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
------- |