6.5  to 9.0)
 fecal  coliform  (log  mean  not to  exceed 1000/100 ml),  and  temperature
 (maximum of 90°F)  have been  established  for the segment.

      Historically, Pecan Bayou  is in generally poor condition  during
 summer  periods  of  low flow,  when  the  Brownwood  STP  contributes  a
 sizeable portion of the total  stream flow.   During  low flow conditions,
 the  stream  is  in a highly  enriched state below  the  sewage outfall.

      Existing    data    indicate   that   instream   dissolved    oxygen
 concentrations  are  frequently  less than the  criterion, and  chloride
 and  total dissolved  solids  annual  average concentrations  occasionally
 exceed the  established criteria.   The carbonaceous  and  nitrogenous
 oxygen  deficencies  in  Pecan  Bayou.     The" major  cause  of  elevated
 chlorides in Pecan Bayou is the  artesian brine discharge in  to  Sulfur
 Draw.

      Toxic  compounds  (PCB,  DDT, ODD, DDE, Lindane,  Heptachlor  epoxide,
 Dieldrin, Endrin,  Chlordane, Pentachlorophenol, cadmium, lead,  silver,
 and  mercury) have  been observed in water, sediment  and  fish  tissues in
 Pecan  Bayou (mainly below the  confluence with  Willis  Creek).   It  has
 been determined that  the   major  source  was   the   Brownwood  STP,  but
 attempts  to  specifiy  the  points  of  origin   further   have   been
 unsuccessful.  However,  recent  levels  show  a declining trend.

 C.   Approach to  Use Attainability

     Assessment  of Pecan Bayou  is based  on a site visit  which  included
meetings  with  representatives of the State  of Texas, EPA  (Region VI  and
 Headquarters)  and   Camp Dresser  &  McKee  Inc.,  and  upon   information
 contained in a number  of reports, memos  and other related materials.

     It was  agreed  by  those  present  during the  site  visit that the data
 and  analyses  contained in  these  documents  were  sufficient  for  an
examination  of the  existing  designated uses of  Pecan Bayou.

 II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

     An extensive  amount of  physical, chemical,  and  biological data  has
been collected on  Pecan  Bayou  since  1973.  Most of  the information  was
gathered  to assess the  impact  of the Brownwood STP on  the  receiving
stream.   In order  to  simplify  the  presentation of these  data,  Pecan
Bayou  was divided  into three zones (Figure 1):   Zone  1  is the  control
area and  extends from  the  Lake Brownwood Dam  (river mile 57.0)  to  the
Willis Creek confluence  (river  mile  42.6);  Zone 2 is the impacted  area
and  extends 9.0 miles  below  the  Willis Creek confluence.

                                 D-38

-------
A.  Physical Evaluation

     With the exception of stream discharge, the physical
characteristics of Pecan Bayou are relatively homogeneous by  zone.
Average width of the stream is about 44-50 feet, and  average  depth
ranges from 2.1 to 3.25 feet.  The low gradient  (2.8  to  3.9 ft/mile)
causes the bayou to be sluggish  (average  velocity  of  about 0.1  ft/sec),
reaeration rates to be low '(Kg of 0.7 per day at 20°C),  and pools to
predominate over riffles (96% to 4%).  Stream temperature averages
about 18°C and  ranges from 1-32°C.  The  substrate  is  composed primarily
of mud (sludge  deposits dominate in Zone  2), with  small  amounts of
bedrock, .gravel and sand being exposed in riffle areas.

     Base flow  in Pecan Bayou is provided by dam seepage (Zone 1) and
the treated sewage discharge from the City of Brownwood  (Zones 2 and
3).  Median flow increases in a  downstream direction  from 2.5 cfs in
Zone 1 to 17.4  cfs in Zone 3.  Significantly higher mean flows (118 cfs
in Zone 1 and  125 cfs in Zone 3) are'the  result  of periodic high
rainfall  runoff conditions in the watershed.

B.  Chemical Evaluation

     Existing  chemical  data  of Pecan  Bayou  characterize  the  degree  of
water quality  degradation  in Zone  2.  Average dissolved  oxygen levels
are. about 2.0  mg/1 lower  in  the  impact  zone,  and approximately 50%  of
the observations  have  been less  than  5.0 mg/1.   6005, ammonia,
nitrite,  nitrate, and  phosphorus levels  are  much higher  in  the impact
zone as  compared  to  the  control  and  recovered  zones.  Un-ionized
ammonia  levels are also  higher  in  Zone  2, but most of the
concentrations were  below  the  reported  chronic  levels allowable for
warm water  fishes.   None  of  the  levels  exceeded the reported  acute
levels  allowable  for warm  water  fishes,  and  less than 4% of the levels
were between  the  acute  and chronic levels reported.  Total  dissolved
solids,  chlorides  and sulfates  were  higher in Zones 2 and 3,  mainly as
a result of the brine and  sewage discharges  into Sulfur Draw and Willis
Creek.

      PCB, DDT, ODD,  DDE and  Lindane  in water, and PCB, ODD,  and DDE,
Heptachlor  epoxide,  Dieldrin,  Endrin, Chlordane, and Pentachlorophenol
 in sediment have been detected in Zone 2.  PCB, DDT, ODD, and DDE
 concentrations in water have exceeded the criteria to protect
 freshwater aquatic life.  The Brownwood STP was the  suspected  major
 source  of these pesticides.   Most of the recent levels, however, show a
 declining trend.   PCB was detected also  in Zones  1 and 3.

      Heavy metals have not been detected in the water.  Heavy  metals in
 the sediment have shown the highest levels in Zone 2 for arsenic (3.7
 mg/kg), cadmium (1.1 mg/kg), chromium (17.4 mg/kg),  copper (9.5 mg/kg),
 lead (25.1  mg/kg), silver (l.B mg/kg),  zinc (90 mg/kg),  and  mercury
  (0.18 mg/kg).
                                D-39

-------
 C.  Biological  Evaluation

      Fish samples  collected from Zone 1 are representative of  a  fairly
 healthy population of game  fish,  rough  fish  and  forage  species.   Zone  2
 supported a  smaller  total  number of fish which were composed primarily
 of rough fish and forage species.   A  relatively  healthy balance of  game
 fish, rough  fish and forage  species reappeared in the recovered zone.

      Macrophytes were sparse in  Zones 1 and  3.   They were most  abundant
 in  Zone  2  below  the  Willis  Creek  confluence  and  were  composed of
 vascular plants (pondweed,  coontail,  false loosestrife  and  duckweed)
 and  filamentous  algae  (qadophora  and  Hydrodictyon).    Macrophyte
 abundance below Willis Creek  is  most  likely due to nutrient enrichment
 of the area from the Brownwood STP.

      Zone 1  is  represented  by a  fairly diverse  macrobenthic  community
 characteristic  of  a  clean-water  mesotrophic  stream.    Nutrient  and
 organic  enrichment  in  Zone  2  has  a  distinct  adverse  effect  as
 clean-water organisms are  replaced by pollution-tolerant forms.   Some
 clean-water organisms reappeared in Zone 3 and pollution-tolerant forms
 were not as  prevalent; however,  recovery to baseline  conditions  (Zone
 1) was  not  complete.

      Net  phytoplankton desnities  are  lowest in  Zone  1.   Nutrient  and
 organic enrichment  in Zone  2 promotes a marked  increase in abundance.
 Peak  abundance was  observed  in the  upper,  part  of Zone  3.   The  decline
 below this  area was  probably caused by biotic grazing  and/or  nutrient
 deficiencies.

      Fish  samples  for pesticides  analyses  have  revealed  detectable
 levels  of PCB,  DDE and  ODD in  Zone  1.   Fish  collected  from  zone  2
 contained  markedly  higher  amounts  of  DDE,  ODD,  DDT,  Lindane  and
 Chlordane than  Zones  1 or 3.   PCB in fish  tissue  was  highest in  ZOne 3,
 and measureable  concentrations  of DDE and ODD have also been  observed.
 Concentrations  of total  DDT in  whole fish  tissues  from  Zone  2 have
 exceeded the  USFDA  Action Level  of  5.0  mg/kg for edible fish tissues.
 Species representing the  highest  concentrations.

     Computer  modeling  simulation  were  made to  predict the dissolved
oxygen profile in the impact  zone  during the  fish spawning season.   The
 results indicate that about  three  miles  of Pecan  Bayou in April  and  May
and  about  4  1/2 miles  in   June  will  be  unsuitable  for propogation,
considering a minimum requirement  of  4.0  rag/1.   The  model  predicts a
minimum D.O.  of 0.8  mg/1 in  April, 1.2 mg/1  in May,  and  0  mg/1   in
June.
                                  D-40

-------
D.  Institutional Evaluation

     Two institutional factors exist which constrain the situation that
exists in Pecan  Bayou.   These are the  irrigation  water rights and the
Brownwood  sewage treatment  plant  discharge  permits.    Although  the
sewage treatment  plant  discharge permits will  expire  and  the  problems
created by the effluent  could be eliminated  in  the  future, there is  a
need for the  flow provided by the discharge  to satisfy the downstream
water  rights  used for  irrigation.   Currently, there  are eight water
users  on  Pecan  Bayou  downstream of  the Brownwood  STP discharge with
water  rights permits totaling 2,957 acre-feet/year.  Obviously,  the 0.1
cfs base flow which exists in Pecan Bayou upstream of  the  STP  discharge
is  not sufficient to fulfill these downstream demands.   Therefore,  it
appears that  the STP  flow may be  required  to supplement  the  base flow
in  Pecan Bayou to meet the downstream  demands for  water unless it could
be  arranged  that water  from Lake Brownwood  could  be  released  by the
Brown  Co. WID #1  to meet  the  actual downstream water needs.

     Modeling   studies   show  that   although   there   would   be  some
improvement in water  quality as  a result of  the sewage treatment plant
going  to advanced  waste  treatment  (AWT), there  would  still be  D.O.
violations  in a  portion  of  Pecan Bayou in  Zone  2.   The  studies  also
show that there  is minimal additional  water quality  improvement between
secondary  and advanced waste treatment, although  the  costs  associated
with   AWT  were   significantly   higher  than   the   cost  for  secondary
treatment.   In this  case, the secondary treatment alternative would  be
the recommended  course  of action.

 III.   FINDINGS

 A.   Existing  Uses

      Pecan  Bayou is  currently being  used in the following ways:

      0 Domestic Raw  Water Supply
      0 Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
      0 Noncontact Recreation
      0 Irrigation
      0 City  of  Brownwood STP discharge (not an acceptable or approved
        use designation)

 Use as a discharge  route for the City of  Brownwood's sewage  treatment
 plant effluent  has  contributed to water  quality conditions  which  are
 unfavorable  to  the  propagation of  fish and wildlife in  a  portion   of
 Pecan Bayou.

 B. . Potential Uses

       The Texas  Department of Water Resources has  established  water uses
 which are deemed  desirable  for  Pecan  Bayou.   These  uses  include:
 noncontact recreation,  propagation  of  fish  and wildlife, and  domestic
  raw water supply.


                                   D-41

-------
      Of these uses, propagation of fish and wildlife is unattainable in
 a  portion of  Pecan Bayou due  to the  effects  of low  dissolved  oxygen
 levels in  the bayou  primarily  during the  spawning  season.    If  the
 Brownwood sewage treatment  plant  effluent  could be removed  from Pecan
 Bayou, the persistently low  dissolved oxygen conditions which exist and
 are   unfavorable  to   fish   spawning  could  be  alleviated   and   the
 propagation  of fish and  wildlife could be  partially  restored  to Pecan
 Bayou.

      Public  hearings  held  on  the  proposed  expansion  of  the  sewage
 treatment  plant  indicate a  reluctance  from the public and the  City  to
 pay  for higher treatment  levels, since modeling studies  show  minimal
 water  quality  improvement  in Pecan  Bayou  between secondary and  advanced
 waste  treatment.    In addition,  an  affordability analysis  performed  by
 the Texas  Department of Water Resources (Construction  Grants)  indicates
 excessive  treatment costs  per month  would  result at  the  AWT level.

     It appears that the elimination of the waste discharge  from Pecan
 Bayou  is  not  presently  a feasible alternative,  since the  Brownwood STP
 currently  holds a discharge  permit  and the water rights issue  seems  to
 be the overriding factor.  Therefore,  in the future, the uses which are
most likely to exist are those which  exist  at  present.

 IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     A summary of the findings  from the use attainability  analysis are
listed below:

        The  designated   use   "propagation   of  fish  and  wildlife"  is
       impaired in Zone 2 of Pecan Bayou.

     0 Advanced Treatment  will  not  attain  the  designated use  in Zone
       2,   partially  because  of  low   dilution,  naturally   sluggish
       characteristics   (X  velocity  0.1  ft/sec)  and as  a   result,  low
       assimlitive  capacity  of  the  bayou  (K2 reaeration rate  0.7  per
       day at 20°C).                                                K

     0   Downstream  water  rights   for  agricultural   irrigation  are
       significant.

     0  Dissolved  oxygen  levels  are  frequently less than the  criterion
       of  5.0 mg/1 in Pecan Bayou.

     0  Total  DDT  in  whole fish from  Zone  2  exceeded the U.S.  Food  and
       Drug Administration's  action  level  of 5.0 mg/kg for edible fish
       tissues.
    o
       Annual  average  chloride  concentrations  in  Pecan  Bayou  are
      occasionally not  in  compliance  with the  numerical  criteria.
                                  D-42

-------
     Dissolved  oxygen levels  less  than  5.0  fflg/1   (about  50%  of the
measurements) observed in Zone 2 of  Pecan Bayou result from the  organic
and  nutrient   loading   contributed   by  the  Brownwood  STP  and  the
corresponding  low  waste  assimilative  capacity  of  the  bayou.     As
previously mentioned,  the major source of toxics  found  in the water,
sediment and fish tissues was  also determined to  be the  Brownwood  STP.
PCB and DDT  in  water have exceeded  the criteria  to protect freshwater
aquatic life in Zone  2.   Although  the toxics appear to be  declining  in
the water  and  sediment,  the  levels of total  DDT  found  in whole  fish
exceed the U. S. Food and Drug Administration's action  level  (5.0 mg/k)
for DDT in  edible  fish  tissue.    Investigations  are  underway  by the
Texas  Department  of Water Resources  to further  evaluate the  magnitude
of this potential problem.

     Primarily  as  a result of the oxygen deficiencies and possibly  be
cause   of  the   presence  of  toxic  substances,   the  designated  use
"propagation of fish  and wildlife" is not currently attained  in Zone 2
of  Pecan  Bayou.   These  problems  could be  eliminated  only  if the
Brownwood  STP  ceased to  discharges  into  Pecan Bayou because  even  with
advanced waste  treatment the water  quality "of the  receiving  stream  is
not  likely  to  improve  sufficiently to  support  this  designated  use.
Other  treatment alternatives  such as  land  treatment  or overland  flow
are  not feasible   because  of the  current  discharge  is necessary  to
satisfy downstream water  rights  for agricultural  irrigation.   If the
flow  required to meet the  water  rights  could be  augmented from  other
sources, then  the  sewage treatment  plant discharge could be  eliminated
in the future.

      The annual average chloride  level in Pecan  Bayou  are  occasionally
not  in compliance  with  the  established criterion.   The  primary source
has  been  determined to  be  a  privately owned  salt  water  artesian well.
Since  efforts  to  control   this  discharge   have   proved  futile,  some
consideration  should be  given to  changing the numerical  criterion for
chlorides  in Pecan  Bayou.

      In conclusion., it  appears that  either  the  Brownwood STP discharge
into  Pecan  Bayou should be eliminated (if  an alternative  water source
could be  found to  satisy the  downstream  water rights)  or the numerical
criterion  for dissolved oxygen and the propogation of fish and  wildlife
use  designation should be changed to reflect attainable conditions.
                                   D-43

-------
                     WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                                Salt Creek
                             Lincoln, Nebraska


  I.  INTRODUCTION

  A.  Site  Description

      The Salt  Creek  drainage  basin is  located  in  east  central  Nebraska.
  The mainstem  of Salt Creek originates in southern  Lancaster  County  and
  flows northeast to the  Platte River (Figure 1).  Ninety  percent  of  the
  1,621 square  mile  basin is devoted to agricultural production  with  the
  remaining  ten  percent primarily urban.   The basin is characterized  by
 moderately  to  steeply  rolling  uplands  and  nearly level  to  slightly
 undulating  alluvial   lands  adjacent to  major  streams,  primarily Salt
 Creek.   Drainage in  the area is usually quite good with the  exception
 of minor problems  sometimes  associated with alluvial  lands adjacent  to
 the  larger tributaries.    Soils  of  the basin  are  of  three general
 categories.   Loessial  soils are estimated  to  make up approximately  60
 percent  of  the basin, glacial  till  soils 20  percent,  and  terrace  and
 bottomland soils 20 percent.

      Frequent  high intensity  rainfalls and  increased  runoff  from land
 used for crop  production  has, in  past years,  contributed  to  flood
 damage in  Lincoln  and  smaller  urbanized areas  downstream.    To help
 alleviate these problems,  flood control  practices  have  been  installed
 in the watershed.  These  practices, including  several  impoundments and
 channel  modifications to  the  mainstream of  Salt  Creek,  were  completed
 during  the late 1960's.   Channel realignment of the lower two-thirds of
 Salt Creek has decreased the overall length  of Salt Creek by nearly 34
 percent   (from  66.9 to 44.3 miles) and  increased the gradient  of  the
 stream  from 1.7 feet/mile to 2.7 feet/mile.

      Salt Creek is  currently divided  into  three  classified  segments:
 (upper  reach)  LP-4,   (middle  reach) LP-3a,  and  (lower   reach)  LP-3b.
 (Figure   1).    Segments   LP-4  and  LP-3b  are  designated  as  Warmwater
 Habitats  whereas segment  LP-3a  is designated   as  a Limited  Warmwater
 Habitat.

 B.  Problem Definition

     "Warmwater Habitat" and "Limited  Warmwater Habitat" are  two sub-
 categories  of  the Fish  and  Wildlife Protection use designation  in the
 Nebraska  Water Quality Standards.   The only distinction  between  these
 two  use   classes   is  that  for   Limited  Warmwater   Habitat   waters,
 reproducing  populations  of fish  are  "...l-imited by irretrievable  man-
 induced  or  natural  background  conditions."    Although  segment  LP-3a
 is classified  Limited Warmwater Habitat and segment LP-3b as  Warmwater
 Habitat,  they  share  similar  physical  characteristics.    Since the
 existing  fisheries  of both segments were not thoroughly evaluated when
the standard was revised,  it is  possible that  the use designation for
one  or  other  segments  is incorrect.    This  study  was  initiated  to
determine  (1)  if the  Warmwater  Habitat  use  is attainable for  segment
LP-3a  and   (2)  what,   if  any,  physical  habitat  or  water   quality
constraints preclude the attainment of  this use.


                                  D-44

-------
                                                          Fish  Sampling  Site
                                                          (Maret,  1978)
                                                      *  Macrolnvertebratc
                                                          Sampling Site
                                                          (Pesek, 1974)
Figure 1 .   Monitoring  sites  from which  data  were  used  for
            attainability study.
                                  0-45

-------
  C.  Approach  to  Use Attainability Analysis

      The  analytical approach  used in  this study  was  a  comparison  of
  physical,  chemical  and  biological  parameters  between the upper, middle
  and lower  Salt  Creek segments  with emphasis was  on  identifying limiting
  factors  in the creek.   The uppermost  segment (LP-4) was used as  the
  standard for comparison.

      The   data  base   used  for  this  study  included   United  States
  Geological  Survey  (USGS)  and  Nebraska  Department  of  Environmental
  Control (NDEC) water quality data  outlined  in  the US EPA STORET system
 two Master of Science theses by  Tom Pesek and  Terry Maret, publications
 from  the   Nebraska  Game  and   Parks Commission  and  USGS and  personal
 observations by NDEC staff.  No  new data  was collected in the  study.

  II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED

      A  review  of  physical, chemical  and  biological information was
 conducted  to  determine which  aquatic life use  designations  would  be
 appropriate.  Physical  characteristics  for each of the  three  segments
 were evaluated and  then compared to the  physical  habitat  requirements
 of  important warm water  fish  species.   Characteristics  limiting the
 fishery population were identified  and  the  suitability of the  physical
 habitat for maintaining a  valued fishery was  evaluated.    General  water
 quality comparisons were  made  between  the  upper reach  of Salt Creek,
 and the lower reaches to establish  water quality  differences.   A  water
 quality index  developed  by the NDEC  was  used  in  this  analysis  to
 compare the relative quality  of water  in the segments.   In addition,
 some critical chemical  constituents required to maintain the important
 species were reviewed  and  compared to actual instream data to determine
 if water quality was stressing  or precluding their populations.

     The fish data collected by  Maret  was used to  define the  existing
 fishery population and  composition of  Salt  Creek.    This data  was  in
 turn used to  determine  the  quality of  the aquatic  biota through the use
 of six  biotic integrity classes  of  fish  communities  and  the Karr  Index
 tentative numerical  index  for defining  class boundaries.

     Macroinvertebrate  data based on the study conducted  by Pesek was
 also evaluated for  density  and  diversity.

 III. FINDINGS

     Chemical data  evaluated using  the  Water  Quality Index  indicated
 good water  quality  above   Lincoln  and  degraded  water quality  at  and
 below  Lincoln.   Non-point  source  contributions  were  identified  as  a
 cause  of water quality  degradation and  have   been  implicated   in  fish
 kills in the  stream.   Dissolved solids in Salt Creek were found to  be
 considerably  higher than   in  other  streams  in  the  State.    Natural
 background contributions are the  major source  of  dissolved solids  load
to  the  stream.   Water  quality  criteria  violations  monitored   in  Salt
Creek during 1980 and 1981 were restricted to unionized ammonia  and may
                                  D-46

-------
have adversely impacted the  existing  downstream fishery.  Toxics which
occasionally  approach or  exceed  the  EPA  criteria  are  chromium   and
lindane.   Since EPA  criteria for  both parameters  are based  on some
highly  sensitive organisms  which are not  representative of  indigenous
populations typically found  in  Nebraska,  the  actual   impact  of these
toxics  is believed to be minimal.

     Channelization was found to be a limiting  factor  in establishing  a
fishery  in  middle  and  Tower  Salt Creek.   Terry  Maret,   in  his 1977
study,  found  that  substrate  changes  from silt  and clay  in  the upper
non-channelized area  to primarily  sand  in  the channelized area  causing
substantial changes in fish  communities.  The Habitat  Suitability Index
(HSI)  developed  by the Western  Energy and  Land  Use  Team  of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife  Service was used to evaluate  physical  habitat  impacts
on one  important species  (Channel  Catfish)  of fish in  Salt Creek.   The
results  indicated  that  upper Salt  Creek  had the  best habitat  for  the
fish investigated  and middle Salt Creek had  the  worst.  These  results
support  the  conclusion   that middle   Salt  Creek  lacks  the  physical
habitat  to  sustain a valued warm water  fishery.   The Karr  numerical
index  used to evaluate the fish  data  revealed that  none of  the stations
rated   above   fair,   further   indicating  the   fish   community   is
significantly impacted by surrounding rural  and urban  land  uses.

     Analysis  of  the abundance and  diversity  of macroinvertebrates
indicated  that  the water quality  in  Salt  Creek became  progressively
more  degraded going  downstream.   Stations  in the  upper  reaches were
relatively  unpolluted  as   characterized  by   the   highest   number   of
taxa,   the   greatest   diversity  and  the  presence   of  "clean-water"
organisms.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     Based  on the evaluation of the  physical,  chemical and  biological
characteristics of Salt  Creek,  the following conclusions were  drawn by
the  State  for the  potential  uses of  the various segments:

1)  Current classifications  adequately  define  the  attainable  uses  for
   upper and  middle Salt  Creek.

2)  The Warmwater  Habitat designated  use may be  unattainable  for lower
    Salt Creek.

3)  Channelization  has limited existing  instream habitat for middle Salt
    Creek.    Instream  habitat  improvement  in  middle  Salt  Creek could
    increase  the fishery  but would  lessen the  effectiveness  of flood
    control  measures.   Since flood control  benefits are greater than  any
    benefits  that   could be  realized  by enhancing the  fishery,  instream
    physical  habitat remained the limiting  factor for the fishery.

4)  Existing water quality does  not affect  the limited Warmwater  Habitat
    classification of  middle Salt Creek.
                                  D-47

-------
5) Uncontrollable  background source impacts  on. existing water  quality
   and the effects of channelization on habitat may  preclude  attainment
   of the classified use.

     The recommendations of  the  State  drawn from these conclusions  are
as follows:

1) Keep  upper section classification  of  Warmwater  Habitat  and middle
   section classification of Limited Warmwater  Habitat.

2) Consider  changing  the lower section to  a Limited Warmwater  Habitat
   because of limited physical habitat and existing  water quality.
                                 D-48

-------
                   WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                         South Fork Crow River
                         Hutchinson, Minnesota
I. INTRODUCTION
   A. Site Description

     The  South  Fork  Crow River,  located in  south-central  Minnesota,
drains a  watershed  that covers approximately  1250  square miles.   This
river joins with  the North Fork  Crow  to form the  mainstem Crow  River
which flows to  its  confluence  with the  Mississippi  River (Figure  1).
Within the drainage basin, the predominant  land  uses are agricultural
production and pasture  land.  The major  soil types  in the watershed are
comprised of dark-colored, medium-to-fine textured  silty  loams,  most of
which are medium to  well  drained  in  character.

     The  physical   characteristics  of the  South  Fork  Crow  River  are
typical of many  Minnesota streams  flowing  through agricultural  lands.
The  upper portions  of  the river  have  been  extensively channelized and
at  Hutchinson  a  forty  foot  wide,  12  foot  high  dam  forms a  reservoir
west  of  the city.    Downstream of  the  dam the  river  freely  meanders
through areas with  light to  moderately  wooded banks to  its  confluence
with the  North Fork. River Crow River.    The average stream gradient for
this  section  of  the  river is approximately two ,feet  per mile  and the
substrate  varies  from  sand,  gravel and rubble  in  areas with  steeper
gradients to a silt-sand  mixture  in areas of slower velocities.

     The  average  annual precipitation in the watershed is 27.6 inches.
The  runoff  is  greatest   during  the  spring  and  early   summer,  after
snowmelt,  when  the  soils   are   generally  saturated.     Stream  flow
decreases  during  late  summer and  fall  and is  lowest  in late  winter.
Small tributary  streams in the watershed often  go dry in the  fall and
winter  because they have  little  natural  storage  and   receive  little
ground  water  contribution.   The  seven-day  ten year  low  flow condition
for  the South Fork: below the  dam  at  Hutchinson is approximately 0.7
cubic feet per second.

    B.   Problem Definition

      The  study  on the  South  Fork  Crow River was conducted  in  order to
evaluate  the  existing  fish  community  and  to  determine  if   the use
designations  are   appropriate.   At  issue  is   the  2B   fisheries  and
recreational  use   classification  at  Hutchinson.    Is   the  water use
classification  appropriate for this segment?

    C.   Approach  to Use Attainability

      The  analysis  utilized  an extensive data  base  compiled  from  data
collected by the Minnesota  Pollution  Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota
 Department of  Natural Resources   (MDNR) and  United  States  Geological
 Survey (USGS),   No new data was  collected  as part of the  study.  The
 USGS maintains  partial or continuous flow record stations on both  forks
                                  D-49

-------
   .£ o  £  j.«

f  I|  I  II
                                     oo iHOAiafivx	i
                                        Q            I
                                 D-50

-------
and the mainstem Crow  River  with a data  base  of physical and  chemical
parameters available on STORET.  The USGS data was  used  in the  physical
evaluation of the river.  MPCA has a water quality  monitoring data  base
on STORET for five stations  in the Crow River watershed.  The MPCA  data
plus analytical data  from a  waste  load allocation  study on the South
Fork below Hutchinson was used in the chemical evaluation of the  river.
MDNR fisheries and stream survey data, a MDNR report  on  the  analysis  of
the composition of  fish populations in Minnesota  rivers, and  personal
observations  of  MDNR  personnel  was  used to  evaluate  the biological
characteristics of the  river.

     The  analytical  approach  used by  the MPCA sought  to  1) compare
instream fish community health  of  the South Fork  to that of the North
Fork, the mainstem Crow River, and other warm water rivers  in the State
and 2)  evaluate  physical  and chemical  factors  affecting fisheries  and
recreational  uses.    The  North  Fork of  the Crow  River was  used  for
comparison because of  sufficient  fisheries data, similar land  uses  and
morphologies,  similar  non-point  source impacts and  the lack  of   any
significant point source dischargers.

II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

     Physical, chemical and  biological  factors  were considered in  this
use attainability  analysis   to  determine  the biological  health of  the
South Fork and to define the physical and  chemical  factors  which  may be
limiting.  A  general  assessment  of the habitat  potentials of the South
Fork Crow River was  performed using a habitat evaluation rating  system
developed  by  the  Wisconsin  Department   of  Natural  Resources.    In
addition, the Tennant method for determining instream flow  requirements
was also employed in this study.

   Fish  species  diversity,   equitability  and composition were used  to
define the biological  health of  the  South Fork  relative  to  that  of the
North Fork, the mainstem  Crow and other warmwater  rivers in Minnesota.
Water quality monitoring  data from  stations  above and below the point
source  discharges  at  Hutchinson  were  used  to  compare   beneficial   use
impairment   values   pertaining   to   the   designated   fisheries   and
recreational  uses of   the  South  Fork  Crow  River.   A  computer  data
analysis program developed by EPA  Region VIII was  used  to compute these
values.

III.  FINDINGS

     The comparison  of species  diversity  values for  the  North  Fork and
mainstem  Crow River  to the  South  Fork  showed  higher  values  for  the
North Fork  and mainstem Crow.   On  the other hand,  the  South  Fork  had
higher  species  equitability  values.   The  percent species  composition
compared  favorably  to  Peterson's  (1975)   estimates  for  median  species
diversity for a  larger Minnesota river.  Recruitment from  tributaries,
marshes,  lakes  and  downstream  rivers  has  given  the  South  Fork  a
relatively  balanced  community which  compares well  to other  warmwater
rivers  in the State.   The calculated  species  diversity  and  equitability
indices coupled with the  analysis  of  species  composition indicated  that
the South Fork of the  Crow  River does support a warmwater  fishery  with
evidence of some degree of environmental  stress.


                                  0-51

-------
The MPCA  employed the Wisconsin habitat  rating  system and the  Tennant
method  designated  to   quantify   minimum  instream   fisheries   flow
requirements to  identify any physical limiting  factors.   Based on the
Wisconsin  habitat  evaluation assessment,  habitat  rating  score   were
fair.   The limiting factors  identified  via this  assessment  were:   1)
lack  of  diverse  streambed  habitat  suitable  for  reproduction,   food
production and cover and 2)  instream  water fluctuations  (low flow may
be a major controlling factor).

     The  State  utilized  EPA Region  VIII's data  analysis  program  to
express stream  water quality as a  function of  beneficial   use.   The
closest downstream  station  to  Hutchinson  had  the  highest  warmwater
aquatic  life  use  impairment  values.   Warmwater   aquatic  life use
impairment values  declined further downstream indicating that the  point
source  dischargers  were  major  contributors  to  this  use  impairment.
However,  primary  contact  recreational  use  impairment  values  were  high
throughout  the  stream.    This  led  the  State  to   believe  that the
impairment  of  primary  contact  recreational  use  is   attributable  to
non-point sources.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

     The State concluded  from the study  that:  1) the South Fork of the
Crow River has a definite fisheries value  although  the use  impairment
values  indicate   some  stress  at   Hutchinson  on  an   already   limited
resource  and 2)  although the   South  Fork  of   the  Crow  River has  a
dominant  rough  fish population,   game   and  sport  fish  present are
important  component  species   of   this   rivers'   overall   community
structure.

     From these  conclusions  the  State recommended that the  South   Fork
of the Crow  River  retain  its  present  2B  fisheries and  recreational use
classification.    Furthermore,   efforts   should  continue  to  mitigate
controllable factors that contribute to  impairment of use.   The effort
should entail a reduction of marsh tilling  and drainage, acceptance and
implementation  of  agricultural   BMP's  and  an upgrade  of  point  source
dischargers in  Hutchinson.
                                   D-52

-------
                        WATER BODY  SURVEY  AND  ASSESSMENT

                               South  Platte  River
                                Denver,  Colorado


I.  INTRODUCTION

A-.  Site Description

Segment 14 of  the  South Platte River originates north of the  Chatfield Lake at
Bowles  Avenue  in  Arapahoe  County  and  extends  approximately  16  miles, through
metro Denver, in a northerly direction to  the  Burlington ditch  diversion near the
Denver County-Adams County line.  A map  of the study area is presented in Figure
1.  Chatfield  Lake was  originally  constructed for  the purposes of Flood control
and recreation.  The reservoir  is  owned by  the U.S.  Army  Corps of Engineers and
is essentially operated such that outflow  equals inflow, up to  a maximum of 5,000
cfs.  In addition, water is released to satisfy irrigation demands as authorized
by the State Engineers  Office.   There is  also an  informal  agreement between the
State  Engineers Office  and  the  Platte  River  Greenway  Foundation  for  timing
releases of water to increase flows during periods  of high recreational use.  The
Greenway Foundation has  played  an  important role  in the significant  improvement
of water quality in the South Platte River.

There are  several  obstructions  throughout  Segment 14 including  low  head dams,
kayak chutes  (at Confluence  Park and 13th  Avenue),  docking  platforms,  and weir
diversion structures which alter the flow in  the South  Platte  River.   There are
four  major  weir   diversion  structures  in  this   area  which  divert  flows  for
irrigation; one is located adjacent to the Columbine Country Club, a second near
Union Avenue, a third upstream from Oxford Avenue,  and a fourth at the Burlington
Ditch near Franklin Street.

Significant  dewatering  of  the  South Platte  River  can  occur due to  instream
diversions for  irrigation and water  supply  and  pumping  from the numerous ground
water dwells along the river.

Eight tributaries  normally  provide inflow to the  South Platte River  in Segment
14.   These  include Big Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek,  Bear  Creek,  Harvard Gulch,
Sanderson Gulch, Weir Gulch, Lakewood Gulch, and Cherry Creek.

There are  several municipal  and  industrial  facilities  which  discharge  either
directly to  or into tributaries of the South Platte River in this  reach.   The
major active  discharges  into  the segment  are the  Littleton-Englewood wastewater
treatment  plant (WWTP), the  Glendale  WWTP,  the   City  Ice  Company,  two  Public
Service company power plants (Zuni  and Arapahoe), and Gates Rubber.

The South Platte River  drainage  basin in  this area (approximately 120,000 acres)
is  composed   primarily   of   extensively  developed  urban   area   (residential,
industrial,  commercial,  services,  roads), parks and recreational  areas,  gravel
mining  areas,  and rural  areas south  of  the  urban  centers  for farming  and
grazing.


                                      D-53

-------
                                                    lECENO
                                                   Municipal Oncnorq*
                                                 •  Industrial OiKharat
               Figure  1
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER CTUDY AREA MAP
                 D-B4

-------
In the study area, the South Platte River is typically 50-150 feet wide and 1-16
feet deep (typically 1-2 feet)  and has  an average  channel bed slope of 12.67 feet
per mile,  with alternating  riffle and  pool  reaches.   The  channel  banks  are
composed essentially of  sandy-gravelly materials  that  erode  easily  when exposed
to high-flow conditions.  The stream banks are generally sparsely vegetated with
trees, shrubs, and grasses (or  paving  in  the  urban centers.)

B.  Problem Definition

The following  use classifications have  been designated for  Segment  14  of the
South Platte River:

     0  Recreation - Class 2 -  secondary  contact
     0  Aquatic Life - Class 1  - warm  water aquatic life
     0  Agriculture
     0  Domestic Water Supply

Following a review of the water quality studies and data  available for  Segment  14
of the South Platte River, several observations and trends in the data  have been
noted, including:

     0   Fecal  coliform  values  exceeded  the  recommended  limits for  recreational
        uses in the lower portion of Segment 14.

     0   Un-ionized ammonia levels exceeded  the water  quality criterion for the
        protection of aquatic life in  the lower portion of  the segment.

     0   Levels of total recoverable  metals (lead, zinc,  cadmium,  total  iron,
        total  manganese, and total copper)  have  been  measured which exceed the
        water  quality criteria for the protection  of aquatic life.

Although the exact points of origin have not been  specified,  it is generally felt
that the source of the ammonia is municipal point  sources,  and the sources  of the
metals are  industrial point sources.

In  addition,  the cities of Littleton  and  Englewood have challenged the Class  I
warm water  aquatic life  use on the basis that the flow and habitat are  unsuitable
to  warrant  the   Class   I   designation,  and   they  have   also  challenged  the
apporopriateness  of the  0.06 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia criteria on the basis of new
toxicity data.  The Colorado Water Quality  Control Commission  in November, 1982
approved the  Class I  aquatic  life classification  and  the 0.06  mg/1  un-ionized
ammonia  criteria.

C.  Approach  to Use Attainability

Assessment  of Segment  14 of the  South  Platte River was based on a site visit (May
3-4,   1982)  which  included  meetings  with  representatives   of  the  Colorado
Department  of Health,  EPA (Region  VIII and Headquarters) and Camp Dresser & McKee
 Inc.,  and  upon information contained  in  a number  of reports, hearing transcripts
and the other related materials.  Most  of the physical,  chemical  and  biological
data  was obtained from the USGS, EPA  (STORET), DRURP, and from


                                       D-55

-------
 studies.     It  was  agreed  that  there  was  sufficient  chemical,  physical  and
 biological  data to proceed with the assessment,  even though physical  data on the
 aquatic habitat was limited.

 II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

 A.   Physical Factors

 Strearaflow  in the South'PIatte River (Segment 14)  is affected by several  factors
 Including releases  from  Chatfield  Dam, diversions  for  irrigation and  domestic
 water supply, irrigation  return flows,  wastewater  discharges, tributary  inflows,
 pumping from ground water wells in  the  river  basin, evaporation from once-through
 cooling  at  the  two power  plants   in  Segment  14,  and natural  surface  water
 evaporation.   Since  some of  these factors  (particularly   ground  water  pumping,
 evaporation  and  irrigation  diversions)  are  variable, flow in the South  Platte
 River  is  used  extensively  for  irrigation  and  during the irrigation  season
 diversions   and  return  flows  may   cause   major   changes   in  streamflow  within
 relatively   short  reaches.    During  the  summer,   low-water  conditions   prevail
 because of increased  evaporation, lack  of  rainfall,  and  the various uses  made of
 the   river   water   (e.g.  irrigation  diversions).    Municipal,  industrial,  and
 storm-water  discharges  also  contributes to the streamflow in the South  Platte
 River.

 Natural pools in  the  South Platte River are scarce and the  shifting nature of the
 channel bed  results in temporary pools, a feature which has  a tendency to  greatly
 limit the capacity  for bottom  food  production.  There are approximately 3-4 pools
 per  river mile  with the majority  being  backwater  pools  upstream of diversion
 structures,   bridge  crossings,  low  head  dams,   docking   platforms,   drop-off
 structures   usually  downstream of  wastewater treatment  plant  outfalls,  kayak
 chutes,  and  debris.  The hydraulic effect of each  obstruction  is generally  to
 cause a backwater  condition  immediately  upstream  from  the  structure,  scouring
 immediately  downstream, and  sandbar development  below that.  These pools  act  as
 settling  basins for silt  and debris which  no  longer get flushed during the high
 springs flows once  Chatfield Lake was completed.

 In  the  plains,  channels  of  the   South   Platte  River  and  lower   reaches  of
 tributaries  cut  through  deep  alluvial   gravel   and  soil  deposits.     Sparse
 vegetation  does  not  hold the soils,  so  stream  bank  erosion  and  channel  bed
 degredation  is  common during periods of high flow,  particularly during the  spring
 snowmelt  season.  The high intensity - low  duration rainstorms which occur  during
 the summer (May,  June, and July) also temporarily muddy the  streams.

 An  evaluation  of  the   physical  streambed   characteristics  of   Segment   14' to
 determine the potential  of the Segment to maintain  and attract warm water  aquatic
 life  was  conducted by Keeton  Fisheries  Consultants, Inc.    The  study concluded
 that  the  sediment loads  in  this  reach  of  the  South Platte  River  could  pose a
 severe problem to the aquatic life forms present, however, further  study needs  to
 be conducted to substantiate this  conclusion.   Furthermore,  some gravel  mining
 operations have recently  been  discontinued thus  the  sediment problem may  have
 been  reduced.

The temperature in  the  South  Platte  River  is primarily a  function  of releases .
 from the bottom of Chatfield Lake,  the degree of warming that takes place  in  the
shallow mainstream  and  isolated  pools,  and the warming  that  occurs  through  the
mixing of power plant cooling water  with the South  Platte River.

                                        D-56

-------
B.  Chemical Factors

Water quality conditions In the South Platte River are substantially affected by
municipal and industrial v/astewater discharges,  irrigation  return  flows  and other
agricultural  activities,  and non-point  sources of  pollution  (primarily during
rainfall-runoff events).   Irrigation and  water supply diversions  also exert a
major  influence on  water  quality by  reducing the stream  flow,  and thereby
reducing the dilution assimilative capacity of the  river.

     0  Dissolved oxygen levels were  above the  5.0 mg/1  criteria acceptable for
        the maintenance of aquatic life.

     0   Average concentrations of un-ionized  ammonia exceeded the State water
        quality  criteria  of  0.06  mg/1   NH3-N   only in  the  lower portion  of
        Segment 14 (north of Speer Blvd.)

     0  Average total lead concentrations  exceeded the water quality criteria of
        25  ug/1  in  Big Dry  Creek,  Cherry  Creek,   and  the South  Platte River
        north of Cherry Creek, ranging from 30-72 ug/1.

     0  Average total zinc concentrations exceeded  the criteria of 11 ug/1 at all
        the DRURP sampling stations,  ranging from 19-179  ug/1.

     0  Average total cadmium concentrations exceeded the  criteria of  1 ug/1 in
        Beer Creek, Cherry Creek  and  several sites  in the South  Platte, ranging
        from 2.2-3.6 ug/1,,

     0  Average total iron concentrations  exceeded the criteria of  1,000 ug/1 in
        Cherry  Creek  and several   locations  on  the  South  Platte  River, ranging
        from 1129-9820 ug/1.

     0   Average soluble manganese concentrations  exceeded the  criteria  of 50
        ug/1 in the South  Platte  River north of (and including)  19th Street and
        in Cherry Creek, ranging from 51-166 ug/1.

     0  Average total copper concentrations equalled  or exceeded  the criteria of
        25  ug/1 at  all  but two of the DRURP sampling sites,  ranging from 25-83
        ug/1.

C.  Biological Factors

Several electrofishing  studies have been  conducted  on the  South  Platte River in
recent years.  Most of the sampling took place in the fall  with the exception of
the study in the spring  (1979).   The data  was reviewed by  Colorado  Department of
Health  personnel  and  it was generally  agreed  that  the  overall   health  of the
existing warm water fishery is restricted  by temperature extremes (very cold and
shallow during the winter and low  flow and high  temperatures during the summer),
                                       p-57

-------
the  lack  of  sufficient physical  habitat (i.e.  structures  for cover  including
rocks  and  dams,  and deep pools)  and the potentially stressful  conditions created
by the wastewater discharges (i.e. silt and organic and inorganic enrichment).

Following  a  review  of the physical,  chemical,  and biological  data  available  on
the  South  Platte River,  it  was  concluded that a  fair warm water fishery  could
exist  with only modest  habitat improvements  and maintenance  of  the  existing
ambient  water quality  and strict  regulation  prevent overfishing.   With  large
habitat  and  water quality improvements,  brown  trout could potentially  become  a
part of  the fishery in Segment 14 of the South Platte River.

III. FINDINGS

A. Existing Uses

Segment  14 of the  South  Platte  River is currently  being  used in the  following
ways:

     0   Irrigation Diversions and Return Flows
     0   Municipal and Industrial  Water Supply
     0   Ground Water Recharge
     0   Once-through Cooling
     0   Municipal, Industrial,  and Stormwater Discharges
     0   Recreation
     0   Warm Water Fishery

The irrigation diversions, water supply,  ground water  recharge,  and  cooling  uses
have  primarily  affected  the  flow  in  the  South Platte  River,   resulting  in
significant  dewatering  at  times.    Irrigation   return   flows  and wastewater
dishcharges,  on  the other hand,  exert their effects  on  the  ambient  and storm
water  quality in the River.  These previous  uses  ultimately affect the  existing
warm  water  fishery and  how  the  public perceives  the  river for recreation
purposes.

B.  Potential  Uses

With the exception of a potential for increased  recreation  and  the improvement of
a limited warm water fishery, it  is anticipated  that the existing uses are likely
to exist in the  future.   The increased recreational  use  will  result from future
Platte River  Greenway  Foundation projects.    The   improvement  of a  limited  warm
water fishery may come about in the future as the  result of habitat  improvements
(pools,  cover)  control   of toxic materials  (un-ionized  ammonia,  heavy metals,
cynanide),  and the  prevention  of extensive  sedimentation.   However, the success
of the fishery would rely on  strict fishery regulations to  prevent overfishing.
                                        D-58

-------
IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A summary of the findings  from the  use  attainability analysis are listed below:
     o
        There is  evidence  to  indicate that a warm water  aquatic  life community
        does exist and the  potential  for an improved fishery  could  be attained
        with slight habitat modifications (i.e. cover, pool).

        Elevated un-ionized ammonia  levels  were exhibited  in the lower portion of
        Segment  14, although this  cannot  be attributed to  the Littleton-Englewood
        WWTP discharge upstream.   However,  at the present  time there is no basis
        for a change  in the existing  un-ionized  ammonia criterion, particularly
        if  EPA's  methodology  for  determining  site  specific criteria  becomes
        widely accepted.

         Increased turbidity  exists  in  the South  Platte  River  during  a  good
        portion  of the fish spawning  season,  which  represents a  potential  for
        problems associated with  fish  spawning.

         Increased sedimentation  and siltation in  the South  Platte  River could
        pose  a  potential  threat to  the  aquatic  life  present;   however^  this
        condition might be  reduced if  Chatfield Lake could be operated to provide
        periodic flushing of the  river.

         Elevated  levels of heavy  metals  were  observed  in water  and sediment
        samples, which could potentially  affect the existing aquatic life.

     0  Insufficient  data  existed to  determine the  possible effects of chlorine
        and cyanide on the  aquatic life present.

     0   Fecal  coliform levels were extremely  high  in the  lower  portion  of  the
        South Platte River and Cherry Creek  during periods  of  both low and high
        flow.  The source  in the  South Platte  River  is  apparently Cherry Creek,
        but the origin in Cherry  Creek is unknown at this  time.

On  the  basis of  the  preceding  conclusions and recommendations,  the warmwater
fishery  use classification and  the  un-ionized  ammonia  criterion  (0.06  mg/1)
recommended  for  Segment  14 of the  South  Platte should  remain  unchanged until
there is further evidence to support making those changes.
o

-------

-------
          APPENDIX U
          List of EPA Regional
    Water Quality Standards Coordinators         >
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------

-------
            WATER  QUALITY  STANDARDS
                          COORDINATORS
Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 1
Water Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA  02203
617-5.65-3533

Wayne Jackson, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 2
Water Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5685

Evelyn MacKnight, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 3
Water Division
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-4491

Fritz Wagener, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 4
Water Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA  30365
404-347-3555x6633

David Pfeifer, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 5
Water Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-9024

Cheryl Overstreet,  WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 6
Water Division
1445 Ross Avenue
First Interstate Bank Tower
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-6643
Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 7
Water Complainance Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7441

Bill Wuertherle, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 8
Water Division
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303-293-1586

Phil Woods, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 9
Water Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA  94105
415-744-1997

Marcia Lagerloef, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 10
Water Division (WS-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-0176

   -or-

Sally Brough, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 10
Water Division (WS-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1754
(8/15/94)
       & U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994-381-683

-------

-------
          APPENDIX V
     Water Quality Standards Program
        Document Request Forms
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------

-------
                                               REV 02/07/94
WATER RESOURCE CENTER
        202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
' ST ANBARttS & AFPLMB SCONCE BmSlON/WAflR <^Aim iTANMRBS1 BRANCH J


% REQUESTOR PROEILE , 	 Check here if requ
NAME
estor wants to be
mailing list
Date request made
PO


UilumuLb Date submitted to EPA
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
DOE TO RESOURCE OMITATIONS, OM COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
* \
TITLE
1.
2.
Water Quality Standards Regulation, Part n, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register,
November 8, 1983
Regulations that govern the development, review, revision and approval of -water quality standards
under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, September 1993
Contains guidance issued to date in support of the Water Quality Standards Regulation.
• Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Metals Ciiteria, EPA 822/F-93-009, October 1993
This memorandum transmits Office of Water policy and guidance on the interpretation and
implementation of aquatic life metals criteria. It covers aquatic life criteria, total maximum daily
loads permits, effluent monitoring, compliance and ambient monitoring.
3.
4.
5.
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 1989
Summary of the proceedings from the first National Conference on water quality standards held in
Dallas, Texas, March 1-3, 1989.
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 1991
Summary of the proceedings from the second National Conference on -water quality standards held in
Arlington, Virginia, December 10-12, 1990.
Compilation of Water Quality Standards for Marine Waters, November 1982
Consists of marine water quality standards required by Section 304(a)(6) of the Clean Water Act. The
document identifies marine water quality standards, the specific pollute/its associated with such water
quality standards and the particular waters to which such water quality standards apply. The
compilation should not in any way be construed as Agency opinion as to whether the waters listed are
marine waters -within the meaning of Section 301 (h) of the Clean Water Act or -whether discharges to
such waters are qualified for a Section 301(h) modification.
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED







-------
                                                                                                         REV 02/07/94

          STANDARDS  & APPLIED SCIENCE 0WMON/WATER
                                              TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REUQESTED
6.  Technical Support Manual:  Waterbody Surveys and Assessments  for Conducting Use
    Attainability Analyses, November 1983
    Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
    regulation (48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). The guidance assists States in answering three key
    questions:
    a.   What are the aquatic protection uses  currently  being achieved in the waterbody?
    b.   What are the potential uses that can be attained based on the physical,  chemical and biological
        characteristics of the waterbody?
    c.   What are the causes of any impairment of the uses?                     	
7.  Technical Support Manual:  Waterbody Surveys and Assessments  for Conducting Use
    Attainability Analyses, Volume II:  Estuarine Systems
    Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
    regulation (48 FR 51400, November 8,  1983).  This document addresses the unique characteristics of
    estuarine systems and supplements  the Technical Support Manual:  Waterbodv Summary and
    Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (EPA, November 1983).	
8.  Technical Support Manual:  Waterbody Surveys and Assessments  for Conducting Use
    Attainability Analyses, Volume ffl:  Lake Systems, November 1984
    Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
    regulation (48 FR 51400 November 8, 1983).  The document addresses the unique characteristics of
    lake systems and supplements two additional guidance documents:  Technical Support Manual:
    Waterbodv Survey and Assessments  for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses EPA.  (November  1983)
    and Technical Support Manual:  Waterbodv Surveys and Assessments  for Conducting Use Attainability
    Analyses.  Vol II: Estuarine Systems.
9.  Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters, EPA 600/1-80-031, August  1983
    This report presents health effects quality criteria for marine  recreational waters and a
    recommendation for a specific criterion.  The criteria were among those developed using data collected
    from an extensive in-house extramural microbiological research program conducted by the U.S. EPA
    over the years 1972-1979.                   	
10. Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters, EPA 660/1-84-004, August 1984
    This report presents health effects criteria for fresh recreational  waters and a criterion for the quality
    of the bathing water based upon swimming - associated gastrointestinal  illness.  The criterion was
    developed from data obtained during a multi-year freshwater epidemiological-microbiological research
    program conducted at bathing beaches near Erie, Pennsylvania and Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Three bacterial
    indications of fecal pollution were used to measure the water quality:  E. Coli, enterococci and fecal
    coliforms.                                                         	
11. Introduction to Water Quality Standards,  EPA 440/5-88-089, September 1988
    A primer on the water quality standards program written in question and answer format.  The
    publication provides general information about various elements of the water quality standards
    program.
 12. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986 EPA 440/5-84-002
    This document contains bacteriological water quality criteria.  The recommended criteria are based on
    an estimate of bacterial indicator counts and gastro-intestinal illness rates.	

-------
                                                                                                                \ •
                                                                                                          REV 02/07/94
STAISfDAKDS  & JOO&W* SCIENCE
                                                                     QtJALlT* StANBAHOS  BRANCH
                                               TITLE
                                                                                               CHECK
                                                                                             DOCUMENT
                                                                                             REQUESTED
13. Test Methods for Escherichia  Coil and Enterococci; In Water by the Membrane Filter Procedure,
    EPA 600/4-85/076,  1985
    Contains methods used to measure the bacteriological densities ofE. coli and enterococci in ambient
    waters.  A direct relationship between the density of enterococci and E. coli in water and the
    occurrence of swimming - associated gastroenteritis has  been established through epidemiological
    studies of marine and fresh water bathing beaches.   These studies have led to the development of
    criteria which can be used to establish recreational water standards based on recognized health
    effects-water quality relationships.                            	
14. Twenty-Six Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries, September 1988
    These documents contain twenty-six summaries of State/Federal criteria.  Twenty-six summaries have
    been compiled which contain information extracted from State, water quality standards.  Titles of the
    twenty-six documents are: Acidity-Alkalinity, Antidegradation, Arsenic,  Bacteria, Cadmium, Chromium,
    Copper, Cyanide,  Definitions, Designated Uses, Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Solids, General
    Provisions, Intermittent Streams, Iron, Lead, Mercury, Mixing Zones, Nitrogen-Ammonia/Nitrate/Nitrite,
    Organics,  Other Elements, Pesticides,  Phosphorus, Temperature,  Turbidity, and Zinc.
15. Fifty-Seven State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September 1988
    Contains fifty-seven individual summaries of State water quality standards. Included in each summary
    is the name of a contact person,  me classifications of water bodies, mixing zones, antidegradation
    policies and other pertinent information.	
16. State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September 1988 (Composite document)
    This document contains composite summaries of State water quality standards.  The document contains
    information about use classifications, antidegradation policies and other information applicable to a
    States' water quality standards.                                             	'
17. Transmittal of Final "Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA
    Section 303(c)(2)(B)", December  12, 1988
    Guidance on State adoption of criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  The guidance is designed to help
    States comply  with the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act which requires States to control
    toxics in water quality standards.	
18. Chronological  Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards Promulgation Actions, January
    1993
    This document contains the date, type of action and Federal Register citation for State water quality
    standards promulgated by EPA.  The publication also contains information on Federally promulgated
    water quality standards which have been withdrawn and replaced with State approved standards.
19. Status Report:  State Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(b) as of February 4, 1990
    Contains information on State efforts to comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B)  of the Clean Water Act which
    requires adoption of water quality standards for priority pollutants.  The report identifies  the States
    that are compliant as of February 4, 1990, summarizes the status of State actions to adopt priority
    pollutants and briefly outlines EF'A's plan to federally promulgate standards for noncompliant States.
20. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands:  National Guidance, July 1990
    Provides guidance for meeting the priority established in the FY 1991 Aeencv Operating Guidance to
    develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-1993 triennium.  By the end ofFY
    1993, States are required as a minimum to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters,"
    establish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt
    narrative biological criteria for wetlands and apply antidegradation policies to wetlands.

-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/07/94
          STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE BmloiSt/WATER  QtMtli 'STANDARDS BRANCA
 21. Reference Guide for Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes, January 1990
    Booklet provides an overview of the water quality standard program. Publication is designed
    primarily for Indian Tribes that wish to qualify as States for the water quality standards program.  The
    booklet contains program requirements and a list of reference sources.
22. Developing Criteria to Protect Our Nation's Waters, EPA, September 1990 (Pamphlet)
    Pamphlet which briefly describes the water quality standards program and its relationship to water
    quality criteria, sediment criteria and biological criteria.
23. Water Quality Standards  for the 21st Century, EPA 823-R-92-009, December 1992
    Summary of the proceedings from the Third National Conference on Water Quality Standards held in
    Las Vegas, Nevada, August 31-September 3, 1992
24. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance  for Surface Waters, EPA-440/5-90-004, April
    1990
    This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological criteria.
25. Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
    Reservations - Final Rule.  Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December 12,
    1991
    This final rule amends  the water quality standards regulation by adding:  1) procedures by which an
    Indian Tribe may qualify for treatment as a State for purposes of the water quality standards and 401
    certification programs  and 2) a mechanism to resolve unreasonable  consequences that may arise when
    an Indian Tribe and a  State adopt different water quality standards  on a common body of water.
26. Guidance on Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification Programs Administered by Indian
    Tribes, December 31, 1991
    This guidance provides procedures for determining Tribal eligibility and supplements the final rule
    "Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
    Reservations",
27. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants;
    State's Compliance - Final Rule, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December
    22, 1992
    This regulation promulgates for 14 States, the chemical specific, numeric criteria for priority toxic
    pollutants necessary to bring all States into compliance with the requirements of Section 303(c)(2)(B)
    of the Clean Water Act. Staates determined by EPA to fully comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B)
    requirements are not affected by this rule.
28. Interim Guidance on Determinations and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals, EPA 823-B-94-
    001, February 1994
    This guidance contains specific information on procedures for developing water-effect ratios.
                           AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
                           REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
                           ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.

-------

-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460

-------
                                                                               REV 02/15/94
                             WATER RESOURCE CENTER
                                     202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
                      & APPLIED SCIENCE »JVISIOJ#EXPOSORE ASSESSMENT BRANCH

REQUESTOR PROFILE 	 Check here if requesh
NAME
jr wants to be
tiling list
Date request made
PO


SlllUN/lllLE Date submitted to EPA
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
DOE TO RESOURCE UMITAHONS, ONLY OSE (1) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
TITLE
1.
2.
3.
4.
Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process, EPA 440/4-91-001, April 1991
This document defines and clarifies the requirements under Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act. Its
purpose is to help State water quality program managers understand the application of total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) through an integrated, basin-wide approach to controlling point and nonpoint
source pollution. The document describes the steps that are involved in identifying and prioritizing
impaired -waters and developing and implementing TMDLs for -waters listed under Section 303(d).
Contact: Don Brady (202) 260-5368
Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
Rivers - Chapter 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen, EPA 440/4-84-020, September
1983
This chapter presents the underlying technical basis for performing WLA and analysis of BOD/DO
impacts. Mathematical models to calculate -water quality impacts are discussed, along with data needs
and data quality.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
Rivers - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-021, November 1983
This chapter emphasizes the effect of photosynthetic activity stimulated by nutrient discharges on the
DO of a stream or river. It is principally directed at calculating DO concentrations using simplified
estimating techniques.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book H Streams and
Rivers - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances, EPA 440/4-84-022, June 1984
This chapter describes mathematical models for predicting toxicant concentrations in rivers. It covers
a range of complexities, from dilution calculations to complex, multi-dimensional, time-varying
computer models. The guidance includes discussion of background information and assumptions for
specifying values.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED





-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/15/94
             STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DmSION/EXPOStJRE
                              WATERSHED MODELING SECTION

                                             TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
    Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Simplified Analytical
    Method for Determining NPDES Effluent Limitations for POTWs Discharging into Low-Flow
    Streams
    This document describes  methods primarily intended for "desk top" WLA  investigations or screening
    studies that use available data for stream/low, effluent flow, and -water quality. It is intended for
    circumstances -where resources for analysis and data acquisition are relatively limited.
    Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013
    Technical  Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes and
    Impoundments  - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication  Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-019, August 1983
    This chapter discusses lake eutrophication processes  and some factors that influence the performance
    of WLA analysis and the interpretation of results. Three classes of models are discussed, along -with
    the application of models and interpretation of resulting calculations.  Finally, the document provides
    guidance on monitoring programs and simple statistical procedures.
    Contact:   Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
7.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes, Reservoirs
    and Impoundments - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances  Impact, EPA 440/4-87-002, December 1986
    This chapter reviews the basic principles of chemical water quality modeling frameworks.  The
    guidance includes discussion of assumptions and limitations of such modeling frameworks, as well as
    the type of information required for model application. Different levels of model complexity are
    illustrated in step-by-step examples.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
8.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VI Design Conditions
    - Chapter 1 Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling, EPA 440/4-87-004, September 1986
    Mary state water quality standards (WQS) specify specific design flows.  Where such design flows are
    not specified in WQS, this document provides a method to assist in establishing a maximum design flow
   for the final chronic value (FCV) of any pollutant.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
9.  Final Technical Guidance on Supplementary  Stream Design Conditions for Steady State
    Modeling, December 1988
    WQS for many pollutants are written as a function of ambient environmental conditions, such as
    temperature, pH or hardness.  This document provides guidance on selecting values for these
    parameters when performing steady-state WLAs.
    Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
10. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VII: Permit
    Averaging, EPA 440/4-84-023, July 1984
    This document provides an innovative approach to determining which types of permit limits (daily
    maximum, weekly, or monthly averages) should be specified for the steady-state model output, based on
    the frequency  of acute criteria violations.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
11. Water Quality Assessment:  A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
    Surface  and Ground Water - Part I - EPA 600/6-85-022a, September 1985
    This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment.  Chapters include
    consideration of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances, waste loading calculations, rivers and
    streams,  impoundments, estuaries, and groundwater.
    Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/15/94
             STANDARDS & API-LIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
                             WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
                                             TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
12.  Water Quality Assessment:  A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
    Surface and Ground Water - Part H - EPA 600/6-85-022b, September 1985
    This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment.  Chapters include
    consideration of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances, waste loading calculations, rivers and
    streams, impoundments, estuaries, and ground water.
    Contact:  Bryan  Goodwin (202) 260-1308
13.  Handbook - Stream Sampling for Waste Load Allocation Applications, EPA 625/6-86/013,
    September 1986
    This handbook provides guidance in designing stream surveys  to support modeling applications for
    waste load allocations.  It describes  the data collection process for model support, and it shows how
    models  can be used to help design stream surveys.  In general, the handbook is intended to educate
   field personnel on the relationship between sampling and modeling requirements.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
14. EPA's Review and Approval Procedure for State Submitted TMDLs/WLAs, March 1986
    The step-by-step procedure outlined in this guidance addresses  the administrative (i.e., non-technical)
    aspects of developing TMDLs/WlAs and submitting them to EPA for review and approval.  It includes
    questions and answers to focus on key issues, pertinent sections ofWQM regulations and the CWA,
    and examples of correspondence.
    Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
15. Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs, EPA 440/4-85-031,
    October 1985
    This guidance is for use by States and EPA Regions in developing annual section 106 and 205(j) work
    programs.  The first part of the document outlines the objectives of the water monitoring program to
    conduct assessments and make necessary control decisions.  The second part describes the process of
    identifying and calculating total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations for point and
    nonpoint sources of pollution.
    Contact:  King Boynton (202) 260-7013
16. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book HI Estuaries - Part 1 -
    Estuaries and Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-002, May 1990
    This document provides technical information and policy guidance for preparing estuarine WIA. It
    summarizes the important water quality problems, estuarine characteristics,  and the simulation models
    available for addressing these problems.
    Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
17. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book IH Estuaries - Part 2
    Application  of Estuarine Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-003, May 1990
    This document provides a guide to monitoring and model calibration and testing, and a case study
    tutorial on simulation of WLA problems in simplified estuarine systems.
    Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/BXPO^i 'ASS^y^N? JW&QsjBT ' """' f ' .
WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
TITLE
18. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations-Book III: Estuaries - Part 3 -
Use of Mixing Zone Models in Estuarine Wasteload Allocations, EPA 823-R-92-004
This technical guidance manual describes the initial mixing wastewater in estuarine and coastal
environments and mixing zone requirements. The important physical processess that govern the
hydrodynamic mixing of aqueous discharges are described, followed by application of available EPA
supported mixing zone models to four case study situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
19. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Book HI - Estuaries - Part 4
- Critical Review of Coastal Embayment and Estuarine Wasteload Allocation Modeling, EPA 823-
R-92-005, August 1992
Tfiis document summarizes several historical case studies of model use in one freshwater coastal
embayment and a number of estuarine discharge situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
20. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA 505/2-90-001,
March, 1991
This document discusses assessment approaches, water quality standards, derivation of ambient
criteria, effluent characterization, human health hazard assessment, exposure assessment, permit
requirements, and compliance monitoring. An example is used to illustrate the recommended
procedures,
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013
21. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling (Second
Edition), U.S. EPA 600/3-85/040, June 1985
This manual serves as a reference on modeling formulations, constants and rates commonly used in
surface water quality simulations. This manual also provides a range of coefficient values that can be
used to perform sensitivity analyses.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
22. Dynamic Toxics Waste Load Allocation Model (DYNTOX), User's Manual, September 13, 1985
A user's manual which explains how to use the DYNTOX model. It is designed for use in wasteload
allocation of toxic substances.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
23. Windows Front-End to SWMM (Storm Water Management Model), EPA 823-C-94-001, February
1994
A user interface (front-end) to the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) and supporting
documentation is avaiable on diskette. Operating in the Microsoft Windows Environment, this interface
simplifies data entry and model set-up.
Contact: Jerry LaVeck (202) 260-7771
24. Windows Front-End to SWRRBWQ (Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basins-Water
Quality), EPA 823-C-94-002, February 1994
A user interface (front-end) to the Simulator for Water Resource in Rural Basins-Water Quality model
and'supporting documentation is available on diskette. Operating in the Microsoft Windows
environment, this interface simplifies data entry and model set-up.
Contact: Jeny LaVeck (202) 260-7771
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED








-------
REV 02/15W
$TAMAR1)S'& APPLIED SCliNCE. »!VJSIOH«5XPOlSaJlE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION
TITLE
25. De Minimis Discharges Study: Report to Congress, U.S. EPA 440/4-91-002, November 1991
This report to Congress addresses the requirements of Section 516 by identifying potential de minimis
discharges and recommends effective and appropriate methods of regulating those discharges.
Contact: Rich Healy (202) 260-7812
26. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume I, U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 a, September
1992
This report contains results of a screening study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted
waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 2(10-7812
27. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume H. U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 b, September
1992
This report contains results of a screening study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted
•waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 260-7812



CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED




AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.

-------
U.S. EPA
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460

-------
                                                                                REV 01/15(94
                              WATER RESOURCE CENTER
                                      202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DlVlSlON/RlSK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH .

J^QtlEiSTOR PROFILE
NAME
posrnoN/rrrLE
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
Date request made
Date submitted to EPA
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (i> CQV? OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVTOEP TO A REQUESTOR,
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SECTION
TITLE
1. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium, U.S. EPA, EPA 823-R-92-006, September 1992
This compendium is an "encyclopedia" of methods that are used to assess chemically contaminated
sediments. It contains a description of each method, associated advantages and limitations and
existing applications.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
2. Managing Contaminated Sediments: EPA Decision-Making Processes, Sediment Oversight
Technical Committee, U.S. EPA Report - 506/6-90/002, December, 1990
This document identifies EPA 's current decision-making process (across relevant statutes and
programs) for assessing and managing contaminated sediments. Management activities relating to
contaminated sediments are divided into the following six categories: finding contaminated sediments,
assessment of contaminated sediments, prevention and source controls, remediation, treatment of
removed sediments, and disposal of removed sediments.
Contact: Mike Kravitz (202) 260-7049
3. Contaminated Sediments: Relevant Statutes and EPA Program Activities, Sediment Oversight
Technical Committee, U.S. EPA Report - 506/6-90/003, December, 1990
This document provides information on program office activities relating to contaminated sediment
issues, and the specific statutes under -which these activities fall. A table containing major laws or
agreements relevant to sediment quality issues is included.
Contact: Mike Kravitz (202) 260-7049
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED




-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISlON/Mlt ASSESSMENT ANDl^^EMfe &UNC9B „
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SECTION
TITLE
4. Contaminated Sediments News, U.S. EPA 823-N92-001
This newsletter, issued periodically, contains information about contaminated sediment issues. Back
tower of the n&vsletter are available.
• Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 1, August 1989
* Contaminated Sediments News, Number 2, April 1990
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 3, April 1991
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 4, February 1992
« Contaminated Sediments News, Number 5, April 1992
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 6, August 1992
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 7, December 1992
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 8, May 1993
• Contaminated Sediment News, Number 9, August 1993
• Contaminated Sediment News, Number 10, December 1993
5. Proceedings of the EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Forum, U.S. EPA, Report 823-R-
92-007, September 1992
Tills report summarizes the proceedings of three EPA sponsored forums designed to obtain input on
EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
6. Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment, U.S. EPA 823-B93-001, June 1993
This planning guide assists federal-State remedial managers, local agencies, private cleanup
companies and supporting contractors in remedial decision-making process at contaminated sediment
sites.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
7. Questions and Answers About Contaminated Sediments, U.S. EPA 823-F-93-009, May 1993
This general pamphlet highlights -what sediments are, how they are contaminated and what can be
done.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
8. Tiered Testing Issues for Freshwater and Marine Sediments, U.S. EPA 823-R93-001, February
1993, Proceedings of A Workshop Held in Washington, DC, September 16-18, 1992.
This report summarizes the proceedings of the workshop sponsored by the Office of Water and Office
of Research and Development. The -workshop was held to provide an opportunity for experts in
sediment toxicology and EPA to discuss the development of standard freshwater and marine sediment
bloassay procedures.
Contact: Thomas Armitage (202) 260-5388 '
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
















-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/15/94
                   & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT  BRANCH
                              FISH CONTAMINATION SECTION
                                             TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
9.  Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum for Fish Consumption, User's Manual, V.I.O., U.S. EPA
    822/8-91/001, February 1992
    This user's manual describes various features of the Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum for fish
    consumption advisotries, bans and risk management.  The manual explains how to access the SIG and
    use its data bases, messags,  bulletins and other computer files.
    Contact:   Jeff Bigler (202)  260-1305
10. Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish, A Review and Analysis of Survey Methods,  U.S.
    EPA-822/R-92-001,  February  1992.
    This document contains a critical analysis of methods used to determine fish consumption rates of
    recreational and subsistence fisherment, groups that have the greates potential for exposure to
    contaminants  in fish tissues.
    Contact: Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305
11. Proceedings of the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency's National Technical Workshop "PCBs
    in Fish Tissue",  U.S. EPA/823-R-93-003,  September  1993
    This documents summarizes the proceedings of the EPA sponsored -workshop held on May 10-11, 1993
    in Washington, DC.
    Contact: Rick Hoffman (202) 260-0642
12. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Risk Advisories, Volume 1: Fish
    Sampling and Analysis, EPA 823-R-93-002, August 1993
    This document provides detailed technical guidance on methods for sampling and analyzing chemical
    contaminants in fish and shellfish tissues.  It addresses monitoring strategies, selection of fish species
    and chemical analytes, field and laboratory procedures and data analyses.
    Contact: Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305
13. National Fish Tissue Data Repository User Manual, Version 1.0, EPA 823-B-903-003, November
    1993
    The U.S.  EPA has developed the National Fish Tissue Data Repository (NFTDR) for collection and
    storage offish and shellfish contaminants data.  The data repository is part of a large EPA data base
    system called the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES).  This manual explains how to access
    information from the ODES database.
    Contact: Rick Hoffman (202) 260-0642
14. National Fish Tissue Data Repository:  Data Entry Guide, Version 1.0, EPA 823-B-93-006,
    November 1993
    The U.S. EPA has developed the National Fish Tissue Data Repository (NFTDR) for collection  and
    storage offish and shellfish contaminants data.  The data repository is part of a larger EPA data base
    system known as the Ocean Data Evaluation System  (ODES).  This manual assists State and Federal
    Agencies  in submitting data to the NFTDR.
    Contact:  Rick Hoffman (202) 260-0642

-------
U.S. EPA
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460

-------
          APPENDIX W
         Update Request Form for
     Water Quality Standards Handbook
             Second Edition
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
—:	:;	';'::::	*	t;t:	?i	::!"	:Sft!	I!

-------
                                     READER RESPONSE CARD

        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is trying hard to be responsive to the needs of our customers.  We would
(appreciate knowing if this document has been helpful to you. Please take a minute to complete and return this postage-paid evaluation
form to us so that we can better serve you.

1. How helpful was the information contained in this publication?  Circle one number:      1	2	3	4	5
                                                                             Somewhat       Quite         Very

2. Does the publication discuss the subject to your satisfaction?  (  ) Yes   ( ) No

3. Is the level of detail appropriate for your use?  (  )  Yes    (  ) No

4. How clearly is the publication written or the material presented? Circle one number:    1	2	3	4	.5
                                                                             Unclear       About right      Very

5. How effective are the graphics and illustrations?  Circle one number:        1	2	3	4	5
                                                                  Ineffective        Quite        Very

6. What is your affiliation? Check one:

    ( ) Local government representative    ( ) Attorney or legal representative   ( ) Academia: Circle one:  Student * Instructor
    ( ) State government representative    ( ) Environmental group                 Level: 	Elementary School
    ( ) Federal government representative  ( ) Private citizen                              	Junior High or Middle School
    ( ) Consultant                       ( ) Trade or industrial association                	High School
    ( ) Other:                                                                         	University
i7. Do you have any suggestions for improving this publication?
8. UPDATES. If you would like to be added to the mailing list to receive updates of this publication, please check here | — | and
tell us who you are by completing box #10 below.

9.  CATALOG OF DOCUMENTS.  The Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, is responsible for developing
standards, criteria, and advisories  that relate to water quality and public drinking water supplies, and for  developing effluent
guidelines, limitations and standards for industries discharging directly to surface water or indirectly to .publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants. If you would like to receive a copy of the Catalog of OST Publications which lists all documents related to these
topics and includes information on how you may obtain copies of them, please check here  \_\  and complete box #10 below.
 10.         Your1 Name:

                Address:
Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and mail it to us. Thanks for your assistance.


     THIS RESPONSE CARD FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER: EPA-823-B-94-005

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Resource Center (RC-4100)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460

-------
         APPENDIX X
         Summary of Updates
                                    X
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




          SECOND EDITION

-------


i	maim


-------

-------
-Ijjlijj


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          I!     !



                                                                                                   i!	liiii	tiiiili.	ill.!
                                                                                                                                   	ilia


-------